City of Creve Coeur v. Huddleston, 32438
| Decision Date | 17 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 32438,32438 |
| Citation | 405 S.W.2d 536 |
| Parties | CITY OF CREVE COEUR, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jack K. HUDDLESTON et al., Defendants, Edmund T. Allen et al., Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants, County of St. Louis, Missouri, et al., Intervenors-Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William J. Becker, Clayton, Richard O. Funsch, St. Louis, for appellants.
William H. Wyne, Jr., Wyne & Delworth, Clayton, for plaintiff-respondent.
Donald J. Stohr, County Counselor, Thomas W. Wehrle, Lawrence Bannes, Associate County Counselors, for intervenors-defendants-respondents.
CLEMENS, Commissioner.
The plaintiff City of Creve Coeur, a city of the fourth class in St. Louis County, sought a declaratory judgment under the so-called Sawyers Act (§ 71.015, V.A.M.S.), authorizing it to annex an adjoining 700-acre tract. Approximately a hundred representative residents of the area to be annexed were named as defendants. By leave, St. Louis County intervened as an additional defendant. Appellants Edmund T. Allen and Millstone Construction Company, Inc., hereafter called defendants, also intervened, and they alone appeal from the declaratory judgment authorizing the annexation.
The principal issue raised here is the reasonable necessity of the annexation. A secondary issue is whether the voters of the area to annexed approved the annexation at a 'separate election' by voting at one of the regular polling places within the City. Still another point is whether the annexation proceedings are nullified by an agreement between the City and St. Louis County whereby the County withdrew its opposition to the annexation upon the City's promise to retain the County's zoning regulations then in effect in the area to be annexed.
This annexation project got under way late in 1962, when fifty residents of the area to be annexed petitioned the City's Board of Aldermen for annexation to the City. Thereafter, in February, 1963, the City's Board of Aldermen passed a resolution declaring that the area to be annexed would be a reasonable extension of tis boundaries, asserting that the City could furnish municipal services therein, and authorizing this action for a declaratory judgment. On October 28, 1963, the Board of Aldermen enacted an ordinance calling an election as required by §§ 71.860 through 71.920, V.A.M.S., which had become effective October 13, 1963. The St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners conducted an election on December 3, 1963, and later certified these results:
'Voters of the City of Creve Coeur:
For annexation . . . 163
Against annexation . . . 27
'Voters of the Unincorporated Areas:
For annexation . . . 55
Against annexation . . . 34'
Thereafter, on April 27, 1964, the case went to trial in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Division 9, Honorable George W Cloyd presiding. The case was taken under advisement and on October 19, 1964, the trial court filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entered judgment authorizing the proposed annexation. Upon denial of defendants' after-trial motion, they appealed to the Supreme Court. It found that it was without jurisdiction and transferred the case to this court.
We first note the scope of our appellate review. We must view the case upon both the law and the evidence, weigh the evidence, and render such judgment as the trial court ought to have given. The judgment shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Civil Rule 73.01(d), V.A.M.R.; City of Creve Coeur v. Patterson, Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 739.
On the primary issue of reasonableness we will state the evidence that credibly supports the trial court's findings, and the defendants' evidence in opposition thereto. Plaintiff's evidence came from its officials and from residents of the area to be annexed. Defendants' evidence came from a consulting engineer and from residents of the area to be annexed. Parenthetically, we note that the witnesses were sharply divided on one proposition. Plaintiff's witnesses wanted to keep the existing zoning regulations that were in effect by the ordinances of St. Louis County, which regulations substantially limit future development of the area to be annexed to single-family residences. These witnesses believed that annexation by the City would maintain the status quo. On the other hand, the defendants' witnesses were opposed to the existing zoning limitations and favored a change that would permit the use of their properties for high-rise apartment construction. They believed that annexation by the City would stifle their plans to induce the County to rezone their properties from single- to multiple-family residences.
The City of Creve Coeur is straining at the seams of its six-square-mile area. Therein are numerous public buildings, an 8-acre municipal park, a golf course, a college, and the spacious grounds of the Monsanto Chemical Company. The City's commercial area lies astride Olive Street Road at its northern boundary. Creve Coeur is bounded by other municipalities to the north, east, and south, so it may expand only to the west and southwest, where the 700-acre area to be annexed is located. In the past decade the City's population has grown from 2,000 to 7,000. Its area is used principally for 1,750 single-family residences on lots averaging half an acre in size. In 1962 there were 129 new homes built in the City, and 135 were added in 1963. Although there were still some vacant lots in the City, it could be reasonably anticipated that more than a hundred new homes would be built in the next two years, leaving few homesites and no tracts large enough to be subdivided. From all this we find that the City has shown a reasonably immediate need for extension of its boundaries.
The city government is broadly organized. It functions under a mayor and four aldermen, and also has a municipal judge, a marshall, a collector and a clerk. The City employs an attorney and an engineer. The Board of Aldermen is aided further by a five-member planning and zoning board, a three-member board of architectural conformity, a board of adjustment, a board of police commissioners, and numerous committees. There is a building code, enforced by a committee that supervises the issuance of building permits and the inspection of all construction.
The City is financially affluent. Since 1950 its assessed valuation has risen from two and a half million to twenty-five million dollars, yet its tax rate has remained constant, at 30cents per $100 assessed valuation. In 1963 its expenditures, in round numbers, were $46,000 for streets, $52,000 for police, $43,000 for health and welfare, $16,000 for the city park, $86,000 for building its city hall, and $41,000 for administration. At the end of that year there was a cash balance of $114,000, and no bonded indebtedness.
The City's services are performed by sixteen full-time employees. There are eight police officers, most with professional training, and all are deputy sheriffs of St. Louis County. At least two of them are on duty around the clock. Four employees are engaged in the maintenance of public and private streets and the tri-weekly disposal of trash and garbage. Four clerical employees staff the City's offices.
Municipal facilities of the City include a new city hall housing the police headquarters, the jail, and administrative offices. There are four fully equipped police cars, three trucks, two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Town and Country v. St. Louis County
...opposed annexation in the trial court: Witt v. City of Webster Groves, 398 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.App.1965); City of Creve Coeur v. Huddleston, 405 S.W.2d 536 (Mo.App.1966); City of Creve Coeur v. Brame, 446 S.W.2d 173 (Mo.App.1969); Hudson Community Ass'n v. City of Ferguson, 456 S.W.2d 581 (Mo.App......
-
City of Ash Grove v. Davis
...issues as to those statutory prerequisites (City of St. Peters v. Kuester, Mo.App., 402 S.W.2d 70, 75(5); City of Creve Coeur v. Huddleston, Mo.App., 405 S.W.2d 536, 539--540(2)), which 'merely means that if there is substantial evidence both ways, then the legislative conclusion (of the bo......
-
City of Salisbury v. Nagel
...to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Civil Rule 73.01(d), V.A.M.R.; City of Creve Coeur v. Huddleston et al., Mo.App., 405 S.W.2d 536. As their first point defendants contend the trial court erred by including in its findings the following recital......
-
City of Joplin v. Village of Shoal Creek Drive
...There is nothing before us on this point. City of Cape Girardeau v. Armstrong, Mo.App., 417 S.W.2d 661, 673(1); City of Creve Coeur v. Huddleston, Mo.App., 405 S.W.2d 536, 540(5). For the reasons indicated, the judgment is STONE and TITUS, JJ., concur. 1 All references to statutes and rules......