Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/1997

Home

Z.B. , !; L March 10, 1997 - . Page 3 Zoning Cha ,~ge -- Did hotel company get proper consent for rezoning? 2600 UniVersity Inn, L.L.C. v. City of Minneapolis, 556 N. W. 2d 218 (Minnesota) 1996 National Lodging Cos. Inc. wanted to build a luxury-suite hotel on property in MinneapoI~s. The hotel would have the capacity to host conventions. When thelCity zoned the land, it did not include large luxury-suite hotels as an allowable use. National asked the city to amend its zoning ordinances so it could build tl~e hotel. Under Minnesota law, National needed written consent [ from two~thirds of the owners of properties within 100 feet of the land. There were seven properties within 100 feet of National's parcel. William and Edith Kuross owned three of the seven properties. National received written consent from William Kuross and three other property owners, but not from Edith Kuross. After residents voiced concerns about the project, National decided to build a smal!er hotel that could not host conventions. As a result, it had to request a difforent zoning classification than the one it originally sought. National asked the city if it had to get new written consent from neighboring property owners. The City did not require new consent, and approved the rezoning request. 2600 University Inn, L.L.C. and University Holdings, Inc. each owned property 120 ~feet from the parcel. They had opposed National's rezoning request from the beginning and sued the city after it approved the rezoning. They argued that because National had not received written consent from both Kuross owners, it had not go,eh written consent for the Kuross properties, leaving it with less than the reqgired two-thirds' approval. The hotel's opponents also argued National neeOed new written consent to change the zoning classification. The city ~rgUed the consent of one owner of a jointly owned property was enough. Because National had changed its zoning request to one permitting a less-intensive use, the city said the new request did not require written consent. University Inn and the city asked the court for judgment without a trial. The court granted the city's request. University Inn appealed. DECISION~ Reversed. The purPOse of the consent requirement was to protect those most affected by a rezoning-- people who owned property within 100 feet of rezoned parcel. To satisfy this requirement, all owners of a jointly owned property had to give their written !Consent. Since National got only William's consent, it did not get proper conset~t for the three Kurosses properties. Therefore, National got consent from only three of the seven properties within 100 feet of its parcel. The city could not rezone the land without proper consent. Nationall. had to get new written consent when it amended its rezoning request. The. city should not have assumed consent for a large luxury-suite hotel automa'tica!ly translated into consent for anything smaller. Some property owners may~have consented to the original plans only because they hoped a convention-Capacity hotel would lead to increased business.