Roseburg economic commission backs letter of support for urban growth boundary swap to enable housing
April 25, 2024 | Roseburg City, Douglas County, Oregon
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The City of Roseburg Economic Development Commission voted April 25 to prepare and submit a letter of support for a proposed urban growth boundary (UGB) swap intended to move development potential from parcels with development constraints to the Charter Oaks area.
Staff described the swap as a density-based exchange — not an acre-for-acre trade — intended to open opportunities for housing in areas better suited for urban development. Staff told the commission the city’s UGB, adopted in 1983, defines where urban development (housing, commercial and industrial uses) may occur over the next 20 years and that the current proposal responds to a housing needs analysis adopted in 2019.
Stuart Cowhey, who presented the plan for staff, said the proposal was the result of several years of analysis and public outreach and will come before a joint planning commission hearing May 6. Cowhey noted the swap still requires multiple approvals: a planning commission recommendation, City Council action, Board of County Commissioners review and submittal to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC) for state statute and administrative-rule review. He emphasized infrastructure — primarily sewer — must be built before large-scale development could occur.
Commissioners asked about timelines, ward-map changes and public opposition. Cowhey said properties will not be annexed immediately; annexation and ward adjustments will occur over time as parcels come into the city. He said the Department of Land Conservation and Development had preliminarily reviewed the application and indicated it might not require a public hearing by the state commission, but that the state still reviews the proposal for statutory compliance.
After discussion the commission voted to send a letter of support. One commissioner abstained because of a concurrent role on the county planning commission; staff said they would draft the letter and have Patrice Sipos, chair of the commission, sign and submit it into the record.
The next procedural steps are the May 6 joint planning commission hearing and subsequent local decision points; staff emphasized that even if the boundary is adjusted, substantial infrastructure work would be required before new housing could be built.
Staff described the swap as a density-based exchange — not an acre-for-acre trade — intended to open opportunities for housing in areas better suited for urban development. Staff told the commission the city’s UGB, adopted in 1983, defines where urban development (housing, commercial and industrial uses) may occur over the next 20 years and that the current proposal responds to a housing needs analysis adopted in 2019.
Stuart Cowhey, who presented the plan for staff, said the proposal was the result of several years of analysis and public outreach and will come before a joint planning commission hearing May 6. Cowhey noted the swap still requires multiple approvals: a planning commission recommendation, City Council action, Board of County Commissioners review and submittal to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (LCDC) for state statute and administrative-rule review. He emphasized infrastructure — primarily sewer — must be built before large-scale development could occur.
Commissioners asked about timelines, ward-map changes and public opposition. Cowhey said properties will not be annexed immediately; annexation and ward adjustments will occur over time as parcels come into the city. He said the Department of Land Conservation and Development had preliminarily reviewed the application and indicated it might not require a public hearing by the state commission, but that the state still reviews the proposal for statutory compliance.
After discussion the commission voted to send a letter of support. One commissioner abstained because of a concurrent role on the county planning commission; staff said they would draft the letter and have Patrice Sipos, chair of the commission, sign and submit it into the record.
The next procedural steps are the May 6 joint planning commission hearing and subsequent local decision points; staff emphasized that even if the boundary is adjusted, substantial infrastructure work would be required before new housing could be built.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
