213153m _ RESOLUTION RATIFYING AND CONFIRMING
CONDEMNATION AND AWARDS OF DAMAGES AND
ASSESSMENT THEREFOR
213.53
In the matter of ....... condemning ... and ...tak: ng- _.an.- easement.- in - -:t fie - --1 and -- necessary- -- far - the - -- slopes,
cuts and fills, including right of removal of lateral support from subject land or
remainder thereof occasioned by excavations thereof or construction of slopes in
. u
the grading and surfacing with bitmrLinous material Hazel St. from E. 7th St. to
Reaney Ave. and Bush Ave. from Hazel St. to Nokomis Ave. ;q FIRMING NUONDTEMN TIOND CAND
,f. AWARDS OF DAMAGES AND
j, ASSESSMENT THEREFOR
�O
M f r
1k �;• rUe No. 21311-6
. I • -•Go`) 91D ll} t
under Preliminary Order---.k ...... 211 101---------------------- - - - - -- approved ......... Fsbruar3r- 5.,__19L3---------------- - -_ - --
Intermediary Order------ - - - - -- 2] 1716--- ------------------- - - - - -- approved _- - - - - -. Mar-oh._19_,_196.3----------•--------------------
Final Order----------------------------- - - - - -- ;?�---------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - -, approved ......... Pr. i2,-- 16?s -- 296. 3---------------------------------
A public hearing having been had upon the taking and condemnation of.the lands or easements therein,
for the above improvement, and the awards of damages therefor, and also upon the assessment of benefits
therefor, and the Council having duly considered the same, now therefore be it
Resolved, That the taking and condemnation of the lands described in the annexed assessment roll,
identified by the signature of the Commissioner of Finance, and made a part hereof, and the awards of
damages to the owners of such lands for said taking and condemnation as set forth in said assessment roll,
be and the same is hereby in all respects ratified and confirmed.
Resolved further, that the said assessment of benefits, be and the same is hereby in all respects ratified,
and the same is hereby ordered to be submitted to the District Court for confirmation.
1963
Adopted by the Counc' ------------------------------------------
File #15942
- - - - -- - - -- ---- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - -
Dalglisl� City Clerk
Councilman JUN
Councilman �" 5
Councilman
Loss Approved----------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - - --
Councilman Mortinson c
Councilman Peterson -------- - - - - -- ----------
----------
Councilman Rosen �djnq Mayor
Ma or r - - - - -In Favor
y .-
.4C) -.._. .Against
2M 10.55
r_ 2.2020
t �
• REPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE
ON CONDEMNATION OF LANDS
In the matter of___ condemning_and taking_an easement_in land_necessar _fQ_r tIQ -__-
slopes, cuts and fills, including right of removal of lateral support from subject
land or remainder thereof occasioned by excavations thereof or construction of
slopes in the grading and surfacing with bituminous material Hazel St. from E.
7th St. to Reaney Ave. and Bush Ave. from Hazel St. to Nokomis Ave.
under Preliminary Order_____ 211101 -__, approved ----- Febrmaiw-_5,_191_________________ ______
Intermediary Order --- - - - - -- 217.7 - - -, approved ----- NaarcY,lqLr- lib- --------------------------
Final Order --------- - - - - -- - approved - - -- AFri.I. 1L} _1963.------------------- - - - - --
TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL:
The Commissioner of Finance hereby reports:
That he has fixed and determined the value of the land, lands or easements therein taken and appro-
priated for the above improvement and the amounts of the awards of damages therefor to the owners
thereof, and the persons to whom such awards are payable; that he has also fixed and determined the
amount of benefits to property, from the making of said improvement, not exceeding the cost there-
of, and that hereto attached is an assessment roll entitled as above and identified with the signature of
the undersigned, containing the undersigned's finding on said matters.
Co miss' her of Finance.
Mor.rs,f:.i nnesota w
May 24, 1963
St. Paul ,City Clerk;
Court- House,
St. Paul 2, Minne -sota
Dear -S'ir:
- Notice of , a Hearing in Condemnation Proceedings, set-for-
June .S, was received -from the•Commissioner'of Finance: Following
is a copy of letter sent: t.o him: "
With-reference to condemnation and taking of _an easement
in a portion of my abutting lots;-, Numbers Land 30, Block I, -Aurora
'Addition, 'for improvement of Hazel: Ave.,; This is to .express,.my
�'_,� r ^--�`S �".: -; �:. _.,.. - _ -_- _`�_ ,;. -•-_ .. � _.. _. . ,_- iii ;'. r.- � ^- ._ , ..� ... � .
objection. • An •assessment of $31.70 per ft. for a distance of 120 feet;.
would amount to $3807. oo against a.40 x-120 lot-, , and - is far in excess
'of the value of- that lot, ' and of any- benefit that could possibly,
accrue in the-future. _F Payment :over a period often years' would-
add another -60 %, and would raise the actual "cost to about ,46,000.
I have •no- alternative but to object .
Yours truly,
P.S. Kindly file- with,tthe- Council, as I may not be able to-be. ;
present personally, at the hearing. L.F.
• l�r �':f .fir _ R4 _ c .-.� - ,+ , ^t •r -' - •
.S - a 1• s � i. ,F .+ - .r - - . • ' T - - - - � 1, r.. .
-.r._ i- . .R. ,? I- is _• ,, •, ,b.11 " _ /s �J ' l�'a. � '�MVkI ,Y' �'I . - .
.: :,` . -- .� V • J. .FI��� ��.•� � R +• r,Ifrn • lV +• �, _ 'V/ il•. -' .. S ,\ • � e. •, �' -Y
Jun M
Nair
,!.iitJ.sT wr:n 10 , aF'td.9•IMa- }LaFttq.M- +Q� �May4 19b �•,, ,,i ,,�', Y�'
ota� to • t 'CI Clark •for ;thp. ��� �►�: sJ�r. - ul-j. -
ob'jccfi�g to. tUit fEttli
•'ti groding. o -die L' rt �.i•it'b : St,.' to Ieeurta�
t,
ilft 'oi' - YgW'_caj"tI r�s ibs amount .af'.��se�� es � _• y
tags,, esit 'ted- roe -,Y , tot, J_.W • floc% 1--'°,�tr� (*4� M. Ut�n�'.',,'
This' lot,; is .tom .+ et wjot of, iiri adj'a ties OfAots, -}
Ali tx ,a z ,..; n '011 rrs b .k�.tS►. yLo s "1.
thmugh 'in sa 1 vi 1'be• c b 'f 1i r'dti-
. o tti sie� � t 4 � t e'
lenryr :for " thi6 u nt;; ' t �, . g�t#.o `iii O at--fiel d
JcheoA;.. z& OIS : Oftoj• i .+ i - _UMe,'+ .Y + .f ate
' . "`'s'� � �\ - .�3tli�1.. �$$aA- $tl!b'�.� .9�'l�R'lt�1�,4tr. r-r.,' ', . . .. .....:. .. '• A,
Pie+ ee rate that ; hq h in b .d' on -,Juno 5 j, 1963 i vaa
th+k hetawing. 'm. t4_
yo `
+t- i ..atihe x wa t % usof e s - the A �ian os. e i tp- t .i w
s t `
�hcl. tu6s�ii+ya, yt{�' t�j 3n ,. �ri
a'ifiat
Y ♦�7b�cQ this ,ate _ l• 41 ;q�tWidn�►,y+ i# gh -frf� + a�►t is '., T
. _ - • � - :\.:.. ,� }.,- - � few' '• .. ♦ - ,_ - ..' - ,
r. yy y �+�. - - +c•. i
- . ', _.. � - ;. f Fes• _ _ ^ '- _ •f� -- ,
spy
A.
'/ ... - .. -'+f h •. 2 t a: � it • .. - !` .. f- � .- • A• ? .� _ r• • t -- ` . F . •.r:. t -• �' A• v �
Morris,,Minnesota-
June 14, 1963
Mr. Eltor A. Dehn,
Valuation Engineer,
286 City Hall,
St. Paul 2, Minnesota;.
Dear Sir:
In reply to your letter of June 13, 1963, may I emphasize that
Lot 1 is in no way a part of Lot 2, nor any other lot in that block, and
is not being considered in the development of any other lot or lots.
It is true that in the case, of Mr. McLellan's property across the
street, the entire property is undoubtedly combined in ® nsidering any
future development. That is not true in my case, and such .a presumption .
is wholly without basis in fact.- -
Another factor to be considered is this: Mr. McLellan and his close
family connections have the machinery and equipment to do the construction
work and improvement on that street, and will no doubt be the party' -'
employed to do that work. -In other words, he is actually being compensated
for improving his own property.-'
In my case, no lots except ;Lots 1 and 30 fronton that street, nor_ =.,
is any other lot to be in any way'consiaer'_ed a pa t`of'Lbts 1 and 30.
If such could be done, why limit it to my lots'?'why , not include the entire
block'? why not include that entire area? Why not assess all of St. Paul
for the improvement on one of its streets? ; , f "! ..- It might be interesting to3 investigate'froni .whom - the ',suggestion came
that an assessment against Lot 1 should be`spread'over other lots. May I
suggest that this is merely a strategem_to get.control of my property.
I have paid assessments for street improvementsfor. each lot individually
and expect to continue to do so for only the.legal frontage on each lot.
I trust this explains that such assessment as you suggest is grossly
_discriminatory, illegal, and favors Mr. McLellan in developing his less
valuable- property at-"* expense,-_--_
Yours truly,
•J�J - t