Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Z.B. March 1995 Page 7 Beg of the p] the city inning in 1988, the city updated its comprehensive land use plan. One an's primary goals was to preserve the area's rural character. However, llso considered the possibility that farming in the area would no longer be econ ~mically possible. Theiplan divided the Kawaokas' property in two. The northern parcel was set in a isingle-family use' zone that 'allowed 4.5 units per acre. The southern parcel W." as designated rural resident.ial and allowed' one unit per acre. ' · Theicomprehensive plan required a specific plan to be prepared before converting from agricultural to residential use. The specific plan was to have details r{garding land use in the plan areai tranSportati°n, sewa,g,e, water, drainage, and other f~cilities in the area,, an.d the program for the land s development. One of the City,s main reasons for imposing d'ensity restrictions was its Concern abou! water availability. When the comprehensive plan update was adoptec in May 1990, the city also adopted a 45-day water moratorium, which restric't~,d d,evelopment. Forty-five days later, the moratorium was extended by more thltn 10 months. Bef~ ,re the city amended its general plan, the Kawaokas received several offers o:!$6 million for their ProPerty. These offers were withdrawn because of water.o7 density restrictmns. One offer was conditio .ned on the property's receiv- ing a fi//e unit per acre density designation; the offer was reduced by almost half onde the city enacted lower density designations. When the buyer learned a specif .c plan was required, it withdrew its offer altogether. The Kawaokas then lea 'ned nobody could apply for a specific Plan until the city drafted guide- lines an rl procedures for the plans. - The~ g2awaokas sued the city, challenging the validity of the specific plan require~ aent and the density restrictions. They also challenged the general plan as it al: ,lied to their property. Nine months-later, the city adopted the guide- lines anO procedures necessary to apply for a specific plan. Thel court granted the city judgment without a trial, and the Kawaokas appeale~1. . DECISION: Affirmed; in favor of the city. Thelcity's Specific plan requirement and density designation were related to the p0blic welfare. Therefore, they were not arbitrary or'unreasonable. Thelspecific plan requirement Properly ensured logical development pat- terns 'an~ coordinated infrastructure, development. The rural residential density designation the city gave to the southern 17 acres was not spot zoning; it applied to a fairly ilarge area and was similarl to the designations given to surrounding propertf~es. There was no reason for the c~ty to zone the Kawaokas. property for the tgaximum permissible density. Theicourt could not hear the Kawaokas' claim that the city's general, plan violated~ their rights. They had not filed any formal development plans or a specifi~ plan application. The Kawaokas had to have at least one application denied before they could sue. The lack of guidelines for submitting applica- tions w~s irrelevant because the guidelines were created a year before the trial