West Linn council tentatively overturns planning commission, approves variance for 2830 Coeur D'Alene

The West Linn City Council voted 4–1 on April 14 to tentatively approve an appeal and remove condition number 2 from a planning-commission approval for a minor partition and class 2 variance at 2830 Coeur D’Alene Drive, directing staff to return findings for formal adoption at the May 12 business meeting.

The decision follows a de novo public hearing on an application (AP‑24‑02 / MIP‑24‑02 / VAR‑24‑05) by property owners Gary and Susie Alson to divide a roughly one‑acre lot into three parcels and to allow five single‑family homes to take access from a 20‑foot private shared driveway. The planning commission had previously approved the partition with conditions; the Alsons appealed the condition that required signatures from adjacent owners to the private access easement.

The appeal hearing drew testimony from the applicant and multiple neighbors. Gary Alson described his family’s 40‑year ownership and said using the existing shared driveway for the additional parcel would avoid costly and difficult work to open a second access to Tract C, including demolition of a detached garage and construction on steep slopes. "We're not altering the private drive at all," Alson said, arguing the additional driveway use is the least‑disruptive option for his property and for future purchasers.

Neighbors opposed to the variance emphasized recorded plat notes and a 2011 access and utility agreement for the Teresa’s Vineyard subdivision that they say limit access through the shared easement to a maximum of two lots. Carmen and Rufus Timberlake (Lot 23) and David Baker (Lot 22) told council they bought into the subdivision expecting the easement limitations to be enforced and warned that adding a third lot using the easement would increase traffic and maintenance burdens for existing residents. Attorney Kyle Grant, representing the neighbors, argued the class 2 variance standard — that any variance be the "minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property" — was not satisfied because alternative access via Tract C could serve future lots and because the need for the variance was created by the applicant’s own subdivision proposal.

Planner Goodell told council the planning commission had found the variance criteria in the City’s Community Development Code (CDC) were satisfied, citing site constraints including steep slopes and the location of existing structures. The staff recommendation, echoed by legal counsel, was to modify the commission’s condition wording rather than remove it; the council instead chose to tentatively overturn the planning commission’s condition altogether.

Council debate centered on whether the variance met CDC standards and whether approving the appeal would improperly override recorded plat language and property owners’ consent. Council President Mary Baumgartner and Councilors Leo Groener, (first name withheld in record), and (Councilor Wright) supported the appellant; Councilor Bonnington cast the lone dissenting vote, citing the neighbors’ objections and concern about approving access for lots that do not yet exist.

The council’s motion (made by Councilor Bryke and seconded) made a tentative decision to approve the appeal, to overturn the planning commission approval by removing condition number 2, and directed staff to bring back formal findings for adoption at the May 12 business meeting. The roll call on the tentative decision recorded: Groener — yes; Bonnington — no; Wright — yes; Bryke/Breyke — yes; Council President Baumgartner — yes. The precise tally recorded on the roll call was 4 yes, 1 no.

City staff and the appellant were reminded the appeal and the council’s decision are subject to further administrative steps. The council president read the notice that anyone wishing to seek judicial review must appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) following the procedures in the CDC and LUBA rules.

The council closed the hearing after reading the procedural notices and indicated the matter will return with prepared findings on May 12. No change to the recorded plat or the access easement was recorded at the meeting; the council’s vote was a tentative decision directing staff to draft findings consistent with the council’s motion.

Ending: The council’s tentative decision removes a planning‑commission condition that had required adjacent easement owners’ signatures before the partition could be recorded. The council instructed staff to prepare written findings for formal adoption at the May 12 business meeting; affected neighbors were advised of their appeal rights to LUBA in accordance with CDC procedures.