2009-10-06 Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 11 of 17 impediment claimed. Finally, the finding that the tower would block some "views of the historic landscape and structures on Loring Hill and views of and from Loring Hill and Pond" is supported by the facts. Therefore, the decision was reasonable on this basis. C. "Scale and character of surrounding uses" and "consistency with the Comprehensive Plan" The evidence supports the findings of both CPED and the Zoning and Planning Committee that Plaintiff's proposed project was not in keeping with the spirit of the Downtown 20 I 0 plan. Specifically, the Downtown 20 I 0 plan states that the City should "[ e ]nsure that new residential development contributes to the sense of neighborhoods through appropriate site planning and architectural design." In addition to the courtroom evidence received, the Court completed a site visit consisting of a tour of the Loring Hill neighborhood. There exists a factual basis for the finding that the proposed twenty-one-story glass-fa9ade slender tower is not consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood. The Loring Hill neighborhood consists nearly entirely of low-rise residential and office buildings within the limits of the OR3 Zoning District. And, while varied, the proposed Tower is objectively different, in both exterior appearance and height, from its surroundings. While there is certainly room for argument as to whether the proposed development fits within the scale and character of the neighborhood, this Court must give deference to those findings which have some factual basis. As a result of the City having at least one reasonable, factually based ground to deny Plaintiff's application, Plaintiff's state law claim, that the decision of the City was arbitrary and capricious, is denied. Accordingly, the Federal Constitutional Substantive Due Process claim is also denied. Additionally, the Court need not further analyze the legitimacy of the remaining CUP and variance denials as those issues are moot. [3) IV. Procedural Due Process "[T]he right to procedural due process is "absolute" in the sense that it does not depend upon the merits of a claimant's substantive due process assertions." Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 266 (1978). "[T]he due process protections granted under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions are identical." Fosse/man v. Comm'r of Human Services, 612 N.W.2d 456 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). In the context of zoning decisions, procedural due process requires 'reasonable notice of a hearing and a reasonable opportunity to be heard." Barton Contracting Co. v. City of Afton, 268 N.W.2d 712, 716 (Minn. 1978). Included within the right to procedural due process is the ability and opportunity to confront and respond to issues raised that may impact the decision-making process. As stated in the treatise relied upon by the City Attorney for the City of Minneapolis in its Memorandum on the subject: The due process right to a "fair hearing" on the issue involved clearly prohibits any use of secret http://www.minnlawyer.comluserfiIes/pdfi.Order..1020(Final).htrn 9117/2009