500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287

500, LLC owns a vacant four-story building in Minneapolis and sought to convert it to offices; it submitted a site-plan application which the City Council approved.
The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission nominated the property for historic designation, placing it under interim protection that bars alterations without a certificate of appropriateness.
On May 6, 2009, 500 LLC applied to the Commission for a certificate of appropriateness; after hearings and appeals the City Council denied the application on July 31, 2009.
500 LLC sued, alleging the City violated Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a) by failing to "approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning," claiming the application was therefore approved by operation of law.
The district court granted summary judgment to the City; the court of appeals affirmed. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an application for a certificate of appropriateness is a "written request relating to zoning" under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2(a)	The application is a written request that has a logical connection to regulation of building development and property use, so the 60-day rule applies and failure to decide effects automatic approval	The statute should be read narrowly to cover only requests explicitly authorized by zoning statutes/ordinances (i.e., zoning applications), so certificates of appropriateness are outside § 15.99	The court held the phrase is unambiguous and broad: a certificate-application relates to zoning and § 15.99's 60-day rule applies

Larson v. State, 790 N.W.2d 700 (Minn. 2010) (statutory-interpretation standard and plain-meaning approach)
Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (interpretation of the phrase "relating to")
In re Denial of Eller Media Co.'s Applications for Outdoor Adver. Device Permits, 664 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2003) (definition of "zoning" as regulation of building development and property uses)
Handicraft Block Ltd. P'ship v. City of Minneapolis, 611 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. 2000) (heritage-preservation proceedings analogous to conditional-use hearings)
Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass'n v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 2003) (addressing municipal historic-designation process)
Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 756 N.W.2d 716 (Minn. 2008) (application of § 15.99 timing principles)
Advantage Capital Mgmt. v. City of Northfield, 664 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. App. 2003) (court of appeals' narrower view of "relating to zoning")
Frederick Farms, Inc. v. Cnty. of Olmsted, 801 N.W.2d 167 (Minn. 2011) (canon against adding words to unambiguous statute)
Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006) (comprehensive plan as primary land-use control)
Dead Lake Ass'n, Inc. v. Otter Tail Cnty., 695 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2005) (limits of certiorari review over quasi-judicial decisions)