City of Phoenix v. Collins
Decision Date | 25 July 1974 |
Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
Citation | 22 Ariz.App. 145,524 P.2d 1318 |
Parties | CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. Frank F. COLLINS, Appellee. 2409. |
Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
We must determine in this appeal whether the City Council for the City of Phoenix was legally correct in refusing to approve Frank F. Collins' application for a rezoning of his property. Collins is the owner of a tract of land located at the corner of 19th Avenue and Greenway in the City of Phoenix. Collins went before the Phoenix City Council with a request that this property be rezoned from its present Residential RE--35 zoning to a Commercial, C--1 zoning classification. The City Council denied his application and thereafter Collins filed suit in the Superior Court of Maricopa County. After a trial to the court a judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff Collins wherein the trial court stated:
The City now appeals this judgment alleging it was error for the trial court to overrule the zoning decision made by the City Council.
The City contends that there is a presumption favoring the validity of an ordinance and that the courts must uphold the zoning classification unless it is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable and without any substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.
Collins contends the evidence in this case overcomes any presumption and clearly supports the trial court's decision.
Collins owns two lots containing 2.2 acres of land located on the northwest corner of Greenway Road and 19th Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona. The lots are a part of the Sierra Prieta Estates and were specifically exempted from the subdivision restrictions so they could be developed for commercial purposes. At the trial there was no opposition from any of the neighboring landowners to Collins' application for a change in the zoning classification. Collins presented testimony that the property was worth approximately $18,000.00 under the present Residential Zoning Classification but the property would have a potential value of $140,000.00 if rezoned Commercial. Collins called two real estate experts who testified that the heavy traffic on 19th Avenue, together with the shallow depth of the two lots fronting on 19th Avenue made the land undesirable for residential use. The evidence was uncontradicted that 19th Avenue was a major arterial street with some commercial development in the area. In the general neighborhood surrounding the property there was a race track (Turf Paradise), a rock and gravel plant, a mobile home park, a landfill (City plans to develop it later into a golf course), a horse corral and hay barn operation and a maintenance yard of the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
The City called one witness from the City Planning and Zoning Department, who testified that the proposed zoning change was premature and did not fit in with the City's present zoning plans.
In Arizona's first zoning case, City of Tucson v. Arizona Mortuary, 34 Ariz. 495, 272 P. 923 (1928), our Supreme Court held that before a general zoning ordinance can be declared unconstitutional '. . . it (must) affirmatively appear the restriction is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, and has not any substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.' 34 Ariz. at 507, 272 P. at 927. The Court further stated: '(I)f the value of the property rights destroyed is so great, as compared with the benefit done, that it clearly appears the ordinance is arbitrary and unreasonable, the courts will interfere, but if...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley
...Ariz. 575, 435 P.2d 472 (1967); Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., 86 Ariz. 379, 346 P.2d 1101 (1959); City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App. 145, 524 P.2d 1318 (1974); City of Phoenix v. Beall, 22 Ariz.App. 141, 524 P.2d 1314 (1974); City of Phoenix v. Price, 18 Ariz.App. 144, 500......
-
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 1
...the party asserting invalidity to clearly and affirmatively demonstrate that the ordinance is unconstitutional. City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App. 145, 524 P.2d 1318 (1974). Corrigan has not submitted a plan for development of her property under the ordinance. In Agins v. City of Tibu......
-
City of Tempe v. Rasor
...Ariz. 575, 435 P.2d 472 (1967); Hart v. Bayless Investment & Trading Co., 86 Ariz. 379, 346 P.2d 1101 (1959); City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App. 145, 524 P.2d 1318 (1974); City of Phoenix v. Beall, 22 Ariz.App. 141, 524 P.2d 1314 (1974); City of Phoenix v. Price, 18 Ariz.App. 144, 500......
- City of Phoenix v. Beall, 1
-
10.3. STANDARDS OF REVIEW OF ZONING ORDINANCES.
...536 P.2d 239 (1975) Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. City of Tucson, 23 Ariz.App. 385, 533 P.2d 693 (1975) City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App. 145, 524 P.2d 1318 (1974) City of Phoenix v. Beall, 22 Ariz.App. 141, 524 P.2d 1314 (1974) City of Phoenix v. Price, 18 Ariz.App. 144, 500 P.2d 1......
-
10.1. VALIDITY OF ZONING REGULATIONS.
...in part, Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 149 Ariz. 538, 720 P.2d 513, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 986 (1986) City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App. 145, 524 P.2d 1318 (1974) City of Phoenix v. Burke, 9 Ariz.App. 395, 452 P.2d 722 (1969), overruled in part, City of Phoenix v. Beall, 22 Ariz.App......
-
Appendix A Table of Authorities
...9 Ariz.App. 395, 452 P.2d 722 (1969)............................................... 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, 10-41City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App. 145, 524 P.2d 1318 (1974)................................. 1-2, 10-4, 10-6, 10-40, 10-41City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 363 P.2d 607 (......
-
APPENDIX A: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
...395, 452 P.2d 722 (1969)..........................................................10-5, 10-6, 10-7, 10-47 City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz.App. 145, 524 P.2d 1318 (1974)...........................................1-2, 10-5, 10-7, 10-47, 10-48 City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 363 P......