Martin v. City of Tigard

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
  • Date Filed: 07-31-2017
  • Case #: 2017-020
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Holstun
  • Full Text Opinion

Under CDC 18.810.030.H.1, if development is approved without an extension, that particular development cannot prevent future extension; an extension that runs through a pre-existing development (existing prior to May 1, 1995) is considered extension prevention.

The challenged decision approves intervenor-respondent’s (intervenor’s) proposed medical oncology facility and related parking on a 3.76-acre parcel (subject property) at the SW corner of Dartmoth Street and 72 Avenue in the City of Tigard. The central issue on appeal concerns whether SW Elmhurst Street, an east-west street that now terminates on the east side of SW 72 Avenue, approximately 560 feet south of the SW Dartmouth Street/SW 72 Avenue intersection, should be extended west, now or in the future, and if so, where that extension should be routed to connect with a north-south street to the west.

On the first assignment of error, petitioner contends that the findings of the city planning commission, as adopted by the City, fail to adequately address the requirements of CDC 18.810.030.H.1, which requires that “[f]ull street connections with spacing of no more than 530 feet between connections is required except where prevented by barriers such as . . . pre-existing developments existing prior to May 1,1995.” Because the spacing of full street connections adjacent to the subject parcel exceeds 530 feet, an extension of nearby streets would ordinarily be required development. In approving development without such an extension, the City concluded that development would not prevent future extension of Elmhurst Street. However, such an extension would route Elmhurst Street directly through petitioner’s house, which predates May 1, 1995. Petitioner argued, and LUBA agreed, that the city failed to show that Elmhurst Street could be extended in the future despite petitioner’s pre-existing development. LUBA also noted that the language of the findings was incomplete, inconsistent, or inadequate with respect to other requirements of CDC 18.810.030.H.1 and the City’s understand of such requirements. REMANDED.