Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Page 4w June 1995 z,g. problem because it could not address whether the ordinance was constitutional. Also, the city could not grant a variance that would effectively rezone the prop- erty. Therefore, Perrico's constitutional challenge was properly brought to court. Perrico's knowledge of the property's restrictive zoning did not preclude it from challenging the classification. Landowners could always challenge zon- ~ng restrictions. Some landowners could not claim, that a failure to rezone was a taking of property if they were trying to rezone from one profitable use to a more profitable one. However, Perrico claimed it had no viable profitable use as zoned, so this restriction did not. apply. Application -- City' Claims Application' Does Not Include Recommended Conditions for Approval ' State ex rel. Compass Corp. v. City of Lake Oswego, 886 P..2d 2074 (Oregon) 1994 Compass Corp. applied to partition property in the city of Lake Oswego, Ore. The application was deemed complete on April 5, 1991. The city's plan- ning staff recommended approval subject to cei'tain conditions. Compass agreed to the conditions, but a city agency denied the application. Compass appealed to the city council, but the council did not make a deci- sion within 120 days. A state law provided that an applicant could seek a co~:rt order.compelling approval of its application if the governing body did not take final action within 120 days. Courts had to issue the order unless the governing body showed that approval would violate the city's comprehensive plan or.its land use regulations.' . . Compass sued the city, seeking an order to approve the application. While the case was pending, the city council issued a decision saying it denied the application. The trial court rejected the City's argument .that the application violated the city's land use legislation .and ordered the city to approve the ap- plication. It also rejected the city's claim' that the court had no jurisdiction ov. er the case. The city appealed, and the appeals court found that the trial court lost juris- diction over the case when the city council issued its decision denying the application. Compass appealed to the state Supreme Court, which reversed the decision regarding jurisdiction and returned the case to the appeals court. The appeals court had to decide whether the trial court was wrong to reject the city's argu- ment that application' approval would violate the city's comprehensive plan or land use regulations. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of Compass. The city claimed that Compass' original application, without the condi- tions of approval the planning staff recommended, violated the city's compre- hensive plan or land use regulations. However, the trial court found the "appli- cation'' submitted to the city council for approval consisted of the application a~d the conditions. The city did not challenge that finding in prior appeals. The