1981-25rBILL 1981-25
TRANSITORY ORDINANCE NO. 1686
A TRANSITORY ORDINANCE
PROVIDING FOR THE DISPOSITION OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OF THE CITY
City of Richfield Does Ordain:
Section 1. The following property of the city is hereby
authorized to be sold and disposed of:
Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 1
"FAIRWOOD SHORES" according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Said Lots 6, 7 and 8 are subject to .a perpetual easement
for street and utility purposes. Said easement lying
northerly of a line parallel and/or concentric with a
line 50.00 feet southerly of line A, hereinafter
described:
Line A
Commencing at the northwest corner of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 27, Township 28, Range 24,
Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence East, assumed
bearing, along the north line of said Southwest
Quarter a distance of 475.00 feet; thence South
20 degrees 48 minutes- 35- seconds -West- a distance
of 6.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line
to be described; thence South 88 degrees 51 minutes
44 seconds West a distance of 462.23 feet; thence
southwesterly a distance of 226.37 along a
tangential curve concave to the southeast having a
radius of 572.96 feet and a central angle of 22
degrees 38 minutes 22 seconds; thence South 66
degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds West tangent to said
curve a distance of 133.72 feet; thence westerly
a distance of 429.11 feet along a tangential curve
concave to the north having a radius of 572.96 feet
and a central angle of 42 degrees 54 minutes 40.,
seconds and said line "A" there terminating.
Section 2. The terms and conditions of such sale shall be
determined by the City Council.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota,
this day of 1981.
Donald Priebe, M~1Jor
ATTEST:
Sylvia Bergh, City Clerk
This ordinance was never given second reading. The following communication
was received from Judy of Community Development on 11 December 1981:
"The subject ordinance had first reading by the city
council on Septer:,ber 28th. Second reading-did not
occur as set for October 12, 1981.
I checked with John Dean (city attorney) this date
to see if 2nd reading was required, John stated it
would not be necessary to have 2nd reading since the
property had been sold and there were no objections
to the title."