State Ex Rel. Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester
268 N.W.2d 885
Minn.
1978
Check Treatment

*1 Minnesota, By the ROCHES STATE OF NEIGHBOR

TER ASSOCIATION

HOODS, al., Appellants, et ROCHESTER, Respondent,

CITY OF

Rodney Respondent, Younge, Minneap Bank of

Northwestern National Gooding, Mr. as trustees

olis and Judson trust established under will of Gooding, Respondents.

A. C.

No. 48166.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

5,May *2 Philip

Dayton, Herman & Graham Getts, Minneapolis, appellants. W. for Swanson, City Atty., Roches- Gerald H. ter, for of Rochester. Restovich, Rochester, Patterson & Rodney Younge. North- Across Kerr, Rochester, dwellings. the street to the east

Schacht & Minneapolis. apartment 24-unit western Nat. Bank district with a an R-4 the street to north is building. Across ROGOSHESKE, PETER- Heard before with a 35-unit condominium. R-4 district TODD, JJ., considered SON and Diagonally across the street north- the court en banc. decided east is a vacant lot zoned “institutional” *3 by Mayo the Clinic. Visible and owned ROGOSHESKE, Justice. Mayo the rezoned tract are Clinic from Neighbor- Association of The Rochester buildings one block Complex located north from plaintiffs appeal hoods and individual high-rise and one block east and another declara- an order of the trial court away. two blocks condominium injunctive in their tory judgment and relief Gooding of the Trust en- Trustees A. C. challenging validity the action purchase agreement convey into a tered the Roch- by amendment enacted ordinance Rodney the 1.18-acre tract to defendant which a 1.18-acre ester Council rezoned contingent rezoning the Younge single-family tract land from residential property by September the to R-4 (R-l) low-density residential 23, 1976, trustees December the (R-2) (R-4) to On high-density residential use 49-unit, the Younge prop- to have building 6-story, defendant permit the building Younge on the submitted a apartment erty condominium rezoned to R-4. rezon- (1) description” develop land. Plaintiffs contend that this “project proposing 60-unit, condominium, single presumptively luxury tract was later amend- the coun- “quasi-judicial act” invalid as build- propose ed to 49-unit condominium findings with supported cil written was re- application the site. ing, on evidence; (2) that substantial Planning and Zon- ferred to the Rochester act, rezoning the even if it was a Commission, public held a hear- which it was capricious because was January 12, The Rochester ing on plan city’s with the land-use inconsistent Planning Department recom- Consolidated to the and without reasonable relation planning to the commission that mended health, safety, and welfare of the communi- permit study be tabled to the was invalid ty; (3) that city’s plan whether determine “spot zoning.” We affirm the decision planning commis- should be amended. promulga- and hold that trial court city council recommended to the sion tion a valid of the Rochester ordinance was rezoning application denied as incon- be delegated leg- the municipality’s exercise of plan, with the sistent and, upon present- record power islative use on the low-density called for residential ed, rea- proven neither to be without was 7, 1977, February Gooding property. On health, safety, public sonable relation rejected commis- the council welfare, “spot nor to be invalid March sion’s recommendation and zoning.” sub- passed gave no council ject property to R-4. The tract is owned The 1.18-acre rezoned supporting the findings Gooding and is situated written reasons the A. Trust C. meetings rezoning. Minutes away three from the central business blocks February how- February 7 and Before the in the of Rochester. district ever, members be- suit, the council challenged in this the eastern show was subject proposed need- property lieved the condominium two-thirds of housing expanded the city’s one-third ed to serve zoned R-2 and western members stated requirements. land on the Council zoned R-l. The is bounded would be an west southwest an R-l district within three site since was located houses known as the Edison ideal district and the central business Neighborhood. Park On the is an R-2 blocks of south already uses low-density, multiple-family since residential act, a zoning would As two streets from across compatible upheld oppo- with the condomini- must be unless classification development unsup- um and made nents that the classification is unlikely. any ported other use On related to by any rational basis 5, 1977, council amended its land- July health, safety, moting rezoning. to conform to the welfare, or that the classification taking compensation. amounts to a without Plaintiffs, individual owners of residences applies regardless This rule of the size of abutting subject property and their in- g., the tract of land involved. e. Sun corporated Neighborhoods, Association (1 Hope, supra of New Oil Co. 12, 1977, appeared January (33½ acre); supra hearing protest and were at a heard acres). scope of review reflects Our narrow 23, 1977, February meeting of the council. legislative body that a can policy decision On April plaintiffs filed this suit zoning classifications best determine which challenging of the March *4 In Beck v. public best serve the welfare. 1977, rezoning seeking ordinance and de- 438, 448, Paul, City Minn. 231 of St. 304 injunction. claratory judgment 919, 925, Village and Sun Oil Co. v. N.W.2d trial relief. requested court denied the 334, 326, of Minn. 220 Hope, New 300 appeal, plaintiffs argue On that 256, 261, N.W.2d we said: rezoning single in a council’s action a “Even where the reasonableness of 1.18-acre tract should be to close debatable, or where zoning ordinance is judicial scrutiny as an administrative or conflicting opinions there are as to the quasi-judicial act. This standard of review desirability imposes of the restrictions it place upon municipality the bur * * * , it is not the function of the den of the ordinance as a valid legislative courts to interfere with the police exercise of the power by findings of discretion on such issues.” fact based substantial evidence. Ab findings, sent such the ordinance would be Plaintiffs note that we have not ac presumed rely upon invalid. Plaintiffs Fa presumption corded same of County sano v. Board of of Wash Commrs. city special-use council action denying per 574, ington County, 264 Or. 507 P.2d 23 mits as we have to or amendment Tacoma, (1973), Fleming City v. of 81 Zylka City of zoning ordinances. In v. 292, (1972), Wash.2d 327 in 502 P.2d 192, Crystal, 283 Minn. 167 N.W.2d 45 Oregon Washington courts charac (1969), rule that where a adopted we single terized the tract of land special zoning use which conforms with the quasi-judicial affecting rights act requested, city ordinance is council’s deni of a few individuals more than permit single al to a land special-use generally. placed Those courts the burden arbitrary and proved prima owner is facie justifying zoning change as reasona if it that the council unreasonable is shown ble proponents, including the support failed to its action written find adopting city council. ings showing of substantial evidence We decline to follow the rule use impermissible permit under the stan jurisdictions, See, also, consistently those for we have dards of the ordinance. Holasek Medina, 240, held municipality adopts Village that “when a v. 303 Minn. 226 ordinance, zoning (1975); 500, amends a it acts in a City N.W.2d 900 Metro Inc. v. 294, capacity delegated po Park, under its Brooklyn 297 Minn. 211 powers.” City (1973); lice 304 N.W.2d 358 Inland Construction Co. 438, 448, (1975). Minn. 231 N.W.2d 925 v. Minn. 195 Bloomington, 292 See, also, (1972). Sun Oil Co. v. of New N.W.2d 558 Plaintiffs ask that zon 326, 333, Hope, 300 Minn. 220 N.W.2d under a like amendments be reviewed (1974); City Minneapo Alexander v. that the distinc suggest standard and lis, (1963). 125 N.W.2d 583 special-use permits tion between health, safety, “rezoning” promoting is the label rezoning in this case They emphasize that its action. welfare. the council to describe chosen ordinance, adopted against when an amendment of agree. We do not While recommendation, commission’s permit particular can was inconsistent with Rochester’s formerly used in a manner property to be plan, which was thereafter amended to con- special “a forbidden zoning change. Plaintiffs ask form to the within the provision permits property, dis- invalidated on this body, to be used governing cretion basis. by the expressly a manner authorized ordi- Zylka City Crystal,

nance.” required have Other states 192, 195, In exactly to its conform zoning ordinances adopted or have held when judgment is make a required to validity accompa- presumption will classification that a certain lifted when a legislative act nying a health, safety, morals “public mote the adopted despite city Minn. subd. general welfare.” St. it will not planners’ recommendations special-use granting In land- comprehensive with the be consistent altering the permit, council is not plan at the time. Baker classi- legislative judgment Milwaukie, (1975); 533 P.2d 772 271 Or. function, Rather, adju- it has the fication. Haas, 21 N.Y.2d Udell N.Y.S.2d nature, applying specific dicative in Anderson, 235 N.E.2d 897 *5 a zoning standards set the ordinance to (2 ed.) We Zoning American Law of 3.15. § particular individual use and must be held requirement any nor such find no such strictly to those standards. in our law. shifting presumption 462.364, Min 462.351 to proposed high-density use of Minn. The St. act, planning provides with conformity municipal not in nesota’s land was comprehensive land- adoption and therefore for the existing zoning classifications in a accomplished through guide developments to future not have been plan could grants the mu 462.357 per municipality, The use could be and special-use permit.1 § land-use its effectuate nicipality power the zon to through amendment of only mitted 462.357, subd. zoning. plan through a case where Section This was not ing ordinance. 2, provides: lesser enabled to obtain a the council was scrutiny than would judicial

standard any time after the “At by choosing to applied simply municipality, otherwise be plan for the land use “rezoning.” its action An amendment label purpose for planning agency, and zoning required of the ordinance was goals and carrying policies out the other label could have passed. one was No prepare proposed plan, may land use The coun to the council’s action. it to the zoning ordinance and submit ordinance, cil’s amendment of the under our governing body with its recommendations holdings, involved a previous require- Subject adoption. reviewed judgment and as such must be 4 and ments of subdivisions judicial review scope under the narrow adopt and amend a governing body may stated. vote of zoning ordinance a two-thirds all members.” its hold, the rezon- Assuming, we as requir- act, interpret provision as ask us to Plaintiffs ing plaintiffs awas amended plan be ing city’s and that the land-use invalidate the ordinance We is amended. zoning relation before a capricious and without reasonable zoning permitted ordinance. nonconforming under proposed not use also could 1. The respect to permitted through Variances are available with have been a variance. not 462.357, requirements such St. a variance other Under Minn. subd. provisions. requirements granted permit any similar may and to use that is setback not be city in the high-density housing more require only to that a statute read the initial adopted before the plan Locating proposed be condo- land-use Rochester. The statute in adopted. complied is zoning subject property minium require not even does with for location of R-4 uses the standards city’s exactly to the Ordinances, ordinance conform set Code of the Rochester plan. While seem desirable land-use 66.206, provides: § municipal planning to amend as a matter of DENSITY DISTRICT: “R-4 HIGH adopting an incon- plan before create, pre- This is intended require- such a sistent serve, multi-family and enhance areas legisla- a matter for the properly ment is permanent high for both densities court, This ture, for this to consider. typically ap- families. It is transient be- consistency frequently court has noted propriate only good in areas of accessibili- plan tween ty thoroughfares, public transporta- zon- commission’s recommendation centers, libraries, tion, community ordinance as factor be major shopping centers shall judg- city’s legislative reasonableness of area of the central limited to ordinance. ment business district.” g., Hopkins, e. Olsen The evidence established 149 N.W.2d 394 primary of two land within two blocks 919; St. within two blocks of thoroughfares; Hope, Co. of New Sun Oil centers, lines; community bus is near Minn. N.W.2d 256. But we have center, city library; a child care held, could we hold under never nor busi- of the central 462.357, is within three blocks procedure language major shopping area. ness amending the land- district and such as Rochester’s of concluding There basis for amending after classifi- rational the zon- conclusively six-story cation could invalidate that a condominium strictly existing neigh- followed in the compatible ordinance. with uses subds. 3 procedures prop- subject property. borhood of the requiring that a amendment erty already surrounded on two sides *6 to zoning ordinance first submitted high-density and institutional uses R-4 for a recommendation planning agency duplexes and on side R-2 and smaller one There public hearing and that a be held. apartment buildings; was bounded rec- nothing in 462.357 which makes the by plaintiffs’ to the west and southwest ommendation of the commission Already single-family residences. across binding upon governing property two from the were 24-unit streets body. appeared Plaintiffs were heard high-rises, high- and 35-unit and another January 12, 1977, public hearing buildings were within Mayo rise and Clinic before of their property. two blocks and visible from the proceedings attorney protest was heard in reasona- surroundings, it was Within these 1977, February before the council meet- that to conclude ble for council members ing rejected plan- after council had of for further development ning commission’s recommendations use would have low-density single-family February Further, unlikely. there economically been found, evidence, the trial court we hold Upon presented, the record Gooding land would that R-4 to re legislative that the council’s decision city; for the would increase tax revenues Gooding property to R-4 zone 1.18-acre area; and problem create traffic for the no high-density capri (as parties) could be ac- stipulated by the to be without cious was not shown fire, adequate po- promotion pub presently to commodated reasonable relation health, lice, sewer, water, lic wel and electrical services. safety, fare. There was evidence of the need for Based all of these facts and circum-

891 See, plot abutting property. rezoned stances, find that we cannot City Minneapolis, basis. was without rational Alexander v. Zoning 155, 125 (1963); Magnin v. 583 N.W.2d such point to other factors Plaintiffs Madison, 145 Conn. omm. of Town Park C stability of the Edison apparent as the 26, 138 (1958); Langer Planning A.2d 522 expressed neighborhood; Comm., Zoning 163 313 A.2d & Conn. noise, that increased neighbors concerns of (1972); Daly City, Hein v. 165 Cal. 44 traffic, open space and less people, App.2d 332 P.2d 120 Hermann neigh with the character of that interfere Moines, City of Des 250 Iowa 97 borhood; Gooding the fact that the land is See, (1959). generally, N.W.2d Annota 893 lesser-density also suited for R-2 use under 263; Anderson, tion, Ameri 51 A.L.R.2d the Rochester definitions of 5.12, 5.17; (2 ed.) Zoning can Law of §§ code;2 possibility Rathkopf, Zoning The Law of and Plan decrease use of the land would ning, c. 26. adjacent property single-fami values of ly use. All of factors make the these Moines, supra, Des In Hermann v. zoning change fairly reasonableness of by plaintiffs, principally relied debatable, standard of re but under our single city lot of Des Moines rezoned view, enough justify is not of an R-2 district to located in middle legisla with the council’s interfering court’s lot was rezoning, spot-zoned R-3. After In the ordinance. judgment tive by lots of different classifica- surrounded generalized claims particular, plaintiffs’ City Minneapolis, tion. In Alexander value, decline in property may their amend- supra, spot-zoning we characterized an actual decline absent some evidence of de- ments as those which “result total taking sufficient substantial diminution of value struction or compensation, without do not form a basis thereby.” affected invalidating ordinance or 155, 160, 125 N.W.2d amendment.3 demonstrating The burden plaintiffs urge the court Finally, particular zoning spot amendment zon ordinance as invalidate attacking the litigant rests with the “spot zoning.” “Spot zoning” is a label presumption and the usual in to certain amendments zoning amendments as validity attaching to unsupported by acts validated as v. Zon Raffia applies. acts promoting pub related to any rational basis Enfield, Town of Appeals Board Anderson, American Law of lic welfare. 1 (1964); Crall v. 199 A.2d 333 Conn. (2 ed.) applies The term Zoning 5.08. Leominster, Mass. 284 N.E.2d 610 limited to small zoning changes, typically Anderson, Law of Zon (1972); 1 American land, plots which establish a use classifi *7 5.08, ing (2 ed.) p. 290. surrounding uses cation inconsistent with Here, proved have no plaintiffs nonconforming use and create an island of in their val district, substantial diminution larger within a zoned they rezoning, nor have spec ue due to dramatically reduce the value for uses would create either the shown that ified in the ordinance of Ordinances, is not of itself a values decline 2. Rochester Code This re- vides: “R-2 LOW DENSITY DISTRICT: sufficient reason to invalidate 1) density themselves, not, zoning. is intended to create low Values are in and of 2) pre- regulation. areas of mixed residential use and the test of undergoing They serve and enhance residential areas take into are factors for council to dwellings conversion of to multi- arriving on in at its conclusions consideration family (Italics supplied.) uses.” total merits in the interest of the communi- ty. para- The welfare of the 3. In Beck v. importance pecuniary in to the stake mount (1975), this court individual.” “ ** *(cid:127) simple said: fact that certain court nonconforming island BIGHAM, Respondent,

found in Hermann. E. Vernon north tract was east and already zoned residential. The COMPANY, J. C. defendant PENNEY justifica- presented record shows sufficient plaintiff, Appellant, party and third proper tion for this as a exercise welfare, power no and we find for invalidation of basis COMPA- STATES POWER NORTHERN “spot zoning” label. ordinance under defendant, NY, Appellant. party third Affirmed. Nos. of Minnesota. Supreme Court

KELLY, (dissenting). Justice I would respectfully I have May dissent. adopt

court in this standard case June Rehearing Denied placing upon municipality review the ordinance as a burden of police power by find-

valid exercise of evi-

ings based substantial persuaded by I am

dence. rationale County

Fasano v. Commrs. of Board

Washington County, 264 Or. 507 P.2d Tacoma, (1973), Fleming (1972),

81 Wash.2d P.2d 327 cited majority opinion. I would overrule our to the contrary.

cases

Furthermore, illogical it is to re- I think

quire municipalities up live a stricter granting

standard of review in

special-use permit parcel than in I am persuaded land. that charac-

terizing one as other acceptable

adjudicative in nature is an an- who im- buy

swer. Those landowners their un- lands in reliance

doubtedly place reliance on the zon- greater they of lots as than residential prospects getting special-use per-

mit.

Thus the of review standard should be at least

higher one the same securing special-use permit.

as for

OTIS, J., part took no considera-

tion or decision this case.