In re: Demolition of First Church of Christ Scientist, 614 15th Street East (PLAN10644).

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0489

In re: Demolition of First Church of Christ Scientist, 614 15th Street East (PLAN10644).

Filed January 3, 2022
Reversed
Smith, John, Judge*

Minneapolis City Council
File Nos. 2021A-0005, 2021-00023

Stuart T. Alger, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator
MN 1400 Park Church LLC)

James R. Rowader, Jr., Minneapolis City Attorney, Brian S. Carter, Assistant City
Attorney, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent City of Minneapolis)

Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Florey, Judge; and Smith, John,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, JOHN, Judge
We reverse the City of Minneapolis’s decision to deny the relator’s application for
a certificate of appropriateness to permit demolition of a vacant church building because
the denial was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial
evidence.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
FACTS
The First Church of Christ Scientist (the building) was built in 1897 in south
downtown Minneapolis. In the 1980s, the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission
(HPC) locally designated the building and nominated it to the National Register. The
building was historically significant because it was the first church of its denomination in
Minnesota, as well as “a scaled down version of Beaux-Art Classicism and Renaissance
Revival styles featuring the Doric order.”
In 2001, the building was rented and used by a theater company for offices and
teaching space. An architectural firm prepared an existing conditions report on the
property, evaluating it “for compliance with current building codes and zoning
requirements” and including a proposed plan to show how to bring the building into
compliance and turn the building into a performing arts center. The firm developed two
rehabilitation options —one option was to perform maintenance and preservation of the
building, particularly the exterior, was estimated to cost approximately $822,000; and the
other option, which would transform the building into a performing arts center, was
estimated to cost approximately $3,200,000.
From 2006 to 2015, the building was left vacant. In 2015, relator bought the
building after developing the property directly east of the building. In December 2018,
relator proposed to install temporary interior shoring to stabilize the building in anticipation
of snow loading. Minneapolis Department of Community Planning and Economic
Development (CPED) staff conditioned a certificate of no change approval to require a
rehabilitation plan for the building within six months. In August 2019, relator submitted a
3
mothballing plan with the intent to mothball and stabilize the building for up to ten years
while a plan for further rehabilitation was developed.
In 2019, a retaining wall within the building collapsed. In February 2020, relator
applied for a certificate of appropriateness to permit demolition of the building. Relator’s
application was considered complete in November 2020. CPED staff reviewed the
application and recommended in December 2020 to deny the application.
That same month, the HPC held a public hearing on the application and voted to
deny it, adopting the CPED staff’s findings. Relator appealed the decision to the
Minneapolis Business, Inspections, Housing & Zoning Committee. That committee heard
the appeal in January 2021 and similarly denied the appeal. The Minneapolis City Council
affirmed the denial.
Relator appealed the decision on a petition for a writ of certiorari to this court.
DECISION
Relator challenges the city’s denial of its application for a certificate of
appropriateness.
As a threshold issue, the parties disagree on this court’s standard of review of denial
of relator’s application for a certificate of appropriateness . Relator argues that this court
must determine whether the denial was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by
substantial evidence. The city argues that this court should use a rational-basis standard of
review. We conclude that under either proposed standard, the decision to deny the
demolition was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial
evidence.
4
The parties agree that the decision to deny a certificate of appropriateness is a quasi-
judicial determination. And the city acknowledges that this court reviews a municipality’s
land-use decision under the Municipal Heritage Preservation Act to determine whether the
municipality acted arbitrarily or capriciously. When a municipality conducts a quasi-
judicial proceeding before rendering its decision, this court determines whether the
municipality’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. See Handicraft Block
Ltd. P’ship v. City of Minneapolis, 611 N.W.2d 16, 20 (Minn. 2000) (“[T]he three indicia
of quasi-judicial actions can be summarized as follows: (1) investigation into a disputed
claim and weighing of evidentiary facts; (2) application of those facts to a prescribed
standard; and (3) a binding decision regarding the disputed claim.”) (citation omitted).
When an appellate court reviews a quasi-judicial decision, separation of powers principles
impose a deferential standard of review. Big Lake Ass’n v. St. Louis Cty. Plan. Comm’n,
761 N.W.2d 487, 491 (Minn. 2009). However, the standard of review for all zoning matters
is whether the zoning authority’s action was reasonable. See Honn v. City of Coon Rapids,
313 N.W.2d 409, 416-17 (Minn. 1981) (explaining that reasonableness can be determined
by asking whether the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious).
On certiorari review, this court reviews the evidence “only to determine whether it
supports the findings of fact or the conclusions of law, and whether the municipality’s
decision was arbitrary or capricious.” In re Application of Dakota Telecomm. Group, 590
N.W.2d 644, 646 (Minn. App. 1999). This court exercises judicial restraint to avoid
substituting its judgment for that of an administrative body. In re Excess Surplus Status of
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Minn., 624 N.W.2d 264, 277 (Minn. 2001). Decisions of
5
administrative bodies are reviewed for “substantial evidence” which is defined as “(1) such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
(2) more than a scintilla of evidence; (3) more than some evidence; (4) more than any
evidence; or (5) the evidence considered in its entirety.” Cannon v. Minneapolis Police
Dep’t, 783 N.W.2d 182, 189 (Minn. App. 2010) (quotation omitted).
“The functions of fact[-]finding, resolving conflicts in the testimony, and
determining the weight to be given to it and the inferences to be drawn therefrom rest with
the administrative board.” Quinn Distrib. Co. Inc. v. Quast Transfer, Inc., 181 N.W.2d
696, 700 (Minn. 1970) (citation and quotation omitted). Absent manifest injustice,
inferences drawn from the evidence by an administrative body must be accepted by a
reviewing court “even though it may appear that contrary inferences would be better
supported or that the reviewing court would be inclined to reach a different result were it
the trier of fact.” Ellis v. Minneapolis Comm’n on Civ. Rts., 295 N.W.2d 523, 525 (Minn.
1980). When an administrative body contemporaneously states reasons for its decision,
the burden is on the challenger to show that the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or
capricious. Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass’n. v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.W.2d 117, 123
(Minn. 2003).
When a landmark or building is protected by historical preservation, it cannot be
altered or demolished without being authorized by a certificate of appropriateness approved
by the HPC. Minneapolis, Minn., Code of Ordinances (MCO) § 599.320 (2001). Once
the application for a certificate of appropriateness is complete, the HPC shall hold a hearing
to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for certificate of
6
appropriateness. MCO § 599.340 (2001). Minneapolis’s heritage preservation regulations
dictate required findings for certificates of appropriateness:
The heritage preservation commission shall make each of the
following findings before approving a certificate of
appropriateness:
(1) The alteration is compatible with the designation of the
landmark or historic district, including the period and criteria
of significance.
(2) The alteration will ensure the continued integrity of the
landmark or historic district.
(3) The alteration is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines adopted by the commission.
(4) The alteration is consistent with the applicable
recommendations contained in [the] Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
(5) The alteration is consistent with the spirit and intent of the
preservation ordinance, the applicable policies of the
comprehensive plan, and the applicable preservation policies
in small area plans adopted by the city council.

MCO § 599.350(a) (2001). The regulations also contemplate the potential demolition of
historical sites:
In addition to the findings above, before approving a certificate
of appropriateness that involves the destruction, in whole or in
part, of any landmark, property in a historic district or
nominated property under interim protection, the commission
shall make the following findings:
(1) The destruction is necessary to correct an unsafe or
dangerous condition on the property; or
(2) That there are no reasonable alternatives to the destruction.
In determining whether reasonable alternatives exist, the
commission shall consider, but is not limited to:
a. The significance of the property;
b. The integrity of the property; and
c. The economic value or usefulness of the existing structure,
including its current use, costs of renovation and feasible
alternative uses.

MCO § 599.350(b) (2001).
7
In this case, the CPED staff made recommendations pertaining to both section
599.350(a) and (b). For the findings about demolition, CPED staff acknowledged that in
2019, a city official noted that the building was in imminent danger of collapse. However,
CPED staff concluded that relator had not met its burden of showing that destruction was
necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property because it was
“unclear” whether the building was in imminent danger of collapse and because “the
building is still standing today.” CPED staff also opined that there ar e reasonable
alternatives to demolition because relator’s cost estimate for rehabilitation was to make the
building office space, and that “[i]t is possible another use may be more suitable for this
type of building with a large sanctuary space while still meeting the current and proposing
zoning of the property, though CPED understands the difficulty in reusing historic
churches.”
Relator argues that the city erred by denying the certificate of appropriateness
because the city’s interpretation renders demolition impossible, that the city’s findings and
decision were not supported by substantial evidence, were arbitrary, and were capricious.
The city disputes that its interpretation renders demolition impossible and argues that the
city’s decision had a rational basis.
The city argues that the “real factual issue” was whether rehabilitation of the
building was so costly that there were no reasonable alternatives to demolition. Relator
argues that the record did not contain substantial evidence to support the city’s conclusion
that there were reasonable alternatives to demolition.
8
Considering the evidence as a whole, relator presented significant evidence of the
deterioration and high cost of rehabilitating the building. The evidence presented to the
contrary was based on conjecture and speculation about the use of the building, such as
“[it] is possible another use may be more suitable.” CPED staff stated that it is “possible”
that another use may be more suitable for this type of building, but does not acknow ledge
that alternative uses of the building other than office space “would cost nearly the same but
returns significantly less revenue.” In its report, CPED staff stated how “[f]urther
stabilization and rehabilitation efforts are possible as shown in the report from the historical
consultant in consultation with a structural engineer,” but that these efforts “should be
undertaken quickly as to prevent any further deterioration and the possibility of collapse.”
It is also clear from the record that the H PC members were concerned with what
they referred to as “demolition-by-neglect,” and how previous owners should have repaired
the building. At the hearing, the HPC chairperson stated,
“[T]his is seeming to me, sort of like, a demolition by neglect
situation. If this building had been properly cared for when
ownership was taken of it, I don’t think it would have reached
the point of deterioration that is currently showing. . . . I am
feeling like they have not sufficiently proven the question of
immediate danger of collapse or that there aren’t viable
alternatives.”

However, relator presented evidence that in 2018 relator installed shoring “to
stabilize the building,” and the city conditioned this installation on relator submitting a plan
to rehabilitate the building to prevent further deterioration, which r elator did in August
2019. The 2019 rehabilitation plan acknowledges the deterioration of the building, stating
that the plan will “prevent[] further structural deterioration or failure of the main structural
9
elements.” Further in 2019, a building official from the city determined that the building
was “in imminent danger of collapse,” and determined that the “overall condition of this
building has deteriorated to the point of conceivably collapsing and being unsafe to the
public,” and required that relator add shoring “or safely demolish the building.”
For these reasons, we conclude that the decision to deny relator’s application for a
certificate of appropriateness was unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by
substantial evidence.
Reversed.