State ex rel. Weinhardt v. Ladue Professional Bldg., Inc.
Decision Date | 21 September 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 31991,31991 |
Citation | 395 S.W.2d 316 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. Edward P. WEINHARDT and Florence A. Weinhardt, Petitioners-Appellants, v. LADUE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, INC., a Corporation, and Jules Q. Strong, S. R. Kinsella, George Engelsmann, Jr., Creighton B. Calfee and Harry G. Giessow, constituting the Board of Adjustment of the City of Ladue, Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
F. Wm. McCalpin, Lewis, Rice, Tucker, Allen & Chubb, St. Louis, for petitioners-appellants.
Edward D. Weakley, Boyle, Priest, Elliott & Weakley, St. Louis, for respondents.
John H. Cunningham, Jr., St. Louis, amicus curiae, City of Ladue.
This case concerns a parking problem. The relators Edward P. and Florence A. Weinhardt seek to bar the respondent Ladue Professional Building, Inc., from erecting a medical office building on its vacant lot which adjoins theirs in the City of Ladue. Initially, the City's Building Commissioner declined a building permit because the building company had not provided enough off-street parking spaces. The building company appealed, and the City's Board of Zoning Adjustment reversed the commissioner's denial, and the permit was granted. Relators Weinhardt then brought certiorari proceedings. On review, the Circuit Court considered the Board's return, heard further evidence, and affirmed the Board's order granting the building permit. The Weinhardts' appeal to this court followed.
The issues raised here are these: Whether the evidence before the Board warranted it in granting the permit, either on the ground of compliance or hardship; the propriety of admitting new evidence in the Circuit Court; and the force of evidence that the Board heard unsworn testimony.
The lands under consideration here are three adjacent tracts lying between Clayton Road on the south and Conway Road on the north. The roads intersect at a sharp angle. At the eastern point is a tract owned by the Socony Mobil Oil Co. and leased to Robert French who operated a service station there. To the west of the service station is the proposed office building site of the respondent Ladue Professional Building, Inc. To the west of that is the land of the realtors Weinhardt on which they have a two-story building which houses their catering business and living quarters.
Section 7 of the City's zoning ordinance requires that in this area an office building shall afford off-street parking space for one motor vehicle '* * * for each two hundred (200) square feet of floor space in the building * * *', and that such parking space '* * * shall be provided either on the lot or within three hundred (300) feet thereof * * *.' It seems that in the past the City's Building Commissioner had granted permits for commercial buildings where the number of required parking spaces was computed on the amount of rentable floor space in the building rather than on the amount of gross floor space. Accordingly, the respondents' architects drew plans for the office building with a parking area for 42 cars. Using the rentable floor space as a basis for the computation, this would have been enough. However, using the gross floor space as a basis, there would have to be at least eight more parking spaces. After the building commissioner denied the permit, the respondent building company made arrangements with the lessee of the adjoining service station to rent parking space on his lot to park twelve additional cars, thus affording off-street parking for 54 cars.
With the problem in this posture, the respondent building company appealed to the City's Board of Zoning Adjustment. It claimed error in denial of the permit on the ground of inadequate parking space. Alternatively, it claimed that the denial of the permit on this ground imposed unusual difficulties and a particular hardship. This on the basis of Sec. 89.090, Subd. 1(3), V.A.M.S., and Sec. 15(7) of the City's zoning ordinance which empower the Board to grant a variance in such cases. The Board gave proper notice of a hearing on the respondents' appeal. In its subsequent return to the writ of certiorari, the Board included the duly certified minutes of its meeting at which the appeal was considered.
Because it was the Board's return that was the proper subject of the review in the Circuit Court, we must refer to and quote from it rather fully: Among those present at the hearing were Messrs. Strong, chairman, and Kinsella, Engelsmann, Calfee and Giessow, members of the Board, and the City's building commissioner Farrar and building inspector Bockhorst. Also present were the building company's architects and its attorney, Mr. Edward D. Weakley, and the respondents Weinhardt. Chairman Strong announced that the purpose of the hearing was the building company's appeal from the denial of its permit because of the minimum parking space requirements. The rest of the return is set out in full:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hart v. Board of Adjustment of City of Marshall, WD
... ... Missouri State Board of Mediation, 549 S.W.2d 665 (Mo.App.1977) ... In State ex rel. Gardner v. Hall, 282 Mo. 425, 221 S.W. 708 (banc ... State v. Ladue Professional Building, Inc., 395 S.W.2d 316 ... Weinhardt now claim that witnesses who appeared before the ... ...
-
State ex rel. Monsey-Feager/Rouse-Waites v. McGuire
...385 S.W.2d 820 (Mo.App.1964); State ex rel. Huskey v. Eversole, 117 S.W.2d 654 (Mo.App.1944); State ex rel. Weinhardt v. Ladue Professional Building, Inc., 395 S.W.2d 316 (Mo.App.1965); State ex rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Neaf, 346 Mo. 86, 139 S.W.2d 958 ...
-
State v. Public Service Com'n
...considers only questions of law that appear on the face of the record. Nance, 961 S.W.2d at 93; State ex rel. Weinhardt v. Ladue Professional Building, Inc., 395 S.W.2d 316, 321 (Mo.App. 1965). As for the record on review, "`[c]ertiorari' ... is a writ `directing a lower court to deliver th......
-
State ex rel. Rhodes v. City of Springfield
...the taking of "additional evidence" in the circuit court, quoted with approval the following language from State v. Ladue Professional Building, Inc., 395 S.W.2d 316 (Mo.App.1965): "We do not think this was meant to change the nature of the hearing from one of review to one de novo on the m......