Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee, 45075

• Decision Date: 07 February 1975
• Docket Number: No. 45075,45075
• Citation: 303 Minn. 79,226 N.W.2d 306
• Parties: MINNETONKA CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC., Respondent, v. Kenneth B. SVEE, as Director of Inspections and Licenses, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 306

226 N.W.2d 306 303 Minn. 79 MINNETONKA CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC.,
Respondent,
v.
Kenneth B. SVEE, as Director of Inspections and Licenses, et
al., Appellants. No. 45075. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Feb. 7, 1975.

Syllabus by the Court

[303 MINN 79] Mandamus will lie to enable a property owner to secure a conditional-use permit from a city to construct a church where the evidence does not support the city council's stated reasons for refusing to grant the permit, which reasons were that traffic would have an adverse effect on the neighborhood and that a church would be inconsistent with the surrounding residential land use.

[303 MINN 80] Carl F. Dever, City Atty., Minnetonka, Clifford G. Nelson, Sp. Asst. City Atty., Minneapolis, for appellants.

Moore, Costello & Hart, B. Warren Hart and Denis L. Stoddard and J. Patrick Plunkett, St. Paul, for respondent.

Heard before PETERSON, MacLAUGHLIN, and YETKA, JJ., and considered and decided by the court en banc.

YETKA, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment granting plaintiff a peremptory writ of mandamus ordering defendants to issue a conditional-use permit to plaintiff to enable it to construct a church on its property located in the city of Minnetonka. We affirm.

Page 307

On August 8, 1973, plaintiff filed an application with the city of Minnetonka for a conditional-use permit for the construction of a church and adjacent parking lot upon a certain tract of land ¹ located within the limits of that city. The real estate in question was zoned 'R--1,' under which classification a conditional-use permit was required for plaintiff's proposed use. The matter was referred to the City Planning Commission and was first considered by that body at a meeting held on September 6, 1973. Prior to that meeting, the city zoning administrator, Kenneth B. [303 MINN 81] Svee, sent a memorandum to the planning commission stating that his department 'would have no objections to this type of use on this particular (plaintiff's) lot.' At the September 6 meeting, the planning commission referred the matter to a task force for further study. At the task force meeting, Donald G. King, acting city planning director, was requested to conduct a study on the effect of plaintiff's proposed use upon traffic and property values. On September 18, 1973, Mr. King filed his report with the commission which included the following conclusions:

1. 'It does not appear as though this request (plaintiff's application) would have any appreciable affect more or less than that (traffic) which is already anticipated.'

2. With regard to aesthetics, the proposed building design was viewed as 'mediocre.'

3. The proposed use would not (in the opinion of the city assessor) affect the value of adjacent property 'in any manner.'

4. 'In Summary it does not appear as though the use requested would have any significant physical detrimental affect to the neighborhood or the City.'

The planning...