Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Growth Boundary topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants recommend northwest acreage to meet Canby's housing need as council weighs urban growth boundary options
Summary
Consultants told the Canby City Council that Subarea 1a could accommodate the city’s residential land need (about 73.1 acres) and advised bringing certain exception and unconstrained industrial parcels into the urban growth boundary; staff and council discussed goal-exception pathways for Subareas 2 and 3 and scheduled outreach and hearings.
Canby city staff and consultants on June 3 presented a preliminary recommendation to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB) in order to meet the city’s identified land needs and to begin concurrent concept planning.
Steve Faust of 3J and staff outlined the numbers feeding the recommendation: a total land need of roughly 541.7 acres (including an identified residential need of 73.1 acres and an employment need of about 439.2 acres). Consultants recommended bringing in Subarea 1a to meet most or all of the residential need and park acreage (they cited 115.9 gross acres in the recommended northwest subarea). They suggested using Subareas 1b and 1c (and portions of Subareas 7–9) to help meet employment/industrial needs while leaving other areas (Subareas 4–6, 10 and 11) out of this expansion at this time.
Faust cautioned that an urban growth boundary amendment “changes the urban growth boundary. It does not assign land uses,” and explained that while the boundary expansion creates the opportunity for future zoning changes and concept planning, the city must still meet the state’s numeric land-need requirements. He walked council through an option set on constrained versus unconstrained acreage and the potential to bring in only the buildable portions of certain subareas.
Staff and consultants discussed alternatives for Subareas 2 and 3: those subareas could be pursued later through a goal-exception process (staff said Subarea 2 would be a comparatively straightforward goal exception; Subarea 3 would be more challenging and could be subject to legal challenge). The consultants emphasized public outreach steps: targeted listening sessions for affected property owners, a broader community meeting in July, planning-commission work sessions and hearings and a county review process later in the year.
Council raised questions about whether the city could split acreage across multiple subareas rather than concentrating most residential capacity in one place. Consultants and staff said acreage swaps are possible in concept but that state priorities and exception-land rules limit flexibility (exception lands must be considered first). Staff recommended council guidance on which subareas to study further; council signaled support to proceed with outreach and next steps.
Planned next steps in the transcript included a listening session for affected property owners, a public community meeting targeted for July, planning commission consideration (one speaker referenced an August 24 planning-commission hearing date) and county reviews and hearings later in the fall and winter. Staff said timing could change depending on public input and the number of hearings and work sessions required.
