2009-10-06 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 9 of 17 substantive due process in the context of S 1983 zoning actions is twofold: first, whether there has been a deprivation ofa protectible (sic) property interest and, second, whether the deprivation, ifany, is the result of an abuse of governmental power sufficient to state a constitutional violation." Id. (citing Littlefield v. City of Afton, 785 F.2d 596, 603-08 (8th Cir. 1986)). "[I]n the zoning context, 'whether government action is arbitrary or capricious within the meaning of the Constitution turns on whether it is so 'egregious' and 'irrational' that the action exceeds standards of inadvertence and mere errors oflaw.'''!d. (citing Condor Corp. 912 F.2d at 220 (8th Cir. 1990)). The Federal threshold is higher than the threshold under Minnesota law. !d. Therefore, it logically follows that if Plaintiff's claim fails under Minnesota law, it must also fail under Federal law. To construct its proposed project, Plaintitrhad to apply for both CUPs and variances. The standards for granting CUPs are found in the Minneapolis Municipal Code. For CUPs generally: The city planning commission shall make each of the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: (1) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare. (2) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the vicinity and will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (3) Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, necessary facilities or other measures, have been or will be provided. (4) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (5) The conditional use is consistent with the applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. (6) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Minneapolis Code of Ordinances 525.340. For CUPs increasing height: The height limitations of principal structures located in the office residence districts, except single and two-family dwellings, may be increased by conditional use permit. as provided in Chapter 525, Administration and Enforcement. In addition to the conditional use standards, the city planning commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors when determining the maximum height: (I) Access to light and air of surrounding properties. (2) Shadowing of residential properties or significant public spaces. (3) The scale and character of surrounding uses. (4) Preservation of views of landmark buildings, significant open spaces or water bodies. Minneapolis Code of Ordinances 547.110. Findings for CUPs must be factually based. Goodman confirmed this as did Farrar. The following findings, spelled out in both the CPED Report and the Findings and Recommendation of the Zoning and Planning Committee may be legally sufficient to survive substantive due process scrutiny. Findings A and B below leave much to be desired, however. http://www.minnlawyer.comfuserf1les/pdflOrder%20(Final).htrn 9f17 f2009