Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

.../...."'" March 25, 2008 I Volume 2 I No.6 \ DECISION:. Af:firmed. Because the Residents had claimed the city's decision was not sup- ported by evidence or was arbitrary and capricious, the court said the proper standard of review of the city's decision was the "whole record test." That test involved an examination of the record to de- termine whether it contained substantial evidence to support the city's decision. The test did not allow the court to replace the city's decision as between two reasonably conflicting views. This was the case even if the court could have reached a different result if the mat- ter had been before it as if it were anew trial. The court found that the city presented substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that the LEC would conform to the sur- rounding neighborhood. The court found it especially relevant that the historical use, size, and style of the buildings proposed matched the historical use, size, and style of the existing buildings in the city center zoning district. The court noted that many of the buildings iIi the surrounding area involved governmental activities. The city center zone included city hall, an old courthouse, a new courthouse, the current jail, the sheriff's office, the board of elections building, the county office building, and the main post office, The court con- cluded that the LEC, which was also a governmental activity, would thus "conform" in use with the surrounding area. Testimony by an architect also indicated that the LEC was designed to "try to match materials and colors" of the local hotel and old high school. An ar- chitect's testimony also indicated that the size of the LEC would be "consistent with the relative sizes of [the existing] buildings," with "some bigger, some smaller but consistent." The Residents had not argued that the LEC did not conform to the center city zoning district. Rather, the Residents argued that it did not conform to adjacent residential areas. The Residents as- serted that the footprint of the LEC would be twenty-eight times the size of the average home within 500 feet of it. They argued that the LEe would be surrounded on three sides by residential areas, and it was obviously inconsistent with residential use. The court re- jected this argument. In doing so the court stressed that testimony showed the jail and sheriff's office had historically been located in the city's downtown adjacent to the' courthouse, and had "always been a member of the neighborhood." The court also stressed that the area adjoining the residential areas would remain undeveloped. 'Importantly, the court noted that under the "whole records test" just because the Residents presented contrary evidence, it could not re- place the city's determination because the city's determination was based on a reasonable conflicting view. ' 9 145