Opinion ID: 2222133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: HPC's Obligation Under the City Ordinance

Text: BGEA alleges that procedural irregularities are evidence that the City acted arbitrarily. Primarily, BGEA asserts the HPC failed to make findings sufficient to satisfy its obligation under the city ordinance. [7] BGEA argues that all findings should have come from the HPC, instead of from Zoning. Because some findings originated with Zoning, BGEA asserts the entire designation should fail for arbitrariness. The HPC is required to make findings under Code § 599.280 (2001). [8] The HPC adopted some of the findings of the planning department, but did not add findings to justify including the Hennepin Avenue properties. Instead, Zoning developed findings to support the inclusion of the Hennepin Avenue properties. Thus, all findings did not originate with the HPC. We do not think the remedy for that failure, however, should be a judicial reversal of an historic designation that was approved by all levels of city government. There is no evidence that HPC's failure to make findings prejudiced BGEA. It was clear at the public meeting of the HPC on October 16 that the commission had voted to add the Hennepin Avenue properties back into the District; BGEA had notice of the HPC's recommendation to Zoning. Indeed, a lawyer from BGEA spoke at the Zoning meeting on October 30. There is nothing more BGEA could have done to voice its opinion, even if the HPC had included specific findings about the Hennepin Avenue buildings' historic merit. Therefore, we conclude that the findings were sufficiently contemporaneous and adequate to support designating the entire northeast portion of the District.