Laserfiche WebLink
rezoning of the property to an R3 designation, rather than the original request for PUD <br />designation. The district court ageed that the 60-day time period should run from May <br />15, 2002, the date of Tollefson's letter to the cit3~ requesting an amendment to its <br />rezoning application. <br /> <br /> Sixty days from May 15, 2002, was Sunday, July 14. By denying Tollefson's <br />application on Monday, July 15, the city met its deadline. See Gun Lake Ass 'n ~. Coumy <br />of.4itkin, 612 N.W.2d 177, 181 (Minn. App. 2000) (citing Minn. Stat. § 645.15, which <br />states that if last day of relevant period falls on Sunday, period continues to next day), <br />review denied (Minn. Sept. 13, 2000). Although Tollefson argues that the city missed the <br />deadline because it acted in 61 days, we agree that under the common and accepted <br />practice of calculating deadlines and under the canon of statutory construction set out in <br />Minn. Stat. § 645.15 (2002), the city met its deadline by acting on July 15. See <br />dorgensen v. Knutson, 662 N.W.2d 893, 899 (Minn. 2003) ("We have applied the <br /> <br />computation statute [Minn. Stat. § 645.15] to subject areas as varied as property <br />redemption, criminal appeals, city-negligence, appointment of guardians, and <br /> <br />employment law.") (emphasis added) (footnote omitted)). The district court therefore did <br />not err in concluding that the 60-day period here began to run from the date Tollefson <br />amended its rezoning request. <br /> <br /> Tollefson argues that the 60-day period must run from the date of the original <br />application, regardless of any amendment to that application. Under Tollefson's <br />construction of the statute, when a zoning application is amended, a city would have a <br /> <br /> <br />