Agenda - Council - 02/08/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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. 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. Additionally, the statute does not allow for exceptions to the timelines in event of extenuating local circumstances. If a state of emergency limits the ability of city staff to complete the work, it should not result in a de facto approval of applications. Clarification is needed about how these instances are fairly handled to ensure a fair public process can occur for all interested and involved parties. 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. 71 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 permitting bodies have not established an independent approval timeline; b) Clarify that approval does not abrogate the need for approvals under other applicable federal, state or local requirements; c) Provide appeal rights to adjacent property owners; d) Clarify that, if requests are to be decided by a board, commission or other agent of a governmental agency, and the decision of the board, commission or other agent is adopted subject to appeal to the governing body of the agency, then the agency may extend the 60-day time limit to resolve the appeal; and e) More clearly define that the phrase "related to zoning" refers to a traditional land use decision such as rezoning, conditional use permits, and variances. f) To address states of emergency, add the following new language to the statute: (h) The time limits in subdivision 2 and 3 are paused if the governor declares a state of emergency under section 12.31. In cases described in these paragraphs, the deadlines in the areas included in the emergency declaration remain paused until ten days after the expiration of the state of emergency,