1 Appeal #119/13-183671 PW Aerial Photo of Site and Vicinity.

1

Appeal #119/13-183671 PW Aerial Photo of Site and Vicinity

2

Appeal #119/13-183671 PW Aerial Photo of Site and Vicinity

3

Appeal #119/13-183671 PW Aerial Photo of Site and Vicinity

4

Zone Map

5

Subject site/5701 SE Lexington (looking north-east)

6

Subject site/5715 SE Lexington (looking north-west)

7

Looking north along SE 57th Ave

8

Looking south along SE 57th Ave

9

Looking east along SE Lexington

10

Looking west along SE Lexington

11

Site History13-151883 RS & 13-151923 RS (June/13): Building Permit for 2 NSFR’s;

applicant advised of standard frontage improvements along site frontages:

• SE Lexington is improved w/28-ft of paving (no curb/sidewalk) within a 60-ft wide r.o.w. SE 57th is improved w/~20-ft of paving (no curb/sidewalk) within a 60-ft wide r.o.w. TSP classifies both streets as Local Service street for all modes.

• Construction of 15-ft wide sidewalk corridor (0.5-ft curb/8-ft swale/6-ft s-w/ 0.5-ft frontage zone). No dedications necessary along either street.

13-169055 PW & 13-167140 PW (June/13): Administrative Appeals filed (to waive above referenced standard improvements for both lots). Decision by PWAAC: Denied “The Appeal Committee does not support waiving improvements. There exists significant development potential in the area & over time the improvements will complete the system”.

13-183671 PW: PWAP appeal currently under review. No alternative improvements proposed: in lieu of constructing improvements, appellant requests ability to submit Waivers of Remonstrance.

12

Code/Administrative Rule being appealed:

17.88.020

A.  No single family, multiple dwelling, industrial or commercial building shall be constructed, or altered so as to increase its number of occupants, or make significant alterations to a building without resulting in increased occupancy, on property that does not have direct access by frontage or recorded easement with not less than 10 feet width of right‑of‑way to a street used for vehicular traffic. 

B.  If such street or any other street adjacent to the property used for vehicular access for said property does not have a standard full width improvement, including sidewalks, the owner as a condition of obtaining a building permit, conditional use, zone change, land partition or adjustment, shall provide for such an improvement or a portion thereof as designated by the City Engineer, in accordance with provisions elsewhere in this Title.

 C.  Based on findings that a standard improvement is not feasible, the City Engineer may

allow a temporary improvement appropriate for the circumstances, on the condition that the City will not maintain said temporary improvement and the owner will provide the City with a notarized document, approved as to form by the City Attorney, to be filed with the County in which property is located, stating that the present and future owners will be counted in favor of any proposed standard improvement of said street.  Fee for said filing and any other expense of the City incidental to accomplishing the temporary improvement shall be paid by the owner.

13

13-169055 PW/13-167140 PW Appeals (PWAAC)

• Existing streets built to less than current City standards.

• Neighboring lots with relatively recently built homes were not required to construct sidewalk corridors.

• In lieu of requiring standard improvements, which would result in isolated sidewalks, appellant requested to allow the submittal of Waivers of Remonstrance.

14

History of Waivers in the area

15

13-183671 PW Appeal (current review)• Appellant does not believe standard street improvements are feasible when

imposed upon single owner.

• Appellant disagrees with PWAAC decision that there are future development opportunities in the area to create a connected system of sidewalk corridors.

• Appellant believes there will be a safety issue with construction of new curbs along the sites’ frontages, absent similar improvements throughout the broader area.

• Appellant states that PBOT did not perform a Nollan/ Dolan analysis to demonstrate nexus between required improvements & the impacts on public facilities, nor a rough proportionality analysis.

• Appellant citing inconsistent treatment/violation of OR Constitution Equal Protection Clause.

The appellant has raised concerns that the City’s requirements may not meet the Nollan-Dolan nexus and rough proportionality tests. The City’s requirements did not include property dedication, therefore, the appellant’s appeal claims are questioned.

For projects with replacement homes, the new home will continue to result in impacts on the transportation system that have not been mitigated to date.

Construction costs related to the individual frontage improvements along the transportation corridor appear to be proportional to the improvements that would be required of other lots along the corridor based on our analysis. Essentially, PBOT is not asking for the appellant to make improvements beyond the appellant’s site frontage.

At this time however, a concept stormwater disposal design has not been prepared and submitted for review by the City. The City is unable to assess whether those elements may include off-site improvements. Without a concept to consider, it is difficult to assess whether those improvements would be roughly proportional to the impact of the appellant’s project.

Summary of Regulatory Framework for RequiringStreet Improvements

Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines, Goal 12: Transportation Provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system.

The Transportation Planning Rule and Metro’s Regional Transportation Plan requires local jurisdictions to provide for safe and convenient pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle circulation.

Goal 6 of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Element (TE) supports this goal through policy language. Within Goal 6 are sets of street classification maps, which guide the use of the transportation system.

(Street Improvements include all needed public infrastructure including, but not limited to, roadways, curbs, sidewalks, street trees, street lighting, water, sanitary and storm water systems.)

The following is a partial list of codes, manuals other documents used in the street design process:

Title 17 of the City Code – Public Improvements (City of Portland)

Creating Public Streets and Pedestrian Connections through the Land Use and Building Permit Process (City of Portland)

Pedestrian Master Plan (City of Portland, 1998)

Pedestrian Design Guide (City of Portland, 1998)

Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 (City of Portland, 2010)

Design Guide for Public Street Improvements (City of Portland, 1993, Updates expected in 2011)

Stormwater Management Manual (City of Portland, 2008)

Freight Master Plan (City of Portland, 2006)

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)

AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (Federal Highway Administration)Standard Construction Specifications (City of Portland)

Various street master plans and design district plans

Public Stormwater

•The area is very flat. •Infiltration is very likely in this area.•There is an existing sump ADV868 to the east that is compliant with the City’s permit.

SE

57th

Ave

Sump ADV868

20

Decision for Panel

The question before the Panel is whether the bureaus’ decisions:

•Are inconsistent with or contrary to City Code, rules, standards or policy; or

•The bureau has misapplied or misinterpreted City Code, rules, standards, or policy.

The Panel can:

•Approve the requested relief,

•Approve the requested relief with conditions, or

•Deny the requested relief,

provided that any decision made must be consistent with applicable City Code, rules, standards and policies.

The motion must include the basis of the Panel’s decision.

Decision: