West Linn Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2025
West Linn Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2025
The West Linn Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Wednesday, January 15, 2025, at 6:30 PM. The meeting included a quasi-judicial public hearing for a Class II Variance (VAR-24-18) to reduce the rear-yard setback for a swimming pool, followed by the election of a new Chair and Vice-Chair, and updates on future work sessions and projects.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of Meeting Notes (December 4, 2024): The minutes were approved with a minor date correction (changed from January 18 to January 15). Motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Watton, passed unanimously (6-0).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Stephen Miller (1344 Trune Drive): Raised concerns about slope instability and noise from the proposed pool. After staff explained that engineering and city noise ordinances would address those issues, he expressed satisfaction.
- Elena Cuccini (1493 Sky Parkway): Testified in favor of the pool, stating it would enhance property values and provide a usable backyard for the applicant's four children.
Discussion Items
-
Public Hearing – Variance VAR-24-18 (1490 Sky Parkway): The applicant requested a Class II Variance to place a 741-square-foot (38' x 18') in-ground swimming pool 8 feet from the rear property line, instead of the required 20 feet. Staff presentation noted the pool is considered an accessory structure; normally accessory structures under 500 square feet can be placed within 3 feet of the property line, but this pool exceeds that size, requiring a variance. The applicant cited site constraints (a 40-inch diameter Douglas fir tree to preserve, irregular lot shape, and 6-foot grade change) and the need for water therapy as reasons. No testimony was received from the local fire district. During deliberation, Commissioner Jones moved for a continuance to obtain medical documentation related to the water therapy claim, but the motion lacked a second and failed. The commission then voted to approve the variance.
-
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair: Vice Chair Metlin was nominated and elected as Chair (unanimous). Commissioner Watney was nominated and elected as Vice-Chair (5-0-1, with Watney abstaining).
-
Staff Announcements: Upcoming meetings include a work session on the planning docket (February 5), a joint meeting with City Council on the Housing Production Strategy (February 18, Tuesday), and cancellation of the February 19 meeting. Staff also noted a new commissioner appointed by City Council will join in February, and a quasi-judicial training session is being planned. Updates were provided on the waterfront vision plan and the Highway 43 vision survey.
Key Outcomes
- Variance Approval: Motion by Commissioner Evans, seconded by Commissioner Watton, to approve VAR-24-18 as presented, directing staff to prepare a final decision and order. Passed 6-0.
- Chair Election: Commissioner Metlin elected Chair (6-0).
- Vice-Chair Election: Commissioner Watney elected Vice-Chair (5-0-1).
- Next Steps: The applicant must file any appeal within 14 days of the signed decision. Future meeting dates: February 5 (work session), February 18 (joint council meeting), with training and additional hearings scheduled for March.
Meeting Transcript
And then it's a whole issue before you okay everyone, we're ready to start our pre-meeting session. I'll let you know. Okay, we're ready, we're ready, already, we're ready. Oh everyone. Welcome. Is it like or are we? Okay, we are ready now. All right, well, so let's call to order this uh pre-meeting of the planning commission for tonight. Um do we need to do a roll call? I don't remember at the end no, we typically don't do a roll call at the uh the work session. All right, so then I guess we'll turn it over to staff to talk about what we're doing tonight. Yeah, so I'll I'll turn it over to Chris to talk about uh all the materials you received and uh uh about the application before each time. All right, good evening, Vice Chair Metlin and Commissioners. Appreciate your time. Yeah, so tonight we're gonna be coming in with a uh wow, that is a huge vision of me behind Joel. Um we're gonna be coming in with a uh with a class two variants tonight uh regarding a rear yard setback for the placement of a pool. Uh you have in the packet our step my staff report, you have the application with all materials. And uh I also sent you a memo earlier today with a comment from one we received one community member comment before the noon deadline today. Um so I sent you that comment with a very short memo. And also I forwarded the commissioners a an email exchange that um that I had uh earlier today because I thought the questions were really relevant. Um so I'm not sure if you saw those. So that's everything we've got for you for tonight so far. Any process questions that I can answer? Public hearing, pretty standard. Yes, go ahead. Oh David, they're not gonna I'll go ahead and ask a question. Uh it's been a little bit since we last did the last one. So just to refresh my memory during the last one, we you basic basically you lay out what the variance request is and the process and then afterwards testimony and then discussion. Right. Uh yeah, applicant will have an opportunity to present after I do, and then comments with public comments come after uh after the applicant testimony, okay if there are any. Um yeah, and then from there you guys would deliberate, close, deliberate, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, yeah. Any other questions? So there oh I just uh had a question on wait for deliberation actually. Okay, okay. Um there was a question that had come up that um City Attorney Soper is actually here, and he's gonna he's gonna uh kind of comment to that or go through that. Am I getting that right? Excellent. All right, so I'll step back to it. And good evening, nice to meet you all. Uh we've ever had an opportunity to work together before. So um my name's Josh Soper. I'm an attorney with Barry Elster and Hammond, and I've been working with Cayley to support um land use issues specifically, which is my practice area. Um with regard to the references in the materials to a medical condition. And so to a medical condition. And so there's really I think maybe three paths that you can take with regard to that. The first would be to determine that the criteria for the variants are met uh even with without regard to there being a medical condition or not. So that's that's one path you could take is to find that the criteria are met, that's the medical condition is irrelevant to your determination.
openpublica.com