Meeting colors

OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD

Record of Proceedings

Forest Grove City Council Work Session on Development Code Revisions - January 12, 2026

City Council — Monday, January 12, 2026

BodyForest Grove, Oregon

SessionCity Council

DateMonday, January 12, 2026

StatusFILED

Video Record

0:00 / 1:12:59

Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it

0:00

I think it might just be a question.

0:06

Welcome.

0:06

I'd like to call to order this work session of the Force Grove City Council.

0:11

There will be no public comment taken.

0:14

All counselors are here.

0:16

Counselor Council President Valenzuela is joining us on Zoom.

0:20

The rest of us are in the auditorium.

0:23

We have city staff present and a few community members.

0:27

At this point, I would like to turn it over to Jesse for some opening remarks, and then he will turn it over to community development.

0:34

Right.

0:34

Thanks, Mayor, members of the council.

0:36

So we have hour an hour and 15 minutes for tonight's work session.

0:41

Just a couple things.

0:42

The work session is actually broken up into five distinct sections.

0:46

And so I think the thought was is to go through each section.

0:50

We do want to make sure the council feels as though you have ample time.

1:08

Next section.

1:19

So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Brian Pohl, Community Development Director, and Matt Johnson, Senior Planner, and I think we'll go from there.

1:28

Any questions for me to start off with?

1:32

Okay.

1:33

Thanks, Jesse.

1:35

Matt Johnson here, senior planner, community development.

1:39

Today we're going to discuss in this work session some proposed development code revisions.

1:44

Next slide, please.

1:47

So our agenda today will be the purpose and background and then the five areas that we'll discuss as Jesse mentioned industrial standards, residential standards, non-residential uses, non-residential standards, and mandatory adjustments.

2:04

All right, so our purpose today is to seek feedback and direction for these proposed code revisions.

2:11

The development code, what it is, it's a set of elect uh regulations and standards that control how land is used and developed within the city.

2:19

Um so it's good practice to re-examine local standards uh periodically so we can support the community's long-term visions and goals uh through thoughtful and sustainable development that ultimately reflects the vision and priorities identified by our residents.

2:35

Um this department maintains a living document uh with lists of potential changes and revisions that we see that need to come forward to be revised or at least discussed and to be considered considered annually.

2:51

Next slide, please.

2:54

All right, so how this aligns with our 2040 vision plan.

2:58

Uh so within the plan, as you're aware, there's it's goals and actions.

3:01

Um these are the ones that are going to be related to the ones that we're discussing today.

3:06

Community growth, uh, increasing supply of diverse and affordable housing options.

3:11

Um those actions include addressing rent burden in the community by expanding opportunities for affordable housing and develop policies and programs that allow for greater ADU flexibility, uh as well as the goal of increasing economic growth, create a balance and diversity diversified economy comprised of a variety of commercial and industrial businesses offering high-paying job opportunities.

3:36

Um actions include increasing volume and a diversity of commercial development and increasing industrial business.

3:48

How we got here today, the planning commission initially held a work session to discuss these code amendments on September 15th.

3:56

On December 15th of last year, planning commission voted unanimously to recommend these code amendments to the city council for approval.

4:04

Um and here's the timeline where we're on today.

4:07

Uh a work session on today, the 12th, and um shooting for a single and final hearing at the end of all right.

4:21

So on to industrial standards.

4:23

Uh so we're going to discuss changes to building setbacks and building height.

4:28

Uh so this is in response staff received direction to revise and revisit the current industrial standards.

4:34

Next slide.

4:35

Yeah, thank you.

4:36

This is perfect.

4:37

These are our current industrial standards.

4:39

We have three industrial zones.

4:41

We have light industrial, general industrial, and business industrial part.

4:46

Um currently light industrial and general industrial do not have uh any regulations regarding setbacks, uh, nor does it have any regulation in terms of maximum height.

5:00

So what we did is we we looked at surrounding cities and neighboring cities in Washington County with more established industrial uses.

5:24

So here are the cities that we looked at.

5:26

So Cornelius, Hillsborough, and Beaverton.

5:30

There's our current standards on the far right.

5:33

So the city of Cornelius requires a 20-foot setback front setback from the street.

5:40

They allow zero setback from the rear and from the sides, except when abutting a residential use.

7:47

So how were they able to do specific requirements for like Nike?

7:53

Because you said there was these are the general rules, but for some right.

8:03

So tailoring a unique zoning for those larger industrial land developments versus a large vacant site.

8:30

So that's how those conversations came to the table.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting

Urban Planning███████████████████████████████31%

Land Use███████████████████████████27%

Economic Development█████████████████████21%

Affordable Housing███████████11%

Procedural███3%

Historic Preservation███3%

Legal Affairs██2%

Engineering And Infrastructure██2%

Summary of Proceedings

Forest Grove City Council Work Session on Development Code Revisions

This work session was held on January 12, 2026, to discuss proposed revisions to the city's development code. Staff presented changes across five areas: industrial standards, residential standards, non-residential uses, non-residential standards, and mandatory adjustments. Council provided feedback and reached tentative consensus on several items, but due to time constraints, not all topics were fully resolved. No public comment was taken.

Discussion Items

Industrial Standards: Staff proposed 10-foot front, rear, and side setbacks for all industrial zones, with a 50-foot setback when abutting a residential zone, and a maximum building height of 40 feet, with a height increase of 1 foot for each additional foot of setback. Councilor Falkner argued this was an overcorrection, noting that the community's concerns were specifically about parcels adjacent to residential areas and that blanket restrictions could hinder economic development and job creation. She proposed applying setbacks and height limits only when abutting a residential zone, not across all industrial zones. Councilor Schimmel concurred, emphasizing the need for clear rationale. Councilor Martinez expressed support for setbacks near residential but concern about property value impacts. Councilor Gusin supported setbacks but wanted a height cap. Mayor cautioned against reactionary policy and stressed exploring other economic development strategies. After discussion, a pulse check showed four councilors (Falkner, Schimmel, Martinez, Marshall) and Mayor agreed with Falkner's proposal to limit changes to parcels abutting residential zones. Council President Valenzuela requested more time to consider, and Councilor Gusin wanted a front setback from the street. The topic was tabled for further discussion.
Residential Standards – Comprehensive Plan Target Densities: Staff proposed adding back target densities for residential zones to comply with Metro requirements. Councilor Falkner suggested this be addressed in the larger comprehensive plan update rather than now. No changes were adopted.
Residential Building Height: Staff proposed simplifying the residential height standard from "2½ stories or 35 feet" to a flat 35 feet, removing ambiguity. Council agreed without objection.
Townhome Setback Requirements: Staff proposed aligning townhome side setbacks with single-family detached standards, removing the requirement for additional setback based on height. No discussion or objection.
ADU Standards: Staff proposed increasing detached ADU square footage from 720 gross square feet to 720 ground-floor square feet (aligning with accessory structures) and increasing attached ADU from 10% to 20% of the primary dwelling's gross floor area. Councilor Falkner questioned the attached ADU limitation, suggesting a flat 720 square feet for attached ADUs as well. Councilor Schimmel supported removing the percentage cap. After discussion, council reached quick consensus to strike subsection B (attached ADU percentage) and retain subsection C (detached ADU to 720 ground-floor square feet).
Historic Review Garage Standards: Staff corrected a typographical error in the code regarding garage door width in historic districts. No discussion.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (C&R): Staff proposed adding a clarification that the city does not enforce private restrictions. No discussion.
Non-Residential Use Regulations: Staff proposed allowing office uses in the neighborhood mixed-use zone (currently restricted to pre-2008 uses) and swapping the definitions of "building" and "structure" to align with building code. Councilor Falkner noted the broader issue of many use restrictions (e.g., ban on neighborhood coffee shops) that hinder walkability, suggesting this be revisited during the comprehensive plan update. No immediate changes made.
Non-Residential Standards – Landscape Buffer and Screening: Staff proposed revising buffer standards to be based on abutting uses rather than zones, to better protect residential uses within commercial or industrial zones. Councilor Falkner asked for clarification; staff explained the approach. Discussion was brief, and no consensus was reached due to time.
Sidewalk Construction Standards: Staff proposed allowing sidewalks in new subdivisions on collector streets to be installed after building construction to avoid damage. No discussion.
Cannabis Facilities Statute: Staff corrected a statute reference from 475B to 475C. No discussion.

Key Outcomes

Industrial Standards: Tentative consensus to apply setbacks and height limits only when abutting a residential zone (not citywide). Staff to revise proposal accordingly. Further discussion deferred.
ADU Standards: Consensus to adopt detached ADU allowance of 720 ground-floor square feet and remove the attached ADU percentage limit (i.e., allow attached ADUs up to 720 square feet). Staff to update code language.
Residential Building Height: Consensus to adopt flat 35-foot maximum, removing the 2½-story limit. No formal vote.
Other items: No formal decisions; staff received direction to bring revised proposals to a future meeting. The work session was adjourned, and the council moved to an executive session.

Meeting Transcript

I think it might just be a question. Welcome. I'd like to call to order this work session of the Force Grove City Council. There will be no public comment taken. All counselors are here. Counselor Council President Valenzuela is joining us on Zoom. The rest of us are in the auditorium. We have city staff present and a few community members. At this point, I would like to turn it over to Jesse for some opening remarks, and then he will turn it over to community development. Right. Thanks, Mayor, members of the council. So we have hour an hour and 15 minutes for tonight's work session. Just a couple things. The work session is actually broken up into five distinct sections. And so I think the thought was is to go through each section. We do want to make sure the council feels as though you have ample time. Next section. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Brian Pohl, Community Development Director, and Matt Johnson, Senior Planner, and I think we'll go from there. Any questions for me to start off with? Okay. Thanks, Jesse. Matt Johnson here, senior planner, community development. Today we're going to discuss in this work session some proposed development code revisions. Next slide, please. So our agenda today will be the purpose and background and then the five areas that we'll discuss as Jesse mentioned industrial standards, residential standards, non-residential uses, non-residential standards, and mandatory adjustments. All right, so our purpose today is to seek feedback and direction for these proposed code revisions. The development code, what it is, it's a set of elect uh regulations and standards that control how land is used and developed within the city. Um so it's good practice to re-examine local standards uh periodically so we can support the community's long-term visions and goals uh through thoughtful and sustainable development that ultimately reflects the vision and priorities identified by our residents. Um this department maintains a living document uh with lists of potential changes and revisions that we see that need to come forward to be revised or at least discussed and to be considered considered annually. Next slide, please. All right, so how this aligns with our 2040 vision plan. Uh so within the plan, as you're aware, there's it's goals and actions. Um these are the ones that are going to be related to the ones that we're discussing today. Community growth, uh, increasing supply of diverse and affordable housing options. Um those actions include addressing rent burden in the community by expanding opportunities for affordable housing and develop policies and programs that allow for greater ADU flexibility, uh as well as the goal of increasing economic growth, create a balance and diversity diversified economy comprised of a variety of commercial and industrial businesses offering high-paying job opportunities. Um actions include increasing volume and a diversity of commercial development and increasing industrial business. How we got here today, the planning commission initially held a work session to discuss these code amendments on September 15th. On December 15th of last year, planning commission voted unanimously to recommend these code amendments to the city council for approval. Um and here's the timeline where we're on today. Uh a work session on today, the 12th, and um shooting for a single and final hearing at the end of all right. So on to industrial standards. Uh so we're going to discuss changes to building setbacks and building height. Uh so this is in response staff received direction to revise and revisit the current industrial standards. Next slide. Yeah, thank you. This is perfect. These are our current industrial standards. We have three industrial zones. We have light industrial, general industrial, and business industrial part. Um currently light industrial and general industrial do not have uh any regulations regarding setbacks, uh, nor does it have any regulation in terms of maximum height.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI

TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com