Court Opinion

ID: 9532057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:17:30.325334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:39.691922
License: Public Domain

Kelly, Justice
(dissenting).
The trial judge found that the denial by the village of the application to change the zoning classification of the subject property from limited business to general business denied plaintiff the equal protection of the laws and is discriminatory, unreasonable, capricious, arbitrary, and void. There is ample evidence to support that finding.
The subject property was originally (1954) zoned commercial and an automobile service station was permitted on the/property upon issuance of a permit. In 1960, the village published a comprehensive plan after an extensive study by professional planners. That plan designated the subject property and surrounding land on both sides of 36th Avenue North for development of a major shopping center. Then in June of 1960, the village enacted Ordinance No. 60-19 zoning the 200 feet by 200 feet parcels on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of County Road 18 and 36th Avenue North as limited business (LB). The purpose of this zoning was to advise the public that the vacant land near that intersection would be used commercially as stated in the published comprehensive plan but the exact extent of the commercial use could not be determined until the highway plans for the intersection were completed. In 1963, the village zoned the 6.25 acres including the subject property as limited business (LB). At that time the county plans for the intersection provided for an overpass with no access to County Road 18 from 36th Avenue North and no access to 36th Avenue North from County Road 18. But subsequent to that ordinance, the county changed its planning and adopted plans for a diamond interchange instead.
*339In November 1966, the owner of about 4 acres of vacant land directly across the street from the subject property applied for and received a rezoning of his property from LB and single family residence (SR) to retail business (RB) including a special-use permit for a service station on about 1 acre. That owner proposed that the other 3 acres be used as a shopping center.
The following findings by the trial court illustrate that there was a substantial change in conditions since the property at that intersection was zoned LB. More importantly, the village recognized that change and acted on it for the benefit of the owner of the 4-acre tract directly across the street from the subject property.
“16. The basis upon which the Village Council approved said application for a service station and shopping center was that conditions had changed since the property was zoned LB and SR in that at the time of the rezoning application, the plans for the intersection of County Road 18 and 36th Avenue North were changed and provided for a diamond interchange. The New Hope Staff Report submitted to the Village Council in support of the rezoning application stated, in part, as follows:
“ ‘The property involved is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 36th Avenue and County Road 18. Until recently there was a question as to the type of interchange between these thoroughfares, if any, and in fact at one time there was no interchange proposed by the County. As a result the applicant had platted in preliminary form the property in question for single family use. Subsequently an interchange with County Road 18 was designed and recently approved by the Village making possible all turning movements and thus having a very definite impact on the surrounding land * * * (T)he location is a desirable one considering its location at the intersection of two major thoroughfares.’ [Italics omitted].
“31. The change in the plans for the intersection of County *340Road 18 and 36th Avenue North from no interchange to a diamond interchange constituted a substantial change of conditions from those that existed at the time that the Limited Business (LB) zoning classification was placed upon the subject property. As a result of this change, it became self-evident that the subject property must be devoted to commercial uses served by automobiles such as a shopping center and service station consistent with the comprehensive plan as originally published. The Village Council acknowledged this fact when it rezoned the land across the street from the subject property and the same facts and circumstances apply, with even greater impact, to the subject property and the surrounding land.”
Within 9 months after the property across the street was rezoned and a permit for a service station was granted, application was made by the owner of the subject property to rezone from LB to RB with a request for a special permit so that a service station might be built on the subject property. The village denied the application without making any findings or conclusions nor stating any reason for the denial.
The right to use retail business property for service stations by special permit was part of the ordinance adopted after extensive study and professional consultations. Nonetheless, the village amended this zoning ordinance eliminating the provision which authorized special permits for service stations in the retail business zone. That change was made after the property across the street from the subject property was rezoned to retail business and a special permit issued for a service station and after an application for the same treatment had been made for the subject property. No reason was offered by the village for the change.
In 1968, an application was again made to the village to change the zoning of the subject property from LB to general business GB. The village denied this application making no findings or conclusions nor giving any reason for the denial.
The trial court found that the subject property is better suited for use as a service station than the 1-acre tract immediately *341across the street which the village approved for such use.1 This doesn’t mean that the 1-acre tract was not an appropriate site for a service station. Indeed, it was an excellent site. Thus, it be*342came an excellent yardstick to measure the actions of the village in denying Sun Oil’s application for the same zoning classification and permit for a site even more suitable for a service station.
Standing alone, the single fact that the subject property was across the street from the 4-acre tract used for comparison would not necessarily require the same zoning treatment. However, that *343fact is only one facet of the total circumstances involving both tracts which lead the trial court to find that the subject property was more suitable for a zoning classification permitting a service station than the site of the service station across the street. The significant factors are that from the beginning the 4-acre tract and the subject land were scheduled for identical treatment. They were similarly situated in quadrants of an intersection of two major thoroughfares. The original comprehensive plan designated both of them for use as shopping centers. The subject property and the similarly situated 1-acre tract across the street were zoned for commercial purposes from the initial zoning. Considering the character of all the property surrounding the subject property, as the trial court very carefully did, I concur in the viewpoint of the trial court that there is no reason related to the public health, safety, or welfare which justifies limiting the uses of the subject property to those authorized by the LB zoning classification. See, footnote 1, finding 38.
*344The trial court also found that the proposed use of the subject property was suitable and proper in addition to such use being consistent with public health, safety, and welfare.
No doubt the village, with a view to making it even more difficult for the owner of the subject property to ultimately use the property for a service station, amended its zoning ordinance so that permits for such stations could no longer be obtained under a retail business classification but would only be permitted in a general business district. A reading of a portion of the 1960 zoning ordinance shows how inappropriate this action was:
“5. GB General Business Districts: These areas are designed for those businesses that tend to service other businesses and industry rather than the homeowner. They also tend to be less compatible with residential areas than other types of business. Because of these factors, businesses in this zoning classification are concentrated and are as insulated as possible from residential areas.” New Hope Ordinance No. 60-19, Section III, Subd. A, 5.
Any comprehensive zoning ordinance that would restrict all service stations to a district tending to service other businesses and industry rather than homeowners in areas as insulated as possible from residential areas would make it mighty inconvenient for residents to purchase gasoline and have their cars serviced. Many people find it most convenient to do business with service stations while visiting retail business districts. This change in the ordinance would only make service stations conveniently accessible to one segment of people — those servicing other businesses and industries. Thus, homeowners, the traveling public, etc., would not have the convenience of a service station in or near retail shopping centers, but would have to make a special trip to some concentrated area serving industry. This change shows the village was not adhering to the original comprehensive zoning ordinance and consultations with planning experts. The only plausible reason for this change was an attempt to put a permit *345for a service station on the subject property further out of reach of its owner.
In reviewing the facts in this case, it appears that the subject property was scheduled by the village’s published comprehensive zoning plan for a shopping center which would qualify for a retail business classification and would allow service stations on a special permit basis. This portion of the comprehensive plan was held in abeyance until plans for the intersection of County Road 18 and 36th Avenue North became definite. When those plans became definite, the village recognized the substantial change in conditions when it rezoned the 4 acres across the street from the subject property and granted a permit for a service station to that property. There was nothing inappropriate about that action — undoubtedly that property was suitable for a service station and shopping center. However, to deny the same treatment to property immediately across the street which was even more suitable for a service station and shopping center than the 4-acre tract points up the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the village council. Can this unequal and unfair treatment be acceptable by saying that a review of such arbitrary actions is narrowed because amending and adopting zoning ordinances is a legislative action? If so, municipalities that want to accomplish an arbitrary and capricious end may do so by rezoning to favor some people and refusing to rezone to thwart the legitimate use of property by others.
It is also obvious that the village has not adhered to its comprehensive zoning plan or ordinance. If that were so, either the 4-acre tract would not have been rezoned RB or the subject property would also have been rezoned RB.
I would either require the village to rezone the property RB, declare the amendment eliminating the granting of special permits for service stations in RB districts void, and order the issuance of a special permit for a service station on the subject *346property, or I would sustain the trial court’s order directing the village to rezone the subject property as a GB district.2

 The trial court found on undisputed facts:
“24. When the Village Council denied plaintiff’s applications:
(a) Approximately twelve acres of land surrounding the subject property on the south side of 36th Avenue North and on both sides of Hillsboro Avenue were vacant and undeveloped;
(b) The 6.25 acre tract of land of which the subject property was a part was zoned for commercial uses in the Limited Business (LB) zone;
(c) The property abutting the 6.25 acres on the south was developed with apartment houses;
(d) The nearest existing single family home south of the subject property was 850 feet away; the nearest existing single family home east of the subject property was 380 feet away; an automobile service station existed immediately across the street from the subject property on the north; and all of the land west of the subject property to County Road 18 was vacant and undeveloped;
(e) A diamond interchange between 36th Avenue North and County Road 18 had been approved by the County of Hennepin;
(f) A shopping center had been planned and approved by the Village Council for the approximately three acre tract between the Shell service station and existing single family homes on the north side of 36th Avenue North.
(g) The only possible accesses to the shopping center that the Village Council had approved on the north side of 36th Avenue North were through the Shell service station driveway and via a narrow roadway from Jordan Avenue which was fully developed on both sides with single family homes.
(h) The property surrounding the Shell service station and the adjacent shopping center site had been developed with single family homes which were occupied and well-maintained, and had suffered no adverse effects; and
(i) The land on the west side of County Road 18 across from the subject property was zoned commercial and devoted to commercial uses.
j{e ‡
“26. 36th Avenue North is a heavily travelled arterial roadway that runs through the Village of New Hope and extends all the way into the *342City of Minneapolis. On February 24,1971, before the on and off access ramps to County Road 18 were completed, 4,710 automobiles passed in front of the subject property on 36th Avenue North. Approximately 12,000 cars per day travel on County Road 18 at its intersection with 36th Avenue North.
“27. Approximately twelve acres surrounding the subject property remains vacant and undeveloped. The 6.25 acre tract of which the subject property is a part is still vacant and undeveloped. Approximately six acres of land across Hillsboro Avenue east of the subject property is also still vacant and undeveloped. The land abutting the property south of the 6.25 acres is now developed with apartment houses. The property on the west side of County Road 18 immediately across from the 6.25 acre tract is now being used for the operation of a service station, bus garage, pizza parlor, liquor store, animal hospital, tool and die company, and other commercial uses. At the present time, there is an extensive single family development surrounding the Shell service station and the shopping center which is now in construction adjacent thereto, and all of the existing homes are occupied and well-maintained.
“28. There are no single family homes near or adjacent to the subject property.
“29. There is no property or existing use of any property near or adjacent to the subject property that will be adversely affected by the construction and operation of a service station on the subject property.
}]< dfi sji ijt
“32. The subject property and the adjacent vacant land is far more suitable for the construction and operation of a service station and shopping center than the land across the street upon which the Village Council approved a service station and shopping center. A large twelve acre vacant, undeveloped, existing' buffer area exists between the subject property and any existing or proposed single family dwellings. This buffer area is far more effective and superior to the 70 foot buffer area between the Shell service station and shopping center which was approved by the New Hope Village Council.
Jjí 5}C j}í >}£
“38. There is no reason related to the public health, safety or wel*343fare which justifies limiting the uses of the subject property to those authorized by the Limited Business (LB) zoning classification. The property immediately across the street from the subject property is used for the operation of an automobile service station, and the approximately three acre tract abutting said service station has been approved by the Village Council for use as a shopping center. The property surrounding the said service station and proposed shopping center is all fully developed with single family homes. The subject property abuts a heavily travelled street, is adjacent to an off ramp from the County Road 18 freeway, and it is surrounded by more than twelve acres of vacant land. A shopping center has been proposed for the six vacant acres abutting the subject property on the south. The approximately six acres of land abutting Hillsboro Avenue immediately east of the subject property is vacant and undeveloped. Reasonable commercial uses have also been proposed for the development of this property. There are no existing single family homes abutting the subject property or the surrounding vacant land. The Court finds that in the light of the numerous proposals for the use of the subject property and the surrounding vacant land for commercial purposes, it is unlikely that said surrounding vacant land or the subject property will be used or developed with single family homes.”

 I have not discussed the trial court’s finding regarding the village’s denial of the application for the waiver of the platting ordinance as this was a pro forma matter which was an afterthought raised after the trial by correspondence and is not a matter of any great importance. The village could have objected to the proposed site plan and issued a special permit conditioned upon the filing of a plat showing reasonable access to the remaining 4.25 acres.