Laserfiche WebLink
♦0n <br />' i <br />’• t'- <br />I <br />•i V-v <br />M <br />M '■. <br />■ :i.,/-'.^'s V '' <br />:« <br />..:n <br />k- <br />'':lM <br />:‘-'fe" <br />rv <br />' .c' <br />i’' <br />n- <br />7^; <br />’• <br />fe,;':mi <br />^•v. V <br />P ■■ <br />"the aininuo practicable regulation InecessaryJ to acconplish the local authority's legitinate purpose.** PRB-1 5 25.The city infomed Pentel that her application had been denied via a bare-bones letter that did not list any bases for the denial. Because the city council failed to sake any factual findings,* see <br />White Bear Rod t Gun Club v. City of Hugo. 388 N.W.2d 739, 742 <br />(Minn. 1986) (holding in a case reviewing a city council's denial <br />of a special-use pemit that a cryptic listing of reasons for the <br />e <br />denial did not constitute factual findings); VanLandscheet v. citv <br />of Mendota Heights. 336 N.W.2d 503, 509 n.7 (Minn. 1983) (stating <br />« that variances and special-use peraits are treated identically on <br />judicial review), we need net consider whether, if it had, such <br />findings would be afforded preclusive effect here, see University <br />of Tenn. v. Elliott. 478 U.S. 788, 797-99 (1986). <br />Although the city failed to nake any factual findings, the <br />planning report and hearings suggest four potential justifications <br />for 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 %rould interfere with other residents' <br />television and radio reception; the city's planning report states <br />that Pentel was prohibited by the FCC fron causing, and that she <br />could lose her license if she failed to correct, such a problea. <br />j 'f <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 nanufacturer's <br />*Mendota Heights, Minn., Zoning Ordinance f 5.S(S) (1981) <br />states that the ' city council's action in denying a variance <br />application "shall constitute a finding and deteraination by the <br />City Council that the conditions required for approval do not <br />exist." This conclusory language does not provide a court with any <br />doctiaented, enuserated factual findings to review. The city may <br />have made factual findings for its purposes, but it has not for <br />ours. <br />-7- <br />% <br />W"- <br />m <br />itr vr-HC "SB**'"