Enright v. City of Bloomington

• Decision Date: 05 January 1973
• Docket Number: No. 43193,43193
• Citation: 203 N.W.2d 396,295 Minn. 186
• Parties: Bernard A. ENRIGHT, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 396

203 N.W.2d 396

295 Minn. 186

Bernard A. ENRIGHT, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Appellant.

No. 43193.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 5, 1973.

Adrian E. Herbst, City Atty., Edward C. Tischleder and Gary Gandrud, Asst. City Attys., Bloomington, for appellant.

Kempf & Ticen, Bloomington, for respondents.

Reconsidered on the record en banc.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and OTIS, ROGOSHESKE, and PETERSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs brought this mandamus action to compel the city of Bloomington to grant them a conditional-use permit to construct a gasoline service station on their property in an area zoned for industrial use. The district court granted mandamus and this appeal followed. We affirm.

Plaintiffs' property borders on the east side of Lyndale Avenue South between 78th and 79th Streets in Bloomington. This is in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Lyndale Avenue and Interstate Highway No. 494. The area is now zoned industrial. Plaintiffs have their home on the property and, in addition, an 11-unit motel and a 48-unit trailer court. This use antedated adoption of the zoning ordinance and is therefore a permissible nonconforming use. ¹

The Bloomington zoning ordinance provides a procedure whereby one owning property in an industrial zone may obtain a conditional- or special-use permit to construct a service station provided certain conditions or standards are met. Bloomington City Code, § 11.13 C. The city council is the final authority as to whether or not a conditional-use permit will be granted; but if the party seeking the permit meets all the standards prescribed in the ordinance, the council has no discretion to deny the permit. Its refusal to grant the permit in such circumstances is arbitrary as a matter of law, and mandamus will lie to compel the council to grant the permit. See, Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45 (1969). The issue is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the council's denial of the permit was arbitrary as a matter of law.

Pursuant to established administrative procedures, the city traffic engineer, Mr. Lyle Berg, investigated plaintiffs' proposed use and reported his reservations to the planning department. His main objection was not that the proposed service station would generate increased traffic volume--indeed, he felt that it would not--but that drivers leaving the station would constitute a traffic hazard because of the proximity of the station to the freeway Entrance, a hazard which would not be present if the station were close to a freeway Exit, as is the case with two service stations across the street, on Lyndale Avenue, from plaintiffs' property. It was Berg's opinion that an industrial use of the property would not create as great a hazard because employees of an industrial establishment would become familiar with the driving hazards and therefore be more careful than the more occasional customer of a gasoline service station.

The city planner, Mr. Robert Webster, thereafter made an independent investigation of the proposed use for the planning department. He concluded that the only real difference between plaintiffs' property and other property on which the city had permitted construction of service stations was that plaintiffs' property was not a separate parcel but was part of a larger parcel which involved nonconforming uses. He thought it improper to permit a service station to be built in among the trailers and motel units and that, with the service station situated where plaintiffs wanted it, it would be difficult to later develop the remainder of plaintiffs' property for industrial uses. Webster's recommendation was that as long as plaintiffs used their property for a nonconforming use, the planning commission should deny any of plaintiffs' applications for conditional-use permits for any part of the property. According to Webster, the objective of denying the permit in this case should be to hasten the discontinuance of the nonconforming use on plaintiffs' property. He would not have objected to plaintiffs' proposed use if the plans had included elimination of the nonconforming use.

The city planning department, based upon the Berg and Webster investigations, made a written report to the planning commission in which it stated:

'Staff cannot recommend approval of this application for a conditional use permit for a service station at this location. It would have the effect of creating the type of congestion which should be eliminated, rather than created, at this location.

'Existing use of the land as a trailer park and motel in the I--3 zoning district is a non-conforming use and until such time as the non-conforming use is eliminated and the total plan for the property approved, no use permit should be considered for any type of retail use which would add to the current traffic problems on Lyndale Avenue.

'Approval of the subdivision and the conditional use permit for the service station would eliminate any rights the property maintains as a non-conforming use. Applicant should be advised that the subdivision and the use permit cannot be considered unless he is prepared to remove all types of residential development from this site.'

The city planning commission, ² which received this report, held a final public hearing, at which plaintiffs were represented by counsel, on November 14, 1968. ³ After discussion this advisory commission unanimously adopted a motion recommending to the city council that it deny the permit. It made this recommendation for the stated reason that it could not make three of the findings required by the ordinance as a condition to granting the permit. It found, to the contrary, that (1) the development proposed would have an adverse effect on existing and future development, (2) the proposed use would not provide an economic return to the community commensurate with other industrial uses, and (3) the access to the property is not off an interior industrial street and the traffic generated would interfere with the normal patterns of circulation. In addition, the commission offered a fourth reason, one not mentioned in the enumeration of conditions in the ordinance, namely, that the continuation of a nonconforming use should not be encouraged by the addition of another use.

The city council conducted a public hearing on January 6, 1969, at which plaintiffs were represented by counsel. The council, by a vote of 4 to 2, with 1 abstention, accepted the planning commission's...