CC_Minutes_2005_0124 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

January 24, 2005 Page 3 County, Cass County District Court No. C5-03-551; Taylor Investment Corp. v. Crow Wing County, Crow Wing County District Court No. C2-03-942. In 2003, Milm. Stat. S 15.99 was amended to exclude from its operation requests for subdivision approval. See subd. 2(a). Thus there can never be a 60-day rule issue as to preliminary plat and subdivision issues. As to the general operation of Minn. Stat. S 15.99, in order for the time period thereunder to begin running there must be a written application that is submitted by an applicant. In regard to the motion in question, that means that there must have been an application by Rottlund for a rezoning in order for the 60-day time period to begin running. According to the Community Development Department, such an application for rezoning can either be made as and on a fonn for a rezoning application, or by virtue of a request for proposed zoning of property to be changed in the appropriate p0l1ion of the general concept planned unit development application form. In this case, a review of the application for the planned unit development general concept plan, Question No.1 0, does not indicate any current request for rezoning. Instead it says "to be determined. There is therefore not a written request from an applicant specifically requesting a rezoning so as to trigger the application of the 60-day rule. In tenns of the motion itself, it indicates it is effective only after a second reading and upon final approval by the City Council, the plmmed unit development agreement and publication of the ordinance. One could argue that any rezoning is therefore "contingent." Within the meaning of the 60-day rule, there is no case law on the point of whether an approval can be "contingent" upon final approval of a permitting process that requires preliminary and final approvals before the process is complete, such as the City has here in its PUD ordinance. The analogues situation, preliminary and final plat approval, has no litigation in cases arising thereunder. We think however, within the general intent of 15.99, that such contingency could be considered appropriate and acceptable in the proper case. CONCLUSION After examining the application submitted by Rottlund Homes in the present case, we do not believe that there is a 60-day rule issue in regard to Motion 12.03 passed by the City Council on January 10, 2005. There was no request by Rottlund for a rezoning. To finish what was begun in that motion, it would be appropriate for the Council to conduct a second reading consistent with the opinion of our office on January 19,2005, at any time prior to the expiration of 60 days after the date of the dismissal of the EA W petition. Respectfully submitted, Scott T. Anderson ST A/sem Enclosure RRM: #72609