Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2004

Home

Z.B. October 25,2004 -- Page 7 Neighboring property owners sued. and the court ruled in favor of the city. The neighboring property owners appealed., arguing the "unneeded but committed" doctrine was being improperly applied. DECISION: Revemed. The COLUX e~ed in concluding the city could amend its urban growth bound- ary without considering the seven esmblishmen~ factors hs~ed in the Storewide Land Use Planning Goal The "unneeded but co~tted" doctrine was created for the establishment or' an urban growth boundary and reflected the recognition that, in the context of establishing a b0undap2, preexisting urban development had to be consid- ered. There was nothing in it that said it could be applied to cases involving amending an urban growth boundary. Nothing m the text of the Statewide Land Use Planning Goal'authonzed the "unneeded but courted" doctrine as a mechanism by which a local govern- ment was relieved from the requkement of considerin~ all seven factors in making a boundary amendment. see czlso: U~,~ev v. Coos Co~m~, 32 P3d 933 (2001). ,~,:,~ ctls~).' J~t.~'~ v. Ci~; of Lebanon, 88 P3d 3]2 (2004). Ordinance -- City law puts height limitations on high-rises Developer claims harm to it outweighs harm to public Citation: ~ ~.) ') Lake Shore Associates v. Casalino, Appellate Court of'Illinois, ist Dist., 3rd Div., No. J-03-1248 (2004) [LL~N'OIS (09/01/049 ~ [ 350 Lake Shore Associates wanted to build a ~gh-hse development on its property. However, Lake .Shore's plans were hindered by a city ordinance-that ~m- posed height Ii,rations on any new construction m the area. L~e Shore sued to repeal the ordnance, and the cou~ ruled m favor of the ciu. Lake Shore appealed, arguing damage to ~t outweighed any public benefit created by [he ordinance. The loss of ch~acter of the neighborhood outweighed any loss to L~e Shore. In considerin~ the public benefit derived from enhancing the historic pres- :zr'/:nion ,)t' dae area. rt~e court did nor consider the property in ~soiaUon. but as part o1' a larger neighborhood. d,u define the A!thou~!n the ordinance did not dictate archhectural style, it -4 scale ~,i"... c,>nformin<_ str~cmres.. This was especially, important in a ne;~hbor- ~o,;d coneaining a ~xrure of both iow- and high-rise buhdin~s, rownhouses, :;tnd hist_ _~ric o,. fidm~s." ' There ,,vas no case hoidina_ a citv had to desiznate a,:~.~:~,~:; o~ :t ~,.~ .... t historic landmarks before oassin~ a zoain~ ordinance 81