Agenda - Council Work Session - 01/26/2016

Home

Response: The League of Minnesota Cities opposes any attempt to remove or alter the eminent domain option available to municipal electric utilities in state law, or to make it financially unfeasible for municipal utilities to compensate rural electric cooperatives or other electric utilities for serving future customers who reside in annexed areas where that electric utility has not provided service. LE -6. Statutory Approval Timelines Issue: Cities since 1995 have been required to act on written requests relating to zoning, septic systems, the expansion of Metropolitan Urban Service Areas (MUSA), and other land -use applications in accordance with a statutory time period generally referred to as the 60 -day rule. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 15.99, state and local government agencies must approve or deny a permit within a statutory timeframe. Failure by the agency to issue a specific denial of the application is deemed an approval. Minn. Stat. § 15.99 does not directly address whether an appeal of a decision triggers an extension or is part of an original zoning request that must be handled within the 60 - or 120 -day time period. In a 2004 court of appeals decision, the court found that a zoning application is not approved or denied for the purposes of Minn. Stat. § 15.99 until the city has resolved all appeals challenging the application. See, Moreno v. City of Minneapolis, 676 N.W. 2d 1 (Minn Ct. App. 2004). According to the court, an appeal is not a request for a permit, license or other governmental approval; therefore, it does not trigger a new 60 -day time period. Under this interpretation, a decision rendered by a zoning board or planning commission is not the final approval or denial of an application if the city allows an appeal to the city council. This court decision is problematic for a couple of reasons. Forcing cities to further condense the process for considering planning and zoning applications will make it more difficult to gather public input and leave less time for thoughtful deliberation by zoning boards and planning commissions. It may also provide an incentive for cities to extend the original 60 -day period in every instance in order to build -in adequate time to consider possible appeals. The Minnesota Supreme Court recently issued another 60 -day rule decision that held that an application to the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission for a certificate of appropriateness was a "written request related to zoning," and therefore was subject to the automatic approval provision of the 60 -day rule. (See, 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W. 2d 287 (Minn. 2013). This opinion creates ambiguity and uncertainty about what permit applications are subject to the law. While the Legislature has clarified some aspects of this law, additional modifications are necessary to assist cities in providing accurate and timely responses to applicants and to allow adequate time for public input. Furthermore, as city staff and financial resources are increasingly limited, flexibility in the length of approval timeline requirements may be needed at the local level. Response: The Legislature should repeal or amend Minn. Stat. § 15.99. If repeal is unlikely, amendments should: a) Increase the initial time limit to 90 days or have the language in Minn. Stat. § 15.99 apply as the default requirement only in cases where League of Minnesota Cities 2016 City Policies Page 48