06-05-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

KENNEDY & GRAVEN ! CHARTERED • Attorneys at Law 470 Pillsbury Center,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 BERT A.A(SOP (612)337-9300 THOMSON •IcEM.BATTERSON and CORRIN.H. JAMES J.THOMSONMSON.,,1AR . RONALD 11.BATTY 700 Commerce Building,8 East Fourth Street LARRY M.WERTHEIM STEPHEN J.BIIBUL Saint Paul,Minnesota 55101 BONNIE L.WILKINS JOAN B.DEAN (612)225-4938 JOE Y.YANG DANIELJ.GREENSWEIG DAVID J.KENNEDY Facsimile(612)337-9310 DAVID L.GRAVEN(1929-1991) CHARLES L.LEFEVERE JOHN M.LEFEVRE,JR. OF COUNSEL ROBERT J.LINDALL WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL ROBERT C.CARLSON ROBERT C.LONG ROBERT L.DAVIDSON JAMES M.STROMMEN 337-9202 WELLINGTON H.LAW FLOYD B.OLSON CURTIS A.PEARSON T.JAY SALMEN April 25, 1996 Joyce Pruitt Interim Community Development Director City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 RE: Proposed Planning Commission Resolution and Findings in Planning Case File No. 438-96 and Court Cases Holding that a Gas Pump Canopy is a Structure Under Zoning Law and Tax Law • Dear Joyce: Please find enclosed a proposed resolution for the Planning Commission setting forth findings made at its April 17, 1996 hearing on the variance request in Planning Case No. 438-96. This resolution and these findings should be adopted at the Planning Commission meeting on May 1, 1996. In addition, I am attaching copies of two Minnesota court cases which clearly state that a gas pump canopy, like the one being considered in the present case, is a structure or building within the meaning of zoning code language similar to that of Mounds View's Zoning Code and under state tax law and subject to the tax on real property under the tax law. See, Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Maple Grove, 191 WL 115114 (Minn. App. 1991)(unpublished opinion) and Crown Coco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 336 N.W.2d 272 (Minn. 1983) (cases attached). In the Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Maple Grove case, the Maple Grove Zoning Code's definition of "building" is exactly the same as the definition of "building" under Chapter 1102.02, subd. 11 of the Mounds View Zoning Code. The fact that the Court of Appeals found that the gas pump canopy was a building under the Maple Grove Zoning Code with the exact same language as that present in the Mounds View Zoning Code is a clear legal interpretation that the gas pump canopy proposed in this case would be considered a building or a structure under the Mounds View Zoning Code. In the Crown Coco, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue case, the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted the "functionality" test and specifically held that a canopy over self- service gasoline pumps is a taxable structure and subject to the tax on real property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.01, subd. 1. RCL103709 MU125-46