Metro 500, Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Park

• Decision Date: 21 September 1973
• Docket Number: No. 43257,43257
• Parties: METRO 500, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK, Respondent.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 358

211 N.W.2d 358

297 Minn. 294

METRO 500, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK, Respondent.

No. 43257.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Sept. 21, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where a municipal ordinance does not specify standards for the denial of a special-use permit, a denial is arbitrary when the use is compatible within the particular zone and would not adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community.

2. When a governing body denies an application for a special-use permit, the factual basis and reasons for the denial must be in some manner recorded contemporaneously with its action.

3. The limitation of the number of one type of business or use within a particular zone does not bear a sufficient relationship to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the community to justify denial of a special-use permit. The number of permissible uses within a zone is to be determined by the operation of economic laws rather than by the collective opinion of a municipal governing body concerning the needs of the community.

O. C. Adamson, II, and J. Richard Bland, Minneapolis, Robert J. Miller, Robbinsdale, for appellant.

Howard, LeFevere, Lefler, Hamilton & Pearson, and Curtis A. Pearson, and J. Dennis O'Brien, Minneapolis, for respondent.

Reconsidered on the record en banc.

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

KELLY, Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action for a mandatory injunction to compel the city of Brooklyn Park to issue a special-use permit for the construction of a gasoline filling station on commercially zoned property. The district court refused to grant the injunction and plaintiff appealed.

The principal issue is whether the municipality acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in the denial of the special-use permit on the basis that the number of filling stations in the area is completely unbalanced with other commercial uses.

Plaintiff, Metro 500, Inc., operates a number of gasoline filling stations throughout the Minneapolis metropolitan area. On August 18, 1969, it contracted to purchase property in Brooklyn Park for the purpose of building another cut-rate gas station. The property is located in the middle of a block on Osseo Road (renamed Brooklyn Boulevard) south of its intersection with Zane Avenue North. At the location of this property, Osseo Road is a heavily traveled, six-lane state highway. The property, which is located in the core of the developing Brooklyn Park downtown area, is zoned for commercial use.

A major brand gasoline station exists on each corner of the nearby Zane Avenue intersection and a total of 8 service stations are located within 7/10 of a mile surrounding the property. Other uses in the immediate vicinity include a car wash, a shopping center, a nightclub, a grocery store, a car dealer, a dental clinic, several apartment buildings, various retail shops, and a number and variety of public eating places or restaurants.

Brooklyn Park requires a special-use permit for utilizing a building or premises as a gasoline station within a commercial zone. ¹ A special-use permit is to be issued under the city's ordinances if the use will be in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zoning code and the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; nor will cause serious traffic hazards; nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values. ² After receiving approval from the Minnesota Highway Department for two curb cuts along Osseo Road, Metro 500 designed a building in conformance with requirements of the building inspector. The exterior style of the building was designed to be compatible with a night-club under construction on the adjacent property. The plans also utilized a house and storage shed which were presently on the property. The existing house was proposed as the general offices of Metro 500 and the shed was to become a warehouse for storing oil to be used at that station. The building inspector recommended approval of the proposed service station.

According to the requisite procedure, Metro 500 then submitted its petition to the special permit committee of the city's planning commission. The committee made no recommendations on the petition. Thereafter, a public hearing was held before the entire planning commission after which the commission recommended approval to the city council. Those voting in opposition to the permit stated that the proposed use was not proper for the area, it would create a bad image for the city, and additional gas stations were not needed on Osseo Road. In a memorandum to the city council, the city manager, after reviewing the commission's recommendation, also questioned the need for an additional gas station. However, no market study on the question had been conducted and the population of the city had increased by 10,000 since 1965 while only one service station had been built since 1966.

A public hearing on Metro 500's permit application was also held before the city council. Metro 500 again indicated its willingness to modify its plans to conform to the city's desires, including the utilization or elimination of any existing structures presently on the property. A petition of 19 area businessmen in opposition to the permit was presented stating that other uses would be more beneficial to the general welfare of the community and pointing out the present vacancies in other stations in the area. No evidence was offered to the council that the proposed station could create noise, light, fire, or public health problems. No testimony was received that the station would increase traffic hazards or affect area property values. On November 24, 1969, the city council adopted a resolution denying Metro 500 a special-use permit. ³ That resolution did not include a finding that an additional filling station in the area would seriously depreciate surrounding property values or that it would cause serious traffic hazards. The main thrust of the resolution was that there were already too many service stations in the area and the subject property should be reserved for some other use. Shortly before Metro 500's petition was denied, one had been granted to the Holiday station although other applications at about the same time had been similarly denied.

Metro 500 thereafter brought this suit. At trial, the three expert witnesses disagreed whether the proposed use would depreciate surrounding property values. A comprehensive plan for future development of Brooklyn Park was admitted over the objection of Metro 500. At the time of the trial, the plan had not been adopted.

We have held that where a zoning ordinance specifies standards for the approval of a special-use permit which an applicant fully complies with, a denial of the permit is arbitrary as a matter of law. Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374, 195 N.W.2d 558 (1972); Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45 (1969). A denial under such circumstances would be improper even though the city council may be the final authority for issuance of permits. Enright v. City of Bloomington, 295 Minn 186, 203 N.W.2d 396 (1973). In Zylka v. City of Crystal, we further observed (283 Minn. 196, 167 N.W.2d 49):

'* * * Where the ordinance does not specify standards, as is usually the case when final authority to determine whether a permit shall be granted is retained by the council, an arbitrary denial may be found by a reviewing court when * * * the requested use is compatible with the basic use authorized within the particular zone and does not endanger the public health or safety or the general welfare of the area affected or the community as a whole.'

In a most recent case, Main Realty, Inc. v. Pagel, Minn., 208 N.W.2d 758, 760 (1973), we stated:

'* * * In recent years a number of cases have articulated the perimeters of municipal authority in granting or denying permits of this kind. In Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 199, 167 N.W.2d 45, 51 (1969), we alluded to 'the danger of permitting the council to deny a special-use permit without contemporaneous findings or reasons and then permit its members after several months of thought to present reasons perhaps totally unrelated to the actual reasons for denying the permit.' Where the requested use is consistent with those authorized by zoning ordinance, the permit may not be denied unless there is a showing that the public health, safety, or welfare is in danger. Twin City Red Barn, Inc. v. City of St. Paul, 291 Minn. 548, 192 N.W.2d 189 (1971). We have held that the failure of the council to record contemporaneously a legally sufficient basis for its determination constitutes a prima facie showing of arbitrariness. Inland Const. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374, 392, 195 N.W.2d 558, 569 (1972).

'We are not impressed by the vague references in the council minutes to the 'health, welfare, and safety for the people of Woodbury' as justification for denying the permit without an articulation by the council of the factual basis and reasons for that determination. Enright v. City of Bloomington, 295 Minn. 186, 190, 203 N.W.2d 396, 399 (1973); Hay v. Township of Grow, Minn., 206 N.W.2d 19 (1973).'

Brooklyn Park Code of Ordinances, § 34.12, subd. 4, does not make the issuance of a special-use permit mandatory upon the meeting of certain standards, but provides only that the council may grant a permit after considering various factors. It reads:

'In considering applications for special permits under this Code, the Village Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety and welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities on adjacent streets, and the effect of values of property in the surrounding area. If it shall...