Laserfiche WebLink
/ <br />( <br />"the ninir.u.T. practicable regulation [necessary] to acccrplish the <br />local authority's legitinate purpose." PR3-1 ^ 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 r.ake any factual findings,‘ see <br />White Bear Pod & Gun Club v. Citv of Hugo, 388 h;.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 />denial did not constitute factual findings) ; VanLandschoot v. Citv <br />of Mer.dota Heiohts. 336 N.W.2d 503, 509 n.7 (Mi.nn. 1983) (stating <br />t.hat variances and special-use pemits are treated identically on <br />judicial review) , we need not consider whether, if it had, such <br />findi.ngs would be afforded preclusive effect here, see University <br />of Tenn. v. Bllictt. 473 U.S. 788, 797-99 (1986). <br />Although the city failed to r.ake any factual findings, the <br />planning report and heari.ngs 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 would interfere with other residents' <br />television a.nd radio reception; the city's plan.ning report states <br />that Pe.ntel was prohibited by the ?CC from causing, and that she <br />% <br />could lose her license if she failed to correct, such a problen. <br />Second, the city expressed concerns about the tower's safety <br />i.n light of the strong winds that frequent the .Mississippi Riv'er <br />vallev. rental oresented to the citv the nanufacturer's <br />^endota Heights, Minn., Zoning Ordinance § 5.5(5) (1981) <br />states t.hat t.he 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-