West Linn Planning Commission Special Meeting – August 10, 2026
West Linn Planning Commission Special Meeting – August 10, 2026
The West Linn Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday, August 10, 2026, beginning at 6:03 PM and adjourning at 10:58 PM. The primary agenda item was a public hearing for a Class II Design Review and Property Line Adjustments (DR-25-04/LLA-25-02) for the commercial component of a proposed mixed-use development at 2410/2422/2444 Tannler Drive and 1800 Blankenship Road. The commission also heard three public comments on land use items not on the agenda. After extensive testimony and deliberation, the commission voted 5-0 to close the public hearing and continue deliberations to August 26, 2026 at 6:00 PM.
Public Comments & Testimony (Land Use Items Not on Agenda)
- Scott Jensen (representing Friends of Oppenlander) requested that preservation of the existing mature urban forest grove (approximately 28 trees) become a design objective before grading and street alignment are finalized. He noted the developer has been willing to discuss preservation but grading may make saving some trees difficult. He also mentioned exploring use of park SDCs (roughly half a million dollars) to preserve open space.
- Lindsay Wilde questioned the city's connectivity requirements, stating the revised street plan introduces a public street stub and a private shared flag lot loop that may create long-term maintenance burdens for future homeowners. She asked whether the configuration accomplishes connectivity objectives or merely satisfies technical requirements, and suggested a locked emergency gate at Miles Court as an alternative.
- Liz Dordel asked for clear points of contact for residents to provide input before the application is finalized, expressing a desire for meaningful community involvement in shaping the final product.
Discussion Items (Public Hearing on DR-25-04/LLA-25-02 Commercial Component)
- Staff Presentation (Erica Smith, Senior Planner): The application is for a mixed-use development on an approximately 11-acre site zoned Office Business Center (OBC). The proposal includes 320 multifamily residential units in 10 buildings (4 mixed-use, 6 residential-only), 11,630 square feet of ground-floor commercial space, property line adjustments, and street improvements including realignment of Tannler Drive and a signalized intersection at Blankenship Road. The applicant requests 7 mandatory adjustments under Senate Bill 1537 (ORS 197A.395) for standards such as building height, ground-floor commercial, window area, and parking. Staff recommended conditions of approval; a supplemental memo added 4 more conditions.
- Legal Matters (City Attorney Ashley): The hearing was limited to commercial aspects only due to Oregon legislation (HB 4037 and SB 1537) restricting public hearings on residential components that meet clear and objective standards. The commission must base its decision solely on applicable code provisions.
- Applicant's Presentation (Carrie Richter, attorney; Brad Kilby, HHPR; Lloyd Hill, architect; Ryan Mosier, engineer; Chris Bremer, traffic engineer; Najib Callis, geotechnical engineer): The applicant argued that the project complies with clear and objective standards and that state law requires approval of the mandatory adjustments. They emphasized that the realignment of Tannler Drive is driven by the city's Transportation System Plan, will improve safety (level of service from F to C), and the development will provide needed workforce housing. Parking totals 400 spaces (no minimum required), and stormwater detention will use underground vaults. The applicant noted that 70 people attended each of three neighborhood meetings.
- Public Testimony:
- Proponents (Ben Hempson, Tim Pfeiffer, Gordon Root, Rudy Kadlub): Supported the project for economic development, housing near employment, and safety improvements. Hempson expressed concern that the hearing on a linked commercial component might violate HB 4037's prohibition on hearings for housing.
- Opponents (including Ed Schwartz representing Savannah Oaks NA, Roberta Schwartz, Andrew Mulkey, Greg Hathaway, Shannon Knight, Terry Cummings, and others): Raised concerns about: de facto vacation of Tannler Drive and loss of access to White Oak Savannah Park; insufficient parking leading to overflow; stormwater management using underground vaults rather than surface detention; traffic safety and congestion; tree removal (80% of 408 trees); lack of affordable housing; improper use of mandatory adjustments to eliminate commercial space from six buildings; and procedural issues (incomplete application, lack of neighborhood input before submission). Several speakers argued that the application does not comply with OBC zoning which requires mixed-use in all buildings.
- Neutral/Clarifying: Some speakers asked questions about traffic analysis, grading plans, and geotechnical feasibility.
- Rebuttal by Applicant: The applicant's team responded to specific criticisms, stating that the TIA was scoped with the city and ODOT, that site driveways will operate at LOS B or better, and that conditions of approval will address technical details such as final geotechnical and stormwater reports.
- Commission Questions: Commissioners asked about the ratio of commercial to residential, parking allocation, water usage, traffic study coverage, and the basis for mandatory adjustments. The city attorney and staff provided legal interpretations of state statutes.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to Close Public Hearing and Continue Deliberations: Commissioner Kachariski moved to close the public hearing and continue deliberations to a special meeting on August 26, 2026 at 6:00 PM. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (5-0). The commission will reconvene to deliberate and reach a final decision on both the commercial and residential components of the application.
- No Decision Made: The commission did not approve or deny the application at this meeting. The record for public testimony on the commercial component was closed; written testimony submitted prior to the hearing remains part of the record.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Westland Planning Commission. It's a special meeting on Monday, August 10th, and the time is 6 03. The first item on the agenda is call to order and roll call. This webinar is being transcribed and summarized. Lynn, would you mind? Calling roll, please. Thank you. Ummissioner Salti. Here. Commissioner Katrisky. Here. Commission Commissioner Deeds. Chair Shulty Hillen. Here. We have four members in attendance. Three are absent. Thank you. The second item on the agenda is public comment related to land use items not on the agenda. And we have three people who would like to speak. First is Scott Jensen, and I would ask that each person speaking keep their comments to three minutes, please. Again, my name is Scott Jensen and I live on Miles Drive. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of Friends of Oppenlander. Oppenlander contains an existing mature urban forest grove of approximately 28 trees. One of the neighborhoods' highest priority is preserving as much of that grove as reasonably possible. The developer has been willing to discuss preservation, but has explained that grading may make saving some of the trees difficult. At our neighborhood meeting, we were told that preserved trees could potentially end up approximately three feet above the surrounding finished grades. At the same time, the proposed street layout has changed dramatically during pre-application design. The original concept used a substantially straighter street alignment. That's why I speak to you now. We aren't asking the planning commission tonight to decide which trees survive. We're asking that preservation of the existing mature grove become a design objective while streets grading utilities and home elevations can still be adjusted rather than something considered after those decisions have already been made. Oppenlander has a natural east-west crest approximately in the middle of the property. While dirt may need to be removed and shifted for roads and other aspects of development, the water flows down hills structures basically already in place. We would like to understand which grading changes are actually required by engineering and city standards, and which are design choices that might reasonably be modified to preserve existing tree grades and root zones. Friends of Oppenlander is also meeting with parks leadership and the parks and recreation advisory board this week to explore whether some of the roughly half million dollars in or more in park SDCs potentially generated by this development could legally and appropriately help preserve part of this mature urban forest as permanent open space. Thank you in advance for this suggestion consideration. Thank you. Thank you. So any of my co-commissioners have questions for Mr. Judson. Thank you. Next to speak, we have Lindsay Wilde. Hi, my name is Lindsay Wilde. I'm also here to discuss Oppenlander. We've been trying to understand how the city's connectivity requirements are shaping the proposed street plan. We understand the applicant was told that the conventional cul de sac as shared in the pre-app conference was not acceptable. The revised concept instead creates a public street stub in the northwest corner toward already developed residential properties, while a number of northern homes appear to be served through a private shared flag lot loop. That creates long-term maintenance and financial responsibilities for future homeowners without necessarily creating actual public street connectivity. We'd like to understand what reasonably foreseeable future connection the Northwest stub is intended to serve and whether this configuration accomplishes the city's underlying connectivity objective or primarily satisfies the technical requirement.
openpublica.com