259689 ORIG'sNAL TO CITY CLBRK I � �
� �- C OF ST. PAUL �LENCIL NO._��.�596�_9
,. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
` C N R LUTION-GENERAL FORM
PRESENTEO BY �
COMMISSIONE DATF
RESOLVED, Tha.t pursua.nt to a Court Order issued by a Judge
of District Court, Second Judicial District, County of Ramsey,
State of Minnesota,. dated September 11, 1972, in the matter of
Knutson Company and Knutson Development Compa.ny, plaintiffs, vs.
City of Saint Paul, a Minnesota co�poration, defendant, and George
W. Thompson, Dale E. Peppel, Marilyn M. La.ntry, and on beha.lf of
Battle Creek Civic Association, an unincorporated association,
Intervenors, Distriet Court File No. 385116, the Knutson Development
Company, a division of the Knutson Company, be and hereby is granted
' a permit to �,n.stall a 132-car parking facility in conjunction with
a 64-town�ouse residential development on property located on the
East side of Ruth Street between Burns Avenue and North Park Drive
in the C�ty of` Saint Paul,y more particularly described as followss
, � _
Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, Block ;;..�.7:,: `Battic� `C�eel� Heights,
: _ Plat 3; _ . _ .._ ._ M
all in accordance with the final plans dated Received April 28, + �
1972; subject to the condition tha.t said applicant-permittee and
its successors and assigns sha.11 ma.ke due compliance with all
applicable provisions of the municipal ordina.nces, State statutes,
and rules and regulations of public authorities having cognizance.
F APPROYED:
Asst. City Attomey �
COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council S EP 19 197?�9_
Yeaa Nays �
�cHunt �
�,��Konopatzki • Appr�pved—�� ��9—
�
Levine. _j� Favor \ . �� �
�,
Meredith
�, ti.
Mayor °
Sprafka �gainst Approved without the si�nature of
Tedesco� the Mayor, pursuant to
Mrs Preaident, N��X$U.tler Section 6.08 of the St. Paul
City Charter.
�
PUBLISHED $Ep 3 D 15��
GITY OF SAINT PALTL
- OFFIGE OF THE MAYOIH
o:esaa
wnna�
���e� -
LAWRENGE D. GOHEN
MAYOR
September 26 , 1972
Mr. riarry E. Mar�hall
City Clerk
Room 386 City Hall
Saint Paul , Minnesota
Dear Mr. Marshall :
I am returning this date C.F. 259689 without my
signature , to become effective .
Please issue �he rec�uired pex�mits according to the
court order referred to therein wnen the ordinance becomes
effective under City Council rules .
Sincerely ,
WRENCE D . COHEN
i°iayor
LDC/jfr
attachment
22
i
--- - ��"�,�,�.�,.� 259689
CITY OF ST. PAUL �uNC�� NO
� ' OFFICE'�OF THE CITY CLERK
COUNCIL RESiOIUTION—GENERAL FORM
n��.r
COMAlIS510NER � �AT�
RBSULVED, Tl�at pursuant� to a Caurt Order i�sutd by a Ju�dge
of Diatrict Ccrurt, Second Judicial District, Crnmty of Ii�amaay,
State of Minnesota, datad Se tember 11, i972, in the matt�tr of
tC�tson Comp�any aad K�utaon velopawint Cvinpany, plaintif f�, vu.
Citq of Saint Paul, a Mis�es ta corporatian, defendant, and Geor�Q
W. Thc�np�on, Uale E. Peppel� �lariiyn M. Lantry, and on b�half oi�
Battla Creak Civic Associati , an uai�corporated associatian,
Intsrveuora, District Court ila No. 385116, tha Knutson Dev�lvpewnt
Compnny, a diviaioa of the I�itsaa Canpany, be and hareby is granted
a permtt to install a 132-ca�c parkit�g facility in con�u�ction with
a 64-to�wn�use residential dl'e�v�elopnent o� pro�jerty located on tha
East aide of I�tth Street bet�aeen Hurns Avos�a�e a�d I�s�th Park Driva
in t,hs Ctty ot� Saint Paul, m�rs psrticularly c�t��ribed as follo�ss
Lots 9, 10, il, 12 �nd �3, Block 21, �lattle Creek H�ights,
Plat 3� ,
,
all in accordan�ce with tht f u�l plans dated Rec�ivod April 28�
1972; subject to the conditi �bat ami.d applicaat•permittsa and
its swccessors sud aasigna a 11 make du� compliance with all
applicable provisions of theE �unicipal ordinerbcas, State statutes,
and rules and r�gulativn� of�, public authoritiaa haviug c4gaiza�ee.
i SEP 19 1918
COUNCILMEN ' Adopted by the Co�mM1 19_
Yeaa Naye
�c�int ''�
����� I Approv!� 19—
Levine Favor
Meredith I,
Sprafka I Msyor
Tedeaco ', ��8t Appro�►�ed �tithoat t]'e sige�tttre of the
, May�r, P�rsuaat �o sectian 6.08 of
Mr�PresYdent, tl�r ' t�e St. Paul City G�er.
��
� � i �
�OR[('iINAL`70 CITY CL6RK �
CITY OF ST. PAUL ��ENC�� NO. ,��59�.9
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
C N� RE OLUTION-GENERAL FORM
PRESENTED !Y ���6�-I�-�I��X -J� �5����C�
COMMISSIONE� � DATE
RESOLVED, That pursuant to a Court Order iss�sed by a Judge
of D���tr-ict Co�ar�, Second Judici.al Distr_ict, County of Ramsey,
State of M.�nnesota, dated September I1, 1972, in the matter of
Knutson Company and Knutson Development Company, plaintiffs, vs .
City of Saint Paul, a Mi.nnesota corporati.on, defendant, and George
W. Thompson, Dale E. Peppel, Marilyn'M. Lantry, and on behalf of
Battle Creek Civic Association, an unincorporated association,
Intervenors, District Court File No. ,385116, the Knutson Development
Company, a division of the Knutson Company, be and hereby is granted
" a permit to install a 132-car parking facility in conjunction with
a 64-townhouse residential development on property located on the
East side of Ruth Street between Burns Avenue and North Park Drive
in the City of Saint Paul, more particularly described as followso
Lots 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, Block 21, Battle Creek Heights,
�' Plat 3; '
;�
all in accordance with the final plans dated Received April 28,
1972; subject to the condition that s�aid applicant-permittee and
its successors and assigns shall make du� compliance with all
appl�ca�le provisions of the municipal ordina.nces, State statutes,
and rtiles and regulations of public authorities having cognizance .
F�RM APPROYED:
i/ �`__ � ,s� ; .� �'�
,- i,.- _. ' � .�i-7;{ i
Asst. City Attomey `' �
COUNCILMEN Adopted by the Council S E P 19 19��9_
Yeas Nays
��ZHunt
���Kono pat zki Approved 19—
� Levine �.;,
_�n Favor
Meredith
Sprafka � Apprcv�ed witbout t.� ai�ria�Cur��°r
Tedesco-- � ASainst � �pr� �.�p� tQ
ssetiaa 6.08 oP Lhe st, Peul.
Mrs President, N.���Xgutler City Charter,
- ��
��I '1'YO F �1� I :��T �A I'L
--�'"a� c�r r i c>r• o�.. .r i��� ri.�v o x
� �j�� C'�� � ��
��� T�,Hn��F'i
� 1
1._����ur:��,i; ]). Gc�rit:�
>i.�,�,�t
�' a 1i t,-=�T .�'"'l" _: � '.�?"%
;'ar' . �ldt�'�7 �. . i'ar;'it.�i.[-1„
Ci�ty C1Prr;
��C>11�i .5�i `i,�.l�:'y' �ic��_�
Saint Pau, , �'I��r.zi�4:=;�t��
1�-C.'dT' �'1Y'� i``Ic:�'�rlc3l,� .
I am returnin� tnis ;�ai:F� �: . F. 25S�8�' witl�,��zz�t my
signaturQ , i o bec�m� ef�E�c 4�v? .
.� . .
,_ - - - -
, ,
. �.'r;��'f_'. �.S�.�S�� ��i:' x'Nf�l:.�_r-+:' y�.—'t� �t.i.±� C:`����v._. )'Y��.:u ' ��C' �!1':C
• , . ,
i
C:OLli'1 L'1'r�:T'' lt?'���!_t'l? ta:) LI;E'_�'£�1.1'1 �::iF?:1 i-�-il-' G.�C�Cti.:,=1i1�=F •;E'`+"'.� :l._,�..
,
E'f s�FVCt.i Vr? 11+1:�='=2.� !;1.��° �t_?;J.a".C`'� �i. ?`;1��;: .
:�.�.ii:.!-��'c:�lT s
,i..i��� .�.._ ?) . llii.��l�:
�,.x�yl C 1�
�,�f��{��
a'�taCltri;E>ri C �
' - � � � � a ��� g'
. . `�
.. . _.
, ,:,r, ,,�, �d ,-,-,���:. !� .., Tr,�, �+ ��t�.�,
.>i%:..1� �,... :'i��.'�..��.:.,J /.s� u .`a.i�.L1.:4 40LJ1`1
,: .;;:�:'�� Ji� ��':i;..,��' ��;CC?t�� JtJDIC'I?�, DI��RI�T
�335i16
A�:i:� :::nu�.sor� Cor��any and
�K.a2:�'�;3Uai s�1C-:V��.�,t:a�rit Gafri�;��riv,
P��3..�ti�Ff� ,
—'�T 3—
�°::�y of 5t. �a�.z3., �
:y��a:i�iz�al cor�orati�on, o �t � � R
's3a]2�ncis:tt,
ara�i czeor�a ��. Tiiozapson, J�l�a E.
F�}��e3, �arilyn �i, La�try, an�
un :�ehalf o� �attls Cz�ek Civi.c
r?�sc�ci,ation, an unicor�or�ted
cl33�Cj.3t].O?i�
� Int�rveners.
�h� �o€��-�ntit.I�d �tt�s ca�e on for hearing an �u1y 2�.
��'��, bef�r� the u:�d�rsign8c� 3'ur�y�s �f Uis�iciet Co�.urt at S�a�cf.al a�rs�
��ereo.�. �h� plaintif_s w�re r�gre���►t�d k�y ��i� att.arnay�, r.�3��ar3 3.
��.si�aart�bau�r, �� t�� ff�m of t3or�a�, ���rquart, S�i�clhr�rst, �`est an3
=:�.l.l:aday, 2��t� F�rgt �atiUr�31 b�n.k �3uilding r s�inn��no�is. �-if.nn�s�t.�,
;an� �a�:n �.. �auk��2ey. 738 �iinn�s��a �3uilc�ing, St. Pauli ��iinzaes4�a.
�i,fl s�ef�ndant w�a repr�sen�a3 �y its attorn�y, Fierx� �t. Re�nier,
�.ssis�anic Ci.�� �t�orn�y, 0�7 Cit� :i�11 ��c� Court €��usc�, St. P��1,
��iAnn���i:a. '��x�: IntQrv�n�xs w�r� r���res�nt�c3 �iy th�ir st::c�rn$y,
L. �. 6tJoa�ia;�, z�f �,�� f�.r:r. �f ��;oania;� & F�.nl.�y, �3� ��inn��ota B�i�.clir�q,
;���. �aul, Y�.:�n�.;o��, '�`��s Co��t �.�id f�r�� grmr�t t3i� :����o:: �o i���r-
����e:, �afa �,�.�a�� u�ir��; cl�tmz� ,3��:3.y 2i , J.972. `�':�� :-�a�t�;� wa� ����fr�z�
t:;�t� C�urt ��arsaan� t� ���icza vf �.3:� ��.ainti.��� and c�� }h� D��fen�3�r��
�r�r. �. Su;�,��r� Jur3 y.n�nt �+.z��u.�?�.t to th� itu3.�s �� Givil Pre�:�c��ar�.
_ . . . _
��',�,:7:;,.�:�:1��1+�".. L`O �:lv i:.�iC°�'. D� �±L�cl�.":$.i1�'f �:1''v' L�c3.R'"�.f+3S i]�x.'E�1Ti il.%AV�I.° ta.1�F,,,-'i� �':�.�..�a.�
;�._' ;���:_u�rarc,a. ���A�� C.'c�t�r� ?a�v�.n� h�.�aZCi zrr�a:�en�.v o� c��.az�r��:L, �;��3
J�_
i
�
;
u���:s ��e brief 5 r f iles and records nsrein,
I�Z' IS OR�ER::D that :�u-�nary Jud�m�nt be ent�r�d in favor of
�h=: P?aintifts as s�t forth hareafter:
1. I� IS U��;��.� t�:�-�C the action of t:-�� City Counc�l. an�i
�h� tia�or of the Cit�r oi St. �aul of June 16 , Z972, which denied
��l�inti�fs' a�plicativn for a sp��ial use permit for a 132 car par}:-
ir.� lfl� to be user3 in connectian witn t:z� constructi.on o� tawnhouses
oa �ub��ct propsrty owned by ti�e P1a3.ntiffs be and it hereby is annulled.
2. IT IS Ox�D�RED that #:he Defendant, the City of St. Paul,
through its Cit� Council, its agents and officers, be and they hereby
ar� ilirected to issve, forthwith, the said special use permit as
a�plied for, and to adopt the prop�r Council resolution required there€or.
3. IT IS �?�ERiD thai.t Plainti�fs have their costs and disburse-
�a�nts herein.
�. IT I� aRD�RED that the Court resexves jurisdiction to imple-
rnent tha ra.c�hts of the partie� z�ursuant to this order, if nece�sary.
The following me�orandw�n is made a part of this Order.
OTIS N. GODFREY, IR.
Judge of �istrict Court
U�'�vt�: Sept�mbex 11, 1972.
�� E ��IOR ?a, NJ UM
T�is ���t�r c'3�13QS out of an a�plica�tion by P3.�i.ntiffs for
t.Y YJ.�4.:���� u�� ��rmit for a 1�2 car par3cinq facili�y to be located �
a:a �:�� lanc� d�scr:�be3 as follows:
Lnts 9 t;�raugh 13, Block 21,
:i�ttle Crt��3c ii�ight�, Plat 3,
�ccordinq to th� recorde�i plat
th�r�of , on f i7.e a.,��3 of r�cord
iz� th� c�ffice o£ tn� R�gistar
, _ �,::�.��.:� in �nd �`�� �'�::�c�y �:�.,i:z�.:�,
;i�.nr.e�ota;
5�ia pro��rty i� l���teci on th? Ea�� Sid� of St. Paul� just so�.�h of
.�2_
I
�
� ._..� ._.__ _ . _ � _ _ .._.___ . _.._ _ ___ _ _ . _ _. _ _
" I• �
I-,c:r �.;t� z.s �aur�de:�z .�p �urns �`��renu� on the nort�, i'satt.Ic l:z��k
�?�l??.iC�A. L.Z.Cit"i ��,:�.Q^�.L L,-��. 1.lL4 lL.�L id1� . y,;.y� e. �.. � :: �• � ' :
E'r x a.i:.:� �a.. _ L':` v C.?,. �' C'_ -i,�, i.:( r c:::i.,
�?�z�:ta �trsct an t��e w�st. It co;n�r�.��s sr�3r� �.��y �Gres, �r�.t:�z tY���
nort�i�rly 8� fe�ta �al.ic� fron�� on ��trn� :�ven�ze, �ae�.ng �cr�e�: '�`
r�siii�r:�i�x, and thc� balar�c�: c�f th� pro�ertl ��iny zon�d 'C' �esid�n-
tial. �y tts� xc�riing orc�in�nces of t,�� City o£ St. �'aul �2�int�.ffs
�aoulci :�� en��tled �o can�truat �� to ��3 c�wellinc3 u;�i�es an tlie 'C'
zaned tract, and u� fio I� six�c�1� faaniiy dw�Ilinc�s on the '�' zaner3
prog�rty. 'rhe suLject progerty has bsen sa xa�ae3 sir,es 1�6�, anc�
�as purcha�sed by Plainti ff� in 1969, for tt�e purgose of cor�structinc�
�nulti-fa��ly residences.
The Count� A�s�sgsor`s s�arl�et valu� of th� pro�erty as pr�sent�.y
zoned is $612,300.00. �'3�e �vi�c�nca� indicat�s tY►at wer� the praperty
to be zon�c� fcsr single fa�il.y. residencer according to tYie Cau�ty
�.s��ssar'� C��fice, it woul� havQ �a ma�k�t valu� oE $:S,QGO to $I14,04t?.
�.°�� pres�rt leyal contsoversy is concerned solely witxi th�
quest�.on a� wh�ther or not the C�.t�r of 3t. Pau�. act�c� preperly in
dettying Plaintiffs ` application for a �asS:ir�g �rmit a� a pre2uc��: ar�ci
in ccnjunction with the con�tructian of �4 tas�nhauttes� '�'h� �ecord is
replets, howev��r with statement� and statigtics relative to the �
entf.re propased projeat.
Since th� early glannin� stages, representatives af the Iusut�on
Cor�pany hav� ret fr+�quently wfth a coinmittee ot citi�ens of tihe area.
One me�ber, Mrs. �garilyn �antry, statc�d: ':I feel like I ar� ga�.nc� steady
with t�ir. Aciams and Mr. i�clnne� (of irnut�on� . F think their wive�
feeZ t�:e �ar:�� s���y, too4 t�� h�v� r�atri�txq iaYst �:��xi�e rar thesc Fc:�ple.
Thay have �ut �in�� an� �.h�y hav� put �f�grt zntc� it. They have
corc�unicatc�c3 w�.�h u�. "
As pr��entll canceiv�d th� Plaintiffs in�enr� to constr�4t
G4 tok�nhous�s �nc� �I4 co�c�a�.f.n�,ezm agaxtr�era�s� w�cr�as 803 ux.its ar�
_�_
Y��r.��itted und�r e:�i�tiny zonxn�� Qrdinanc�s. 1�� Court taa� i��en
u;iab3e to �ina an� su�stanti�l or valid critici�:ns o� ;h� pro��ct
i���lf. i�ather the obj�c�cions of the near:�y re�id�n°t�, representac�
i�y �he �nterv�ner�, 3s that th� acidition of 478 apart�ent type
r�aic��ncps, taken to�eth�r with th� sa�� �i8 such uni.t.� already built
o� un�i�r con�tructivn, y�il�. ��vA a �etrim.enta.l �ff�c� u��n �h� total.
�nviro���t, traffic, s�wage�, gchools, etc, in the neighborhao3. In
other worda, the objec�tor� f�eel that their neighi�orhooc3 is ai��ady
s:�turat�d with apartment co:nplex�� and de�i.ra that sub3ect property
r��nain as it is �- open land. �'ith this objective th� Cc3urt nas no
quarrel but as ��a��d �y ��z. Justice �iolraes in Ponn. Coal Co. v Mahon,
, Z6t� US 393, �15-416, �3 �, �fi. 1�3: "We are in c�anger of forget�Cing
that a stronr� ��zbl�c d���rs to improv� the pu�lia condition is nat
eno;�c,�h to c��xrrant �achieviny the d�a�irA by a short�r cut than the
con��i�utf.pnai way of ��ying �or the cn,anc3�. "
t�'o pu� tne situation in �c�sx'sp+��t3.V�y i.f t�'�� City Cauncil,
i�ia�or �o�e� and the Boarr� of �c�ucation wish ta have �ub�ect propsrty
r�...�ain o�en lanci, avail��la for schsaol, �ark or ath�r city uses,
Lho��: ho3i�� �ave �h� right to co�ence a conr��-,-�nnat3o� Ac�ian. S��
�+aid�n v st. Louis �ark, 266 �inn. 46, 122 r3w 2d 5�0.
Und�z �he �►r��en� set o� fact�, however, Plaf.ntiffs ar� th�
o�an�rs of proparty which is proper3.y �oned fc�r townhouses and con-
ci�.ni�z�tu�� a�art�sats. `�'��y �lave r�tainad architect� and �iannyrs,
�:a�fic �ny�.neers; hav� �+�t �I1 stan3ards prescri��ec� �:y �11 concarnsd
ci�� of�icial� in cs��n�ction -.y�.�.h �ti� parkinq pe�it. x'he c�.Ly �ra£f�c
�n�;3:����r �nc: �A=-��:� �nr�.�n�:�r h�v� w�a.y��n tha� t,'�� s�re�ts anc3. s��er�
in �.-�v are� are a�4�c�ua�� c� i3a.°��:�1� ��i� auaa.�io�,� cr��twd hy �laintif�s°
c;o.:Y��ruc�3.4n: a:�:� �.�:�:: CQUrt can ���: n� b�.�is ��� th� Senial o.�. t:y�
� �r;�x�,.i�t�
_��_
_ _ __
_ __ __._._ _ __.._. �
. � '•
In a let�:_r 3a��c� Jung �3, 1972, Rob�rt G. PetQrson, Gity
'�:��:fic �nc�in�er �tatA� �hat i'�e r��l �h� exis�ing stxe:�ts in th�
�._r��.�dia�Q v:icinit�1 can nc�:o�oda�� th� exp�ctc�d acluitional traEfi�
4;�*nerat�d �y the :ic�y�lot�snent, '' i�o go�� �n to state i�hat "we have
av�rovea th� driv�cJay �?�sf�qn �.;�d locations Los the d� townhouses,
a:.� g-��1 that ���is����ory loaa�ion� �oulc: w� c�a��zrair.�3 if a3ditional
=�nita are� propo���. "
t};� the sarr.� r�ate Dani�l J. ��unford, aetiny �3r�ctor for the
C�.ty 3��partra�nt of Puhlic 6�orks wro�e to Plaintif�s and said, "In
re:sp�onse to �r�ur l�tte� of Junt� o�&, this will confirm that �rour
unc��r�tar�in� a� tbe adsquacy o� exittting ra�znica�al sanitary an�
. �tor:�a a�Wer fac�.iities on �tut�i �tr€�et in tha viciz�ity o� �7orth P�rk
t�rivQ is aorrect. "
�here were sarae state:nents presen�ed conceraiz�g p�ssi�2a
ovarcro�dir�g o�_ .scho�sl� in t33.� a:��a :.n �h� futur�. 5uch co�aezt�
ar� sp$culative at ���st, on bot� sid$s o� the iss�e, ar�d clearly
�h�ulc� nat be c�iv�n a:�y c�reat co�sfd�ratic�n.
T��e f���tration� ant3 conaexns of thQ intervsnc�rs and ob j�ctors
tfl th� pro��ct are expr�ssecl by many p�rann�, b�t p�rhaps cou1.3 :�e
su:-n;��►c1 up by quoting Co�mni�sioner `��de�co at th$ June $, 1972 hearing
��for� �.t:e City �"ouncil.: "I dox�'t h�v� an a� to grind with tYse
:�-s�:��o;� Company. lh��r ar� a fin� company, but I �c� havs an axe to
�r:�:a� ��th th� �.�b3 C�ty Co�in���. �rhich parnit�gd t�at pi�c4 of �a�d
�0 1�� z�n�d '� ' rc�i��ntiael . , . . 'Thi3 pro ject is a �eautizu.l
pxoj�ct� bu� � �i�i� �w�at w� �ave got h�r� i� an invalid �onind� by a
`r�r���r c�u�c:il, ,�nci �i� ci�i�Gn� have pail far 3.t, ar_�3 t.�x�y �ra hez�
t�3'au�.CF.CI�. f`
�'�r�1 a� r•���. :•��r�.���z �,a���� �ai� a� fih� ��:�P iz��rin�3�. S'�'�'� hav�
:x�; ��:.����.� wi�;z �':a�::�, :�r3�a �he;� �r� a dav�lo��;� o� �;�ality buil.3ing�,
..J_.
!
. • •
and they seom to tz�ke vesy much prid� in their work, As Mr. Knntson
aaid. However, anyone who cor�as in to add to the already �xisting
burden of our aroa (of apartr�ent buildinqs) will meet the same op�o-
sition as thmy are msetinq."
The basi� for the d�nial of the per�nit then b�com�s clear:
Tha Ma�or and City Council were under great pressure from the residents
of the area, �oho oppose any fusth�r conatruction ot apartments or
multiple dwellinq unit�, Safd action is contrary to law, however,
and the city must issue the permit to Plafntiffs. The numerous pre-
ce�ez�ts Eor thi� decimion have been aited by coun$el for the parti�s
hszein, ana many of thc�o w�r� read to the City Counci.l at the hearing
on June 8th. The Court believee that the deci:iona of our Supreme
Court roquire that un8er the favta and circu�mstsnces hare present, no
other legal conclusion could be reach�d. See Twin City Red Harn vg
St. Paul, 193 1�A 2d 184, (involving a :irailar faot situation) f Alexander
____� -
va Minneapolis, 267 r4inn. 1S5, 12S NW 2d 583 (a municipality may not
�
d�prive a property ov�mer of his right to � bui.2dinq pern�it in accordance
with existinq aoninq ordinanc�s) ; c+�d Ostrand vs North St. Pau3, 275
. �
Minn. 440. 147 NW 2d 571 (di�$qreement with a sconinq designation �nade
by m prior City Council i� not adequate qrourids tor d�nial of a �pocial
use permit) t and Inland Construction Co. va City of �loomington,
195 i�+i 2d 558 (By zoning the land for retail stores, the city stated
that it is deafra2�le to have such stores in thmt particular location) .
The atatement �aac�e,by tha five City Council mcun�ers on June 2Q,
1972, ia a fair summary of this problQmc
, "Again, this Council finds it�elf in a political
pressure situation w•hera it has bean forced to deny a
- -� permit for a warthy construction projcct which mQets all
soninq requirements. �t� refer to a prapoaal �+ade by the
Knutson Cornpany to develop a high quality resfdential
pro��ct on the i:ast Side of �aint Panl. 2hQ undorsigned
fQel that this Project, upon c�r�pletion, will be a crodit
to the City of 5aint Faul and the neighborhood. We
have been impressed with the quality of �tha development
project and the sansitivity of the developer to ttis
neighborhood. •
. �
..g_ •
-
_
_ __ ____-----------� .��---�
e '
n
:<� raco�nize t��at aaint Paul nc��c3� �..'�i� �.yne of
hoasiny �o acc�rarr.o�ate our own citazesa�, as ;�ell a�
othet5 wxzo :nove �s� Saint Paul �o wor}: xor our ��t�ina��
organiza�i�n�.
We hav� ���n �.m�r���ad witr th� d�v�lo��x's
conc�rn xor th� �nv�.ro:un�nt �nc� t��� c�tiz�n� �.n ths ar��.
&la hav� be�n impress��2 w�.th their conc�rn �or ��th�ti.cs,
o��z� ��a�� and l�nr���a�i��.
F+� �a���r�c�.atfa and are aware o� t.`�e canc�rns �xnc�
tiae cl�siras o:� tha� neiqhbori�ood. �.� ��r�er� of the
City Gouncil, howev�r, ws havc� an over-x�.din� r�spon-
sibility to th� +an��re City and all citix€ns of Saint
Pau1."
�he plaintif£s have c�+pliec3 wit.h all exi��ir�g _ law� and
ordinance�, and t�i� deniai o� the perr�it by t�e City w�� a�.�,.��ary,
capriciou� and unlawfc�3.. E� ��ecial u�ss permit mu�� t�'�c�efoaco be
grant�d.
� � SI si1.s�• �
M f .T
�
. . � . - � . 259fi89
S���rx�'i� JF �3l:�ivE50�'�"1 ;JZ.`,iT�TCi COJR�
=;��L:i'�`:� C3.� R�.'{��:Y ���CU's;� JUT�ICZA.X, DIa:RI�:T
�33a�.].6
�L'i:� r;nu�Lson Cor�panv an3
�nu;��on �?�v�1Q�:��n�. CQ�np�ny,
Plai:ztif f s ,
_y�_
Ci�y e�f 5t. Pa�t3, a
;�iun:.cir�al cozporativn, O �t D ,� R
i)���nciant,
and G�ory� i�. Thorapson, �ale E.
Pw�p�l, ��rilyn ��. �,antr�, and
dn ?�eha3.; of �1a�tla C�eek Civic
3��ocia�ian, ar� un3corporated
as�4ciafiion,
. gn�c::zv�ners.
�'ha above-es:ti�l�ci �c���er c� on ior ���ring o�a ��aly 2�# ,
�5i?�, h�f�r� th� unci�rsi�n�� Ju�ic�4 �f ili�a:.rict Cc�urt at S��a�a3 csr�
�.�����f. 'i:�� pla�.�t�.-�fs va�r� ��:�r�s�nted �y ��ir �t�orn�ys. �'�io��rd 3.
��;hti,ar�.z�a�aer, b� ���Y fia� �f .�o.��Qy. tiiarc�uart, t,�inc��o�st, ����� �nd
�i�llad�,y, 2��v Fir�t t�;atic�na� ��n�. �3uilding, xiirar.e��o�i�, i�i;uz�so�c�,
�n� J�hn �:. �au��Yey, 73+� ?'�Iin�tesa�a �;ui3.�3ing, 5t. Paul, +-Aanx�c�s��a,
T��� ri��-wnc��nt i��� r��gr��s�:nta3 �y its �.ttorn4y. �i�rrs �. Re�nier► _
s:s.�is�ani� c:a.�y x'�t�s�zney, 5�? �i�� ::a�l an+3 C�urt i3�usc�, �t. P��t3,
=-iia�r.�:���.�. ':�":��a I�.t�rv�n�,� w�r� r��re�an�ed Ly �h�ir att�rn�y,
U. �. �<;a:n�.a:+�. 4� �:�� �'ix� s�� ��o�ni�i� & Finl�y, 538 ?��inn��o� �uil�iing,
a�. U�L��, �:inn���t�. `�h� �:�u:� �id ±�irst gran� t:��� .u�t��x� �� in�:�r-
;r:�,�-:�y, �a��3 :�rc:nr �a�i�.�� :i,����;1 ,Tu�y 2�, 19i4. ��� :zat�c�r w�:� �efoz�
i::;� t'our'� ���y�u:_.� �� �aot:.QZ� �.f �n�e ��.ai�atit�� �:zd �i th� D�z�r��3�nt
sc�r � ����r;�����y ,7udc;:�azxt p�z_su�x�,� �c� �r�� �tu7.�� �� Civi�. Proc��ur�.
:i;]i)°�t.'.:�wl�..`�'t� �� t�'...s=', C��e`�'.� t3� 1'i`-.�c2�1Y1c3 �l��t (7r�3:�.�.t,�'-.,�' i1=:�'�.�.21 ,"1<iV@ �1�.f3c� �l..r.��'i°Z
�^,? ��.=�>aUr.a�ac3�. "�'.z�� Gcu�-v ��avi:z� :,�.�:r� �r,uz��xz�� t�i cozzn�el, t-�n�:i
�.a�
up�.� the bri�fs, fzla3 and records h�rein,
I`t' SS OR;�ERLD that Sur.►mary .iusig��Mt he enter�cl in favor of
thq Plainti��s �s set �ortti ti�reaftar :
l. IT IS ORD���� that th� action of ti�� Ci�y Counail an�i
-�h� ;�iayc�r of t;�e City of St, I'�u�. of June 16 , 1972, ��hich deni�d
Plaintiffs' application �or a �pecial use perr,zit �or a 132 car park-
i��g iot to be useci in cc�nne�tion with ths construction of zownho��zs�s
on sub jsct p.�op�:rty ownsd by ti�e Plaintiffs b� and it hereby is annulled.
2. ZT IS �JRDERED th,at �he Defsndant, the City of St. Paul,
through its City Council, its aq�nts and offia�zs, b� and they hereby
ar� c�irectc�ci to issue, forthwith, th� said �peaial use permit as
applied for, and to adopt the proper Council resolution raquir�d therefor.
3. IT IS �RilERED that Plaintiff3 have their costs and disburse-
:uents herea.n.
4. IT IS OAD��.�:i� tha� �h� Court reservQS jurisr3iction to imple-
?cent th3 ric�hts of the parties nuzsuant to �his orcier, i£ n�cessary.
The follo�wa.nc� m��orandu:� is Ma�e a part of thi� Order.
OTlS H. GO��REY, JR.
Judg� of �istrict Court
U.�.TED: Septe�nb�r }.l, 1�972,
�S, %� i2 J R .� :•� D U i�2
T:��.s matt�r �ris�s out of an ap�alicatian by P1,aintigfs for
a sp�cial use ��rmit for a 332 car parking f�,cil.itv to be loc��Qd
on th� land d�sarlbed as follows:
3�ot� 9 throuc3h ].3 , BIoCk 21,
��ttl� Creek i�eiqhts , Plat 3,
�,ccording to th� r�cordec� plat
Lher�of , o�� fi].e and o� record
�.n th4 off3.ce o£ the R�c�is�rr
:� ::�w��,:� .i�i :�.rsd =�a� P��::s:a� �;�.�n�Y�,
�tin���.3ota;
Sa�d pra�erty is lQCated Qn the East Side of St. P�ul, just sou�h of
�.�_
�
�
�
T-�r , �,:�d: �.s t;aun.�:::�i Y�y i:u.rns t:v�:nu� �n i:�`�e: nort�, iy�tt.�c s:`r�.�e?�
. _�-::c?-:- ; Lc�`: ;;r..'r�a:.a�. r.�,. t+.i�: G,:�- ;d j- x� ��_; s ��r ,.-
. t� -� _4�_ � �.:r, . :. .�� GI: �.{� �.c`��..t_.':., <-:r,...
:}uY:n ,5tree� on �.�.� �:*�.•w:�.. I� co:n,r.�ri��s sc:�r.c �5� �cr�s, w*iti� °�rf�:
nar�iyerl.y �5 ����., �Tlaic�: frant� an i3c��r.s ;�ren�:e, b�ir�g za�xec! t1�C
re�dc��:�t,�v��., wr;ct the: i��..�ar.c�: of the pro�er�y �;c�ing zon�d 'c;� �e�ic?en-
t3.a3. �y tt�� :�aninc� arc�ir�ances of the City o� St�. k�aul PZ�i:��.i�f�
�rro�tld �� �:��itic�c� to ca�struc� �p to 8(33 uw�llin<� unite€� on tt�e 'C'
zoned tr�ct, acnd u� to �.� s�,ny�� farra�.:�y ak�Ilings on tY:� '�° �aaxed
gsoperty. '�h� su�;ject prc��erty has �pen sa �oae3 since Z�b3, and
was purchased by Plainti�f� in 1969, for the purpose of con:�trurctinc�
rnulti-fa�nily reside�aes.
Th� County Assessar�s� rnarket value of the property ag presently
zoned is $61�,30U.pp. Th� evid�nc� inc�icat�s tY�iat w�rc tk�:Q �rcrperty
to k�e zon��i far singl� fa�ail�r resid�nc�, �ccarding to the �ouraty
as�essor's t�f��.ee, it �au�� h�ve �. ma�ke� va3.�� of �95,Of30 �v �11.4,QOfl.
�'h�: Present lec�ai contraversy is cancernec� s�o2ely �r�th the
question of wh�ther or no� th� City of ;��. Pau� acteci progerl.y in
d�ttying Piaintii�s' ap�lic�ation for a �srki:�� �ru�it as a preluc�e and
in conjunction w�th tha constrz�eti.on of G4 tos�nhauses. �.�3�e record is
replete, however, with statements and statistics relative tp the �
�ntf.re proposed groject.
Siric� the early glaun�n� staqes, representatives of the Knutgon
Co�upany hav� ra�t treqs�nti� with a committee o� cit3.�en� c�f the srea.
One meu�t:ez, r�cs. A.ari�.yn Lar�try. st�t�d: `°I feel like I a� ga�.nr� stesdy
with Mr. Ac3�rns �nct �ir. i�clnnes {of Knutson} . I think t2ze�.r vriv�s
f��I. the ��f� ��a�� ��sc�. t�e �-i��e r�otI�ting i�ut �r�.ise fc�� th�s� p+�c��e.
T13Qy have put tixrta tsnd th�y ��ve gut effart �.nto it. Th�y have
cora;.nunicated ��r{th �s. "
As pr�s�ntlf ca�xceiv�d the Plaintiffs intenri to con:�tr�ct
GQ toktnhouses ar.ci �14 cQniiomfniusn aFar�r�ents � y�heraas 803 un3t�� are
_3_
�c:���°�itt�d und�r uxi�tiizy �orinr3 or�linanc�s. The �ourt xia� i�een
u�ti�bl�: to finc3 a:�y suu�tantial Qr valid criticis:�s of th� project
i�a�].f. �ath�r t�� obj�ct�.ons of tha neark�y zesid�nts, regresentac3
t�y �h� 3nterv�ners, 3.a t�a�G �h� a3ditio�s o£ 473 aAart::�en� type
r�s�.��naes, takan ts�geth�r wit2a th� sosn� 91S �ach u�it� a�rea3y buiI.t
c�s uncl�r const�ruc�i�n, �ri�.l h�v� a �:etrirr.�.�xtal ����c� u��n the to��l
€nviro��nt, tra�fic, sa�ag�, scho�ls, etc. in the n�ighborhaoc�. In
oth�r wvrdB, th8 obj�ctors feel that t4�eir nsighborhot� is alr��dy
saturatod with apartm,ent cv:nplc�xes and desire that sub�ect �rvperty
r��aa�n as it i� - opon Xand. �Jith this ob3ectiv� the Ccsurt hae no
c�u3rrel but as �ta��d �y ��ir. 3ustice Holmes in P�nn. Coal Co. v �Sahon,
� 2ba US 393, 415-41ti, 43 �. L�. 153: "We are in clanger o� Y�org�ttinq
thsc �a stronc� p�blic c�e�ire to i.-n�rova the pu�lic condition is not
ea�ough to ��r�rran� a�ha�vin� th� a�si�� b� a shorter cut than the
canstitutional w��r of g�yi�g x+�r �h� cnanc�e. "
�o put th� �ituati�n in ��rsp�ctiver if th� City Council,
:�ayor Cohen and the �ioarc� o.� �ducation wis� to �ave su�jec� property
rc�main o�en Iand, �vail�la for schcol, �a�k Qr other city us�s,
tY�ose hodiea have the riqht to co�uaence a concien►nation actioz�. See
Golden v St. Lou3.s Yark, 266 �inn. 46, Z22 PYW 2d 570.
Und+er t�c� nresent �et o� Ea�ct�, however, Plaintiffs arz th�
own�rs of proparty which is properl.y zoned f�r townhouses and con-
d�:r�i�iva� apart*��nt:s o '.�h�►y 2�av� r�tained arc;i��cts and pl�nn�r�,
�raf�ic �r�gin�ers, h��� ra�t all �tandaz�� prescribad Ly �.11 conc�rn�d
ci.ty Officia3� in ca�z�:r�tio� c�i.t.h �h� parking parrnit. �.'h� ci�y traf�f.c
�n�i:��:_r 3nd sawu.r en{�xn��r h�v� s�xi�ten tha� th� �i:re�ts an�2. ����rs
ir ��:i� area are a�z q�r�tt� �o iaa,:�c�le th� a�3c�i-tios�� cr€:atYd �y I�laintiffa'
Uonstruczi.An: ��zn� ��?� Cour� �;an s�� no basia L03: th� �pnial of �`��
�;�rnit.
_�}�
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . __ ,._ _ _ _ _ __ _.. _
_ ____�...__ ..._,_.�.. �
, f �
In � ].e�t�r 3�t��. JunQ €3� 197� , Ro�ert G. Fet�rson, City
�:r��fi� �ngin�er stated that "w� �eel th� r�xisting stre�ts in the�
i.:�.���dia�a v�.cini�y can ACCO��CI3'�� the axp�:ctQd aciciitional tra��ic
. �:3e��rat�d by the 4ovelap�ant. " �in go�s on to �tatm tizat "wE have
a���ovad th. �iriv�way ���ign aa:� loaat�o7s fc�r the 6� townhouses,
a��3 ��al that s���.sf�ct�o�y �.o�a'tion� coulc� �� C:��i;�I�li1Z.'C� if addi�ional
�anits a�� propo��c3. "
�n tha sam� date D�niQl J. Dun�ord, actiny �irector for the
City D�part-aent af Public t�orks �rrote to PYainti�fs and said, "In
r��ponse to your I�tter of Ju�e oth, this wi11 confirm that your
un�i�rstar�dinq of the adequacy a� existing �aunici�al sanitary and
, .tor:� s�wer faciiitias on Ruta �tr�e� in th� vicinity of Pdorth Park
Br3.v� is corr�ct. "
�h�re w�re so� stats�+rents pr�sen��d con�erninq p�ssiblc�
ov�rc�o�vdir�g r��`_��hools i� tlas a��a in :h� �utur�. 5uch co�ue:�ts
ax� �p�culativ+s at� t��s�, on both sides of th� �ssue, az�d clearly
shr�ul�3 not be �,�3.v�n an� g::�at consid�ratit��.
`the €ru�tratians ar.3 concern� of tk�,s intorveners az�d o�a jectors
to tti� pro j�c� �re expresaecl by r�ny psrsn�s, i�ut perhaps aoulc� be
�u:~�n�►d ug by quoting Coamnission�r s es3es�o at th� Jun� �3� 1972 hearin9
br�€ors� , the Ci�ty �:nunci3.: "Z �on't h�vo an r�� to t�rind with th�:
�f.r:�ctsofl Cozapany. �ne� �r� a fins� cor�pany, but i c�o hav� an axe to
c���.2�.d �rith th� �.363 City Coun�il �r�i�h p�e�rn�tt�c3 t�at piece o� 2and
�o b� ��n�d 'L' reaa.d�n�ial . . . . This projact is a ��aut�.�ul
prd�ec�, bu� � �nizas'c �:a�� w� h�ve �pt h�re is an i�v�lid x�r.in� by a
s�r,r,��r coun+�i.�., and �h� ci����:ns havs pai�l for it, anc� t��y �ra heze
tr�.i,ht, °`
1�..2'tC� f�£3 WiZ'.^3 a :3i':�'�.�.`VT2 �.+��i�� �x1�.GT �'� �s�'.13 ScZI"�x^-.. �i����.I1�J f 11:�iE..' tic'liTB
n.� c��:�arr;�1. �;i�h �h�;=,, .a.n�.-i �.�y a�a a d�ve?o�W� �� ��a�s�i�.ty buil3ing�,
_,�.
: �
• ♦ �
and they ��o�n ta take vezy much gri�c �.n their Work, as :�r. Knutson
eaid. �iowever, anyona who cor�es in to add to th� already existing
burden of our area �o� apast�nt buildinga) wil2 meet the sa�ae oppo--
sitian as th�y are maefcinq."
Tho basie for the denial o� the permit then Decomoa clear:
2h� Major and City Coun�il w�ra under great pressuro from the residents
of the area, who oppose any further ccnstruction of apar�nt� or
atultiple dwelling units. Said aGtion is contrary to law, howeve=,
and tha city must issue the permit tio Plaintiffs. The numerous pr�-
cedonta for thi: decisloa have been cited by coun�Ql for the partiea
hszein, and many of them v�re read to tha City Council at the hearing
on June 8th. The Court believee that the deci�ions c►f our Supreme
Co�rt raquire that under th� faats and circumstance� heze present, nv
ottler legal conclusion could be reached. Se� Twin City Red �arn vs
St. Paul, 192 N��7 2d 189, (involvin� a :ir�ilar faot situation) t Alexand�r
___________
va �tinneapolis , 267 I�4i.An. 155, 125 NW 2d 583 (a municipality ��gy not
d�pr3ve e property ov�ner of hie riqht to m Y�uildin� pen�i.t in accordance
with existinq zoninq ordinances) ; and Ostrand va North St. Paul, Z75
. �
Mirin. �40, 147 NW 2d �71 tdis8qreemer►t �ith a s�oninc� designation �ade
by a prior City Council i� not adequate grounds for denial og a ,anc�cial
use permit) t and Inland Construction Co. vs City of Dloomington,
195 i�"�1 2d 558 tBy zoning the land for retail stores, the city stated
that it is deai.rable to hav� such stores in that pa=ticular location) .
Tha statement niada�by thm five� City Cowncil mc�bers on June 14,
1972, ia a fair summary of this problem:
"Again, t�is Council finda itself in a political
pressure situation whero it has been forc�ci to c�eny �
- �- permit Eor a worthy conatruction proj�ct which meeta all
$oning requirements. we refer to a proposal made by the
Knutson Cornpany to c�evelop a hic�h quality residential
�project on tho iast �ide of Saint Paul. Th� undorsigned
feel that thi� Project,� upon completion, Will be a credit
to the City of 5aint Paul and tho neiqhborhood. ��m
_ __________ __ _ ___ have k>een irapre$seci with the quality o� thQ development
projoct and the sansitSvity of tha developer to thQ
neighborhood. •
�
-6- _
, .
. .
. •
�Y� �BCflr�ni�� tha� Saint '�aul n€�ad� �`�is t�pe of
i�ousiny �:� a�ccvz:�.�d��.� ou?- own citiz�s�s, as w�ll �s
othazs who :nove �a Sai�t P�ul to 4aork zor c�ur tal��inesa
oz�ani��ti�n�.
��e ha�� ���n ir�pr�����1 w��h t�e d�velo��r's�
conc�rn �or th� �nvironr�ent and t�e citiz�n� in the area.
W� ?��t�� b��n i�►press�� w�,�h th�ir con��rn �ar ���h�tics,
o��n ��ac� �nd l�ndscap3�g.
��� a�ap�+eciat� and a.re awa�ce of the co�cer�� arui
�he cl�ssire� o� t?�e nr�f.ghb�orhood. As m����r� of tha
City Council, ho�ev�r, w� l�avc� an over--�idin� r�spon-
sibility tc� �a an��re Cit� an3 all ci�iaen� of Saint
Pau1."
The �laintiffs have con�pl�pc� wi�h a11 �3c.i,�tim� . laws and
ordinaz�ces, and tYi� denial o�' the per.�i� by tT�e c:�.�y w,�� a��a�rarY.
ca�ricians and unlawful. �i specaa3. use per,�+it mu�t thc�cefore be
r
granted.
t3.Ff.�.
�1.�
'
�
�