Laserfiche WebLink
r <br />( <br />..tho nininun practicable regulation Cneceeeary) to accomplish the <br />local authority's legitimate purpose." PRB-1 ? 25. <br />The city informed Pentel that her application had been denied <br />via a bare-bones letter that did not list any bases for the denial. <br />Because the city council failed to make any factual ^ <br />unir.. near RnH t cun Club City of Huqa. 388 N.W.2d 739, <br />(Minn. 1986, (holding in a case reviewing a city council's denial <br />of a special-use permit that a cryptic listing of reasons for the <br />denial did not constitute factual findings); VanT,andschoot v. <br />M.ndota Heights. 336 N.W.2d 503, 509 n.7 (Minn. 1983) (stating <br />that variances and special-usc permits are treated identica y on <br />judicial review), we need not consider whether, if it had, such <br />findings would be afforded preclusive effect here, see Uniyersiti <br />T„nn. V. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 797-99 (1986). <br />Although the city failed to make any factual findings, the <br />planning report and hearings suggest four potential justifications <br />tor the city's denial of Pentel's variance application. We now <br />turn to those justifications. First, the city had no reason to <br />fear that the antenna would interfere with other residents <br />television and radio reception: the city's planning report states <br />that Pentel was prohibited by the FCC from causing, and that she <br />could lose her license if she failed to correct, such a problem. <br />second, the city expressed concerns about the tower's safety <br />in light of the strong winds that frequent the Mississippi River <br />valley. Pentel presented to the city the manufacturer's <br />‘Mendota Heights, Minn., Zoning Ordinance <br />exist.‘'°“Twi coh=lhsoryTa"n^^^^^^^ Th" cUy maj <br />ours. <br />-7-