Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
St. Louis County, Mo., Zoning Code § 1003.145 specifically states that the purpose of the C-8 zoning regulations is to facilitate the establishment of combinations of developments and uses for which no provision is made in any other "C" Commercial District or the establishment of developments and uses in locations where it would be appropriate to the area if it were to take place under approved site plans and conditions necessary to protect the general welfare. A C-8 District may contain any use permitted in any "C" district but the specific ordinance creating the district on a particular tract of land may restrict the uses to be permitted on the tract. In establishing a particular C-8 district the Council is to determine that any particular tracts or areas should be developed for commercial use, but because of potential conflicts with adjoining uses, existing or potential, a greater degree of control of the manner of development is necessary to protect the general welfare that is possible under the regulations of the other "C" Commercial Districts.
A tract of land was rezoned from a planned industrial district to a planned commercial district by St. Louis County, Mo., Ordinance 7878. The owners challenged the Ordinance and the trial court upheld its validity and constitutionality.
Was St. Louis County, Mo., Zoning Code § 1003.145, which created the commercial classification as a "floating zone," valid?
The court modified and affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by going beyond the issues presented in ordering the enactment to be amended. The rest of the judgment remained valid because the void section was not so contradictory as to render the entire judgment nugatory. St. Louis County, Mo., Zoning Code § 1003.145, which created the commercial classification as a "floating zone," was valid. There was no delegation of legislative authority to rezone and each district created under the ordinance had uniform restrictions within that district. Expert preferences as to the minimum set back required did not make approval of the development arbitrary. The restrictions in the Ordinance were adequate to guide the planning commission. The owners failed to show the absence of a reasonable relationship between the developer's proposed activity and the improvements to a nearby road required by the Ordinance.