Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies appeal of partition and variance at 2830 Coeur D'Alene Drive; final order issued
Summary
After quasi-judicial deliberations, the West Linn City Council adopted a final decision denying an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a three-parcel minor partition and Class 2 variance at 2830 Coeur D'Alene Drive, modifying one condition of approval to staff recommendation.
The West Linn City Council issued a final decision May 12, 2025, denying an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a three-parcel minor partition (MIP-24-02) and a Class 2 variance (VAR-24-05) at 2830 Coeur D'Alene Drive and modifying one condition of approval consistent with staff recommendations.
Council President Baumgartner presided over the quasi-judicial hearing after Mayor recused himself for a conflict. The council took the matter up using the evidentiary record that was closed April 14, 2025; no new testimony or evidence was accepted. City Attorney Klein reminded the council members they were sitting quasi-judicially and that decisions must be grounded in applicable code or Comprehensive Plan criteria.
An appellant pair identified in the record as Gary and Susie (appellants) brought the appeal. Council deliberations focused on an apparent discrepancy between the original developer agreement language and a plat note that the parties said undermined clarity about permitted parcel configurations and driveway access. Council members also discussed physical site conditions and easement access, noting one lot appeared to have two access points (one directly to the street and one to the private shared driveway), which complicated the access-count calculation.
One councilor characterized the matter as largely a private-property dispute constrained by code: West Linn's development code limits the number of accesses from a private shared driveway (the council cited the four-access limit under the code) and noted that resolving cross-property agreements may be required among property owners. Several councilors said the complexity and the legal technicalities supported adopting the staff-drafted final order rather than overturning the Planning Commission.
A motion to adopt the final decision and order denying the appeal and to modify the condition of approval consistent with staff recommendations passed on roll call. The council thanked participants and reminded interested parties that an adverse party may appeal the council's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) in accordance with LUBA rules and applicable code provisions. The council's final order reflects the record before it and does not admit new evidence.
Council members disclosed limited ex parte contacts: several said they received an email from the appellant but did not open it to avoid ex parte information; one member reported a post-hearing conversation with a party focused on understanding the situation and asserted they could still decide impartially. The council confirmed no jurisdictional challenges were raised and proceeded to a roll-call vote.
