Council continues quasi‑judicial appeal on partition and variance at 2830 Coeur d'Alene Drive to April 14

2984099 · January 6, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council granted the applicant’s request to continue the de novo hearing on AP‑24‑02 / MIP‑24‑02 / VAR‑24‑05 to April 14, 2025, and left the written record open through noon that day. The application concerns a three‑parcel minor partition and a Class 2 variance to allow five homes to use a 20‑foot shared driveway.

The West Linn City Council continued a quasi‑judicial public hearing on Jan. 6, 2025, regarding a land‑use appeal for a proposed three‑parcel minor partition and a Class 2 variance at 2830 Coeur d'Alene Drive.

The appeal (AP‑24‑02; underlying MIP‑24‑02 and VAR‑24‑05) concerns a proposed 3‑lot minor partition and a Class 2 variance to allow five single‑family homes to take access from a 20‑foot shared private driveway. Kevin Harker, attorney for appellants Gary and Susie Alfson, asked the council for a 120‑day continuance to explore legal and application options, including seeking a judicial determination about a conflict between a plat note and a recorded easement or withdrawing and resubmitting an application to add a parcel for potential multifamily use.

After brief discussion about scheduling, the council moved to continue the hearing to April 14, 2025, at 6:00 p.m. The council also left the record open for additional written testimony until noon on April 14. The motion passed on a roll call vote.

At the start of the hearing a council member disclosed a potential perceived conflict of interest based on friendships with parties involved and vacated their seat for the proceeding; that disclosure and the member’s temporary absence were recorded on the hearing record. City staff also reviewed the applicable review criteria on the record, citing relevant sections of the community development code, including residential zoning (R‑7), access and circulation, variances and special waivers, land division provisions, required improvements, and quasi‑judicial procedures.

No final decision on the partition or variance was made; the council’s action was procedural, setting the new hearing date and testimony deadline. The council’s statement that the appeal is a de novo hearing emphasized that new evidence may be submitted during the reopened record.