Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

Page 6 -- July 1995 Z.B. , housing. The city then asked the court for judgment without a trial on Del Oro's damages claims. The court granted the city's request. Del Oro appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the city. The adoption of the initiative was not a taking without fair compensation -- its invalidity did not make it unconstitutional. Although Del Oro could not sell the villages when or for how much it wanted, it was not deprived of all economically beneficial use of the property. It did sell the property, which was used for residential development as originally planned. Fluctuations in value during the governmental decision-making process were one of the risks of owning property. The city did not violate Del Oro's equal protection rights by exempting another developer from the initiative. Unlike Del Oro, the other developer had a development agreement with the city, which provided a rational basis for distinguishing between the two. Building Industry Associatio~z v. City of Ocea~xide, 33 Ca l. Rptr. 2d ] 3 7 (1994). Lesher Communications Inc. v. CitY of Walnut Creek, 802 P2d 317 (1990). Planning -- City Tries to Annex .Unincorporated Land Through Plan Amendment City of Portland v. City of Beaverton, 886 P. 2d ]084 (Oregon) ]994 Three Oregon municipalities had comprehensive plans that addressed cer- tain unincorporated territory in Washington County, Ore. The county and the cities of Beaverton and Portland all recognized in their plans that the two cities had potential interests in annexing and servicing that territory. The county and Beaverton amended their comprehensive plans to establish an "urban service boundary" that Beaverton would annex and service. Within that area was the unincorporated territory in Washington County. The Land Use Board of Appeals found that the plan amendments conflicted with Portland's plan, and that Beaverton and the county could not unilaterally change the "land use planning status quo." The board also concluded that state law required the Metropolitan Service District to coordinate and resolve con- flicts among planning jurisdictions, and sent the plan amendments back to the municipalities. Beaverton and the county asked a court to review the board's decision. DECISION: Affirmed. The board correctly concluded that the municipalities could not unilater- ally alter the land use plan, which acknowledged Portland's interest in provid- ing services to the area. Rezoning -- Rezoning Opponent Says Approval Violates Ethics Rules Dick v. Williams, 452 S.E.2d 172 (Georgia) 1994 In December 1990, Dick and Allman applied to rezone a piece of property in Cobb County, Ga., from office and industrial to office high rise use. Their