05-15-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r c. The afcovT findinss should be sufficient to justify a denial. Findings that are not supported by so much expert testimony may also sometimes be sufficient. However, if the applicant introduces expert testimony and the City, and/or the objecting neighbors do not rebut that e^'idence with enough cre^ble expert testimony, then even well-drafted findings of fact will not be^ufficient in order to prevail. However, the City needhoi convince the coun that every finding is sufficiently supported by the facts in order to prevail. If legal.^e finding supported adequately by the facts in th^ record may be sufficient. Broadcasting. Inc, v. City of A^n. 323 N.W.2d^757 (Minn. 1982). \ ./ )ful to identify iIn addition to the above, it is helpfuTlo itjehtify in the findings, by reference to exhibit numbers in the record, all key pEms and documents submitted by the applicant and others so there will bc.no confusion or debate before the court on appeal as to what plans and documents were Vtually in the record and which were the final plans that actually were voted up^ by the planning commission and counciL Additional findings shouUl^be added as appropriate under>^ach of the above ordinance standards if t^ere is any ration^ basis to include them. However, in each instance, state conclusion and referrence the evidenc^ which supports that conclusion. E^h conclusion must be relevant to the standards^in the ordinance. Remember, the court should not substimte its judgment for that of the City if^cre is a rational basis for the decision. The decision need^qt be empiricalfy right The decision only needs to be rationaL Qt lilt,Finding Qt Fhct-Guidelines for Dctenninifig the A(^ The following guidelines relitqto conditional use permits whi^. if denied, are the most difficult to uphold onlppe aL They are also usefiii><mdelines to use in denial of ttzonings and variances where the city’s burden is much easier to meet 1. 2. The reviewing court will assess the legal sufficiency of the reasons given by the dty and determine whether, if legally sufficient they had a factual basis in the record. C.R. Investments. Inc, v. Village of Shoreview. 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981). Denial of a special use permit is arbitrary if it is established that all standards spedfied by the ordinance as a condition of granting the y|\ permit have been met Hav v. Township of Grow. 206 N.W.2d 19 (1973). Zvlka v. City of CrvstaL 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969). 015/220777664095 Page 100-------^