Laserfiche WebLink
■M <br />tv:*Ki <br />:fS <br />W <br />_-M <br />'■^L':M <br />■5/';;'J;!i.4l <br />■vv: •■'" <br />V»3; <br />‘^:my:: <br />;^i3^ <br />W;-- <br />y-A:m <br />'V.* *WiM <br />■ <br />■# <br />Mil <br />jMi <br />»\ ■ <br />•H' <br />p;{Pl <br />FiK r\; <br />m <br />m ■ <br />«• <br />i- : <br />fiv« feet.2 While preparing to install her new antenna. Pentel becane aware of the city's restrictions, and in January 1991 she filed for a variance pursuant to Mendota Heights, Minn., Zoning ordinance $ 5.5 (1981). <br />e <br />The city evaluated Pentel's application through a planning <br />report prepared by a city staff aenber, and at a planning <br />eonnieeion aeeting and two city council meetings. The city then <br />sent Pentel a letter in February 1991 telling her that her <br />application had been denied. The letter did not state any factual <br />findings, reasons for the denial, or what Pentel could do to gain <br />the city's approval. Zn an attempt to offer Pentel a reasonable <br />accommodation, as required by In re Federal Pyiea^<ftw of stata and <br />F.C.C.Zd 952, 50 Fed. Reg. 38,813 (1985) (codified at 47 C.F.R. <br />f 97.15(e) (1992)) (hereinafter PRS*1], the city council granted <br />Pentel a special<-use permit that allowed her to continue using her <br />•listing antenna, which she had erected in contravention of the <br />city's zoning ordinance. <br />Pentel then filed suit against the city in the District Court, <br />claiming that the city's ordinance was preempted by PRB-1 in that <br />the city had not reasonably accommodated her. Agreeing that there <br />were no disputed issues of material fact, Pentel and the city both <br />moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary <br />judgment in favor of the city on all claims.* Pe.ntel appeals. <br />*The parties failed to furnish this Court a copy of S 8B.4(l) <br />of the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance, and the city was unable to <br />furnish a copy idien contacted by this Court. We do not pursue the <br />i**ue, however, because the parties agree, and the District Court <br />found, that this section limits Pentel's radio antenna tower to a maximum height of 25 feet. <br />m <br />In addition to her preemption challenge, Pentel raised <br />various other constitutional challenges that are not renewed here. <br />-3- <br />V <br />-xr