Home/Oregon Supreme Court/Frankland v. City of Lake Oswego

Frankland v. City of Lake Oswego

517 P.2d 1042, 267 Or. 452, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 505
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 31, 1973
StatusPublished
Cited by44 cases

This text of 517 P.2d 1042 (Frankland v. City of Lake Oswego) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Frankland v. City of Lake Oswego, 517 P.2d 1042, 267 Or. 452, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 505 (Or. 1973).

Opinions

HOWELL, J.

Plaintiffs filed this action for a declaratory judgment seeking an injunction or, alternatively, an award of monetary damages as remedies for the construction of an apartment building by the defendant Dave Christensen, Inc. At the close of plaintiffs’ case, the trial court allowed defendants’ motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, 8 Or App 224, 493 P2d 163 (1972). We granted review.

The plaintiffs, adjoining property owners, challenge the validity of the construction of the apartment building which was erected pursuant to a planned unit development ordinance enacted by the City of Lake Oswego. Plaintiffs contend that the construction was not accomplished according to the planned unit development plan as submitted to the City, and that they are entitled to have the apartment building removed or be awarded damages for the depreciation in value of their property resulting from such construction.

We adopt a portion of the opinion of the Court of Appeals which states the background and the facts leading up to the filing of this suit.

In 1967 various entities in which Carl Halvorson had a dominant interest acquired the right to purchase the property designated (B) and (C) in the accompanying map (hereinafter the Kerr property). The segment of the Kerr property around which this suit revolves is in Multnomah County and lies north of the [456]*456east-west Clackamas-Multnomah county line and is designated (B) on the map. It is separated by a dotted line from the balance of the Kerr property, marked (C) on the accompanying map. This land was undeveloped. Plaintiffs live or own property on the strip of land immediately west of (B), extending southward from Stephenson. Street and designated (A) (hereinafter called Arrowood). Arrowood was substantially developed v/ith single family residences. Immediately east of (B) is other land, not involved here, which also was developed with single family residences.

Prior to the events which led to this litigation, all of the land mentioned above which lay in Multnomah County had been zoned under a comprehensive plan as Ii-20 — single family residential — upon which residences could be built only if the lot occupied an area of 20,000 square feet or more. Arrowood had been annexed to the City of Portland several years earlier and remained zoned by Portland for single family residences. The accompanying map illustrates that Arrowood is surrounded by the Kerr property except for its northerly tip. Conversely, the strip of land in-controversy, (B), is surrounded by and a part of land which already had been comprehensively zoned single family residential, except for its southerly tip.

"When Carl Halvorson acquired the right to purchase the Kerr property in 1967, he embarked upon a plan for developing approximately 600 acres into what is termed a “Planned Unit Development” (hereinafter called PUD). This development includes a town center, commercial ¿rea, park, eqiiestrian and other recreational facilities, and areas for garden apartments, town houses, duplexes, single family dwellings, etc..' Defendant' Mountain.Park Corporation, of.'which Mr. Halvor-

[457]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelle
491 P.3d 60 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2021)
Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelle
466 P.3d 660 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2020)
METROP. GOV. NASH., DAVIDSON CTY v. Barry Construction Company, Inc.
240 S.W.3d 840 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2007)
Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County v. Barry Construction Co.
240 S.W.3d 840 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2007)
In Re Appeal of 232511 Investments, Ltd.
2006 VT 27 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2006)
Palm Beach Polo v. Village of Wellington
918 So. 2d 988 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Story Bed & Breakfast, LLP v. Brown County Area Plan Commission and Patricia N. March
819 N.E.2d 55 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2004)
Staley v. Taylor
994 P.2d 1220 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2000)
Alta Vita Condominium Ass'n v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Hempfield
736 A.2d 724 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1999)
State Ex Rel. Helujon, Ltd. v. Jefferson County
964 S.W.2d 531 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1998)
Tooker v. Feinstein
889 P.2d 1356 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1995)
DeCair v. DeCair
885 P.2d 736 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1994)
Village of Los Ranchos De Albuquerque v. Shiveley
791 P.2d 466 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1989)
South Creek Associates v. Bixby & Associates, Inc.
781 P.2d 1027 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1989)
City of Olympia v. Palzer
728 P.2d 135 (Washington Supreme Court, 1986)
Sayler v. City of Durham
663 P.2d 803 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1983)
Atwood v. City of Portland
637 P.2d 1302 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
State Ex Rel. Cox v. Davidson Industries, Inc.
635 P.2d 630 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1981)
State ex rel. Cox v. Davidson Industries, Inc.
620 P.2d 942 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)
Gillis v. City of Springfield
611 P.2d 355 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
517 P.2d 1042, 267 Or. 452, 1973 Ore. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frankland-v-city-of-lake-oswego-or-1973.