Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Growth Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Molalla planners present UGB study-area analysis; consultant says 928 housing units remain to be accommodated
Summary
Consultant Violet Brown and Senior Planner Dan Zinder briefed the Planning Commission on UGB study-area work, explaining statutory Goal 14 location factors, mapping constraints and a remaining housing shortfall of about 928 units (roughly 182 acres) after rezoning and pipeline units were counted.
Senior Planner Dan Zinder and consultant Violet Brown of 3j Consulting gave the Planning Commission an in‑depth update on the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) study-area process on May 7, outlining statutory requirements, study‑area mapping and initial findings.
"We've completed the housing and economic analysis portions of the UGB process and are now actually looking at the UGB study area," Zinder said; Brown then explained how the team used rezoning, a revised buildable lands inventory and the adopted Housing Needs Analysis (HNA) to update the land need. "When I did all of that, we come up with we still need 928 units," Brown said, adding that most of that need—about 900 units—appears to be for single‑family (R1) housing and that the figure translates to roughly 182 acres when applying a 5‑units‑per‑acre assumption.
Brown reviewed how the team drew a one‑mile buffer around the existing UGB, excluded impractical lands (steep slopes, major rivers, wetlands and protected sites), and then created subareas for detailed analysis. She said state law requires the study area to consider at least twice the land needed and described four Goal 14 location factors—efficiency, public facilities, environmental/economic/energy consequences, and compatibility with nearby agricultural uses—that planners use to compare alternatives.
On employment land, Brown said the Economic Opportunities Analysis (Johnson Economics) showed a need for larger industrial parcels: two sites greater than 20 acres, several 10–20 acre sites and additional 5–10 acre parcels. She emphasized that accommodating industrial demand is optional under state rules but useful for economic development goals.
Brown also described "exception lands"—approximately 580 acres to the south that were given a county exception for urban uses—and acknowledged public opposition to expanding the UGB southward. "I did not invent exception land," Brown said, adding that statutory prioritization requires the city to consider exception lands before moving to lower‑priority farmland unless the exception land is shown to be unsuitable.
Brown said the team used GIS parcel data (county parcel mapping) to calculate buildable acres and that they will apply site‑level suitability criteria—parcels over a threshold size, slope limits for industrial use, access to sewer and water, and wetlands/hydric soils—when grading subareas. The public meeting on April 22 attracted about 100 attendees and generated 30 online responses so far; Brown said the online comment form remains open through the end of the week.
Next steps: Brown said she will present a detailed Goal 14 location‑factor analysis for subareas 1–7 at the commission’s next meeting on June 4, coordinate with the city’s public works and technical advisory committee (including ODOT and DSL), and refine recommendations to help the city decide where to draw a proposed UGB boundary later in the process. No boundary decision was made at this meeting.
