Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outlines urban growth‑boundary schedule and code audit; commissioners flag design‑matrix public‑art scoring
Summary
Planning Director Mr. Hardy briefed the Canby Planning Commission on an urban growth boundary outreach timetable and a funded code audit; commissioners asked staff to revisit how modest site features are scored in the design review matrix amid changing state legislation.
Planning Director Mr. Hardy told the Canby Planning Commission that the city’s comprehensive plan and transportation system plan recently completed local adoption and will go to the state for 21‑day review. He outlined near‑term outreach and a timetable for the city’s urban growth boundary (UGB) process: a targeted listening session for affected residents on June 24, a Planning Commission work session on Aug. 10, and a public hearing on Aug. 24, with additional community meetings to follow.
Hardy said the city has secured grant funding from the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development plus city funds to begin a code audit and noted staff will use consultants to help identify code provisions that need updating. He cautioned commissioners the state is actively changing housing‑related statutes and that some aspects of the local code work will be constrained by new state requirements (he specifically referenced Senate Bill 974 and House Bill 4073 as examples cited during the meeting).
Commissioners raised a recurring concern about the design review matrix used to award points for site amenities under the city’s development review: several commissioners said awarding full points for small elements — such as a prefabricated gazebo, decorative bike racks or benches — can push a project’s score artificially high. One commissioner suggested the matrix include clearer examples or a scaled scoring approach so that only substantive public art or community benefits earn the highest points.
Staff and commissioners agreed to add the matrix and public‑art scoring to the upcoming code audit work so the commission can consider refinements that are legally permissible under state law while preserving incentives for higher‑quality community investments.
What happens next: staff will bring matrix‑reform options to the code‑audit process and keep the commission informed of UGB outreach dates; final code changes will be proposed through the normal public process and may be constrained by state legislation.
