Facts
Plot No. 90, owned by the [I.] Housing Cooperative, and Plot No. 1968, co-owned by [J.J.] and [K.J.] , had already been the subject of several development plan and zoning plan procedures. In March 2021, the [I.] Housing Cooperative submitted the new Geuenseestrasse Development Plan to the Sursee City Council for approval. This plan provides for the construction of three multi-family houses with a total of 22 apartments and a shared basement on Plot No. 90. Objections to the new development plan were raised, among others, by [A.A.] and [B.A.] , [C.C.] and [D.C.] , [E.E.] and [F.E.] , as well as [G.G.] and [H.G.] .
The Sursee City Council revoked the existing development plan and approved the new Geuenseestrasse Development Plan for Plots Nos. 90 and 1968 subject to conditions and requirements. It partially upheld or declared the objections as settled and rejected them in all other respects.
Against the decision of the Sursee City Council, [A.A.] and [B.A.] , [C.C.] and [D.C.] , [E.E.] and [F.E.] , as well as [G.G.] and [H.G.] filed an administrative court appeal with the Lucerne Cantonal Court. The court dismissed the legal remedy.
Considerations
The FSCT first notes that the appellants are entitled to appeal. It then examines whether the lower court was right to conclude that the maximum permissible overall height is complied with under the new development plan.
The FSCT concludes that the reasoning of the lower court on this point is not entirely convincing. However, the appellants do not show in what way the contested decision should be arbitrary in its result. The FSCT considers it reasonable that the Sursee City Council, based on the municipal regulation (in particular Footnote 23 in Annex 6 of the Building and Zoning Regulations), assumed a deviation of 10% from the maximum…