McMinnville — The McMinnville City Council on Oct. 14 declined to advance proposed zoning amendments to the city’s landscaping and tree chapters (Ordinance 5165) after the first reading failed to secure council support. The proposed changes would have clarified applicability and design standards and enabled staff to conduct administrative street‑tree and certain landscape plan reviews without automatically routing plans to the volunteer Landscape Review Committee.

What the ordinance would have done: Planning staff and senior planner Taylor Grable presented the second phase of a landscaping and trees code rewrite that staff said modernizes standards, provides clearer objective criteria for applicants and reduces repetitive reviews. The Planning Commission recommended approval (8–0). After the staff packet was released, McMinnville Water & Light requested a minor insertion of the word “safety” to align utility standards; staff recommended adopting that minor amendment.

Why councilors objected: Several councilors, including Scott Chenoweth, expressed concern that the rewrite would remove or sharply curtail the Landscape Review Committee’s practical role by shifting many reviews to staff and only sending applications to the committee at the applicant’s request or when staff identifies an exception. Chenoweth said he had “buyer’s remorse” about an earlier direction to reduce committee review and asked that council take a pause so council could first discuss the role of city committees on Nov. 12. Other councilors argued the change would speed reviews and free volunteer committee members for outreach and more complex reviews.

Outcome: Council voted on the ordinance’s first reading and the measure failed to receive the necessary support to move to a second reading; staff said the code changes would require re‑notice and another review sequence if the council decides to pursue them later.

What’s next: Council asked staff to hold the draft text and to place a broader committees discussion on the Nov. 12 work session agenda; staff also noted that if significant substantive changes are made, the amendment will need to be re‑noticed and returned through the Planning Commission and public hearings before council consideration.

Ending: Planning staff signaled willingness to return with clarifying language after council direction; the Planning Commission’s prior recommendation and the requested minor utility phrasing addition remain in the record.