Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington

• Decision Date: 03 March 1972
• Docket Number: No. 42883,42883
• Parties: INLAND CONSTRUCTION CO. et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 558

195 N.W.2d 558

292 Minn. 374

INLAND CONSTRUCTION CO. et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, Respondent.

No. 42883.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

March 3, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A shopping center is compatible with zoning for a retail business district where its use of the land is no different from that permitted by the zoning. Thus, any permit required for a shopping center would be for a special use rather than a variance.

2. The burden of proof required to obtain a special-use permit is much lighter than that required to obtain a variance permit.

3. The applicant for a special-use permit is entitled to the permit where the standards specified in the zoning ordinance are met.

4. Where an applicant for a conditional-use permit for a shopping center on land zoned for use as a retail business district sustained the burden of proof that all standards required by the zoning ordinance had been met, the city council's action in denying the permit was arbitrary.

5. The trial court erred in sustaining the city council's denial of a conditional-use permit for a shopping center where the court based its findings on reasons not articulated by the city council.

Larkin, Hoffman, Daly, Lindgren & Danielson and Robert J. Hennessey, Minneapolis, for appellants.

Adrian Herbst, City Atty., Edward Tischleder, Asst. City Atty., Bloomington, for respondent.

Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and ROGOSHESKE, PETERSON, KELLY, and ROLLOFF, JJ.

OPINION

KELLY, Justice.

Plaintiffs-appellants, Inland Construction Company and Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company, brought this action seeking either to compel the city of Bloomington to issue a permit allowing Inland to construct a shopping center or to obtain a judicial determination that Inland can construct the center without such permit. The district court vacated a previously issued writ of mandamus and denied all relief except for its determination that Inland was entitled to a permit for construction of a 'neighborhood' shopping center as opposed to a 'regional' or 'community' shopping center. Plaintiffs appeal from denial of their motion for a new trial. We reverse.

In July 1964, plaintiff Marvin Anderson Construction Company (hereinafter Anderson) acquired a 300-acre tract within the city of Bloomington for development purposes. A 20-acre portion of that tract at the intersection of 98th Street and Normandale Boulevard was rezoned on March 1, 1965, as a retail business district under the Bloomington Zoning Ordinance. In 1969, Inland acquired this 20-acre tract (the subject property) from Anderson. Desiring to build a shopping center, Inland then applied for a conditional-use permit. During all times pertinent to this case, Bloomington Zoning Ordinance, § 7.07, titled Retail Business Districts (B--2), was in effect. Section 7.07 I sets forth the purpose of these districts as follows:

'* * * To provide for an encourage compact centers for retail sales and services by grouping businesses in patterns of workable relationships; to minimize the blighting influence on surrounding residential neighborhoods by limitation and control of uses permitted; to exclude highway-oriented and other businesses that would tend to disrupt the shopping center or its circulation patterns, or tend to disturb neighborhood stability.'

Section 7.07 A.1, sets forth the permitted uses as follows:

'Retail shopping uses--stores and shops selling household goods over a counter or selling personal services. Included are stores selling antiques, art and school supplies, auto accessories, bakery goods, bicycles, building materials that are within completely enclosed buildings, candy, camera and photographic supplies, carpets and rugs, china and glassware, clothing and costumes, dry goods, foods, electric and household appliances, furniture, fur goods, garden supplies (year-around operation only), hardware, hobby supplies, jewelry, leather goods and luggage, motor vehicle and boat sales that are within a completely enclosed building, musical instruments, office supplies, paint and wallpaper, phonograph records, shoes, sporting goods, tobacco goods, and toys.

'Included are the following personal services: Barber shops, beauty shops, laundries and dry cleaning, photography studios, picture framing, eating and catering establishments, locksmith shops and repair incidental to sale of goods listed above.'

Under B--2 zoning, certain uses are allowed if the owner acquires a 'conditional use permit.' The Zoning Ordinance, § 11.01 B, defines 'conditional use' as follows:

'A conditional use is a use which is generally not suitable in a particular zoning district but which may, under some circumstances and with the application of certain conditions, be suitable.'

For a property owner to obtain a conditional-use permit, the city council must find that certain standards are met, only two of which are of any consequence in this case:

'1. The proposed use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.

'2. Adjacent residentially zoned land will not be adversely affected because of traffic generation, noise, glare or other nuisance characteristics.' Id. § 11.13 B.1, 2.

'Planned developments' are conditional uses and are defined in part as:

'A tract of land which is developed as a unit under single or unified ownership or control and which includes two or more principal buildings.' Id. § 13.37.

On April 22, 1969, the Bloomington City Council added to the list of conditional uses '(s)hopping centers.' Id. § 7.07 C.23. A 'shopping center' is defined as:

'A planned business development that:

'1. Contains a number of retail business uses, including at least a grocery store, a drug store, and specialty stores.

'2. Contains a number of services, such as a barber shop, beauty shop, laundry and dry cleaning depots;

'3. Serves day-to-day needs of the immediate neighborhood;

'4. Serves the general public;

'5. Is open to occupancy by competitive uses.' Id. § 13.40.

The 'conditional use' defined in the ordinance is more commonly referred to as a 'special use permit.' In this case the zoning ordinance permits retail stores without any restriction on the land in question and then requires a conditional-use permit for a shopping center on the theory that it 'is a use which is generally not suitable.' Zoning Ordinance, § 11.01 B. Rather obviously, a shopping center is suitable in a retail business district. It is a compatible use because the use of the land for a shopping center is no different than the retail uses permitted for that particular zone. It would be anomalous if Inland had the burden to prove that its shopping center was 'suitable' when the city allows landowners to establish retail stores as a matter of right. By zoning the land for retail stores, the city stated that it is desirable to have such stores in that particular location. Likewise, a shopping center is suitable for the location. The city's definition of a shopping center as a conditional use--i.e., a use which generally is not suitable--when applied to an area zoned for retail businesses is not the definition normally used. The following description is more apt and better fits the facts in the instant case:

'* * * (Special use permits) are designed to meet the problem which arises where certain uses, although generally compatible with the basic use classification of a particular zone, should not be permitted to be located as a matter of right in every area included within the zone because of hazards inherent in the use itself or special problems which its proposed location may present.' Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 195, 167 N.W.2d 45, 48 (1969).

We have noted that there is considerable authority for the proposition that the city should set forth specific standards to apply to applications for special-use permits and that a denial of the permit is arbitrary and illegal when these standards are met. ¹ In the instant case, once the standards set forth in the applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance are complied with, construction of a shopping center should be preferred over the establishment of retail stores which do not require any permit unless they are part of a 'planned development' or shopping center. We need only look at the purpose clause of the provisions relating to retail business districts, § 7.07 I, to realize that a shopping center that meets all the standards for a conditional or special-use permit should actually be preferred to a retail business district which might grow without planning and without meeting those standards.

The purpose clause previously set forth indicates that zoning for retail business districts was '(t)o provide for and encourage compact centers for retail sales and services by grouping businesses in patterns of workable relationships.' Obviously, this purpose would be better accomplished by a shopping center than the establishment of retail stores on a helter-skelter basis without the planning which would normally be expected in a shopping center. It is clear that Inland could have used all the land in question for retail purposes without obtaining any permit for a conditional use if the tract did not become a 'planned development' or a 'shopping center.' Thus, Inland could have sold off various parcels of land for retail business use and the ultimate result might have been a hodge-podge of stores that would not come close to the articulated purposes for this particular zoning and would not meet the standards the city should impose for issuance of a conditional-use permit for a planned development or shopping center. We conclude then that any shopping center proposed in an area zoned for retail business would be generally suitable and compatible in that area under the Zoning Ordinance of the city and that a landowner intending to construct a shopping center in a retail business district does not have the burden of proving suitability or compatibility. This does not mean that any...