Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council work session reviews package of code amendments on appeals, extensions, home occupations and middle‑housing
Summary
City staff presented a Planning Commission‑recommended ordinance to clarify appeals, limit automatic extensions, tighten home‑occupation rules, and add definitions/approval paths for expedited and middle‑housing land divisions; Planning Commission recommends a Dec. 9 public hearing and staff offered Nov. 18 for additional work session time.
West Linn — At a Nov. 4 work session, city planners presented a package of proposed code amendments intended to clarify quasi‑judicial procedures and bring local regulations into alignment with state statute.
Staff described four core concepts the Planning Commission considered and ultimately recommended to the Council: (1) require appellants to identify the specific code criteria they claim were misapplied while retaining de novo hearings, (2) clarify extensions of approvals so a single two‑year extension must be filed and approved prior to original-expiration and allow staff-level approval if there are no modifications, (3) tighten and clarify Chapter 37 home‑occupation provisions—including prohibiting outdoor business storage and raising the vehicle‑trip cap for pupil/student‑based businesses from 8 to 12 trips per day with a clarified definition of a "trip"—and (4) create definitions and staff‑level approval authority for expedited and middle‑housing land divisions and add a referee to hear appeals, to comply with statutes enacted since 2021.
"Right now there is no requirement to identify the grounds for an appeal," staff told the Council, saying that omission has caused continuances, confusion and problems complying with the city's 120‑day processing rule. Staff said the Planning Commission reviewed the issue and concluded it was preferable to retain de novo hearings while requiring applicants to list which code sections they contend were misapplied.
Councilors debated tradeoffs. Several members worried that requiring appellants to identify code criteria could still leave room for new arguments under a de novo process; staff acknowledged the tension and agreed to refine the proposed language with the new city attorney to avoid ambiguity. A councilor asked about the possibility of a hearings officer—a concept that had been one of five original proposals but was tabled earlier; staff said the city could explore that if the Council gives direction.
Staff attached a Planning Commission recommendation memo and draft ordinance (referred to as draft ordinance 1755) and recommended a public hearing on Dec. 9, 2024. The Council and staff agreed they have time for an additional work session on Nov. 18 (a joint session with the Planning Commission) if they want further discussion prior to the hearing.
No final action was taken on the ordinance at the work session; the presentation and questions framed how staff will refine the drafting and next steps.
