Avr, Inc v. City Of St. Louis Park

585 N.W.2d 411 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P owns and operates a ready-mix concrete plant that was constructed in 1954. In 1959, D passed a zoning ordinance permitting ready-mix plants in the area of the city zoned for industrial use but only pursuant to a special use permit. D did not grant a special use permit to the then-owners of this ready-mix plant. The plant was classified as a preexisting nonconforming use because it was within 400 feet of a residential district. In 1973, D eliminated ready-mix and concrete block plants as permitted uses in the city. P purchased the ready-mix plant in 1974 for $260,000. In May 1980, D adopted a new comprehensive plan and put P on notice that the city intended to phase out the plant and rezone the site for commercial or office use or 'as a second choice high-density residential use.' P commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate the 1973 zoning ordinance on the ground that it wrongfully eliminated ready-mix plants as permitted uses in industrial zones. The district court declared the ordinance void as applied to P. D appealed. The court concluded that because the plant was not a public nuisance or a nuisance per se, the city could not legislate it out of existence. In 1990, the city adopted a new comprehensive plan, which provides that heavy industrial uses including a concrete ready mix plant and outdoor storage of heavy equipment are to be phased out, and the sites are to be used for high-density residential use. D was to establish an amortization period for individual land uses not permitted in the City. D was to meet with each property owner, review each registration application, and determine a reasonable amortization period for each nonconforming use. The following factors were to be considered: a. Information relating to the structure located on the property; b. Nature of the use; c. Location of the property in relation to surrounding uses; d. Description of the character of and uses in the surrounding neighborhood; e. Cost of the property and improvements to the property; f. Benefit to the public by requiring the termination of the non-conforming use; g. Burden on the property owner by requiring the termination of the non-conforming use; h. The length of time the use has been in existence and the length of time the use has been non-conforming. D held a public hearing P's amortization period with both sides presenting evidence. D determined that P would have 2 years. D had retained an accounting firm and a real estate appraisal firm for its evidence and determined that P had not only recovered its investment but also had earned a return of approximately 560 percent on its investment. P sought a declaration that the D's amortization ordinance violated P's right to due process and equal protection of the laws as well as an unconstitutional taking of P’s property without just compensation.