2009-10-06 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 10 of17 A. "Detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort or general welfare" The CPED Report found that on the basis of the shadow study submitted by Plaintiff, limitations oflight and air "could be detrimental to the comfort and general welfare of [the surrounding] properties, especially those located to the north and northeast of the proposed tower." The Zoning and Planning Committee findings, without providing any basis for doing so, went even further to say that, "[t]he proposed project would be detrimental to the public comfort and general welfare because of shadowing of adjacent property." The problem is that the CPED report and the findings of the Zoning and Planning Committee both cite the effects upon "surrounding" or "adjacent" property. This section of the ordinance, however, deals in generalities: public health, public safety, public comfort, and general welfare. Nowhere, in either the CPED Report or the fmdings of the Zoning and Planning Committee, are such general findings made. The plain meaning ofthe Municipal Code prohibits a limited analysis of surrounding properties as the sole basis for general welfare finding. Additionally, to allow such limitation would make moot the need for the second section of the ordinance which specifically requires analysis of the effect, of granting a CUP, upon surrounding properties. Therefore, the construction adopted in the CPED report and the Zoning and Planning Committee violates the basic rule of statutory interpretation that "[ e ]very law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all of its provisions." Minn. Stat. ~645.16. B. "Injurious to the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity" and "impeding the orderly development and improvement of surrounding property" As discussed above, the shadowing arguments made by the City are better made as part of this analysis. CPED found that "increasing the height ofthe building could be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the surrounding property and could impede the normal development of the surrounding area." First, the claims that shadowing impacts would be injurious and impede normal development are without merit. There is no finding in the record that the temporary daily shadows cast on the surrounding properties would be truly injurious. That shadows exist is not enough, without more, to justifY this decision. Moreover, even had the shadow analysis contained concrete findings of injury, the owners of properties (to the north and northeast) which would have been most significantly impacted by the shadowing were actually in support of the project, and other nearby, affected properties were owned by the Plaintiff, a fact that was known by the City at the time of their analysis. Second, while the finding that the tower was not within the scale and character of the neighborhood was reasonable, the finding that the failure to so conform was injurious to surrounding properties and an impediment to normal development was without any factual support. Contrary to the assertions of the CPED report or the findings of the Zoning and Planning' Committee, it does not necessarily follow that a deviation in scale and character in a neighborhood which is, by the City's own admission, "varied" in scale and character would result in the type of injury or htlp:/ /www.minnlawyer.comluserfiles/pdf/Order%20(Final).htm 9/17/2009