established rule is that if an ordinance is partially invalid, “the remainder of the ordinance should not be stricken down as void unless it may be found judicially that the city council would not have passed the entire enactment if it had known of such invalidity.” Wilson v. Waynesville, 615 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Mo.App.1981). See also Boonville v. Rowles, 869 S.W.2d 889, 892 (Mo.App.1994). This general rule has “frequently been applied with respect to zoning ordinances. Generally, under such rule, a zoning ordinance in part invalid will not be declared void in toto where it is designed to promote the public health, safety and general wel-fare_” McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 25.63 (3d ed. 1991). See, e.g., Cities Serv. Oil Co. v. Oak Brook, 15 Ill.App.3d 424, 304 N.E.2d 460 (1973) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs nevertheless contend that a zoning
holding that a county ordinance conflicted with state laws and was invalid as applied to all citizens holding seniorhousing zoning ordinance invalid as applied holding an ordinance invalid to the extent that it permits what a statute restricts holding that a city could not apply its rent control ordinance in conflict with tribal ordinance to nonindians on reservation trust land holding ordinance which established set back requirements invalid as to particular strips of land