219756Original to City Cleric
ORDINANCE 219756
COUNCIL FILE NO. ` Q
/ O
PRESENTED BY r G'�� ORDINANCE NO. ,
.f
An Ordinance amending the Zoning Code,
Chapters 60 to 6)+ inclusive, of the Saint
Paul Legislative,6ode2 pertaining to Use
Districts, Height Districts and Rezoning
of certain properties in the City of Saint
Paul, as amended, This is an emergency
ordinance rendered necessary for the pre-
servation of the public peace, health, and
safety.;,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. That the Zoning Code, Chapters 60 to 641
inclusive, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining
to Use Districts" Height Districts, and Rezoning of certain
properties in the City, of Saint Paul, as amended, be and the
same is hereby further amended so as to rezone the following,
described property from Commercial to "C" Residence District,
to -wit:
"Lots 1 through 81 inclusive, .Speiser's
Addition ;"
situated on the;west side of Payne Avenue which lies between
Arlington and Sherwood Avenues in Saint Paul.
;< <
Section 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be
an emergency ordinance rendered necessary for the preservation
of the public peace, health and safety.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in force upon its passage, approval and publication.
Yeas Councilmen ;,Nays 0
Dalglish �.
Holland
Loss
Meredith D
Peterson
Rosen ;
Mr.President (Vavoulis)
Attest: a
C Cl
ity er
1M 642 Form approved Corporation Counsel By
1,
i r
SEP 15 V4
Passed by the Council
Tn Favor
0 A �nnt
SEP 15 I
OF LAW,,
DUPLICATE TO PRINTCR
ORDINANCE 219756
COUNCIL FILE NO.
PRESENTED BY ORDINANCE NO.
An Ordinance amending the Zoning Code,
Chapters 60 to 64 inclusive of the Saint
Paul Legislative 60det pertaining to Use
Districts, Height Districts and Rezoning
of certain properties in the City of Saint
Paul, as amended, This is an emergency
ordinance rendered necessary for the pre-
servation of the public peace, health, and
safety.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. That the Zoning Code, Chapters 60 to 64,
inclusive, of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining
to Use Districts, Height Districts, and Rezoning of certain
properties in the City of Saint Paul, as amended, be and the
same is hereby further amended so as to rezone the following
described property from Commercial to "C" Residence District,
to -wit:
"Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Speiser's
Addition ;"
situated on the west side of Payne Avenue which lies between
Arlington and Sherwood Avenues in Saint Paul.
Section 2. This ordinance is hereby declared to be
an emergency ordinance rendered necessary for the preservation
of the public peacb, health and safety.
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be
in force upon its passage, approval and publication.
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
PETITION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 5840, THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE)
The signer should appraise himself of the uses permitted " �(
under the new classification before signing this petition.
For further information about the re- zoning of property,
call the Board of Zoning Office Ca. 4 -4612, Ext. 251.
(Please type or print)
Date:
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
% the City Clerk
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
Pursuant to Section 23, Ordinance 5840, we, the undersigned owners of two -
thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situated within 100 feet of the
real estate affected, hereby acquiesce; and we, the owners of 50% or more of the
frontage to be reclassified, petition your Honorable Body to rezone the following
described property: (legal description and street address)
�- Q
from-a District to a District,
for the purpose of installing, constructing and /or operating the following:
s C e�` d 4 i rd efly the proposed fact jity�l 4
RECORD OWNER SIGNATURE LOT BLOCK ADDITION
L
a
bzaze o= mi soza) / v
County of sey ) ss /v/
_ being first duly sworn,•deposes and states
4ha he is the arson who circulated the within petition consisting of �$
pa es; that the parties described above are the owners respectively of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this-petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
'Subscribed and sworn to before me I
th /0'1 day of
WV
N ar Public, Ransey County, Minn.'
My Commission expires Page —
R pages.
JOYCE A. MANSU . ove as Appr to form ? 254
Office of the Corporation Counsel
Notary Public, Ramsey County, Minn.
W Comfnission Expires April 26,196Q
Z -1 7/2/54
4 :
—51 AMYJ
1
4 VIVIEM A! 001
M
0
K M-R-41 K
bzaze o= mi soza) / v
County of sey ) ss /v/
_ being first duly sworn,•deposes and states
4ha he is the arson who circulated the within petition consisting of �$
pa es; that the parties described above are the owners respectively of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this-petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
'Subscribed and sworn to before me I
th /0'1 day of
WV
N ar Public, Ransey County, Minn.'
My Commission expires Page —
R pages.
JOYCE A. MANSU . ove as Appr to form ? 254
Office of the Corporation Counsel
Notary Public, Ramsey County, Minn.
W Comfnission Expires April 26,196Q
Z -1 7/2/54
4 :
t o
a p .
01/C
oK
ok
o�
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
PETITION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 5840, THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE
The signer should appraise himself of the uses permitted
under the new classification before signing this petition.
For further information about the re- zoning of property,
call the Board of Zoning Office Ca. 4 -4612, Ext. 251.
(Please type or print)
Date: May 12,1964
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
% the City Clerk
City of Saint Paul, Minpesota
Pursuant to Section 23, Ordinance 5840, we, the undersigned owners of two -
thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situated within 100 feet of the
real estate affected, hereby acquiesce; and we, the owners of 507, or more of the
frontage to be reclassified, petition your Honorable Body to rezone the following
described property: ' (legal description a d street ia�d t to Shel^w�s�.
Speiser•s Addition Payne Avenue ro 1:0n
Blocks 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.8. 1
from a �pyh.� E2C / L Distric� to ES %�C�I/j� 4 District,
for the purpose of installing, constructing and /or operating the following:
(describe briefly the proposed facility)
RECORD OWNER
SIGNATURE LOT BLOCK ADDITION
/�, ��
• , o
KIM
W-M.-
W9, W -.WmN
1- 1
�.� L. 1�/ L�� _n►�i
'1 mm. � L�LI� �L /�
:J
Fmm
i
ON 41� e. E � Mi.
.7LSti@ DI 1Y11IIII @T30tii3J /.
County of Ramsey )ss
(2. being first duly sworn,, deposes and states
_ i
that e is the p son who circulated the within petition consisting of
pages; that the parties,,described above are the owners respectively'of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this-petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true-and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to. before me
this /l day of
No r Pu 1 c, Ra sey County, Minn.
M Commission expires ,
JOYCE A. MAN8UP
Notary Public, Ramsey County, Minh,
* r ORIM1sslon Expires April 26, 1969
Z -1 7/2/54
Page-91--of 15 pages.
Approved as to form 7 2 54
Office of the Corporation Counsel
- u.
r
i
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
PETITION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 5840, THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE
The signer should appraise himself of the,uses permitted
under the new classification before signing this petition.
For further'information about the re- zoning of property,
call the Board of Zoning Office Ca. 4 -4612, Ext. 251.
(Please type or print)
Date:
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL /
% the City Clerk
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
Pursuant to Section 23, Ordinance 5840, we, the undersigned owners of two -
thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situated within 100 feet of the
real estate affected, hereby acquiesce; and we, the owners of 500 or more of the
frontage to be reclassified, petition your Honorable Body to rezone the fo lowing
s . ' rdes_qr be¢ .property: (Legal description and street_ address) /
In
L
from a District td a District
s
for the purpose of installing, constructing and /or operating the following:
(describe briefly the proposed facility)
RIRMRn OWNER SIGNATURE WT 13LOCK ADDITION
Dvaze x mine Lajss v U
County of Rams //y )
B first duly sworn,'deposes and states
t a he is the p •son who circulated the within petition consisting of S�
pages; that the parties described above are the owners respectively of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
is . 0' da of l'% 9 Gyp
of r Publi anse Co nt Mi
Y, nn.
y Commission expires
JOYCE A. MANSUR
Nolery Public, Ramsey County, Ml'nn_
I t , CoMmission Expires April •26, 1959.
Z -1 7/2/54
Page of C5 pages.
Approved as to form 7/2/5$
Office of the Corporation Counsel
i
E.14.
i 11,
NO
M
l /
KV VI/ ' FB 1I119
♦t�i La. !/�
�.
, w
WMAR-1
01101MM
XRRIMRWA�m
P�l
0WAM
Dvaze x mine Lajss v U
County of Rams //y )
B first duly sworn,'deposes and states
t a he is the p •son who circulated the within petition consisting of S�
pages; that the parties described above are the owners respectively of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
is . 0' da of l'% 9 Gyp
of r Publi anse Co nt Mi
Y, nn.
y Commission expires
JOYCE A. MANSUR
Nolery Public, Ramsey County, Ml'nn_
I t , CoMmission Expires April •26, 1959.
Z -1 7/2/54
Page of C5 pages.
Approved as to form 7/2/5$
Office of the Corporation Counsel
i
E.14.
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
PETITION TO AMEND;ORDINANCE NO. 5840, THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE
The signer should appraise himself of the uses permitted
under the new classification before signing this petition.
For further information about the re- zoning of property,
call the Board of Zoning Office Ca. 4 -4612, Ext. 251.
(Please type or print)
Date: /
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
,% the City Clerk
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
Pursuant to Section 23, Ordinance 5840, we, the undersigned owners of two -
thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situated within 100 feet of the
real estate affected, hereby acquiesce; and we, the owners of 50go or more of the
frontage to be reclassified, petition your Honorable Body to rezone the following
describe p o r (legal description and street address)
See is e.� /s �9�1o'/7 ,9&�V C
from a Oyj2 -yJ2 E/Z (T/�4 District to a/" �.�QS /cQ�?/� /f3, District,
for the purpose of installing, constructing and /or operating the following:
(describe briefly the proposed facility)
Wo
A RECORD OWNER - SIGNATURE LOT BLOCK ADDITION
-State of Minnesota) V
County of Ramsey ) ss
�first duly sworn,,deposes and states
tbat/be is the p son who circulated the within petition consisting of �S
pages; that the parties described above are the owners respectively of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this•petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
thIs
.- seee/��I-�� day o If (yl
N ary Public, nsey�y, Minn.
y Commission expires,
JOYCE A. MANSUR
Notary Public, Ramsey County, Mind.
Ift Court fl$3lon Expires Aprll 25, 1960
Z -1 ?/2/54
y
Page of pages.
Approved as to form 7/2/54
Office of the Corporation Counsel
rz
Ewa
r' 19� -�,WU -A
M
l
"I Aff
..Pi I W-WA
W, - W-1 P, 41 V,
�/'- MIRRIAM
-State of Minnesota) V
County of Ramsey ) ss
�first duly sworn,,deposes and states
tbat/be is the p son who circulated the within petition consisting of �S
pages; that the parties described above are the owners respectively of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this•petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
thIs
.- seee/��I-�� day o If (yl
N ary Public, nsey�y, Minn.
y Commission expires,
JOYCE A. MANSUR
Notary Public, Ramsey County, Mind.
Ift Court fl$3lon Expires Aprll 25, 1960
Z -1 ?/2/54
y
Page of pages.
Approved as to form 7/2/54
Office of the Corporation Counsel
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
PETITION TO AMEND,,ORDINANCE NO. 5840, THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE
The signer should appraise himself of the uses permitted
under the new classification before signing this petition.
For further information about the re- zoning of property,
call the Board of Zoning Office Ca. 4 -4612, Ext. 251.
(Please type or print)
Date: /.Z- l%� y
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
% the City Clerk
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
Pursuant to Section 23, Ordinance 5840, we, the undersigned owners of two -
thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situated within 100 feet of the
real estate affected, hereby acquiesce; and we, the owners of 50% or more of the
frontage to be reclassified, petition your Honorable Body to reApne the Aollowing
•
describe leg 1 description /and street address) re,
S e OO pr / d '- 0 ®
6s
,�
from ap m rn �e` e �L District to aa.Q,r/ C��f?/ /�L District,
for the purpose of installing, constructing and %or operating the following:
.(describe briefly the proposed facility)
l�tiur��`
C
N�
a e o nneso a
Cou ty Ramsey ) ss
Udw�'�eing first duly sworn,, deposes and states
tha he is the p rson who circulated the within petition consisting of,
pages; that the parties"described above are the owners respectively of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
REMRD OWNER
SIGNATiIRE T1W RTnCK ADDITION
W 0, 0,
"N" — ww'//z
211WER.
0
• .� / PIPE
1 MAI
I W,25
WIM
20-1w."ONEV W-W MWXP-z�
NOW. -4, k% 11,261 W-7 I'M' 2)"
Subscribed�nd sworn tol before me
t da of /y1/
I a-y Public, ansey County, Minn.
y Commission expires
JOYCE A. MANSUR
Notary public, Ramsey County,; Mlnp.
My COnwnisslon Expires April 26, 1968
Z -1 7/2/54
LEA
Page C of pages.
Approved as to form 7/2/54
Office of the Corporation Counsel
PINK
cm
�o
c C!
Q U ca
FIX
y
vE
m
A
CL' E
Z` o
o LN
Z
i
' City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
PETITION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 5840, THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE
The signer should appraise himself of the uses permitted
under the new classification before signing this petition.
For further information about the re- zoning of property,
call the Board of Zoning Office Ca. 4 -4612, Ext. 251.
(Please type or print)
Date:
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
% the City Clerk
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
Pursuant to Section 23, Ordinance 5840, we, the undersigned owners of two -
thirds of the several descriptions of real estate situated within 100 feet of the /
real estate affected, hereby acquiesce; and we, the owners of 507o or more of the
frontage to be reclassified', petition your Honorable Body to rezone the followinf,
described p opertr; (legal description and street address)
- s- - - Jo-
/- 2-J `l 7 �--�
from a 47 7�'l '�%'�'! C. 1(2 District to a 701/1f s rict,
for the purpose of installing, constructing and /or operating the following:
(describe briefly the proposed facility)
County of Ramsey )'so
being first duly sworn,'deposes and states
t t he is t#e person who circulated the within petition consisting of
pages; that the parties described above are the owners respectively of the lots
placed immediately following each name; that this petition was signed by each of
said owners in the presence of this affiant, and that the signatures above are
the true and correct signatures of each and all of the parties so described.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this /9 day of
"9
Notary Public, Ramsey County, Nunn.
My Commission expires
Z -1 7/2/54
Page of pages.
Approved as to form 7/2/54
Office of the Corporation Counsel
I
I
I
"V
1p
4
I
I
�r. ttxt� �rs �ttgxttuxt� (a_
�LAj AYNE AVENUE
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA -
1.
johitsmi
55101 V/- 271Y
The Honorable Mayor
and the City Council of St. Paul
We, the people of the Payne Avenue area, from
Sherwood to Arlington;`Avenue, are petitionbng
for rezoning bf the block from commercial to a
residential zone. Ifti'ould be happy to have it
classified as either ,A, B, or C.
Our reason for the said action at this time, is
that none of the property owners realized that
we were in a commercial zone until we learned that
the Baptist Church was in the process
of being sold to a lawn mowererepair shop. The
owner would also have motor tune -ups, sell tools,
garden and power tool, fertilizer etc. He also
would have other plans for expansion, apartments.
The objection by the concerned property of "mers, is
based solely, on the business . We have nothing
but lovely homes in this block; the property is
beautifully kept up by the owners who all live here.
Our block is one o'f the most attractive ones on Pty ne .
We would all hair-to see business come in this block,
if it could be prevented.
The block north of us on Payne Avenue!, from Arlington
to-:Wheelock is now residential. We feel ours could
be also.
a
We would invite you to view our block if that would
be convenient fo;'r your Thank you for your considerat-
ion in this matter.
t..
i
ROBERT E. O'CONNELL
SPECIAL ASSISTANT
ROBERT E. FARICY
THOMAS J. STEARNS
ASSISTANTS
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
CORPORATION COUNSEL
To the Honorable Council of the
City of Saint Paul:
LOUIS P. SHEAHAN
DIRECTOR OF LAW
Stephen L. Maxwell
August 11; 1964
Reference hereby is made to your request for legal
opinion addressed to the Corporation Counsel, under date July 16,
1964, pertaining to the pending petition for an amendment to the
Zoning Code, whereby the real estate incorporating the entire
frontage on the West side of Payne Avenue between Arlington and
Sherwood Avenues, shall be rezoned from Commercial District to
"A", "B" or "C" Residence District. The subject real estate
consists of eight platted lots denominated Lots 1, 2, 3, 41 51
6, 7 and 81 Speiser's Addition. The said petition has been
executed by the owners of At'least 50 per cent of the frontage
of the real estate thereby sought to be rezoned and has been
accompanied by t:'el requisite written assents of owners of at
least 2/3 of the ,real estate within 100 feet of that so sought
to be, rezoned. The subject real estate has been zoned in the -
Commercial District since the effective date of Building Zone
Ordinance 5840, August 22, 1922. The same has been developed
by single family residences in respect of six of the eight lots
and by a church building in reference to the remaining two of
the same. The owner of said Lots incorporating said church
building recently' provided for the sale-�of the same under an
earnest money contract. The purchaser, under said earnest
money contract, proposed to remove the existing church building
therefrom and to erect a commercial building thereon. The said
purchaser has objected to the proposed rezoning of said real
estate which has been the subject of said church building develop-
ment and earnest money contract and has sought to challenge the
power and authority of the Council to grant the rezoning petition.
The legal opinions which you have sought are upon the
questions, (a) whether or not such rezoning may be effected with-
out the consent of the owner of said last mentioned real estate,
and (b) whether or not the City would be liable in damages on
account of its action granting said petition and accordingly
rezoning said last mentioned real estate.
In Kiges',. v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, ther-er
was involved a similar situation. There, the entire frontage
of a block was zoned Commercial District and the development
C•
Honorable Council 2. August 11, 1964
of the same had been in respect of every lot save one corner lot
which remained, vacant, residential in character. The Council
enacted an Amendatory Ordinance rezoning the entire block from
Commercial District to "A" Residence District. The owner of the
undeveloped lot had purchased the same for the purpose of con-
structing a dry cleaning business building thereon and had
challenged the power and authority of the Council to effectively
rezone the same as aforesaid. The Minnesota Supreme Court, among
other things, said:
"The parent authority for Building Zone Ordinance No.
5840 and the amendments thereto is to be found in the
enabling act, L. 19211 c. 217, which was later amended
by L. 1923, c. 364, L. 192 5, c. 284, and L. 1937, c• 239,
coded as M.S.A. 462.18. In considering the issues
we may proceed from the premise that it has been
established by all the leading authorities that
ordinances dividing cities into residential and busi-
ness districts and limiting use of realty in each
district to certain purposes will not be declared
unconstitutional unless it affirmatively appears that
the restriction is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable
and without any substantial relation to public health,
safety, morals, prosperity, or general welfare.
Zoning statutes have become common and zoning ordinances
which are fair in their requirements are generally
sustained as an exercise of the police power, which
is legislative. Its policy is not for the courts.
Only when its exercise constitutionally affects per-
sonal or property rights do the courts take cognizance,
and itis presumed that the legislative body investigated
and found conditions such that the legislation which
it enacted was appropriate. The action_of a city
council in the Zoning field, and the exercise of the
police power by the city council, is legislative."
The Supreme Court ,sustained said rezoning.
In Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 125 N.W. 2d 583,
the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the "spot rezoning" of
certain real estate, by virtue of an amendment to an existing
Zoning Ordinance, to a more restrictive use classification,
after the owner's purchase of the same, was void and ineffective
as it related to said real estate and that the owner of said
real estate, nevertheless, was entitled to construct a building
thereon permitted as a use thereof under the Zoning Ordinance in
effect at the time of such purchase where the enforcement of the
amended Ordiaance would result in a total destruction or a
Honorable Council 3. August 11, 1964
substantial diminution of the values of said real estate on account
whereof no compensation was provided; the Court holding that such
"spo t : zoning "',under such facts and circumstances and with such
effect would be� calculated to violate the due process clauses of the
State and Federal Constitutions against the taking by public authority
of private property for a public purpose without compensation therefor
being first paid or secured. The Gourt said, among other things:
"Further, it is significant that under the proposed plan of
defendant city plaintiff would suffer a substantial diminution in
the value of his property without compensation of any'-kind being
made therefor. The court found that the reasonable market value
of the property, if used for the purposes authorized at the time
of its purchase and on the date of the application for permit,
was the sum of $57,000.00 and that if its use were limited to
a 2j- story,structure as now proposed, its reasonable market value
would be the sum of $22,000.00, or a loss of $35,000.00 for
plaintiff.' We have recently stated that the enactment of "spot"
zoning ordinances or amendments to comprehensive zoning ordinances
under the police power which results in a total destruction or
substantial diminution of value of property affected thereby with-
out just compensation therefor constitutes the taking of property
without due process.* * *Where the motivating basis for such
enactments is in furtherance of the asthetic concepts of nearby
property owners who are not called upon to make compensation to
the owner for any resulting loss or diminution in the value of
his property, this would be particularly true. Numerous courts
have given approval to the doctrine that where zones have been
established,in a municipality, and property has been purchased
with-intent',to use it in conformance with such zoning, the pur-
chaser ordinarily has a right to so use it."
-The following are pertinent excerpts definitive of "spot zoning" from
Chapter 26, The Law of Zoning and Planning, Rathkopf:
"A great many attacks upon amendatory ordinances are based upon
a claim that the amendment constitutes "sport zoning."
"Spot Zoning" is the practice whereby a single lot or area is
granted privileges which are not granted or extended to other
land in the vicinity in the same use district. It is also, but
more rarely, used to describe the reverse proposition, that is, one
in which a dingle lot has burdens imposed upon it which are more
rigid than those imposed upon other properties within the same
district.
The term is not a word of art; it is a word- of opprobrium used by
the courts to describe or justify the result which they have
reached in a particular situation, rather than as thedefinition of
a particular concept of law.* * *
The basic rule has already been alluded to; if a change of zone is
reasonable and is in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the
zoning ordinance and can be justified as contributing to the public
health, safety and general welfare, it will not be held invalid as
"spot zoning ", even though the reclassification affects only a
single piece of property or may incidentally discriminate in favor
of the owner thereof."
Honorable Council 4. August 11, 1964
In State Ex Rel. Berndt v. Iten 259 Minn. 77,81, the
Minnesota Supreme Court made the significant pronouncement of
law quoted as follows:
"Relators claim a vested interest in the ordinance of
May 15, 1958. Under some circumstances vested rights
may be acquired as a result of existing zoning
ordinances. See, 58 Am. Jur. Zoning, g 182; Huff v.
City of Des Moines, 244 Iowa A9, 56 N. W. (2d) 54;
David A. Ulrich, Inc. v. Town of Saukville, 7 Wis.
(2d) 173, 96 N. W. (2d) 612. In Kiges v. City of
St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N. W. (2d) 363, this court
held that where a building permit was acquired but
construction proceeded no further than excavation,
no vested rights to use the premises for the purposes
planned existed which could not be cut off by a
subsequent amendment of the ordinance."
Nevertheless, the rule of the Kiges case above quoted
has not been reversed and still persists. Therefore, I answer
the first question in the affirmative subject to this: that the
rezoning action must not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious
and must bear some reasonable and substantial relationship to
the public peace, health, safety and general welfare. I answer
the second question in the negative since it is my opinion that
any rezoning action which the Council might attempt in the eleva-
tion of the classification of the subject real estate and which
might be found in excess of its power and authority would be
invalid and ineffective and could not be deemed to operate with
the result that private property would be taken in violation of
the due process laws of either the State or Federal Constitution.
The necessary enabling State Legislation for the enact-
ment of the Zoning Code and its predecessor, Building Zone
Ordinance No. 5840, is represented by Section 462.18, Minnesota
Statutes Annotated, as amended. The said State Statute and
the said Zoning Code, respectively, contemplate amendments to the
authorized and established comprehensive Zoning Plan, thereunder,
involving, among other things, the rezoning of property originally
classified and the alteration of the rules and regulations made
applicable to the use of the same under such established compre-
hensive Zoning Plan. The said State Statute imposes, save for
exceptions in particular cases, the obtaining and filing of the
written assents of the owners of two - thirds of the several
descriptions of the real estate within 100 feet of that sought
to be affectedby rezoning as the sole condition precedent to
the necessary zoning amendment and the Zoning Code contains a
comparable requirement and exceptions conformable to the said
State Statute.
Honorable Council 5. August 11, 1964
I direct attention to Gratton v. Conte, 73 A. (2d)
381,385, where the Supreme.Court of Pennsylvania said:
"Of course a zoning ordinance must not be arbitrary
or unreasonably discriminatory, but zoning classifica-
tions are largely within the judgment of the legisla-
tive body and the exercise of that judgment will not
be interfered with by the courts except in cases where
it is obvious that the classification has no substan-
tial relation to public health, safety, morals or
general welfare. Ward's Appeal, 289 Pa. 458, 137 A.
630; Kerr's Appeal 294 Pa. 246, 144 A. 81. Plaintiffs-
must also realize that the original zoning ordinance
which established the comprehensive plan for the city
gave them no vested rights which would prevent the
city from subsequently amending that ordinance; indeed
the power so to amend was expressly conferred by the
Act of 1927 and was also reserved in the ordinance
itself; the general ordinance fixing the boundaries
of the zones did not constitute a contract with
plaintiffs preventing the city from subsequently
changing those boundaries if it found it desirable so
to do. Hollearn v. Silverman:, 338 Pa. 346, 349, 350,
12 A. (2d) 2921 293.11
See also Marblehead Land Co. v. City of Los An eles, 47 F (2d)
528; Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 71 L. Ed. 107 ; and Dennis v.
Village of Tonka Bay, 156 F. (2d) 672. / _A _ .4
Respeqp'f'ully�j�,d fiitfed,
G
pis r. bneana
rector of Law
LPS:lg
J.
S f
i
-F
Adopted by the Council f1 196_
i�
Yeas Nays
\pALGLISIi
\HOLLAND
L
MERLE
\ �E
PETERSON
�OSEN
;F
PRESIDENT (VAVOULIS)
�F
�F
J�
;C
1�
n
ROBERT B. GERBER, JR.
OFFICE OF CITY CCERK -M°` GGN *E"
City Clerk
BUREAU OF RECORDS;; HAROLD J. RIORDAN
Council Recorder
386 City Hall and Court House
St. Paul 2, Minnesota
% 219 56
4
July 16, 1964
JUL 17 1964
W. Louis P. Sheahan
Director of Law
Building
a,
Dear Sir:
i
The City Council today considered a petition to rezone from Commercial
District to either "A ", "B" or "C" Residence District property on the
west side of Payne Ave. between'Arlington and Sherwood Aves. You will
note in the letter of the Board of Zoning in the' attached file pertaining
to this matter that the church property is being sold to a lawn mower
sales and service company and it is for that reason that the petition
to rezone to a Residential District has been filed.
s
It was also pointed out at the hearing that the church and the owner of the
lawn mower sales - 'company have incurred expenses in connection with the pro-
posal. ;
'E The Council requests your opinion as to whether or not the Council can
�3 rezone this property without the owner's consent aryl whether t the
city, would be liable if the property is rezone wi hout compensation.
�.. The matter was laid over to st 11th for further consideration.
;,.
Very truly yours,
1111 /�N111
/ g
City Clerk
.. I ...
nit
nn n rfli P n
• M
CITY 0 F SAINT PAUL'-MINNESOTA 8
y ..
` RD OF
:•;: kitPN'�idi+:231.252 -253
�E
'F •
iC -
]I
ZONING,- CITY
�E 1013 CITY HALL AND COURT HOUSE
OF SAINT PAUL
SAINT PAUL Z, MINNESOTA
1F ,
41 June 30, 1964
Mr. Robert B. Gerber Jr.
City Clerk
Building
Dear Sir:
This is in the matter of the petition`of Raymond C. Johnson et all to rezone
from a "Commercial' district to either an "A" residence, "B" residence, or "C"
residence district, 4 , property located on the west side of Payne Avenue which lies
between Arlington and Sherwood Avenues. The--subject property is described as
Lots 1 through S inclusive, Speiser's_Addition. -
On May 20, 1964, the-Commissioner of Finance reported the petition sufficient
with the owners of .14 of a possible 21 (66 -2/3 %) tracts of land within the
prescribed 100 -foot "radius having signed the petition. Of the eight lots in-
volved in this petition, the owners of five of the eight lots have acquiesced
in the rezoning which includes 2041.(62$) of the 328 feet of frontage involved.
Six of the eight lots involved in the petition are developed with •si"igle- family
residences and two lots are developed with a church structure all of which
front on Pa ny��nue'.'�
The Board of Zoning considered this matter at its regular meeting on June 4,
1964. The staff reported that the subject - property has been zoned commercial
since,the enactment of the Zoning Code in 1922, as are all .other properties
fronting on Payne Avenue from Arlington Avenue south. However, of the Payne
Avenue frontage extending from Wheelock Drive south -to Orange Avenue, a dis-
tance of approximately�,l /2 mile which includes the subject property, only eight
have• commercial uses -,,the r'e'maining development is predominately single- family.
Discussion-at the Board meeting brought out the fact that the church property
is being sold to a Lawn;-Mower Sales and Service'Company and it is for this
reason that the petition to rezone to a residential district has been filed.
In consideration of these factors, the Board of Zoning is of the opinion that
a reclassification to "A!' residence district would be in order so as to pre-
serve the character of this area which is now basically single- family residence -
use:
'• Sincerely
.'� B. R.`Teig, A.I.P. _
BRT:FS Recording Se retary
Enc . - _ �, _
Z. F. 5501 "
•6
1-
;; Approved
Member, Board of Zoning
f
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
MINNESOTA
h
113 Court House, 56102
JAMES J. DALGLISH, Commissioner
THOMAS J. KELLEY, Deputy Commissioner
i
•1:
May 20, 1964 1
Phone: 224.4612
Ext. 343 -344
To the Council ,�
City of St. Paul it
�f
Gentlemen:
I have checked the attached petition, filed in the matter
of rezoning
Lots 1p 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, Speiser's Add -
ition.,The property is located on the west
side of Payne Avenue from Arlington Avenue to
Sherwood Avenue,
from "Commercial" District to Class "A", "Bm or 'C" Resi-
dence District, and find that said petition is sufficient.
1.
Y s ery t y;`
awes J. Da lish
Commissioner of Finance
Re: 16449
r
c.c. Mr. Schroeder,
City Architect
Zoning Board
i�
a,
a.
OJESPD22
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
MINNESOTA
City Clerk
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
113 Court House 55102
224 -4612
22
June 19, 1964
File 16449, Page
You are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House at 10:00 a.m. on
July 2, 1964, on the advisability of rezoning from Commercial to
"A", "B" or 1101 Residence District, the following described property:
Lots 15 25 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Speisers Addition. The property is
located on the west side of Payne Avenue from Arlington to Sherwood
Streets.
Fdr further information call at Room 1315, Court House or phone
224 -4612, Extension 251.
COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
PETITI()N TO R .ZONE
A petition caving be n filed request-
ing that Chapters 800 64 inclusive,
St. Paul Legislative Code, re Zoning,
erty describedeas Lots 1�2,e3�4e5r6P7
and 8, Speiser's Addition, on the west
side of Payne Avenue from Arlington
to Sherwood Avenues, to "A ", "B' , or
"C" Residence District, the .Council of
the City of Saint Paul has fixed the
2nd, day of July, 1964, at ten o'clock
in the forenoon in the Council Cham-
ber in the'CitY Hall of said City, and
the will hear time and and all objections
and recommendations relative to said
proposed amendment.
Dated June 18, 1964.
ROBERT B- GERBER, lerk.
1 (June 20, 1964)
,n
J
t
n
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
MINNESOTA
City Clerk
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
113 Court House 55102
224 -4612
22
June 19, 1964
File 16449, Page
You are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House at 10:00 a.m. on
July 2, 1964, on the advisability of rezoning from Commercial to
"A", "B" or 1101 Residence District, the following described property:
Lots 15 25 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Speisers Addition. The property is
located on the west side of Payne Avenue from Arlington to Sherwood
Streets.
Fdr further information call at Room 1315, Court House or phone
224 -4612, Extension 251.
COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
PETITI()N TO R .ZONE
A petition caving be n filed request-
ing that Chapters 800 64 inclusive,
St. Paul Legislative Code, re Zoning,
erty describedeas Lots 1�2,e3�4e5r6P7
and 8, Speiser's Addition, on the west
side of Payne Avenue from Arlington
to Sherwood Avenues, to "A ", "B' , or
"C" Residence District, the .Council of
the City of Saint Paul has fixed the
2nd, day of July, 1964, at ten o'clock
in the forenoon in the Council Cham-
ber in the'CitY Hall of said City, and
the will hear time and and all objections
and recommendations relative to said
proposed amendment.
Dated June 18, 1964.
ROBERT B- GERBER, lerk.
1 (June 20, 1964)
r
,r
^_ _ �`'�- - , -.,; _ _ L_T'.' Via .. .,. —- :• .4 _`a -a.. ` ,
JU3.y 2, 1964
_ t Zoning Board
` 13th Floor . -i
Building
The CitY Council laid over to 16 matter of the petition to rezonq
to "A'°s "8'° qr . "C" Reside t p ty, on the west side of Payne Ave,
" between Arlington and She Aves wview the property.
Very truly yourejo
CkV* Clerk
�~ OFFICE 'OF CITY CLERK
BUREAU OF RECORDS
386,City Hall and Court House 1° .
St. Paul 2, Minnesota z :
3j
:F
W. Louis P. Sheahan
Director of Law 3;
Building
Dear Sir:
M
1
I ~'
I
I
_ROBERT B. GERBER, JR.
M 6 AGNES 11.
City Clerk
HAROLD J. RIORDAN
Council Recorder
dtiily 16, 196+ ;
JUL 17 , 1964
PORPORA �.....,..�L
The City Council today considered a petition to rezone from Commercial
District to either "A"� "B" or "C" Residence,Dif?trfe�t_p�rty on the
west side of Payne Ave. between Arlington and Sherwood Aves:-You will
note in the letter of, the Board of Zoning in thelattached file pertaining
to this matter that,?the church property,is being sold to a lawn mower
sales and service company and it is for that reason that the petition
to rezone to a Residential District has been filed.
It was also pointed'out at the hearing that the church and the owner of ,the
lawn mower sales company have incurred-expenses in connection with the pro-
posal.
The Council requests!'your opinion as to whether or not the Council can
rezone this property without the owner's consent and whether or not the
city would be liable',if the property is rezoned without compensation.
The matter was laid over to Au st 3.1th for further consideration.
Very truly yours ,, • ,
nn�ugH
.AO /rig •.••• ::: City Clerk
eI so-
CITY OF SAINT. PAUL MINNESOTA-, S
.... ...................
.... .. ... ........
..... f
... .. .....
.... .......... ............
RAMR,-D OF ZONING, CITY OF SAINT PAUL
......... .
.. . . ... ... 251-252-253 1313 CITYHALL AND COURT HOUSE SAINT PAUL 2,MINNISOTA
..
.... ...
......
. . . ,
........ .
U
July 13, 1964
RECEIVED
SAINT PAUL, MINN.
Honorable Mayor and Council Members"
In MAYOR'S OFFICE
City of Saint Paul, Minnesota,
Building JUL 13 1964
AN PM
Dear Mayor and� C0un'dil Members:
This is written pur'suant to your verbal request"made'at a recent 8ouncil
4
meeting in wbicb'yob asked for an opinion from a' la"'
p nner'.s. point of view
concerning the rezdning?`of property in',which all property-owners of pro-
perty sought to be rezoned'did not join in a petition of assent. More
specifically, it is.' ' the matter of the petition of kaymond C. Johnson et al
to rezone from a commercial district to either "A"., "B", or "C" residence
district property l61cated on the west side of Payne Avenue which lies be-
tween Arlington and,'Sherwood Avenues.-
The authority to restrict the use of land including-control of height and
bulk of buildings, yards, ards, densities, coverage of lots, etc. is delegated
to the local governing body by State Statute under the police'power. The
governing body -has the authority to adopt, amend,.or repeal the Zoning Ordi-
nance or Code. Also", in certain states including the State of Minnesota,
an additional procedure is provided for amending district boundaries by
bringing the matter before the Council through the consent petition. There-
fore, this writer is,rof the opinion that the zoning classification ^
1. of a
property is not an inherent right which runs with the property.
Numerous cities have , adopted new Zoning Ordinances or.Codes in lieu of
long established Code ' Two cities which have adopted new Zoning Ordinances
of which I have persopal knowledge are Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Davenport,
Iowa. -In both cities':, many properties which were originally zoned as commer-
cial were rezoned to residential properties-wben the new Zoning ordinance
was adopted. No consideration or damages were paid to these property owners.'
To the best. of my kno wledge, these actions have not been challenged in Court
at least in the states of Minnesota and Iowa.
With respect to Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, or Code, through initiation
of petitions of assent;.or consent, there are many illustrations.' The City of
Saint Paul bas-establi'sbed precedents by rezoning from "C" to "B" residence
property located on tbp South side of Como Avenue between Avon and Grotto Streets.'
This was done in December 1958 in which 757o of the frontage involved within the
area sought to be reclassified had signed the.petition. In June-1958, the City
Council of Saint Paul rezoned from "B" to "A" residence property on both sides
of Lincoln Avenue fromiGrotto Streetto St.Albans Street.- In this instance,
approximately 76.57, of.the frontage involved within the area-sougbt to be re --
classified had signed the petition. In April 1958, the City Council rezoned
from "B" to "A" residence property located on both sides of Lincoln Avenue be-
tween Avon and Victoria!,Streets in which approximately 81% of the frontage
is
w ,
Mayor and Council,,Members Page 2
e
involved within the area sought to be reclassified had signed the petition. In
December 1960, the,,City Council rezoned from Commercial to "B" residence pro-
perty on the north,Fside of Randolph Avenue between Kenneth Street and Cleveland
Avenue in which the owners of one of the lots which were rezoned did not sign
the petition. Theliowner of this lot -had obtained a building permit to construct
a commercial building on the lot.'o,As a result of the petition to rezone, a stop
order was issued. ,,There are citedhas examples; there are a number of other
instances of rezonings in Saint Paul in which some of the owners of the frontage
of the property sought tobe rezoned did not join in the petition.
a�
Planners, in making recommendations-'pertaining,to rezoning of property, base
their recommendations on�'these basic :ipoints -1) reasonability, related to exist-
ing uses, 2) reasonability, related to future _land use plans, and 3) relation-
ship to the general�welf.are of the community.
4
In summary, with ~respect to the specific matter before the City Council, i.e.
the rezoning of property on the west side of.Payne Avenue between Arlington and
Sherwood Avenues., 'the Board of Zoning and its staff has recommended approval
of this rezoning. The owners of 14 of a possible 21 (66 2/3 %) tracts of 1-and
within the prescribed 100 foot - radius having signed the petition, and the owners
of five of the eight lots, or 62% of the-frontage of the area sought to be re-
zoned have signed the petition. This block on the west side of Payne Avenue
has been zoned commercial since 1922. It,is presently developed with homes and
one church, and has''always been used exclusively for residences and permitted
uses in a residential district. The entire block across the street, or the
properties fronting ion the east side of Payne Avenue between Arlington and Sher-
wood Avenues have been zoned commercial sirice'1922 although all of the properties
are developed as homexsites. " the'Board•and - its, 'staff- •therefore feel that the
character of the immediate area is residential. The future Land Use Plan'
-shows the highest and best use of this property tote, residential. The Board is
of the opinion that the general welfare of the area is best served by preserving
the residential character and therefore recommends that the City Council give ,
favorable consideration,to the rezoning of this property. I feel that this
recommendation is sound, based upon the three basic considerations cited in the
preceeding paragraph.,
Respectfully submitted,
_ r _
,a
B. R. Teig
BRT :FGI ;' Acting Director of Planning
1E —
a
1st
2nd 9
Laid over to
3rd and app. Adopted D .5
Yeas Nays
alglish
olland
1 Loss
ortinson'
�P,eterson
Rosen
President Vavoulis
'Y s Nays
Dalglish
Holland
Loss
V
(� s Peterson
275 Rosen
tPt President Vavoulis