Loading...
270046 WHI7E - CITV CLERK ����� PINK - FINANCE G I TY OF SA I NT PALT L Council CANARV - DEPARTMENT BLUE - MAVOR Flle NO. uncil Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Saint Pau1 that the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner of the State of Minnesota, Office of Hearing Examiners, in the Matter of the Petition of Edward E. Parranto to Rezone Property at the �outhwest Corner of I-94 and White Bear Avenue, dated November 4, 1977, is hereby accepted; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the f indin�s and recommenda- tion cont ined therein and the opinion of the City Attorney dated October 2�, 1977, the Council finds that no misrepresentation, fraud or constructive fraud lias occurred and that the petition is valid sEnd sufficient. . ,�`�: _ � .,,:�; ,�� :.�. ��,5� � ' - �� �. COUNCILI7EN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Butler � Hozza In Favor Hunt � Levine __ Against BY Roedler Sylvester Tedesc NQV 8 �9n, Form Ap v d by City Attorney Adopted � Council: Date � C �fied a: by Co �1 Secletary r A r v d by Mavor. at _ ..�n�1�1� �9� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By - BY ����y_���'�� .:'.` 1 � 1977 . • , + J C-STP-78-001-EL . . 2�10 0,`�'� STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINERS FOR THE CITY COU'NCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL In the riatter of the Petition ) of Edward E. Parranto To Rezone ) FIiv'DINGS OF FACT, Property at the Southwest Corner ) CONCLUSIONS AND of I-94 and 6�ite Eear P_venue. ) RECOMMENDATIONS The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Ellen Lavin, duly appointed as Hearing Examiner in this matter, cn November 2, 1977, in the City of Saint Paul, State of Minne- sota, pursuant to agreement by the parties and the Saint Paul City Council. - Daniel Fram, Esq. , Suite 1341, One Appletree Square, Minneapolis, rLinnesota, 55420, appeared on behalf of the indi- viduals asserting misrepresentation. John Daubney, Esa. , 304 Degree of Honor Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55101, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Robert O. Straughn, Esq. , Assistant City Attorney for the City of Saint Paul, 647 City Hall, Sair_t Paul, Minnesota 55102, appeared on behalf of the City of Saint Paul. The following witnesses testified on behalf of those as- serting misrepresentation: Martha Williams and Susan M. Girling, both of whom seek to have their consents to rezone withdrawn. The following witnesses testified on behalf of the petitioner: Edward E. Parranto, Sr. , the petition; Jean Berman, a City Planner for the City of Saint Faul; Charles McGuire, a Planner with the Department of Economic Development of the City of Saint Paul; Greg Blees, a Budget Technician from Mayor Latimer's Office; Sherman Ritzick, a real estate developer in the City of Saint Paul; and Edward E. Parranto, Jr. , an employee of petitioner. Statements were also made by the following non-parties: Donald Banks, Esq. , Dayton-Hudson Corporation, 777 Nicollet Niall, Minneapolis, Minne- sota, 55402; John Merrits, neighborhood resident; and Owen Nelson, ne?ghborhood resident. Based upon all of the files, records and proceedings herein, the Hearing Examiner makes the following: . . � ` � FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . Edward E. Parranto, Sr. (hereinafter "petitioner") is a principal in the realty company of Parranto Bros . , Inc. He has been a realtor for 27 years . He has been a licensed broker for 13 years . 2. On or about July, 1976, petitioner began to assemble the real estate for this tract. Approximately one-sixth of the 18 acres acquired has to be rezoned. 3. All of the signatures acquired on the petitions to rezone were collected by petitioner or Mr. Parranto, Jr. 4. In August, 1976, Mr. Parranto, Jr. became a licensed realtor associate. 5. During the month of P�?arch, 1977, Ns. Parranto, Jr. called at the home of Nir. and rtrs . Frank ���illiams . He went into their home and spoke with Mr. Williams . Mrs . Williams was in the next room. He was there for approximately 15 minutes . Durir.g that time, Mr. Parranto, Jr. went over Target E�:hibit C with Air. Williams . In the process of that exar.lination of Target Ex- hibit C, D�r. Parranto, Jr. did indicate to �-ir. Willian�s that it was the intention of the developer to dedicate a portion of the tract to the City for use as a park . 6 . Mrs . Williams signed the petition primarily because her husband had signed first. She relied on his decision. She did not talk with her husbar_d or Mr. Parranto, Jr. about the petition. She did not read the petition. 7 . birs . Williams ' signed petition, included in Respondent's E}_hibit 1, states on it that the property is to be rezoned from expressway service and residential to co�-mercial district, and it is for the purpose of installing, constructing and/or operating a retail store and restaurants. The retail store and restaurants are clearly shown on Target Exhibit C. 8 . On the day that Nlr. Parranto, Jr. met with PZr. and Mrs . jailliams, the name Target/Dayton-Hudson was not n�entioned. At that time, the neighborhood owners were being told that the facility to be built was a 100,000 foot retail facility. No name was r�en- tioned. -2- - -----�.. • s- ' . 9 . The first visit to Mr. and DZrs . Victor Cirling was made by Mr. Parranto, Jr. Both Mr. and Mrs . Girling were present, and N'r. Parranto stayed for approxiraately on_e-half hour. Mrs . Girling was present during all the conversation. 10. During the visit rir. Parranto, Jr. went over the five pages of Target Exhibit C with both Mr. and DZrs . Girling. They were told that a 100, 000 foot Target Store was to be put in. They were also told that a portion of the land would be given to the City for dedication as a park. They were sho�an the street alignment and where the entrances and ex_ists were to be put in and how traffic was expected to be affected. P•4r. and Dirs . Girling were concerned with how the traffic would affect them, and about the possibility of a larger park being placed on the property. Mr. Parranto, Jr. told them that he did not believe that a park would be placed on the lot by the City because of the cost of attaining the land. 11. blr. Parranto, Jr. told the Girlings that if the rezoning did not go through a motel would be put on the land. ICo rezoning would be necessary for it and no park would then be dedicated to the City. 12. DIr. and P�rs. Girling did not sign the petition that day. She called Mr. Parranto, Jr. to come back a second time . 13 . Sometime in July, 1976, petitioner and Dir. Parranto, Jr. �Nent to the Girling home and met with bxs . Girling. They went over the traffic conditions as they existed and as they were ex- pected to char_ge. They reviewed the road changes and traffic sig- nal changes . t�rs . Girling was concerned with the value of their property going down . Petitioner and 2•ir. Parrar_to, Jr. told her that they would guarantee that the property would not go down and in fact, they expected, based on �ast e}:perier_ce, that the � value of the property would go up. Tr.ey stated they woul�i send a her a letter guaranteeir_g that she �•�ould not lose any noney. b�rs . Girlina signed the petition that day. 14 . Petitioner forgot to send the letter of guarantee to Pdrs . Girling. Mrs . Girlir_g telephoned petitioner's office and � 4 -3- , . - ' • I the letter was sent out that day . The letter was sent sometime between five and 21 days after the signing of the petition by Dirs . Girling. Subsequently, rs. Parranto, Jr. called Mrs . Girling and asked her if she kas satisfied with the letter. She indicated that she was . (See letter, 'Respondent's Exhibit 1) 15. Mrs. Girling was present during the second meeting of the Parrantos with the Burns Avenue Neighborhood Association. � Petitioner went over the alternate plan (Target Exhibit C, Page 5) . At th�t meeting, it was stated that if the land was developed for Target, they would dedicate a 1. 8 acre tract of land to the City for a park. 16. When petitioner met with D�irs . Girlir_g on the day that she signed the petition, he told her that the acquisition and appraisal value of the property was more than the m�oney that the City had available for purchasing it as a park. He based this on information received from City Planning Department personnel statements that no funds were available for a five acre park in this spot. 17 . Respondent' s Exhibit l, the letter of guarantee from petitioner to Agr. and Mrs . Girling, guarantees a bottom line figure so that Mr. and Mrs. Girling cannot lose money. AZr. and birs . Girling are free to sell their property to someone else for more money if they wish. In any event, they are guaranteed that they will receive not less than the 1977 appraised value. Peti- tioner told them and believes that the Target Store is an asset to the values of property in the neighborhood and that similarly situated homes in other neighborhoods near Target Stores have appreciated greatly since the Stores have gone in. 18 . Petitioner' s alternative plan for using the tract as motel and restaurant space if rezoning is not available is feasible without rezoning. 19 . Pat NcGin, of the Burns Avenue Neighborhood Association, and Nr. Parranto, Jr. were told by Greg Blees, Budget Technician in the Budget Section of 2:Qyor Latimer' s Office, that the request by the Burns Avenue Neighborhood Association for Capital Improvement Budget money for the purpose of a five acre park on the proposed -4- tract was in conflict with three City Council Policy Statements . He told them that in his opinion there would not be a favorable funding decision toward the park. The City Council has in fact chosen not to fund the park in its 1978 budget. ' 20. Mrs. Girling seeks to withdraw her petition signature � because she believes that the Parrantos misstated the status of the City' s ability to buy the five acre tract of land for a park; because the letter of guarantee is not what she believed was promised; and because she now believes that there wi11 be an in- creased traffic problem on her block. 21. Al1 Findings of Fact made herein which should properly be termed Conclusions are hereby adopted as such. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The burden of proof is upon those seeking to establish fr �d and misrepresentation in the obtaining of their signatures . '�: �y must show by a preponderance of the evidence that fraud and misrepresentation are present. They have failed to do so. 2 . Mss. Williams did not rely on any representations made by Mr. Parranto, Jr. in signing the petition. Mr. Parranto, Jr. did not knowingly make any statements that were false to Mrs. Williams, or any which induced her to sign the petition. rirs . Williams was induced to sign the petition solely because her hus- band had signed it first. There is no evidence that any misrepre- sentations were made to Pfr . Williams . 3 . neither Mr. Parranto, Jr. nor petitioner made any false I statements to Pdrs . Girling regarding traffic in her neighborhood. They explained to her the proposed road changes and projected traffic flows based upon their experience and the ir_forMation they had. There was no fraudulent ir.tent to mislead N_rs . Girling by either Nir. Parranto, Jr. or the petitioner. 4. Iv'either r:r. Parranto, Jr. nor the petitioner made to birs. G�rling any statement regarding the City' s use of the tract for a parY which they knew to be false or which in fact turned out -5- . to be false. Their statements were informed statements and opinions made and based upon information received by them from City ager�ts . The fact that Mrs. Girling believes that there is still a chance for a five acre park to be placed on that tract does not mean that petitioner or Mr. Parranto, Jr. have in any way misled her by giving her infoz-mation that they knew to be false. FTer present belief that there might still be a ren�ote possibility of a park does not mean that she was fraudulently misled. 5 . Mrs . Girling was induced to sign the petition by the fact that petitioner promised to guarantee her that her property value would not go down. r�irs. Girling is guaranteed that her property value will not go down by the petitioner' s letter. If property values go up, she can sell it at then current narket value to whoever wishes to buy it. If market value does not go up, she has the right of first refusal to sell it to petitioner for the appraised 1977 market value prior to the building of the Target Store. It was not petitioner's intention to rnislead Mrs . �irling. It is possible that what he offered anc� what she tI� .:ght was offered may have been riisunderstood. However, tdrs. Gi.rling had told blr. Parranto, Jr. that she was satisfied with the written offer at the time that it was made. Mrs . Girling can- not now claim that the offer was something other than ��hat she expected. RECOr;2�'iENDATION It is recommended that the Cauncil find that no fraud or misrepresentation has been perpetrated by the petitioner toward Mrs . Girling or Mrs . Williams . Dated: November 4, 1977 . �" / / � . .� `�� � ELLEN LAVIN Hearing Examiner -6- _ . • C-STP-78-001-EL �� � O � ` , �. �O STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINERS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL In the Matter of the Petition ) of Edward E. Parranto To Rezone ) FINDINGS OF FACT, Property at the Southwest Corner ) CONCLUSIONS AND of I-94 and White Bear Avenue. ) RECOMMENDATIONS The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before Ellen Lavin, duly appointed as Hearing Examiner in this matter, on November 2, 1977, in the City of Saint Paul, State of Minne- sota, pursuant to agreement by the parties and the Saint Paul City Council. Daniel Fram, Esq. , Suite 1341, One Appletree Square, Mi.nneapolis, Minnesota, 55420, appeared on behalf of the indi- viduals asserting misrepresentation. John Daubney, Esq. , 304 Degree of Honor Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota, 55101, appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Robert O. Straughn, Esq. , Assistant City Attorney for the City of Saint Paul, 647 City Hall, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102, appeared on behalf of the City of Saint Paul. The following witnesses testified on behalf of those as- serting misrepresentation: Martha Williams and Susan M. Girling, both of whom seek to have their consents to rezone withdrawn. The following witnesses testified on behalf of the petitioner: Edward E. Parranto, Sr. , the petition; Jean Berman, a City Planner for the City of Saint Paul; Charles McGuire, a Planner with the Department of Economic Development of the City of Saint Paul; Greg Blees, a Budget Technician from Mayor Latimer's Office; Sherman Ritzick, a real estate developer in the City of Saint Paul; and Edward E. Parranto, Jr. , an employee of petitioner. Statements were also made by the following non-parties: Donald Banks, Esq. , Dayton-Hudson Corporation, 777 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minne- sota, 55402; John Merrits, neighborhood resident; and Owen Nelson, neighborhood resident. Based upon all of the files, records and proceedings herein, the Hearing Examiner makes the following: . • . , ` � FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Edward E. Parranto, Sr. (hereinafter "petitioner") is a principal in the realty company of Parranto Bros . , Inc. He has been a realtor for 27 years . He has been a licensed broker for 13 years. 2. On or about July, 1976, petitioner began to assemble the real estate for this tract. Approximately one-sixth of the 18 acres acquired has to be rezoned. 3. All of the signatures acquired on the petitions to rezone were collected by petitioner or Mr. Parranto, Jr. 4. In August, 1976, Mr. Parranto, Jr. became a licensed realtor associate. 5. During the month of March, 1977, Mr. Parranto, Jr. called at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Williams . He went into their home and spoke with Mr. Williams. Mrs . Williams was in the next room. He was there for approximately 15 minutes . During that time, Mr. Parranto, Jr. went over Target E�ibit C with Mr. Williams. In the process of that examination of Target Ex- hibit C, Mr. Parranto, Jr. did indicate to Mr. Williams that it was the intention of the developer to dedicate a portion of the tract to the City for use as a park. 6 . Mrs. Williams signed the petition prima.rily because her husband had signed first. She relied on his decision. She did not talk with her husband or Mr. Parranto, Jr. about the petition. 5he did not read the petition. 7. Mrs. Williams' signed petition, included in Respondent's Exhibit l, states on it that the property is to be rezoned from expressway service and residential to commercial district, and it is for the purpose of installing, constructing and/or operating a retail store and restaurants. The retail store and restaurants are clearly shown on Target Exhibit C. 8 . On the day that Mr. Parranto, Jr. met with Mr. and Mrs . Williams, the name Target/Dayton-Hudson was not mentioned. At that time, the neighborhood owners were being told that the facility to be built was a 100,000 foot retail facility. No name was men- tioned. -2- 9 . The first visit to Mr. and Mrs. Victor Girling was made by Mr. Parranto, Jr. Both Mr. and Mrs . Girling were present, and Mr. Parranto stayed for approximately one-half hour. Mrs . Girling was present during all the conversation. 10. During the visit Mr. Parranto, Jr. went over the five pages of Target Exhibit C with both Mr. and Mrs . Girling. They were told that a 100,000 foot Target Store was to be put in. They were also told that a portion of the land would be given to the City for dedication as a park. They were shown the street alignment and where the entrances and exists were to be put in and how traffic was expected to be affected. Mr. and Mrs . Girling were concerned with how the traffic would affect them, and about the possibility of a larger park being placed on the property. Mr. Parranto, Jr. told them that he did not believe that a park would be placed on the lot by the City because of the cost of attaining the land. 11. Mr. Parranto, Jr. told the Girlings that if the rezoning did not go through a motel would be put on the land. No rezoning would be necessary for it and no park would then be dedicated to the City. 12. Mr. and Mrs. Girling did not sign the petition that day. She called Mr. Parranto, Jr. to come back a second time. 13. Sometime in July, 1976, petitioner and Mr. Parranto, Jr. went to the Girling home and met with Mrs . Girling. They went over the traffic conditions as they existed and as they were ex- pected to change. They reviewed the road changes and traffic sig- nal changes. Mrs. Girling was concerned with the value of their property going down. Petitioner and Mr. Parranto, Jr. told her that tYiey would guarantee that the property would not go down and in fact, they expected, based on past experience, that the value of the property would go up. They stated they would send her a letter guaranteeing that she would not lose any money. Mrs. Girling signed the petition that day. 14 . Petitioner forgot to send the letter of guarantee to Mrs. Girling. Mrs . Girling telephoned petitioner's office and -3- w the letter was sent out that day. The letter was sent sometime between five and 21 days after the signing of the petition by birs . Girling. Subsequently, Mr. Parranto, Jr. called Mrs. Girling and asked her if she was satisfied with the letter. She indicated that she was. (See letter, Respondent's Exhibit 1) 15. Mrs. Girling was present during the second meeting of the Parrantos with the Burns Avenue Neighborhood Association. Petitioner went over the alternate plan (Target Exhibit C, Page 5) . At that meeting, it was stated that if the land was developed for Target, they would dedicate a 1.8 acre tract of land to the City for a park. 16. When petitioner met with Mrs . Girling on the day that she signed the petition, he told her that the acquisition and appraisal value of the property was more than the money that the City had available for purchasing it as a park. He based this on information received from City Planning Department personnel statements that no funds were available for a five acre park in this spot. 17. Respondent' s Exhibit 1, the letter of guarantee from petitioner to Mr. and Mrs . Girling, guarantees a bottom line figure so that Mr. and Mrs. Girling cannot lose money. Mr. and Mrs. Girling are free to sell their property to someone else for more money if they wish. In any event, they are guaranteed that they will receive not less than the 1977 appraised value. Peti- tioner told them and believes that the Target Store is an asset to the values of property in the neighborhood and that similarly situated homes �in other neighborhoods near Target Stores have appreciated greatly since the Stores have gone in. 18. Petitioner's alternative plan for using the tract as motel and restaurant space if rezoning is not available is feasible without rezoning. 19. Pat McGin, of the Burns Avenue Neighborhood Association, and Mr. Parranto, Jr. were told by Greg Blees, Budget Technician in the Budget Section of Mayor Latimer's Office, that the request by the Burns Avenue Neighborhood Association for Capital Imp�rovement Budget money for the purpose of a five acre park on the proposed -4- _ • tract was in conflict with three City Council Policy Statements. He told them that in his opinion there would not be a favorable funding decision toward the park. The City Council has in fact chosen not to fund the park in its 1978 budget. 20. Mrs. Girling seeks to withdraw her petition signature because she believes that the Parrantos misstated the status of the City's ability to buy the five acre tract of land for a park; because the letter of guarantee is not what she believed was promised; and because she now believes that there will be an in- creased traffic problem on her block. 21. All Findings of Fact made herein which should properly be termed Conclusions are hereby adopted as such. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS 1. The burden of proof is upon those seeking to establish fraud and misrepresentation in the obtaining of their signatures. They must show by a preponderance of the evidence that fraud and misrepresentation are present. They have failed to do so. 2 . Mrs. Williams did not rely on any representations made by Mr. Parranto, Jr. in signing the petition. Mr. Parranto, Jr. did not knowingly make any statements that were false to Mrs. Williams, or any which induced her to sign the petition. Mrs . Williams was induced to sign the petition solely because her hus- band had signed it first. There is no evidence that any misrepre- sentations were made to Mr. Williams . 3 . Neither Mr. Parranto, Jr. nor petitioner made any false statements to Mrs. Girling regarding traffic in her neighborhood. They explained to her the proposed road changes and projected traffic flows based upon their experience and the information they had. There was no fraudulent intent to mislead Mrs. Girling by either Mr. Parranto, Jr. or the petitioner. 4. Neither Mr. Parranto, Jr. nor the petitioner made to Mrs. Girling any statement regarding the City' s use of the tract for a park which they knew to be false or which in fact turned out -5- ., � _ � . to be false. Their statements were informed statements and opinions made and based upon information received by them from City agents . The fact that Mrs. Girling believes that there is still a chance for a five acre park to be placed on that tract does not mean that petitioner or Mr. Parranto, Jr. have in any way misled her by giving her information that they knew to be false. Fier present belief that there might still be a remote possibility of a park does not mean that she was fraudulently misled. 5 . Mrs . Girling was induced to sign the petition by the fact that petitioner promised to guarantee her that her property value would not go down. Mrs. Girling is guaranteed that her property value will not go down by the petitioner's letter. If property values go up, she can sell it at then current market value to whoever wishes to buy it. If market value does not go up, she has the right of first refusal to sell it to petitioner for the appraised 1977 market value prior to the building of the Target Store. It was not petitioner's intention to mislead Mrs . Girling. It is possible that what he offered and what she thought was offered may have been misunderstood. However, Mrs. Girling had told Mr. Parranto, Jr. that she was satisfied with the written offer at the time that it was made. Mrs. Girling can- not now claim that the offer was something other than what she expected. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council find that no fraud or misrepresentation has been perpetrated by the petitioner toward Mrs. Girling or Mrs. Williams . Dated: November 4, 1977 . ;%'� . � ����ti, ELLEN LAVIN Hearing Examiner -6-