Beck v. City of St. Paul

• Decision Date: 03 July 1975
• Docket Number: 45465 and 45466,Nos. 45442,s. 45442
• Parties: Joseph BECK, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, Appellant, The Stuart Corporation, Appellant-Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 919

231 N.W.2d 919

304 Minn. 438

Joseph BECK, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, Appellant, The Stuart Corporation, Appellant-Respondent.

Nos. 45442, 45465 and 45466.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 3, 1975.

Syllabus by the Court

1. St. Paul Ordinance No. 15521 was validly initiated by the St. Paul City Council pursuant to Minn.St. 462.357, subd. 4.

2. In cities of the first class, Minn.St. 462.357, subd. 5, requires consents to a proposed rezoning to be obtained from the owners of two-thirds of the lots in an area encompassing both the area to be rezoned and the area within 100 feet of perimeter of the area to be rezoned.

3. St. Paul Ordinance No. 15521 bore a substantial relation to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the city, and the action of the city council in adopting it was not arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or unreasonable.

Pierre N. Regnier, City Atty., St. Paul, for appellant city.

Stacker & Ravich and R. J. Tansey, Jr., St. Paul, Robins, Davis & Lyons and Solly Robins, St. Paul, for Stuart Corp.

Firestone, Fink, Krawetz, Miley & Maas, James P. Miley, and William W. Fink, St. Paul, for respondents.

Considered and decided by the court en banc.

PETERSON, Justice.

These appeals present questions of importance in the law of municipal zoning. The city of St. Paul adopted an ordinance amending its zoning plan. Certain affected citizens challenged the validity of the zoning amendment. The trial court, ruling the new zoning ordinance invalid, enjoined any development of the area in issue that was inconsistent with the former zoning classification.

The property affected by the challenged zoning amendment (hereinafter the 'subject area') is an 8-block area on the southwest edge of the city of St. Paul. The subject area contains approximately 33 1/2 acres and is generally bounded by Benson Avenue on the north, Rankin Street on the east, Youngman Avenue on the south, and Alton Street on the west. Until December 1973 the subject area was zoned 'B Residential.' A 'B Residential' district permits the construction of single-family residences, double bungalows, and duplexes.

There are approximately 256 40- by 120-foot lots in the subject area, most of which are vacant. There are only 72 houses containing 79 residence units in the area. Some of the streets in the area are not improved, and there are serious sewer and water problems. Outside of the perimeter of the 8-block area there has been commercial development, industrial development, and apartment use; the predominant zoning classifications adjacent to the subject area are 'C Residential,' 'Commercial,' and 'Industrial.' The subject area is surrounded by well-traveled roads and streets.

The plaintiffs in this suit are all landowners within the subject area. The defendants are the city of St. Paul (hereinafter the city) and The Stuart Corporation, a Minnesota corporation owned by Stuart H. Nolan. The Stuart Corporation has acted, at all times herein, on behalf of and as an agent for Shepard Park, a partnership consisting of Nolan and three others. Shepard Park has proposed a 32 million dollar development within the subject area. At the time of trial, the partnership owned, or was obligated to purchase pursuant to executory contracts, more than 80 percent of the land within the subject area.

A rezoning amendment was formally proposed in August 1973. The proposed amendment rezoned the subject area from 'B Residential' to 'C Residential' and 'Commercial' for the purpose of constructing multiple dwelling units, office buildings, and a recreational center.

The matter was submitted to the board of zoning, and public hearings on the proposal were held for 3 days. The minutes of these public hearings indicate that the views of both proponents and opponents of the rezoning were considered at great length.

On October 18, 1973, the board of zoning unanimously recommended to the planning commission that the proposed rezoning be approved. The planning commission thereafter held public hearings concerning the proposed rezoning. Again, both proponents and opponents of the proposed rezoning were heard, and the planning commission minutes indicate that the commission took into consideration various reports. On November 8, 1973, the planning commission unanimously recommended to the city council that the proposed amendment to the zoning code be adopted.

Roger Ryan, acting head of the planning department of the city of St. Paul, testified that his department had made an 'in depth study' of the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance and, as a result of that study, the planning department favored approval of the amendment. Ryan testified that the factors taken into consideration in deciding upon the recommendation included the comprehensive city zoning plan developed in 1963, the existing land uses within the subject area, the land uses of the surrounding area, street capabilities in the area, the existence of commercial developments in the area adequate to service the proposed development, and the trend of land usage in the area.

On November 20, 1973, the city council held a public hearing to consider the proposed rezoning. Written notice of the council hearing was sent to all persons living within the subject area. Further, the city clerk had published notice of the public hearing in the St. Paul Legal Ledger on November 10, 1973. The council heard both proponents and opponents of the proposed rezoning, including a spokesman for plaintiffs. ¹ After three readings, Ordinance No. 15521, rezoning the subject area, was adopted by the council on December 19, 1973.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit to have the rezoning amendment declared void, and the trial court found that the ordinance was invalid. Post-trial motions by the city and The Stuart Corporation were denied and each defendant appealed.

1. Plaintiffs contend that the initiation of the rezoning amendment was not carried out pursuant to law. As a result, it is argued, the council was without authority to enact the ordinance, and the ordinance is invalid.

The relevant facts are as follows: In June 1973 The Stuart Corporation made formal application for the zoning amendment. This petition was filed by The Stuart Corporation as a property owner affected by the proposed zoning. The Stuart Corporation soon recognized that there were procedural difficulties with its petition for rezoning. Specifically, the St. Paul Legislative Code allows for affected property owners to petition for a rezoning if they own 50 percent or more of the frontage on any street in the area to be rezoned. ² On the date of petition, however, The Stuart Corporation owned no property within the subject area. As a result, The Stuart Corporation withdrew its request for a rezoning.

Minn.St. 462,357, subd. 4, provides, however, that '(a)n amendment to a zoning ordinance may be initiated by the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance.' See, also, St. Paul Legislative Code, § 64.06.

On this basis, the city attorney advised the city council that the zoning amendment could be initiated by the city council itself. The council subsequently passed a resolution on August 23, 1973, intended to formally initiate the zoning amendment. ³

On the basis of these facts, defendants claim that the rezoning was validly initiated by the city council. Plaintiffs, however, argue that the rezoning was initiated by The Stuart Corporation in fact, regardless of the subsequent formalities, and was invalid under the St. Paul Legislative Code. They contend that the only continuing thrust for rezoning came from The Stuart Corporation. Since there was nothing to indicate that the rezoning would have occurred if the corporate application had not been made, the trial court concluded that The Stuart Corporation had, in fact, initiated the rezoning.

We think that conclusion is unwarranted, for it is contrary to the expressed intent of both The Stuart Corporation and the city council itself. The Stuart Corporation specifically withdrew its petition; the city council subsequently passed a resolution to formally initiate the rezoning consideration. To allow a prior private petition to negate a subsequent official city resolution would be to circumvent the clear language and intent of the controlling statutes. Minn.St. 462.357, subd. 4, should logically be read to refer to a formal initiation process. Notwithstanding the previously expressed desires of The Stuart Corporation, the city council's action was clearly sufficient to accomplish the purpose of that statute.

2. Plaintiffs also assert that the St. Paul City Council lacked jurisdiction to enact the zoning amendment. ⁴ This objection is based on the claim that the requisite number of affected property owners had not filed their consents to the proposed rezoning before the city council acted on it.

Minn.St. 462.357, subd. 5, requires that in a city of the first class, a zoning ordinance can be amended 'only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate' desired to be rezoned.

We do not question that under the language of Minn.St. 462.357 consents ordinarily are required even for council-initiated zoning amendments. ⁵ To make an exception to this statutory scheme for council-initiated amendments would allow circumvention that would vitiate the consent requirement altogether. If such an exception existed, a property owner unable to obtain the necessary consents could ask a simple majority of the city council to first initiate and then pass a rezoning ordinance. Two recent decisions of this court intimate an awareness of this possibility: O'Brien v. City of St. Paul, 285 Minn. 378, 173 N.W.2d 462 (1969), and ...