Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Town Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wilsonville council presses task force on town-center height waivers after residents oppose taller buildings
Summary
City staff outlined options for modifying a Town Center building-height waiver that would allow larger floor plates or extra stories; the task force and planning commission generally oppose allowing seven stories and asked council whether the affordable‑housing bonus floor and height waivers should be mutually exclusive.
The Wilsonville City Council spent the work-session portion of its May 18 meeting reviewing proposed revisions to a Town Center building‑height waiver that would allow applicants to seek exceptions to building-story limits or ground‑floor footprint rules.
City Attorney Amanda Giles and Planning Director Miranda Bachel reviewed the provision’s history, explaining the waiver arose from earlier debates about retail floor plates and development feasibility. Giles said planning commissioners and the task force reported that seven stories “is too tall,” and staff presented six options that range from allowing one additional story in limited subdistricts to eliminating positive height waivers entirely.
The debate centers on two tradeoffs: preserving the town center’s “small‑town” character while keeping development financially feasible. Bachel said the code currently allows 2–5 stories across subdistricts and that a 5‑story configuration is often the economic “sweet spot” because it typically allows wood‑frame construction with retail below (a 4-over-1 or 5‑story typology).
Councilors pressed staff on three directed questions for the task force: whether the affordable‑housing bonus floor should be mutually exclusive with a waiver that increases stories; whether to treat the two mixed‑use subdistricts (closer to I‑5 vs. adjacent to neighborhoods) differently for waiver eligibility; and whether council should ask the task force to consider eliminating height increases via the waiver. Amanda Giles framed the first question as: “Are you in favor of it being an either-or or both available?”
Several councilors and public commenters urged caution about allowing taller buildings. Councilor Cunningham and others cited community outreach showing a persistent preference for 3–4 stories, with concerns that repeated incremental increases in code could erode trust. Councilor Cunningham proposed eliminating positive height waivers while retaining waivers that allow reductions in height or flexibility for floor plates to accommodate anchor tenants. Councilor Scholl said he favored allowing the task force and planning commission to continue their review before council made any final decisions.
Task‑force members and planning commissioners also recommended tightening the menu of community‑benefit options that applicants must meet to obtain a waiver; staff noted some menu items—like LEED/Earth Advantage certifications—are now easier to meet because of state building code changes, and may need refinement to ensure applicants “go above and beyond.”
The council did not vote on code changes at the meeting. Instead staff said they would meet with the task force the following night, and planning commission work sessions will continue. Giles asked councilors to indicate if they already have firm opinions on particular questions so staff can tell the task force what to weigh in on, otherwise the task force is expected to return a recommended alternative.
What’s next: staff will bring task‑force feedback to the council and to upcoming planning commission sessions; council members signaled they want continued public outreach and careful consideration of the interplay between affordable‑housing incentives and any waiver that would increase building height.
