Laserfiche WebLink
required by Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (2002). The court reasoned that although Tollefson <br />requested that the property be rezoned from single family to PUD on April 30, 2002, it <br />anaended its application on May 15, 2002, when it sent a written letter to the city <br />confirming its request that the property be rezoned to R3, rather than PUD. Under this <br />reasoning, the 60-day period expired on July 15, 2002, the date the city council denied <br />the rezoning request. Tollefson appeals the district court's grant of summary judgrnent to <br />the city and dismissal of its writ for mandamus. <br /> <br /> ISSUES <br /> <br /> 1. Did the district court err in rejecting Tollefson's claim that its request for <br /> <br />rezoning was automatically approved by operation of Minn. Stat. § 15.99 (2002)? <br /> <br /> 2. Was the city's denial of Tollefson's request for prelimina13, plat approval <br /> <br />arbitrary and capricious? <br /> <br /> ANALYSIS <br /> <br /> Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material <br />fact and either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03. <br />When, as here, the grant of summary judgment involves the application of a statute to <br />undisputed facts, our review is de novo. N. States Power Co. ¥. City of Mendota Heights, <br />646 N.W.2d 919, 924 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 2002). We also <br />apply a de novo standard of review to a "district court's decision on a petition for a writ <br />of mandamus that is based solely on legal determinations." ]d. (citation omitted). <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />