Laserfiche WebLink
limited time to evaluate the amendment, particularly if it is made close to the expiration <br />of the initial 60-day period. As a result, a city could be forced to act quickly and rQect an <br />application or risk its automatic approval; in such a case, the applicant would be forced to <br />resubmit its application and possibly incur additional filing fees. We therefore reject <br />Tollefson's construction of the statute and hold that the 60-day period runs from the date <br />a written amendment to a zoning request is submitted, not from the date of the original <br />application.~ <br /> <br /> In support of its motion for summary jud~mnent, the city also argued that <br />Tollefson's request on June 17 to continue the matter should be deemed to operate as an <br />extension of the 60-day time limit or that Tollefson either waived or should be equitably <br />estopped from asserting it is entitled to automatic approval m~der Minn. Stat. § 15.99. <br />Because we conclude that the 60-day period runs from the date that Tollefson amended <br />its rezoning request, we need not address these alternative arguments raised by the city. <br /> <br /> II. <br /> <br /> Tollefson argues that the city's decision to deny its preliminary plat was arbitrary <br />and capricious because the record fails to support the city's findings that the plat does not <br />comply with its ordinances. The city's decision was based, in part, on its denial of <br />Tollefson's request to rezone to R3. Because we affirm the district court's determination <br /> <br />i In so holding, we recognize that only material or significant amendments to a zoning <br />request, such as the amendment here from a PUD to an R3 designation, will operate to <br />restart the 60-day period. Minor changes to a zoning request should not affect the <br />running of the 60-day period. <br /> 9 <br /> <br /> <br />