West Linn council weighs mandate vs. incentives for housing, height and stepbacks on Vision 43 corridor

City staff and councilors spent the work session debating three interrelated policy questions that will shape the Vision 43 mixed‑use code for the Highway 43 corridor.

City staff member Chris led the presentation and said the questions are aimed at developing a mixed‑use code that “supports more opportunities for walking and cycling within the corridor” and “create[s] more opportunities for businesses, particularly local businesses.” He framed the first policy question this way: “Should new development within the focus area boundaries be required to include a housing component?”

Councilors voiced caution about a strict requirement. Councilor Groener said, “I'm a little troubled by the notion of a requirement versus an option,” and worried a requirement could “reduce the amount of commercial development.” Councilor Bridal and others said they wanted housing in the corridor to support neighborhood schools and reduce vehicle dependence but raised practical questions about how a requirement would be applied (for instance, whether housing could be placed at the rear of a site or built by a different developer).

On the second question — whether new development should have a minimum height of two stories — councilors generally favored a policy that discourages single‑story strip development along the highway, while preserving flexibility. One councilor suggested stricter rules on buildings immediately facing the highway and less intensity on properties that back onto residential areas. Staff said the mixed‑use draft currently contemplates up to four stories in focus areas, with typical mixed‑use height up to 45 feet.

The third question considered whether new structures should step back where they abut residential zones. Councilors said stepbacks or design standards could soften visual impacts and preserve sunlight and sight lines for adjacent homes; several asked staff to propose targeted options that apply near residential edges rather than a one‑size‑fits‑all rule.

Council members sought more evidence before a final direction. Staff said they will interview a panel of about 10 developers (local, regional, national) to test how a requirement would affect market interest, and will return with refined code language, renderings and examples. Mr. Williams (city staff) emphasized that the questions concern mapped focus areas, not the entire three‑mile corridor, and urged care: “it is really important to do this right and not fast.”

No ordinance or code text was adopted at the work session; instead staff left with clear directions to research unintended consequences, prepare visuals showing how two‑story minimums and stepbacks would look, survey developers about feasibility, and return with draft code for further editing and public review.

The council set expectations that the planning commission, the project working group and community members will continue to review draft code before the council considers a final ordinance.