Hearings Officer Appeal for Tannler Drive Development, October 28, 2026

On October 28, 2026, at 6:00 PM in West Linn City Hall, Hearings Officer Daniel Kearns presided over a de novo appeal hearing (AP-26-02). The appeal was filed by Tandler Holdings LLC seeking to overturn the Planning Commission's 5-0 decision to deny a Class II Design Review and Property Line Adjustment for a mixed-use development at 2410/2422/2444 Tannler Drive and 1800 Blankenship Road. The project proposes 320 residential units in 11 buildings with ground-floor commercial space, a realignment of Tannler Drive, and a traffic signal. The hearing extensively debated the applicability of state housing laws (SB 1537, HB 4037), the role of HAPO guidance, the jurisdiction of the Hearings Officer, and whether the project meets local code standards under the 'clear and objective' requirements of state law.

Public Comments & Testimony

Jurisdictional Objections

• Andrew Mulkey (representing Ed and Roberta Schwartz) argued the City Council lacked the authority to delegate the appeal, citing Development Code Section 99.240 which assigns appeals to the City Council. He stated the Council resolution appointing the Hearings Officer conflicts with state land use statutes.
• Mike Cap echoed this, stating the Development Code does not allow for a Hearings Officer in this context and that the Council should follow its own ordinances.
• Ed Schwartz noted the City Council's oath of office requires members to hear land use appeals.

Opposition Testimony

• Roberta Schwartz argued the project is flawed, stating the Planning Commission's unanimous denial was correct. She contested the necessity of the Tannler Drive realignment, asserting the applicant's own planning manager described it as a street closure. She cited a 361-person petition and an ODOT letter indicating the realignment is not mandatory, advocating instead for TSP Project M23 (road widening).
• Ed Schwartz (Savannah Oaks Neighborhood Association Treasurer) said the neighborhood voted unanimously to oppose. Concerns included density (50% larger than prior proposals), parking (400 spaces for 320 units), stormwater vaults over surface detention, 80% tree removal, impacts to White Oak Savannah Park, and the lack of affordable units (project rents of $1,988 to $3,200 per month are market-rate).
• Shannon Knight argued the applicant's private driveways qualify as streets under the city's development code, triggering ground-floor commercial requirements. She stated the applicant is setting buildings 22-23 feet from the street to avoid the 20-foot statutory threshold, effectively eliminating commercial frontage.
• Greg Hathaway (attorney for the Schwartzes) argued the TSP does not mandate the applicant's specific realignment. He stated the supporting traffic impact analysis was inadequate and requested time for expert review of late-filed evidence from the applicant.
• Kathy Hallecky raised safety concerns regarding parking ratios (1.2 spaces per unit), traffic, and the lack of elevators in the buildings.
• Vicki Constantino and Dave Farmer voiced concerns about fire access and existing traffic congestion on Salamo and Blankenship.

Testimony in Support

• No members of the public testified in favor of the appeal during the hearing.

Discussion Items

Hearings Officer Role and Process Daniel Kearns established the de novo nature of the hearing and the requirements for preserving rights for a LUBA appeal. He noted the statutory duty under ORS 197A.402 to allow the applicant to propose revisions or conditions if denial is considered. He also explained his impartial role, having been appointed by the City Council under Resolution 2026-08.

Staff Presentation

• Darren Wise (Principal Planner) provided a procedural timeline from the original application in September 2025 through the appeal and noted the 120-day clock extension.
• Steve Cooper (Community Development Director) argued that the state's 'clear and objective' standards apply to the residential component, but the city can apply discretionary criteria to the commercial portion of this mixed-use project, directly contradicting the positions of the applicant and HAPO. He stated the TSP studies a level of service C today, while the applicant's traffic study finds the intersection fails (LOS F) currently.

Applicant's Case (Carrie Richter, Bateman Seidel)

• The applicant argued the project satisfies all criteria, facilitated by SB 1537. The HAPO letter of October 21 was cited as supporting the applicant's position that the city's grading and stormwater standards are not clear and objective and that the ground-floor commercial requirement is eligible for waiver.
• Traffic and Proportionality: The applicant presented a new proportionality analysis proposing a 29% cost share for the roughly $5 million road realignment. The applicant argued the city's earlier estimate of a 51% share was based on flawed data that did not account for pass-by trips or background traffic from the adjacent office building. The applicant requested the Hearings Officer set the percentage as a condition of approval.
• Block Length and Commercial Standards: The applicant argued the 800-foot block length standard is not clear and objective and offered alternative solutions (pedestrian path, topographic exception). The applicant defended its definition of 'street,' arguing private driveways should not be classified as public streets triggering commercial requirements.

City Staff Rebuttal

• Staff disagreed with the applicant's and HAPO's interpretation, differentiating the project from the ICON case (purely housing) and arguing the city could apply standards to the commercial component. Staff insisted the proportionality analysis is a negotiation topic for a Development Agreement and should not be decided by the Hearings Officer, as financial authorities were not delegated and the numbers are still in flux.

Traffic Engineer Testimony (Chris Bremer, Kittelson & Associates) Bremer clarified no new traffic model was created; the new memos re-analyze existing data for the proportionality calculation. He detailed that the existing intersection operates at level of service F today and cannot be fixed without the realignment and signal. He stated the TSP realignment (Project M2) is the only feasible solution.

Key Outcomes

• Schedule for Decision: The Hearings Officer kept the record open under a strict schedule: Public and staff responses to new evidence due November 4, 2026; cross-responses due November 12, 2026; and the applicant's final written rebuttal due November 18, 2026. The written decision is due December 16, 2026.
• Extension: The applicant agreed to a 35-day extension of the statutory 120-day clock.
• Procedural Nuance: A discrepancy was noted in the hearing regarding the scope of the Planning Commission's denial. The Hearings Officer initially summarized it as a denial of the commercial component, but city staff clarified the final written decision denied the entire application in a single order.
• Core Issues for Decision: The Hearings Officer identified the primary legal questions for the written decision: (1) the Hearings Officer's jurisdiction to hear the appeal; (2) whether state 'clear and objective' standards apply to the entire mixed-use project or only the residential component; (3) the definition of 'street' in relation to ground-floor commercial requirements; and (4) the proportionality of the required road improvements. No final decision or votes were taken.