Locke v. City of Portland

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Municipal Law
  • Date Filed: 12-19-2017
  • Case #: 2017-061
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Opinion by Ryan
  • Full Text Opinion

PCC 33.654.120(E)(2) provides the standards and approval for design and configuration of public pedestrian connections which are set by Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT). PCC 17.28.060 provides the width, grade, and materials for construction of a pedestrian connection that is designed by the city engineer.

The challenged decision approves in part and denied in part petitioner’s application to modify a prior city decision approving petitioner’s land division application. Petitioner owns a 10,538 square foot lot on the south side of SE Madison Street (subject property), east of SE 122nd Avenue and west of 127th Avenue, which are the closest streets that intersect SE Madison Street. Parcel 1 includes approximately 55 feet fronting SE Madison Street, and Parcel 2 is located to the south of Parcel 1 and includes approximately 12 feet fronting SE Madison Street. The central issue on appeal concerns whether a request to modify the requirement in the city’s condition C.1 allows an applicant to pay a Local Transportation Infrastructure Charge (LTIC) fee in lieu of making improvements such as a public pedestrian pathway.

On the second assignment of error, petitioner argues the pathway does not provide any public benefit and is “entirely useless” because the pathway terminates at the southern property line and provides no immediate connectivity to anything. Petitioner also argues that there is no regulatory basis for requiring petitioner to improve the pathway. The City argues that the requirement to improve the pathway that will serve the front entrance of the dwelling is a result of regulatory approval standards to the 2015 decision and was re-applied to deny this portion of petitioner’s modification application. LUBA agrees with the city that the pathway to be improved makes it usable by the occupants of the dwelling on Parcel 1 and 2, which will have front entrances facing the pathway. It will also be usable by the public. The city’s requirement to improve the pathway to city standards is no different from a requirement to improve a new public street as part of a land division to city street. AFFIRMED.