Laserfiche WebLink
P <br />(_ - .. .. . <br /> KENNEDY & GRAVEN <br /> CHARTERED <br /> Attornen at Lir, <br /> itBRd70 Plllahury Center.Minneannlia.M amasla 35402 <br /> A Arggr (612)337.9300 COARBII.THOMBON <br /> M.BA TICRRON a W <br /> JAMIRR J.Tossa•RON,JR. <br /> RONALD H.BATTY 700 Commerce RolMing,S East Fourth Street LARRY M.WLRTNP.IM <br /> 3TLPNEN J.Bose. Salet Paul,Minnesota 55101 Bor im.L.WILR1NR <br /> JOIN B.DEAN (612)225.4935 Joe Y.YANG <br /> DANIEL J.eiREENSWEIO <br /> DAVID J.XRtiNr=Y Facsimile(612)337-9310 DAVID L.CRAVEN(19204991) <br /> MARLS L.LEFEVeRe <br /> 1011N M.LEFEVRE.JR. Ot*rnt7NRICt. <br /> ROBERT J.LINDALL WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL ,RoaeRT c.CARLsoN <br /> ROBERT C.LONG RoBERT L.DAVIDSON <br /> JAMB M.STAMM; 337-9202 WELLINGTON H.LAW <br /> FLOYD B.OLSON i <br /> CURTLS A.PFARSON <br /> . T.JAY SALMET4 <br /> April 25, 1996 <br /> Joyce Pruitt <br /> Interim Community Development Director <br /> City of Mounds View <br /> 2401 Highway 10 <br /> Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 <br /> RE: Proposed Planning Commission Resolution and Findings in Planning Case File <br /> No. 438-96 and Court Cases Holding that a Gas Pump Canopy is a Structure <br /> IIUnder Zoning Law and Tax Law <br /> Dear Joyce: <br /> Please find enclosed a proposed resolution for the Planning Commission setting forth <br /> findings made at its April 17, 1996 hearing on.the variance request in Planning Case <br /> No. 438-98. This resolution and these findings should be adopted at the PlArning <br /> Commission Meeting on May 1, 1996. <br /> . <br /> In addition, I am attaching copies of two Minnesota court cases which clearly state <br /> that a gas pump canopy, like the one being considered in the present case, is a <br /> structure or building within the meaning of zoning code language similar to that of <br /> Oun•S •1 - • •tt•T_ -•• - a• • te• • - in - a - tc •• . • a - - • __ <br /> property under the tax law. See, Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Maple Grove, 191 WL <br /> 115114 (Minn. App. 1991)(unpublished opinion) and Crown Coco, Inc_ v. <br /> Commissioner of Revenue, 336 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 1983) (cases attached). <br /> In the Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Mame Grove case, the Maple Grove Zoning Code's <br /> definition of "building" is exactly the same as the definition of "building" under <br /> Chapter 1102.02, subd. 11 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The fact that the Court <br /> of Appeals found that the gas pump canopy was a building under the Maple Grove <br /> Zoning Code with the exact same language as that present in the Mounds View Zoning <br /> Code is a clear legal interpretation that the gas pump canopy proposed in this case <br /> would be considered a building or a structure under the Mounds View Zoning Code. <br /> • In the Crown Coco, Inc_ v. Commissioner of Revenue case, the Minnesota Supreme <br /> Court adopted. the "functionality" test and specifically held that a canopy over self- <br /> service gasoline pumps is a taxable structure and subject to the tax on real property <br /> pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.01, subd. 1. . <br /> RcL1037o9 <br /> 110125-a6 <br />