Laserfiche WebLink
"the mininun practicable regulation [necessary] to acconplish the <br />local authority's legitinate purpose." PRB-1 ^ 25. <br />The city infonned Pentel that her application had been denied <br />via a baro-bones letter that did not list any bases for the denial. <br />Because the city council failed to make any factual findings,^ see <br />White Bear Rod & 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 permit that a cryptic listing of reasons for the <br />denial did not constitute factual findings) ; VanLandschoot v. City <br />of Mendota Heights. 336 N.W.2d 503, 509 n.7 (Minn. 1983) (stating <br />that variances and special-use permits are treated identically on <br />judicial review) , we need not 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 make any factual findings, the <br />planning report and hearings suggest four potential justifications <br />for the city's denial of Pentel's variance application. vje 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 § 5.5(5) (1981) <br />states that the city council's action in denying a variance <br />application "shall constitute a finding and determination 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 />documented, enumerated factual findings to review. The city may <br />have made factual findings for its purposes, but it has not for <br />ours. <br />-7-