Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

November 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin plication, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission (the "Com- mission") nominated the property for designation as a local historic landmark. The Commission's action placed the property under "interim protection," which prohibits "destruction or inappropriate alteration [of a nominated property] during the designation process" in the absence of a "certificate of appropriateness." On May 6, 2009, 500 LLC submitted an application for a certificate of appropriateness to the Commission. Following a public hearing and a series of administrative appeals, the City Council denied the application for a certificate of appropriateness on July 31, 2009. Approximately 10 months later, the City Council approved a resolution designating the prop- erty as a local historic landmark. The designation became final and effec- tive on June 5, 2010. In October 2010, 500 LLC brought a legal action against the City. Among other things, 500 LLC alleged that the City violated Minnesota statutory law —Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a)—because it failed to ap- prove or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness within 60 days. Section § 15.99, subd. 2(a), states in relevant part as follows: [Ain agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning . . . for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. 500 LLC maintained that its application for a certificate of appropriate- ness was "a written request relating to zoning." As such, it further alleged that the City's failure to approve or deny the application resulted in its automatic approval at the end of the 60-day period. 500 LLC asked the court to declare that, therefore, its "application for [a] Certificate of Ap- propriateness [was] approved and granted by operation of law." Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the district court granted summary judgment to the City. In so holding, the court concluded that Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a), did not apply to an application for a certificate of appropriate- ness because "decisions regarding historic preservation are not brought into or linked in logical or natural association with actual zoning decisions." 500 LLC appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals reasoned that a "written request relating to zoning" is "a request to conduct a specific use of land within the framework of the regulatory structure relating to zoning or, in other words, a zoning application." Because an application for a certificate of appropriateness was a request to "make alterations to the property," not to conduct a specific use of the land, the court concluded that an "application for a certificate of ap- propriateness [was] not a request relating to zoning." 500 LLC appealed. On appeal, the parties agreed that an application for 10 ©2013 Thomson Reuters