|
•
<br /> _r
<br /> Not Reported in N.W.2d Page 2
<br /> (Cite as: 1991 WL 115114, =1 (INinn,App.)) •
<br /> * * * or any piece of work artificially, built up and/ their underlying polices. See, e.g., Anacon Corp.
<br /> or composed of parts joined together in some v. City of Eagan,343 N.W.Zd 66, 72(Men./984);
<br /> definite manner, whether temporary or permanent in Frank's Nursery, 295 N.W.2d at 609. However,
<br /> character. the relevancy of underlying policy considerations is
<br /> generally limited to interpreting ordinances which
<br /> Subdivision 142 defines "use" as have undefined or ambiguous terms. See, e.g.,
<br /> Amcon Corp., 343 N.W.2d at 70. When the words
<br /> [t]he purpose or activity for which the Iand or of a law in their application to as existing situation
<br /> building thereon is designated, arranged, or are unambiguous, 'the letter of the law shall not be
<br /> intended, or for which it is occupied, utilized or disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit."
<br /> maintained***. Minn.Stat. §645.16(1990).
<br /> *2 Only the term "sheltering" is undefined. We recognize that the mixed use district's primary
<br /> Focusing on this term, the city concluded that the purpose is to promote 'large scale, multi-story - '
<br /> • canopy did not provide shelter because it was not buildings," and its minimum size requirement .
<br /> fully enclosed and, therefore, could not be presumably is intended to effectuate this goal_ But .
<br /> considered part of the proposed "building" when neither the city's zoning policy nor its definition of
<br /> determining square footage. building expressly requires large, multi-story
<br /> structures on all lots. Both the detiaition-and the
<br /> The city's interpretation, essentially adopted by permitted use of gas stations imply sigiificent
<br /> the trial court, is unsupporrabiy narrow. The flexibility is the physical design and proposed uses
<br /> unambiguous definition of building is nearly ail- for buildings in the mixed use district. The Amoco
<br /> inclusive. It requires neither full enclosure, nor a station's nonconformity with the typical business
<br /> particular level or efficiency .of shelter. - The envisioned in this district does not warrant an• __
<br /> structure must merely shelter any use. However unduly restrictive reading of the city's zoning
<br /> imperfectly, Amoco's canopy would shelter its policies or a Iimited construction of its own broadly
<br /> customers while they pumped gas. worded definition of building. .
<br /> •
<br /> Common definitions of"shelter' require a broader We reverse the award of summary judgment to the
<br /> reading. See, e.g., Webster's New Universal city._ Because there are no disputed issues of
<br /> Unabridged- Dictionary 1672 2d ed. 1979) material fact and no remaining questions of law,
<br /> ("something that covers, protec s, or defends * * * Amoco is entitled to summary judgment as a matter i
<br /> as from the elements, danger, etc.'). In an of taw. See Farmington Township v. High Plains
<br /> analogous case distinguishing between equipment Coop., 460 N.W.2d 56, 59(Minn.Agp:1990).
<br /> and buildings or structures for property tax
<br /> purposes, Me supreme court held: g3 Reversed.
<br /> •
<br /> Although a [;as station] canopy has no walls, it FN1. In re Brine, a57 N.W.2d 268 (Minn.App.),
<br /> essentially series the same shelter function as afi'd in part, rev'd is part, 460 N.W.2d 53
<br /> buildings and other structures to the extent that it (Mian.:990), to the erect not reversed by the
<br /> protects persons and items from forces of nature. supreme court, is distinguishable. Although Brine
<br /> involved an interpretational issue, the case
<br /> Crown CoCo, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, fundansmsralIy challenged a planning commission's
<br /> .36 N.W.24 272, 274 (Mina.I933). Applying this discretion in changing zoning classifications and
<br /> reasoning to Amoco's =copy compels approval of issuing conditional use permits. The scope of the
<br /> the gas station site plan. city's authority is not similarly implicated here
<br /> because the site plan approval depends solely on die
<br /> The city argues that including the area under legal interpretation of"building.'
<br /> Amoco's canopy would circumvent the ordinance's III
<br /> basic policy of promoting large-scale development. END OF DOCUMENT
<br /> Minnesota courts have consistently recognized that
<br /> zoning ordinances mast be considered in light of .
<br /> Copr. ° West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works
<br />
|