|
•
<br /> s '
<br /> • Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 1
<br /> (Cite is: 1991 WL 115114 CMinn.dpp.))
<br /> • NOTICE: THIS OPLNION IS DESIGNATED AS Although the zoning ordinance expressly permits
<br /> UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED gas stations in the mixed used district, the city
<br /> EXCEPT denied Amoco's plan because the proposed building
<br /> AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.0S(3). failed to meet the zoning district's minimum
<br /> building size requirement. In calculating the size of
<br /> AMOCO OIL COMPANY, Appellant, the Amoco station, the city refused to include the
<br /> 7. area beneath the canopy because it concluded that
<br /> CITY OF MAPLE GROVE,Respondent. area did not meet the ordinance's definition of
<br /> "building.' Including the• canopy area in the
<br /> No. CS-91-64. calculation would bring the station within the
<br /> requirements.
<br /> Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
<br /> Amoco sued. Oa cross-motions for summary •
<br /> July 2, 1991. judgment, the trial court concluded that (1) the
<br /> canopy was not a "building" for purposes of
<br /> Review Denied Aug. 29, 1991. determining whether the ordinance's size
<br /> requirement had been met; and (2) the city had the
<br /> Appeal from District Court; Hennepin County; authority to interpret its own ordinances, and its
<br /> Eugene Mineice, Judge. denial of Amoco's site plan was reasonable.
<br /> Robert Lewis Barrows, Joseph M. Finley. . DECISION
<br /> Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional
<br /> Association, Minneapolis, for appellant. A municipality's zoning decision on an issue of •i
<br /> III/ fact or legislative policy-making _is entitled to
<br /> Daniel B. Johnson, Earle T. Anderson, Jr., judicial deference if it is not arbitrary, oppressive, -
<br /> Meyer, Njus, Anderson, Johnson & Nettles, P.A., or unreasonable. See Freak's Nursery Sales, Inc. v.
<br /> Minneapolis, for respondent. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608
<br /> tMInn.1980). Local zoning decisions on questions
<br /> Considered and decided by LANSING, ?J., and of Iaw, however, including the interpretation of
<br /> RANDALL and NORTON, H. ordinances, do not bind the courts. Id. at 608
<br /> (regardless of reasonableness of city's
<br /> UNPUBLISHED OPINION • determination, court's interpretation of ordinance
<br /> uitielet-Iy controls). (FNIj
<br /> L.NScTTG,Judge.
<br /> If a legislative body has expressly defined a term,
<br /> Ti Interpreting a minimum building size courts must assume that the definition is 'intended
<br /> reouirmst in its zoning ordinances, the City of in some measure to depart from the ordinary sense
<br /> Maxie Grove denied site plan approval for an of that term" and may not substitute the term's
<br /> Amoco gas station. The oil company appeals the literal meaning for die definition provided. Unite
<br /> summary judgment upholding the city's Stares Jaycees v, McClure, 305 N.W.2.d 764, 766
<br /> interpretation, and we reverse. (Minnr.1981). Judicial construction is inappropriate
<br /> unless - the ordinance's terms are ambiguous.
<br /> FACTS Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass's v. City of
<br /> Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 339(Mina.1984).
<br /> Amoco Oil Corporation owns property in Mapie
<br /> Grave zoned as a "mixed use district." Amoco The Maple Grove zoning ordinance defines
<br /> submitted a proposed site plan for a combination gas "building" as laJny structure used or intended for
<br /> station/convenience storelcar wash which iaciuded a supporting or sheltering any use or occupsary."
<br /> _Innen= steel canopy designed to cover the Maple Grove, Minn., Ordinance o 375:06, subd. 20
<br /> ohne dispensing area. The canopy would be (1990). Subdivision 140 defines 'structure' as
<br /> attached to the car wash and convenience store,
<br /> forming a unitary structure. [ajaything which is built, constructed or erected;
<br /> Cope. ®West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works •
<br />
|