458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo. 1970)
Relators owned a lot in the City of Ladue and applied to the Building Commissioner for a permit to construct a single-family residence of unusual design. They submitted plans and specifications that complied with all existing building and zoning regulations of the city.1
The Building Commissioner refused the permit on the ground that the Architectural Board had not approved the plans.2 The city had enacted Ordinance 131 as amended by Ordinance 281, which established an Architectural Board of three members, all of whom must be architects, to review applications affecting outward appearance.3
The ordinances recited a purpose to maintain minimum architectural standards of appearance and conformity with surrounding structures while avoiding unsightly, grotesque, and unsuitable structures detrimental to property values and community welfare.4 Relators filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the trial court and moved for summary judgment.5
The Building Commissioner filed opposing affidavits from the mayor, a residential developer, and a planning consultant.6 The mayor's affidavit stated that Ladue was one of the finer suburban residential areas of metropolitan St. Louis, with homes on lots ranging from three-fourths of an acre to three or more acres and values considerably above average for cities of comparable size.7 The developer’s affidavit described the existing houses as virtually all two-story structures of conventional Colonial, French Provincial, or English design and stated that the proposed ultramodern residence would clash with every other house in the neighborhood.8
The planning consultant attached photographic exhibits of the surrounding homes, including the Colonial frame house to the west, the English Tudor brick home to the northeast, and the large Colonial homes immediately to the north, and also attached exhibits showing the proposed residence as a pyramid shape with a flat top and triangular windows or doors.9 The affidavits further stated that the proposed structure would have a substantial adverse effect on market values of other residential property in the area, where average values ranged from $60,000 to $85,000.10 The trial court granted the motion and issued a peremptory writ compelling issuance of the permit.11 The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed the trial court’s judgment and reversed it.12
Whether the City of Ladue possessed authority under the state enabling statutes to enact ordinances creating an architectural board and requiring approval of building plans for conformity with surrounding structures?13
Section 89.020 empowers the legislative body of cities to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare of the community.14 Section 89.040 requires that such regulations be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Such regulations must be designed to promote health and the general welfare, with reasonable consideration to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the values of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout such municipality.15
Yes. The City of Ladue possessed authority under the enabling statutes because the ordinances were enacted to promote the general welfare by preserving the character of the district and conserving property values.16 The affidavits demonstrate that the area consists of conventional designs and that the proposed structure would clash and adversely affect values.17
The City of Ladue possessed authority under the enabling statutes to enact the ordinances establishing the Architectural Board and requiring plan approval for conformity with surrounding structures.18
Whether the ordinances were invalid as an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of police power because they rested on aesthetic considerations?19
Zoning ordinances that consider aesthetic factors along with effects on property values and general welfare are a valid exercise of police power when they are not arbitrary or unreasonable.20 Such ordinances serve the stabilizing of property values and the comfort and happiness of residents in a fashionable neighborhood.21
No. The ordinances were not invalid as an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of police power.22 The aesthetic factor is not considered alone but is joined with the effect that the proposed residence would have upon property values in the area.23 The affidavits establish that the proposed pyramid-shaped structure with triangular windows would clash with the conventional Colonial, French Provincial, and English Tudor homes and would have a substantial adverse effect on market values ranging from $60,000 to $85,000.24 The denial of the permit in this fashionable area where traditional styles predominate does not appear arbitrary or unreasonable when the basic purpose is the general welfare of the community.25
The ordinances were not invalid as an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of police power even though they incorporate aesthetic considerations.26
Whether the ordinances constituted an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Architectural Board by providing inadequate standards for its decisions?27
An ordinance delegating authority to an administrative board provides sufficient standards when it calls for factual determinations of suitability with reference to the character of the surrounding neighborhood and adverse effects on general welfare and preservation of property values.28 This is especially true when procedures include public hearings with notice to the applicant.29
No. The ordinances did not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Architectural Board.30 The standards require the Board to determine whether the proposed structure conforms to proper architectural standards in appearance and design, will be in general conformity with the style and design of surrounding structures, and is conducive to the proper architectural development of the city.31 The Board must disapprove if it determines the structure will constitute an unsightly, grotesque or unsuitable structure in appearance detrimental to the welfare of surrounding property or residents.32 These general standards are sufficient because the procedures provide for public hearings with notice to the applicant before the Architectural Board and further review by the City Council on appeal, safeguarding against arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion.33
The ordinances did not constitute an unlawful delegation of legislative power because they supplied adequate standards and procedural safeguards.34
Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment and issued a peremptory writ of mandamus directing issuance of the building permit?35
A trial court errs in granting summary judgment and issuing a peremptory writ of mandamus when the challenged ordinances are a valid exercise of municipal authority under the enabling statutes.36 The ordinances must not constitute an unreasonable exercise of police power or an unlawful delegation.37
No. The trial court did not properly grant summary judgment and issue a peremptory writ of mandamus directing issuance of the building permit.38 Because the ordinances are valid under §§ 89.020 and 89.040, the Building Commissioner properly refused the permit when the Architectural Board had not approved the plans.39 The trial court’s judgment that the ordinances violate due process by depriving owners of property without due process of law cannot stand when the record shows the ordinances serve the general welfare by protecting property values in a neighborhood of conventional architectural design.40
The trial court did not properly grant summary judgment and issue the peremptory writ because the ordinances are valid.41
Whether the decision in State ex rel. Magidson v. Henze should continue to be followed?42
A prior decision interpreting enabling statutes should no longer be followed when it failed to consider a relevant statutory provision that directly supports municipal authority to regulate for preservation of district character and conservation of building values.43
No. The decision in State ex rel. Magidson v. Henze should no longer be followed because that case held that § 89.020 does not grant a city the right to impose aesthetic standards but did not consider the effect of § 89.040 and the italicized portion relating to the character of the district, its suitability for particular uses, and the conservation of the values of buildings.44 These considerations, sanctioned by statute, are directly related to the general welfare of the community and support the validity of the Ladue ordinances.45
The decision in State ex rel. Magidson v. Henze should no longer be followed.46