Laserfiche WebLink
zoning application is not approved or denied <br />for the purposes of Minn. Stat. § 15.99 until <br />the city has resolved all appeals challenging <br />the application. See, Moreno v. City of <br />Minneapolis, 676 N.W. 2d 1 (Minn. Ct. <br />App. 2004). According to the court, an <br />appeal is not a request for a permit, license <br />or other governmental approval; therefore, it <br />does not trigger a new 60-day time period. <br />Under this interpretation, a decision <br />rendered by a zoning board or planning <br />commission is not the final approval or <br />denial of an application if the city allows an <br />appeal to the city council. <br />This court decision is problematic for a <br />couple of reasons. Forcing cities to further <br />condense the process for considering <br />planning and zoning applications will make <br />it more difficult to gather public input and <br />leave less time for thoughtful deliberation by <br />zoning boards and planning commissions. It <br />may also provide an incentive for cities to <br />extend the original 60-day period in every <br />instance in order to build -in adequate time to <br />consider possible appeals. <br />The Minnesota Supreme Court recently <br />issued another 60-day rule decision that held <br />that an application to the Minneapolis <br />Heritage Preservation Commission for a <br />certificate of appropriateness was a "written <br />request related to zoning," and therefore was <br />subject to the automatic approval provision <br />of the 60-day rule. (See, 500, LLC v. City of <br />Minneapolis, 837 N.W. 2d 287 (Minn. <br />2013). This opinion creates ambiguity and <br />uncertainty about what permit applications <br />are subject to the law. <br />While the Legislature has clarified some <br />aspects of this law, additional modifications <br />are necessary to assist cities in providing <br />accurate and timely responses to applicants <br />and to allow adequate time for public input. <br />Furthermore, as city staff and financial <br />resources are increasingly limited, flexibility <br />in the length of approval timeline <br />requirements may be needed at the local <br />level. <br />Response: The Legislature should repeal <br />or amend Minn. Stat. § 15.99. If repeal is <br />unlikely, amendments should: <br />a) Increase the initial time limit to 90 <br />days or have the language in Minn. <br />Stat. § 15.99 apply as the default <br />requirement only in cases where <br />permitting bodies have not established <br />an independent approval timeline; <br />b) Clarify that approval does not <br />abrogate the need for approvals under <br />other applicable federal, state or local <br />requirements; <br />c) Provide appeal rights to adjacent <br />property owners; <br />d) Clarify that, if requests are to be <br />decided by a board, commission or <br />other agent of a governmental agency, <br />and the decision of the board, <br />commission or other agent is adopted <br />subject to appeal to the governing <br />body of the agency, then the agency <br />may extend the 60-day time limit to <br />resolve the appeal; and <br />e) More clearly define that the phrase <br />"related to zoning" refers to a <br />traditional land use decision such as <br />rezoning, conditional use permits, and <br />variances. <br />LE-6. Public Infrastructure Utilities <br />Issue: Successful economic development <br />efforts and community stability are <br />dependent upon a city's ability to make <br />infrastructure investments. Current <br />infrastructure funding options available to <br />cities are inadequate and unsustainable. <br />Funding pressures have been exacerbated by <br />levy limits, unallotment and reductions in <br />the local government aid and market value <br />homestead credit programs. The existing <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 48 <br />