Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-17_COUNCIL MEETINGREMINDER: ON MONDAY AT 5:00 P.M. THERE IS A JOINT MEETING WITH THE EDINA SCHOOL BOARD, FOLLOWED BY A 7:00 P.M. WORK SESSION IN ROOM 350 AT THE EDINA COMMUNITY CENTER. City of Edina /Edina Public Schools Monday, June 16, 2008 5:15 — 6:45 pm ECC 350 (A light supper will be served) Agenda 1. Demographic Update A discussion related to the varied demographic information available to the city and the district as it relates to future planning. 2. Funding Update A discussion related to budget planning, especially as it relates to the impact of the 2008 Legislative Session. 3. Cooperative Venture Update A discussion related to the various cooperative and collaborative efforts between the city and the district. This will include: • Connecting with Kids • Ongoing administrative dialogues • Other 4. Closure and Follow -up A determination will be made related to possible follow -up from the meeting. 41 AGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL JUNE 17, 2008 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Adoption of the Consent Agenda is made by the Commissioners as to HRA items and by the Council Members as to Council items. All agenda items marked with an asterisk ( *) in bold print are Consent Agenda items and are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a Commissioner, Council Member or citizen so requests it. In such cases the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the Agenda. EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY * I.. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF HRA - Regular Meeting of June 3, 2008 * II. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS As per Pre List dated June 12, 2008, TOTAL $49,015.00 III. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL PROCLAMATION — EDINA UNPLUGGED * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 3 2008, Work Session of June 3, 2008 and Study Session of May 27, 2008 II. PUBLIC .HEARINGS During 'Public Hearings, " the Mayor will ask for public testimony after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure faimess to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: • Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Mayor may modify times, as deemed necessary. • Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. • In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. A. SECOND READING ORDINANCE NO. 2008 -04 — Amending Section 850 Regarding Heights (First Reading: favorable vote of majority of Council Agenda/Edina City Council June 17, 2008 Page 2 Members present to approve - Waiver of Second Reading: favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members to approve) B. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT DIVISION, 3101 & 3201 69t Street West, DJR Architects/Tom Miller C. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY REZONING APPROVAL, 4010 West 65 th Street, Crosstown Medical LLC III. PUBLIC COMMENT During "Public Comment, " the City Council will invite comments from those in attendance who would like to speak about something not on tonight's agenda. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes and cannot speak to an issue for which a public hearing was held by the Council within the last thirty days or a matter scheduled for a future hearing on a specific date. Individuals should not expect the Mayor or Council to respond to their comments. Instead, the Council might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. IV. AWARD OF BID (Favorable rollcall vote of majority Council Members present to approve) A. ENG 08 -5 Morningside Water Main Pipe Re- lining WM -481 (continued from .6/3/08) * B. Adventure Peak Remodel Improvement — Edinborough Park C. ENG 08 -3 Browndale Bridge Improvement No. BR -3 D. ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood Reconstruction Improvement Nos. BA -342, SS -438, STS -343, WM -476 & L -50 V. REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS (Favorable rollcall vote of majority Council Members present to approve except where noted) A. Resolution No. 2008 -54 Accepting Various Donations (Favorable rollcall vote of four Council Members to approve) B. Ordinance No. 2006 -6 Amending Section 150 of the Code Concerning Personnel Policies (First Reading: favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve.) * C. 2008 Braemar Inspection Tour July 8, 2008 * D. Amendment to MN Financial Crimes Task Force Grant Agreement * E. Traffic Safety Report of June 4, 2008 * F. Res No. 2008 -57 Accepting MnDOT Grant G. Conditions to Variance — Cypress Equities * H. Set Hearing Date (07/01/08) Public Works Relocation i a Mon Tues Tues Tues Tues Fri Tues Tues Tues Mon Mon Tues Tues Tues Mon Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Tues Agenda/Edina City Council June 17, 2008 Page 3 Ordinance No. 2008 -07 Amending The City Code Concerning Liquor Licensing For Establishments With Amusement Devices (First Reading: favorable vote of majority of Council Members present to approve.) VI. FINANCE (Favorable rollcall vote of majority Council Members present to approve) A. CONFIRMATION OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS As per Pre -List dated June 5, 2008 TOTAL $457,680.31; and dated June 12, 2008 TOTAL $1,346,842.38 and Credit Card Transactions April 26, 2008 through May 25, 2008 TOTAL $7,619.03 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS VIII. • MAYOR AND COUNCIL COMMENTS IX. MANAGER'S COMMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952 - 927 -8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. June 16 June 17 June 17 June 24 July 1 July 4 July 15 July 15 July 22 Aug 4 Aug 4 Aug 19 Aug 26 Aug 26 Sept 1 Sept 2 Sept 9 Sept 9 Sept 16 Sept 23 Oct 7 Oct 21 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /DATES /EVENTS Joint Meeting With Edina School Board 5:00 P.M. RM 350 COMMUNITY CENTER Work Session — Comp Plan Land Use 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS Study Session — Budget Assumptions 11:30A.M. COMMUNITY ROOM Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS INDEPENDENCE DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Work Session — Comp Plan Assumptions 5:00 P.M. Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Study Session — To be determined 7:00 A.M. Work Session — Comp Plan Transportation 5:00 P.M. Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Study Session — To be determined 11:30 A.M. Filing Opens — Edina City Council Affidavits of Candidacy LABOR DAY HOLIDAY OBSERVED — City Hall Closed Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. PRIMARY ELECTION DAY — POLLS OPEN 7:00 A.M. UNTIL 8:00 P.M. Filing Closes — Edina City Council Affidavits of Candidacy Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Study Session — To be determined 7:OOA.M. Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM CITY CLERKS OFFICE COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS COMMUNITY ROOM COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JUNE 3, 2008 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Chair Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Swenson and seconded by Commissioner Housh approving the Consent Agenda for the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MAY 20, 2008, APPROVED Motion made by Commissioner Swenson and seconded by Commissioner Housh approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority from May 20, 2008. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, the Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Executive Director R55CKREG LvG20000 Check # Dale Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # 14005 6112/2008 100668 URS CORPORATION 49,015.00 PROMENADE PROJECT 49,015.00 CITY O. A Council Check Register 6/12/2008 — 6112/2008 Doc No Inv No Account No 187759 3429254 9132.6103 Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 49,015.00 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 49,015.00 Total Payments 49,015.00 6/1. 8:31:33 Page - 1 Business Unit CENTENNIAL LAKE TAX DISTRICT R55CKSUM LOG20000 Company 09000 HRA FUND Report Tolals Amount 49,015.00 49,015.00 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 6/12/2008 - 6/12/2008 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply In all material respects with the requirements of the City Of Edina purchasing poll717 s and procedureAdate— . 7�` 611112008 8:31 :38 Page - 1 )-1 O • ,�c�RnOR°'K��� iBBO PROCLAMATION Whereas, the City of Edina, in partnership with Connecting with Kids is a vital partner with families in providing nurturing and safe environments for children to learn and grow; and Whereas, strong family relationships are a critically important factor in the health and well being of children and youth; and Whereas, research by the University of Minnesota Medical School's Center for Adolescent Health and Development reports that the more meals kids eat with their family, the less likely they are to participate in high- risk behaviors; and Whereas, all of the families in the community will benefit from one evening during the school year that is set aside where we strongly recommend there be no homework, no meetings, no practices and no organized activities; Now, Therefore, We, the Edina City Council do hereby proclaim Monday, March 9, 2009 as: EDINA UNPLUGGED NIGHT Adopted this 17th day of June, 2008. James B. Hovland, Mayor MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JUNE 3, 2008 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *APPROVAL OF MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF MAY 20, 2008 AND SPECIAL MEETING OF May 20, 2008 Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 20, 2008, and Special Meeting of May 20, 2008. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. ORDINANCE NO. 2008 -04 GRANTED FIRST READING Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. Planner Presentation Planner Teague presented the proposed ordinance noting it contained two sections, the first dealing with Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and the second which would limit the maximum height to the ridge line of the top of a roof. He reported the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of the FAR section, approval of the maximum height section of the proposed ordinance and suggestion that there be further examination of FAR on a vicinity basis using the Character Districts within the draft Comprehensive Plan as a starting point. Mr. Teague reminded the Council of the existing tools in the City's code that included: • A 25 -30% building coverage requirement • An increased setback of six inches for every foot over 15 feet in height • Median lot width and size requirement keep new subdivisions in areas with lots that are larger than 9,000 square feet and wider than 75 feet, consistent with the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Teague also reviewed using graphic examples, the following recent amendments' effects on homes that had been built recently. • Low Floor Elevation of Tear Downs. The first floor elevation may not be more than one foot above the existing first floor elevation. • Side -yard setback. A sliding scale of setback requirements based on lot width was established. This will slightly increase the separation between houses on lots that were between 61 -75 feet in width. • Building Height. Building height was now measured from existing grade, rather than proposed grade. • Exceptions. Bay windows were eliminated as a setback exception. This combated the issue of allowing three feet of building into the setback if the wall was brought in at ground level. Page 1 Minutes /Edina City Council /June 3, 2008 Public Comment Laurie Groetz, 5513 Park Place, objected to the proposed ordinance stating its enactment would most likely lower property values. Gary Aulik, 2374 West Lake of Isles Parkway, Minneapolis, stated while he supported decreasing the size of "monster" homes, but he did not support floor area ratio regulations or height restrictions. He urged more study. Tom Bakritges, President, Builders Association of the Twin Cities, stated the housing industry was facing difficult times. He quoted an Austin, Texas study of floor area ratio and expressed fear of the negative effect on the housing market without the desired goals being .achieved if floor area regulations were enacted in Edina. Nan Schwappach, 4010 Lynn Avenue, expressed her ebjestion support of the proposed floor area ratio regulations. Jane Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, expressed concerns with roof heights and how homes directly north of high roof houses would be Regatively afferated lose access to solar energy. Len Oberpriller, 5510 Highwood Drive, stated his objections to floor area ratio regulations and suggested that it was not just lot width, but also front yard setback that should alseea fURGti6R determine of roof height. Scott Busyn, 5018 Arden Avenue, objected to the proposed floor area ratio regulations. He suggested a survey of residents and that the City review "character districts ". He acknowledged that height was an important issue to neighbors. David Turk, 5500 Park Place, said that one regulation would not fit each situation and that individual neighborhoods should be reviewed. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Housh to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Following the public comment, the Council discussed the proposed ordinance. Their consensus was that the FAR regulations needed further review and study on a vicinity basis, but that the maximum height regulation was ready for adoption. FAR should be considered after some time has passed to determine how the recent changes to the zoning regulations have been working. In addition, it was requested that the effect of the front yard setback be reviewed as it related to maximum heights. Member Swenson made a motion to grant Ordinance No. 2008 -04 First Reading approving the height regulations as contained in Section 2, directing that information on large lots and front yard setbacks be prepared and presented when the Ordinance was brought back for Second Reading. Member Bennett seconded the motion Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENT Joan Wierzba, 6217 Belmore Lane, expressed the concerns felt by the neighbors over the proposed construction of a maintenance facility in her neighborhood by Interlachen Country Club. She relayed that Interlachen cut all the trees from the lot they own on Belmore Lane Page 2 Minutes /Edina City Council /June 3, 2008 without notifying the neighbors of their intentions. She said the Country Club had invited the neighbors to a meeting, which they later cancelled without notifying the neighbors. Paul Hedbloom, 6205 Spruce Road, stated he was adjacent to the lot where the Country Club had removed all the trees. In his opinion, he stated his lot lost value as a result of this action. Mr. Hedbloom asked that neighbors be given input before any further action take place on the lot by the Country Club. Ted Volk, 6301 Belmore Lane, presented a resolution he requested the City Council consider regarding the process followed by the City during re- development of property within the City. George Carroll, Interlachen Country Club General Manager, said the Country Club would have a meeting with the neighborhood within two weeks to explain the long range plan for the property located on Belmore Lane. Mr. Carroll said the neighborhood had been informed of the cancellation of the meeting. Mary McDonald, 6216 Belmore Lane, disagreed with Mr. Carroll, stating she had not been informed of the cancellation of the neighborhood meeting. Craig Bennett, 6229 Belmore Lane, expressed his dismay with the Country Club, the negative impact upon the neighborhood due to both the upcoming US Open - overflow parking and the potential of a maintenance building in a residential neighborhood. *AWARD OF BID TWO TRUCK BOXES FOR TANDEM TRUCKS — PUBLIC WORKS Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh awarding the bid for truck boxes for two new tandem snowplow trucks to the recommended low bidder, J -Craft Truck Equipment (State of Minnesota Contract # 437050) at $187,256.82. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *AWARD OF BID CONTRACT NO. PW -08 -5 IMP. NO. WM-483 WELL #3 PUMP HOUSE Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh awarding contract No. PW 08 -5 Improvement No. WM-483 for new Well House No. 3, 5233 Halifax Avenue to the recommended low bidder, EnComm Midwest, Inc. at $328,328.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. CONTINUED TO JUNE 17, 2008 AWARD OF BID ENG 08 -5 MORNINGSIDE WATER MAIN PIPE RE- LINING WM-481 Engineer Houle using a PowerPoint presentation, explained the Morningside area had experienced a major red water issue which was actually nitrification in their pipes. The pipes in Morningside were between 49 and 69 years old and were unlined cast iron pipes. Mr. Houle said the corrosive soil conditions in the lower areas may have also contributed to the issue. He stated that the City has been continuously flushing the system throughout the winter (3.2 millions gallons to date) and monitoring the chlorine levels. Mr. Houle said the long term solution was to reline the pipes during two stages with the pipes north of 42nd Street re -lined during 2008 and the remainder re -lined during roadway rehabilitation projects between 2012 and 2014. Mr. Houle said that the following four methods were analyzed: Method Estimated Costs Life Added to System Structural Liner $1,238,974 80 -120 years* Cement Liner $820,000 20 years Pipe Burst $1,160,000 80 -120 years Open Cut $1,010,000 80 -120 years Page 3 Minutes /Edina City Council /June 3, 2008 r. Houle noted the Insituform's website listed a shorter life for this product at a highe He said staff was recommending the water main rehabilitation be done using a structural liner called PRP Thermopipe manufactured by Insituform which has met all federal standards for potable water use. Mr. Houle stated the project was in the Capital Improvement Plan, and allocated at $480,000; however, the engineering estimate had been based on cement lining of the pipes, similar to the process followed in the City of Minneapolis. He said that based on his review of Capital projects which have come in below the estimates; there was approximately $1,300,000 available for use in the Morningside Pipe Re- lining project. Mr. Houle added that water rates for Morningside would need to be reviewed since capital projects were funded by the Utility Fund with the water fees collected generating the funds for such improvements. The Council discussed the proposed Morningside watermain re- lining. Questions included: the recommended product's safety and life expectancy due to its limited use in the United States; timing of the phases of the Morningside watermain re- lining; proposed method of re- lining the pipes; possibility of using a different method for re- lining the pipes, such as cement re- lining; reviewing the most cost effective method for the project; and the rate structure for Morningside. Motion made by Member Masica and seconded by Member Bennett to continued action on the bid for Contract No. ENG. 08 -5 Improvement No. WM-481 for Morningside water main lining project until the June 17, 2008 Council meeting at which time the low bidder, Insituform would be available to answer questions about their product's safety and life expectancy, Ehlers can comment upon the water rate for the Morningside area, and staff can review the project to see if it would be possible to commence the project using both a concrete liner and the proposed plastic liner. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -51 APPROVED ACCEPTING VARIOUS DONATIONS Mayor Hovland_ explained that in order to comply with State Statutes; all donations to the City must be adopted by Resolution and approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donations. Member Swenson introduced Resolution No. 2008 -51 accepting various donations. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. 2008 BOARD OF APPEAL AND EQUALIZATION REPORT John Helling, 5616 Woodcrest Drive, Chair of the Board of Appeal and Equalization, gave an oral report on the work of the Board during 2008. He stated that the Board met on April 14 and April 18 to hear citizens appeal to the assessor's value of their property. Mr. Helling reported that they had 13 appeals: one from a commercial property which was forwarded on to Hennepin County for action, six residential properties had their values reduced, four properties were sustained at the same value and two properties were increased in value. The Council thanked Mr. Helling for the work of the Board. INTERLACHEN BIKE LANE /SIDEWALK UPDATE BIKE EDINA TASK FORCE Alice Hulbert, 7221 Tara Road, representing the Bike Edina Task Force (BETF) gave an update on the Interlachen Bike Lane and Sidewalk, noting the City had in 2003 applied for and received a grant from the Metropolitan Council for a bike and pedestrian trail along Interlachen Page 4 Minutes /Edina City Council /June 3, 2008 Boulevard. She related that neighbors concerned about the loss of trees and the safety of the side path design had convinced the City Council to set aside the plan as it had been submitted to the Technical Advisory Board of the Met Council. Ms. Hulbert related the concern of the BETF over the potential loss of the grant at its sunset in June of 2009, unless an acceptable plan was devised getting approval of the City Council, neighbors and the Technical Advisory Board. She stated that the BETF suggested the narrowing the driving lanes to ten and one half feet to allow for a one -way bike lane on each shoulder. Further, the BETF recommended the development of a pedestrian component on the south side currently occupied by the power line. The BETF requested that this modified plan be submitted to the Metropolitan Council's Technical Advisory Board. The City Council discussed the potential loss of the grant in 2009 and the possibility of developing a "rough plan" for submission to the Technical Advisory Board using two one -way bike lanes and a narrowed roadway. Issues discussed included: neighborhood concern and support for a pedestrian component, difficult topography on Interlachen Boulevard complicating sidewalk installation, costs of City share, and potential traffic signal at Mirror Lakes Drive. Mr. Houle related that following the Women's US Open at Interlachen Country Club, it had been his intention to restripe Interlachen Boulevard, Mr. Houle said he believed two one -way bike lanes on the shoulders with drive lanes narrowed to eleven feet could be accomplished at a minimal cost. Appropriate signage indicating bike lanes and prohibiting parking would also be installed in conjunction with the re- striping. Member Housh made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, directing that Interlachen Boulevard be re- striped on both sides along with the appropriate signage posted to allow the road to be used in both directions as a bike lane. Staff was to bring back the necessary "No Parking" resolutions to the Council. Nothing further would be submitted to the TAB of the Metropolitan Council relative to the previously awarded grant for Interlachen Boulevard. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *HEARING DATE OF JUNE 17, 2008, SET FOR PLANNING ITEMS Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh to set June 17, 2008 as the hearing date for: 1) Revised Final Development Plan, Revised Conditional Use Permit, Lot Division, 3101 & 3201 West 69th Street, DJR Architects /Tom Miller and 2) Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Rezoning Approval, 4010 West 65th Street, Crosstown Medical LLC. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -52 ADOPTED SETTING PUBLIC HEARING OF JULY 1. 2008, FOR IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -345 WOODLAND CIRCLE AND LANE AND IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -352 WOODEND DRIVE Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh adopting Resolution No. 2008 -52 setting July 1, 2008, as the Improvement Hearing Date for Improvement No. BA -345 Woodland Circle and Lane and Improvement No. BA -352 Woodend Drive. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *CHANGE ORDER WELL NO. 3 LOCATED AT 5233 HALIFAX AVENUE AUTHORIZED Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh authorizing Change Order in the amount of $8,530.00 changing the method of rehabilitation for Well No. 3, located at 5233 Halifax Avenue. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. Page 5 Minutes /Edina City Council /June 3, 2008 *RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -53 APPROVING URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FY 2009 — 2011 Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh to adopt Resolution No. 2008 -53 approving the Fiscal Year 2009 -2011 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. *CONFIRMATION OF CLAIMS PAID Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Housh approving payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated May 22, 2008, and consisting of 31 pages; General Fund $366,317.19; CDBG Fund $23,260.00; Communications Fund $3,983.96; Working Capital Fund $77,700.01; Art Center Fund $4,910.50; Golf Dome Fund $15,724.12; Aquatic Center Fund $1,107.86; Golf Course Fund $10,570.85; Ice Arena Fund $16,941.45; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $24,498.01; Liquor Fund $179,703.89; Utility Fund $87,349.28; Storm Sewer Fund $86.00; PSTF Agency Fund $758.63; TOTAL $812,911.75 and for approval of payment of claims dated May 29, 2008, and consisting of 30 pages: General Fund $99,147.15; Communications Fund $3,855.07; Working Capital Fund $7,371.01; Art Center Fund $21,462.53; Aquatic Center Fund $7,363.26; Golf Course Fund $14,166.09; Ice Arena Fund $713.52; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes Fund $16,626.29; Liquor Fund $176,733.72; Utility Fund $43,760.35; Storm Sewer $48,022.50; PSTF Agency Fund $3,264.67; TOTAL $442,486.16 Motion carried on rollcall vote — five ayes. MAYOR HOVLAND'S TRIP TO BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, WASHINGTON D.C. AUTHORIZED Mayor Hovland explained he had been invited to attend a program at the Brookings Institute entitled "Blueprint for Prosperity" in Washington DC. He said that he intended to cover part of the expenses personally, but asked for Council to authorize his expenses for the trip. Member Housh made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, to authorize the expenses of Mayor Hovland's trip to Washington DC to attend the "Blueprint for Prosperity" program at the Brookings Institute. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Page 6 Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JUNE 3, 2008 5:00 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Also present: Planning Commissioners John Lonsbury and Michael Fischer. Staff present included: Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Ceil Smith, Assistant to the City Manager; Cary Teague, Planning Director; City Attorney, Roger Knutson and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to discuss the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Member Masica led off stating that she felt height was an issue that needed to be discussed. She brought to the meeting a large map received from a constituent that she used to point out the height of various buildings in the Cahill area. The Council discussed various aspects of building heights with staff and the Planning Commissioners. It was noted that the Cahill Industrial Area (east of Cahill Road, west of Hwy 100 and north of 1 -494) was an area where the draft plan noted a potential for increased density. The Council discussed the following acceptable heights for the area: three stories, east side of Cahill and south side of 70th Street and the neighbors would not object to eight stories adjacent to Hwy 100. Discussion also included: increasing green space in relation to increasing height, impact of change in one neighborhood affecting adjacent neighborhoods, the vibrancy of neighborhood adjacent to freeways, whether or not zoning would need to change if the comprehensive plan changed the designation of an area (the City would have nine months to change zoning and then only change zoning if in conflict with plan), mixed use development, residential over retail development, whether industrial areas should be retained, purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to give guidance to developers and protection to residents, need to balance uses (i.e. commercial, industrial, residential), residents' desire to not increase height or density, development of vision, need for small area plans and maintenance of infrastructure. The Council agreed the Cahill Industrial area from the railroad tracks to Highway 100 should be included in a small area study, there should be a maximum height of three stories and the zoning should not change. -Future study sessions should review other potential areas of change including: Southdale area, 44th Avenue and France Avenue, the Grandview area, France Avenue north of Highway 62, and Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue. Mayor Hovland declared the meeting adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE STUDY SESSION OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL MAY 27, 2008 12:30 P.M. Mayor Hovland called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. in the Community Room of City Hall. Answering rollcall were: Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. Staff present included: Gordon Hughes, City Manager; Heather Worthington, Assistant City Manager; Wayne Houle, City Engineer; John Wallin, Finance Director; Eric Roggeman, Assistant Finance Director; and Debra Mangen, City Clerk. Also present were consultants Jeff Oertel, Oertel Architect; John Jacobs and Steven Brown, JE Dunn Construction; and Mark Ruff, Ehlers Associates. Mayor Hovland said the purpose of the work session was to review the future of`the Public Works facility and to discuss the options with respect to the possible relocation to the Conagra property. Mr. Hughes stated that Opus would still like to have the designation of developer of the existing Public Works site, but was not interested in paying the June $100,000 due to keep the option in place on the Conagra site. Council declined to affirm Opus as designated developer. The Council, staff and consultants discussed various aspects of relocating the Public Works facility. It was noted relocating to the Conagra site would cost an estimated $12,000,000 to $13,000,000 to renovate, outside of land cost. Staff said that the first estimate from Opus of between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 had suggested reutilization of the building as it was and had not factored the need to house the city's fleet of maintenance vehicles. Some factors driving increased renovation cost included: fleet requirement for reinforced flooring that allowed drainage, technical need of the maintenance bays, air quality requirements, and storage requirements for winter street maintenance chemicals. Other possible locations were reviewed; a total demolition and rebuild on the Conagra site were also explored. LEED principles were discussed as desirable for whatever option was deemed optimal. It was noted the City's existing Public Works site was valued at about $4,000,000, and an appraisal from 2007 valued the Conagra site at approximately $8,000,000. Mark Ruff, Ehlers Associates, reviewed the tax impact of bonding for approximately $20,000,000. He noted that interest rates were in the low fours and the City had some Tax Increment Financing Districts decertifying which would aid in keeping the City's levy from having steep increases. Financing options discussed included: increasing the Capital Improvement Program to $20,000,000 and issuing bonds; possible use of interim lease financing until the existing Public Works site was re- developed, possibly financing a portion of the renovation using utility bonds, or possibly lease revenue bonds. Mr. Ruff said that utility bonds would have the same rate as a G.O. Bond, but lease revenue bonds would have a shorter term and possibly a lower rate. Mr. Hughes voiced a need for a real estate expert to review the Conagra property. The Council agreed to the need for a real estate expert, to continue exploring the options, and that a public hearing would be necessary to garner public input about the City's options for relocation. Mayor Hovland adjourned the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Debra Mangen, City Clerk Brief Description Second reading.of an ordinance amendment regulating building height to the ridge line of single- family homes. At the first reading of the ordinance, the City Council denied an amendment regarding floor area ratio. Staff Recommended Action Approve the attached zoning ordinance amendment. Background The Council requested background information on the height of existing homes on large lots for consideration of allowing taller homes on large lots with large front yard setbacks. (Ten examples are provided on pages Al -A28.) Of those reviewed, two were built to exceed 40 feet to the ridge line. Both of these homes have front yard setbacks of just 30 feet, and are located on relatively small lots. (See pages Al -A6.) Ironically, both of these homes were done by the same builder. These two homes would not meet the proposed ordinance. Because of their narrow lot widths, 5625 Interlachen Circle would have had to reduce the height to the ridge line by 6 feet 9 inches; and 5013 Bedford would have had to reduce the height by 7 feet. Staff believes the proposed ordinance works in these instances, as these homes do not seem to fit their neighborhood. The homes on the larger lots with greater setbacks (generally over 50 feet) all meet the 40 feet to the ridge line requirement as shown. (See pages A7 -A22.) REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor &City Council Agenda Item II.A Consent From: Cary Teague Planning Director Information Only Date: June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends To HRA Subject: An ordinance amendment ® To Council regarding building height in the R -1 and R -2 zoning districts. Action ® Motion Resolution Deadline for a city decision: No deadline Ordinance Discussion Brief Description Second reading.of an ordinance amendment regulating building height to the ridge line of single- family homes. At the first reading of the ordinance, the City Council denied an amendment regarding floor area ratio. Staff Recommended Action Approve the attached zoning ordinance amendment. Background The Council requested background information on the height of existing homes on large lots for consideration of allowing taller homes on large lots with large front yard setbacks. (Ten examples are provided on pages Al -A28.) Of those reviewed, two were built to exceed 40 feet to the ridge line. Both of these homes have front yard setbacks of just 30 feet, and are located on relatively small lots. (See pages Al -A6.) Ironically, both of these homes were done by the same builder. These two homes would not meet the proposed ordinance. Because of their narrow lot widths, 5625 Interlachen Circle would have had to reduce the height to the ridge line by 6 feet 9 inches; and 5013 Bedford would have had to reduce the height by 7 feet. Staff believes the proposed ordinance works in these instances, as these homes do not seem to fit their neighborhood. The homes on the larger lots with greater setbacks (generally over 50 feet) all meet the 40 feet to the ridge line requirement as shown. (See pages A7 -A22.) r Please note that these measurements were taken from the proposed grade, and not the existing grade, per the recent ordinance amendment.. However, if there was an issue with the existing vs. proposed grade for any of these homes, they would have to be lowered because of the existing requirement to mid point of the roof, and not just because of the proposed maximum to the ridge line. Therefore, staff would not recommend a change to the proposed ordinance. Also of note, is the new home built on Schaefer Road. (See pages A14 -A17.) This home had to reduce the overall height of the roof to meet the building height to the mid point. The plans included show both the originally proposed home, which was 43 feet to the ridge line; and the home that was built at 37.5 feet to the ridge line. If the Council wishes to allow more flexibility to large lots with homes that have larger front yard setbacks. A sentence could be added to the proposed ordinance that would state that if a lot is large enough to allow a structure that is 40 feet to the ridge line (A 135 foot wide lot), and the home has a front yard setback of greater than 50 feet, the maximum height to the ridge line may be increased. . ORDINANCE NO. 2008 -04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE CONCERNING FLOOR AREA RATIO AND BUILDING HEIGHT IN-THE R -1, SINGLE - DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Sub Section 850.11, Subdivision 6, is hereby amended to add the following: C. Height 4. The maximum height to the hiahest point on a roof of a single or double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Section 2. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect after it adoption and publication according to law. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James Hovland, Mayor .i i; J :ia l V IV rK rl+� P'R�PGSE' HVAC o.R.Oiimwa -r x 70 Tc� Pro u F�C-�� p top WOO ITT �C—A ATC11J - insi 3 THIS PLAID CVILIST 131 R9AINTAIrVEI3 f fti7 ACCE SISI ON T FE 'TA ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR = Dcuc Tor:und ` — L 612 966 95 N4 -F, 7)) -5:30 AM A- � SEPARAT: P r TIVI T REQUIRED CALL FOR. ALL ROUGH -IN INSPECTIONS: _ \ Final inspections of all trades required prior to occupancy of Building. CAI, pert�nalts r irz - - -- _ - -- nW ;z. — _ required JAC. lfirE(.I fbr Iii °?Ii3iil. I +� y �_,• � eiectrlcal, rre nrotevs:on ,.nvd . signar4 - _ Visible from tic! st; ct ✓ are required an Vio — FIRESLOCK ALL SC AND DROP CI:II !� I 5 (a25 1 NrM LAC: INSTALL A PE%tl!Atti:Iif 01j, f i'i' o loU (A N TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY U00F. L l r V� I !U Roof « exterior APPROV EO B' SCALE: I surfaces must h0 Cornpleted wit!lin DATE: (� ill cnanges or deviations troui 12 moniths of �A�Nt��� these plans must be submitted rer r,it ::,�; ;e �= UATIp� 5 CaIIG514540002befcrediggingfor In writing Prior to their ac. and utility loc ?.lion:, r R it Q u I R e D p,11 LAW will result in suspension of builO inQ permit. f5 -ti�� r .. �. J,� f �" i � yij �; � ��: r P. �� �.J '` � �'` H'� �;� ®� TTX7 lGP . A. Mrs nosh " 907.8 Proposed Top of lock tepaensq E meow t INVOICE NO. 31.384 907.30'' F.B. N0. 323 -62 Proposed Garog .Floor tmmmlo SILT FENCE MUST BE SCALE 1 "= 20' INSTALLED PRIOR TO 896.8 Proposed Lowest`F.Iwr ANY INSPECTIONS O Denotes Iron Monument . ) Fabft ^Or°ae ❑ Denotes Wood Hub Set Type of Building �� aMlmr bsOkflo wlp, t7bsesisnor WrPedrlebrrWSVI ' r For Excavation Only Full Bose n t eawtl now EEE . • .: i x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Wolkou( '' Y' dl's minbrem E I Fheoter Floor - 895. iv1 -� O Denotes Proposed Elevation • `: •.' a I� esrWmerm _ Denotes Surface Drainage N +ate. - Denotes Existing Contours °i ol"po 10Ap •�'r bnaww�e140wah -- =- Denotes Proposed Contours ro0 raps, veN Wne sith tle vNw, a wood pave with eaIes. If"= Matenstaetwr@felwrw erty Located In Part Of W + 7/ F 4 Sec. 29 Twp. 117 R. 21. � IN"I EACN CIRCLE S 8s CURB CUT PERMIT t/c t/c t/c t /cREQUIRED t/c Concrete Curb 903.69 90415 904.91 CC1N=19t ;NGINEERIP1P§ ftP I 904.0 90.0 906.4 - - -EA ENT _�I ,��' w o :.n o N N 901.9 7 11 1 907. I a E 905.8 y 2.0 Loop - .....; 6 21' -0° 2. _C 3 2 � SIPZ� N 3`0..0 0 -Oo 11L D- °- b EXISTING T 903 ;�i a EXISTING RESIDENCE _-3- a' -o" rC %LS,C 1-O °`' RESIDENCE o e b 6' -0" z TOB. -902.4 a� . l DE RA Z I-'.D TOB. GAR. - s -0 PROPOSED 1 ri 906.0 / °O _ - �Q�- � -- -. ? 90y C ° 905.5 f t 2' - 895.9 0 z B= 80 \ � C:5 - - x. 00— N __9 u•, Cj LO 1:1.54 52' -0" -90 -i -SA of = -902 896.3 I arch I deck Patio l p �-� -J -900- - `i \� -998 - -- --- - --:�' , 71 89___ - -- OCT 3 0/2001 8 94-` 892, '----- - - - - -- -- a9D.s — 90.00 EAST 892.8 - LOT41REA =,70,759 sq. ft. I - �\ HOUSE/PORCH /STOOP,.= .2,693 sq. ft. POND \ ::FOl1NDATION COVERAGE = 25.09 ELEV. -889.8 7 \ HARD COVER: LOT 7, BLOCK 1, VICTORSEN'S EAST MIRROR LAKES 7 H - s ' DECK .A � 1320 sq, f survey Is certified only to the above named person or- persons r�I 0� j// C = 40 / 37.09 not y to subsequent owners, mortgogss or title insurers. NI 43nggsoelonss and Door devntlons must be verlfied py to lent. by client I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under 2 my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Land J Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed by us this 17th day of October 20 07 Signed Revised: 10/30/07 Milton E. Hylond, Mi eg. No. 20262 UNOEK THE Pjbmsco ORD. _- -r i fE • MAX T-D T-qL 906E / Li N E WOV'L i0 rr -r�T T -✓ - ;r,.lw)r. - r- per.. ='s F 34!�°.•�� -�� T f"• 1 .-./ rr r '.k r „�. .. • rte '�`� ��: a•'r! ".: o� rn _ .4s �.. Afoi •�',� �i. �i.� sae. �,�� t :,. �., � r• .ir . ..r r /� Sri ` • `�! — _ 1' ' ur I OF n • r �. a .lcw �? r' V ' HY -LAND - SURVEYING, P.A. LAND SURVEYORS 951.0 Proposed Top of Block INVOICE NO. 31.431 8700 Jefferson Highway F.B. NO. 323 -70 950.5 Proposed Geroge Floor Osseo, Minnesota 55369 SCALE 1'= 20 940.3 Proposed Lowest Floor PHONE (763)493 -5761 O Denotes Iron Monument FAX (763)493 -5781 ❑ Denotes Wood Hub Set Type of Building 3urvegars (9rdiftratir For Excavation Only Full Basement N W 45 E S APPROVED ENGINEERING DEP i. DEC 0 7 2007 CITY OF MINNE v d 0 .. U . t/a II----�� 945.75 W t/c 945.88 IJ-4 t/c Q 946.23 Q w (� t/C 946.59 NOTE: PROPERTY CORNERS SET BY DEVELOPERS SURVEYOR T.C. HOME BUILDERS CURB CUT PERMIT REQUIRED CONTACT ENGINEERING DEPT 952 - 828-0371 EXISTING RESIDENCE d6.5 TOE -953.6 9p� 953.1 )-U.67 N89'34'17 "E - - - - -- Denotes Existing Contour - - - - -- Denotes Proposed Contour x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation C::> Denotes Proposed Elevation 41 Denotes Surface Drainage Property Located In Port Of SW 1 4 Sec. 28 Twp. 117 R. 21. LOT AREA = 7,929 sq. ft. FOUNDATION = 2,072 sq. ft. FOUNDATION COVERAGE = 26.0% HARD COVER: HOUSE /STOOP /PORCH = 2,217 sq. ft. DRIVE = 549 sq. ft. TOTAL HARD COVER = 2,766 sq. ft. / 34.8% Proposed retaining wall /' top -952.0 / bot -948.5 r :953- 7 / � I 953.8 ' / - - -� , i ° �s,?U . 48.33 c6:-- „ C 4'n c0 ni i a PORCH ` 7' -952' I o I {0. DRIVE y C� :i: 10% .°n ..1 ........................... 12' -D, 0 �\ rnl PROPOSED Co i..._.._,.,__..._._. - - -Z ° - 30_ 4 -° RESIDENCE- ..._......; -SILT FENCE f ° 2' -0`' OF C0 I ..; TQ ^/ .948.2 � 1' -6° _.. �': L' i'Ic.il I o ___. __. -- _ . 6;g� - -STORM SEWER N o i' -6" .1 1 EASEMENT 42' -4° i / ty 50.9 I ° 0.96 948:7 128.78 N89'28'58 "E 29.9 //950.7 950.7 950.7 EXISTING ' I 1 EXISTING GARAGE ' RESIDENCE TOB -952.8 ICU X0'3 ®R� LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 23, Block 3, BROOKSIDE HEIGHTS and that part of the South Half of the Vacated Alley lying adjacent thereto. This is to the named or survey certified only above person persons and not to subsequent omen. mortgages or title Insurers The only easements shorn are from plats of record of Information provided by client. All building dimensions and floor elevations must be verified by dimL I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed by us this 14th day of November 20 07 Revised: 11/30/07 951.3 w sa � o () 0 to ZD cb 950.8 .6 Signed Milton E. Hyland, Minn. fReg. No. 20262 s o)-5 a 8�-of! AAxt oM \ I, iif:iui � 1 \,ee;o.i��a ■le�'e_±� �vi0 ■i ■CI • - -- `ter ��^ �f .�- '�.io, ■ate 1 \.jaa `�����- ° i��� ■II ■LIB °rte r■ ► .o nos• l .— .�_ ■OG■ "_ -- ■ Li�i� L■ ■� I ��5 ■ '_� •il ■ifs e�_ii ® ° - r. ova .�,_���._ !��_,I; If.o, _a= �(Illllli�lll ►II11111U1 ._;� �°-'' III o - -.� II.. _ , �a .ail�■,� °�- 3����� = �— -.. - �l e��r °j_ jji�ll_/ �I __ I_._ �•_v ��r�l . r■■ _ rP� r�..ry +r����O�o Er �•+� PON 11 Ml ���a �■ =��■■ ■� ■■ -no O ^a ■ ■1 !.■ ■■ -�� "• =01�i �e■6 ■r„ er�o�sr'°s�eo,- 0 - -� ■■ .��ro� ■ �. ■ �r� ■■ ■U �l r ii A 1� ads —� .ra ".Or ■!0_° ■ a- ^mom :. sue■ d■_�r�sasG�6 `' ■■ ■■ _ �' � n �u e■■ eii � � �e rill —`°� �'.iel.— J s --� ���.� --'G ■ rrsagaeo� � 1 �'� ■e ■■ ■ i�r�. �� ��� Acs; -��r :sib �c,�a_ m_ 2611 is ,. ■■ ■ ■ ■ � ■�-_.� ..� ... e, _•_ °— a _�_ - - �o►Y'CiLl7Y��GiY�'i1Y'�i►➢' � • oe -- - - ' �l��.ai��- 0�ta!•������ - 79" VA Kill 1 I� 00- ice' �• -" ool o LM" L el Ot p � �� \�VIOp .9.y v r00 o n a� vh E 4 , rrE`Li(ji�r. 7 " 89 Jg9 I4 'w R 916 EE \ 6SPR R 1916.0 SIL77��'�7FETN1�C�IrI�7 ^G IS Za 6 900 _ 909 REQUIRED litGL / 5 6. 90.- ' 3 OR it HS. a. 03 IR P�• a \9 I ARBORVIIIAE�\ - e99,7 I h� LO x. ;.Iv. ODU R ' b BLOC. 1. wAn I�II�I \ \ \ \\ \111.9 PROPOSED HO SE c \ g \ tz ( \ \ \ \\ \ Rl 1 1 TOP 1'1! 1 9oD.1 1 \ ,E BII ' OU \ lgTb> }P �, TOP FND. 911.4•,(VJI= T) \� \ \ \ `, 1 1. v LOWE51 / \ 113.5 3.5 y \ w \ \\ \\ V' 9005 ` 1 ISpEC\ .11LET �� •\ \o \ \X' . \ . `•>o li \ , \o i.-CAR GARAG " 1 \ \ \\ v 1 V e° V-' o 1 GYM BELOW RAGS \ I �,\ ! \ FLOOR Ecw892.5r I _ g13 AllG RIFE PSEV,N \11 P;p}1 ��� \ V ...� 911 ti ro I I ^ ! / C1{p1Nltt1X FENCE SLO l" So2-1 r - ..9ps _ 10 OD FENCE a g1 N g ....907 .._.908 _ 24DSC DE 851R I6DEC 929. ANDMARK' 06 - 917.6 FOUND JUDICIAL L �g05� _ _ _ -gW -9 _ 22DEC ` ON LINE \ \ 6 MODULAR BLOCK 285.00 PL 902 - — E %_ MEAS. AT 1 ! c RE1, WALL 284.74 902 9 n \ � I \ - 1 v 9083 1 906.6 / MCKII With nchortpe � 1 < 00Wrel Solt r 1 \ HOUSE 1 mm 1512 12■ On ■10 dEm OR I IL2 9 ■off I .— -lals HASO IigQ NP 40 jW " IV JP .4 NO "lfo " I m n �. C° �p En n D 0 . JA9 �- y � a A % m VS —930— a N N Cj {. g •o O 0 � J � .o a� w m1• m < 92 V1 Sx . • y;`a' 7Ci \` Ls� \111� ■ � i`�.i�rp�*. �- , •f1� ' \ � "nom a� � - w 5rl i •' � � • / 041 a r zz 66. 1�'� r v _ i, i ���/7 • �. 7 1 I I e ti✓ j�:"�'��.-�M•�" yj� 3"' 1'�� �r -�G,�o ly,i,,aw^� •fa 1 ;rri +!' �����.` � #tf � m•Y �� kra ���v.'�" sr� �/o 'iatn�i�Fa- �� M�,,,• 4•v��i• ;.e- � „ __-.S+ '�•• �IkCS t{�.yC � r !rY •ti- `Sr 1'� .a � �T- �ir at'�r'��i�1�`yi -� ^ m / J i 4 f$ T1� .1r� N - -i'y� f$ 1 ,�• / '. r• ( C��w� ^AS �i. u,4r -°. . m�.t ...7 J- .. m. .s�.,�•w i-�i.r 4.."�S.i x �zx `.S 4•tic;��R� f�i Ny.� �`li, ��,L'�. -.. °1 'li �.J.y���Y•.�.7 -�;�, ..�,�b�•1`�'.�.�.9�:' "`jay," • , ; �k �r . . m / r. y j - � W T H I f NOME . N 4S JVeT YET 6EPU So I I�T" ! t!_ X999.3 I X897. XI899.Q 994.7 Power Y,_R 2 S- 6,9V 4 ;31 " L- `� _� \ /�01 /; ra.evwo+ rqo _ 901.5 _ _ _ X9 .2 -- .336.49 -- pp 1 X 896.3 �(•- - --11- = - - - - -- - -X800.0 p w pasts / I /-' ` '_�•� -=V-- 7s - . _ 8 74 24 Spruce Xr Spruce 904.7 / j X6 Trn CH\ - X89�.�24-- pue 897 .6- O Easement spruce 897.6 X897.8 X898.2 u- f \ 97.8 X898.5 \ I / X897.2 ° �A / � I I X898.3 a., / X16" Pi I ( `- / � C 899.0 9p 5 I N��.' %1115 easemeDt JS /D . X 9 J4 I theprocess ofbeing vacated X89.9' „r T \a ron I \ accoJding to the awhitect 897.5 16" X897.9 / e� ti CIO 1 qe \ 8gg/ X898.3 �,i/ 4 + 0 ry 99 897.2 / @ / �• o% 9b0.5 p5 - X900.3 \. -- 897.8 ( X8 .6 9MY ° Q' � ✓ ✓✓ \ 12" .Spruce 90 . �e`�1(tg - X900.4 X899.8 I xess.s a / o.2 6N �c9oo.o I I T 'b G°^ 9o0.6/ 1 �' 9 e, X900.8 / I / I / �e1 � \\ �� �r l 0 o S f q5 Z54 / i r 1 / x 1 �� �.qr /� \ \� �\ X897 X8 �o�� ��w1 9 / 00. 6 X9'X900.0 n9ent- I fob °'�y� ;y pQ7p�00 Not is fig 90 00.1 / Fynd Cap pp X 9816/x897.8 (�B� \ �`b ^O�L «� U- N / / 89 9 / X898.9 j 97. 93,56 JO" Cedar j�' ��t1 (� 0� plc 97.3 / 0 f�V 4, 99. � V(� •�a 898.0 4 0 00.4 /rem e 20 Elm Rood 1897.5 v !�O � p OU5" / e / 104 Spruce 2 Plne frees 6" - 9" \ x `� 8 / * o7 I 897.3 " �'3 °° B" A � 97.0- I j.� \ / qla\ '040 97.0 6096.8 I -806\ ce / 898.0 r pt / - / I 6• Pine 1 i \ 899.1 9.7 X899.1 � � � � 2(� AS x 1 !2' 40897.2 O / \ x 1 - r-- _ // `) 6C�9 1 j X897.7 897.1 1- 40y� ` q X897,8 X897.3/ X897.5 .2 898.1 '� - / 896.8 e7 R � ►i�L�j I U�+ f.�`"�C i ' 897.3 TOP OF *E zw FLOC LAST STOKE TO BE 0 Ot" poem ... . ............ . Coon Rapids Office PIONEERengineering 201 85th Avenue N.W. Mendota Heights Office CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHn=S 2422 Enterprise Drive Coon Rapids, 0 F x:783 Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (763)783 -1880 Fax:783 -1883 Coon Rapids Office (651)681 -1914 Fax:681 -9488 Grading As -Bunt Survey for. PAIGE CONSTRUCTION INC. House Address: 5504 Schaefer Road -I P- 0- * F G�I SS r� r = t. c 1, Ysr P </4.w1} GRADING AS =BUILT 9 -24 -07 2 I 1 S89"18'02 "W 955.7 945.4 943.9 pp 942.9 4 .R EF = 946.2- \ i BE _ / �4fi,2� �951�952- } �x95].p /' / 9 9 �9q7� =_°•a x945. 958,0 1 Cr bap \ 7.2 \ / / \ �x 945.9 •\ 947.9 rc gp.], 946 .By�B / 47.0 �B.B 947.6 `ee9 �B 95 .5��\ le x BE] 4 1 I 47.91 4 \ \ \ I 1 I E..l np 948.4 955.1 � Z \\ 1 I I 150. �5��/ 55.0 954.4 9535 \ \ N 2.J 954.9 5.7 �� o m Q9 954.8 ti .6 V 1- m $ 11 1g :2.6 D��O 959.1 9�7K1 X85 / 4.9 = 8 � BSL9` \�/ m � \ r�pr�}V, ry . x T 95 4 4�% \\ ^'951.5 �N \ �d� BE4.t Qr_ Uj Q1 D I S6.fi1 \ 1p / LI N 5 4 I x 955.H�955� a.' m q W „ }, 955.5 95 B ` V / ,`. 956. 955 ,n ? 5d9 I e.l i -II _ 2D• 1cul x960.1 II 956.6 o fi.0' d` 956.5 'Eelel %np Sidsral4 'V 956.6 956.5 956.1 DAIS � I 124' 06Y S` 0 38.1 �29.t 1 I I I 945.0 5 96'\,0 9 0.2 v : Ei rt 956.7 9N6.2 t , 9E p444` euAdlnp r .S a 9543 }�.tS"'' I95 O I I ``6x 2B.✓ ,n °� ;� E.islelpCwvele Orirew0r ` '�C,`'y�6 I 961.2 Z 0x 9.996 _x9�61.1 1'.tu _ - 1956.1 24• oI Y 1 )��OY I I 945,6 961, 960.4 X950.2 x 86a. .. 95] ] 9 7. \ 96x- 95071 960.9 gtr, - x96rfi 961.4 461!211^. L 61'6 - 9 .8 9534 9 7.B 7 - 1962.2 86212 prate 960.3 \ \ 962.2 M7765 x 9�0. 4 954 950.3 946.9 N89"1 7*40"E � I BE 8 rSp NOTES S Cj LbRI'7� Lot dimensions and legal description taken from Zpp$ certificate of survey prepared by Probe Engineering Company, Inc., dated November_ 17th, 2005. CITY OF EDINA E=77NG BUILDING ELEVATIONS Doo.o Denotes Existing Elevation House Lookout Elevation: 951.5 Denotes Drainage Flow Direction House Walkout Elevation: 948.3 Denotes Drainage & Utility Easement (per recorded plot) Detached Garage Slab Elevation: 956.8 + Denotes Found Iron Monument Bearings shown are assumed Attached Garage Slab Elevation: 956.5 (at doom LOT 9 BLOCK 4 PARKWOOD KNOLLS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I hereby certify to Poige Construction, Inc. that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am o duly licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesoto. Dated this 2+1' day of A.D., 2007. 417 Signed: NEE�ENN �NG .A. Sca le. 1 inch = 30feet BY Thomas Bolluff, L.S. Reg. No. 40361 3044 207236.000 Joshuo P. Schneider, L.S.•Req. No. 44655 Front Elevation -------- --- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------- --------- ----------------- ---- ---- ---------------------------- - --------- ------------- ------------- NbT qoMG 9 AS Y r,-T- B&CAS �Ql L-r 260,52 �UAGTY EASEWN PEER caa t — — J—" I,^ — — - BSB --�.� LSgp1 S PARK — B4.OJ y W �JJ j BSB 82&JJ C�2N BSB W 922 0 —� I x' 9� ' W 926.JJ X17 t'; r f ... 67x Tw 99;-q >'_ . 924 50 Y:! ;:.., t11 eDYae 't�.iT: -: �1Q0,.7'���•�- 8W N 1. 1 92567X 80-50 921- - - 12 1 0 6 :'•,e''..' '.° N A IJ�_ ' ^. 92450 9 922 50 %azr.,sOx 9 ` x Il BW 822.67 l- 290,9 9 9� t w -- - -- Yr.� 1 p- =Zp00 r YxD 33.b %3•� m� m , B� •� ti 822.67 8�•/S x W'AOT TANOFNT 921. lOf 6 6058' ► B 922J8 j '+D74e � .DY2I Yo$ 11 4904 MER /LANE% S . -- ' 123 s►NGYE FAMILY HOUSE tab -- -i - - -- ARK P, N fFE -92271 �e_. ;, J LFE- 911.71 ' X 8245 ee ` 0 4 /D. r �•, -- -moo "'' I ,g23 -'" -. - - - ---- � ,- ...,.:.::. � JIL REAR CARDEN ow w EL- 92252 - -- 9 �\ ''`;• N ¢!orY \\ CTS �., r, I �z3 - - 920---- - - - - -' 579 7 y, - 382 60 -'"IRMai DRAIN .- LOF�S ,c�j�� w O.00 y 922. iq • 1'' . ��. "�- � - -- `.,� �,, ,,,`� :�• 1 � - - -- V 917.67 Bw 19.0 M 7my O - LOT 1 \\ B 12 !ir�'� `' rBW 250 w is - r � 11 ��g \9' � 918 i5o•f °' �o! '� r v e g 18 : r.:4� . =' ... 6r . VERTICAL BIDING CABLE RAILING 1 i L1L I_1J1 1.]L � �� _I. L_ L�_LIL.�J III LL I _ifl'I I I. I, 'I LII_I �LILJ�.LJ_1_iL , 12 10� METAL OR BW NG�ED ROOF METAL RA' 12 _II 5/e ROOF 101 MINIMA- SADDLE _7_ HINIMA.. SA7D_E VERIFY ON BITE I I 1 \ VEQI =Y ON BI'E 1..II 0 11 ill -Y -1? I —IL ; _ _ IT LL- I� -I _L LI— L f.�LSE _LI I - -111_1 J 1L4i 1 i G _ 1_,.I__• _ L i 1111 J— J— LIIIL_ CO,UMNS BIDING METAL —, ROO = MINIMAL SADD_E - - -- VEQI -Y ON SIFE z-7- jL-j L IL`` I J --iL - - -� 1 - -' I I _ �J T mix, I I � il! I I - � j! il.� _L�_ , JlL__�_ -- 1 FRONT ELEVATION 11411 = I' -O" 1st FLR. 2,512 SQ. FT. DOW NEADERB 2nd FLR. 2,366 SQ, FT. 7R BETTER .5,-011 POURED TOTAL 4,818 SQ, FT• JILT TO 91 CEILING o FIRST FLOOR .146 SQ. FT. ® OPEN FOYER 5 -Mo- vu �- 4iv�l F 1 F Nf- AL Io�.L�� 14 i j '. ­,C` N84-37'48'E FL 911.2 IjQ. 16 ol-wj 6+ -02 B 4a 00 Pgoposu) wousli �d 4-16 GRI .!",' PAAKAVA'I R,2 55 A a dd 312 i2 w OP i'kNr, R()(.)F - 940.9 7.50 PROPOSED TI DECK Ropos 2s, f SIDEWALK 51295 F?G.Posm ORIVFWAY 71,1 25 C0hlCRM V) .1Z 1� aoo AW PORCH 912, 5; c1l 12.00 LL. L "o", 4.00 11 52 Zry ;7 z . 065 -1127 .1266 cd (gff) Ir 4-aoo IjOl 79 .2 crog PROPOSED MD 01 111L IA L 009 fiv 7 OX 44 F&7, KING IYALL, 906 r,w (wn)- 9)f, 31 T_.155h_F.P LOT 24 S j 90'.S5 Off - omp) No-rr-gr-w 205.10 17 g", E., 9,2, 1 JC4_ 0 S T A T E r1 I D R 0 A D N 0 0 0. 6 6 R . 0 V\ CURB C= PERMIT APPROVED (I N T E R L A C H F N R L V D REQUIRED '"CNE�NG- DEPT COMA= ENGINEERING DEPT 952-820-M71 DEC 1 1 1007 'TY OF MINA �� 5 e�5a r , IN3 I A - AN . - _ # 632o wESTwoo'O CT, SgV"LS - P O`SV OSP P %l PPS �1E� Oxtl S PER YnNO �HVERS DRP.nGi g8 o; v v 946.0 TOP OF FOUNDATION -� =947.5 / / - 945.9 A 09 SNyH 943 2Y MV / TOP OF FOUNDATION 6� 0 `3,2o v tS CT• +0 _ � - . - �• l +j.( i}- -� .. "fir. F `r , - � � - ; Nc 11 I {' �.•ki t y•. � itoC�l' VENTS I'ER INTN T Y STpNDA1 i t Ill t L J I : S i JL 1 �� l �I � u j` �' Tij�yil� L•41 � i l i,}! :11 I, ,j ,i� -,f J ,,,1� t' fl 4' � �4 t jL I �i J I Ej�IU, �'` Ijiu I 1 G tV���li - T ;1' �y , � _�' l 1.����� i!J I'� II � 1 i t 1� �ji�� .►U```''•��� }`I(Jl � li i11 � 1.1' E I� i.� �I yj J 1 � � - - - -� — _ - 1 I 1 11i , j. 1�� .I - k 1 � 111J..i.'k � J�,.1. I 1 _�I �J11 I - {`I ,il•. _' ►' '' �- ' '4 � �; 4 ��� ►��' - .0 1i'P�;' � � �� ,�t`j�J JL� � I� tl�it�";;��,�,,It. - ,:� i • � I ��.11 �j i 1 1 � L��Jy a _Tl U • � V� ! 1 .iiJJ I 4 u LLu jl V !1 1 ,i 11 _T[�' I , : I I 1 � � � �, - ' LF ,'I 1 :tiJi. ',r pll -�I�I ill r+ �� �•' � Il ��jjil 11 Ut �I t�1�- V -111 l 1 141 1; rl-11V.' , IU Ire• l`� • - <� L I= • � f �. li l i _ 1 I ,t . [. l'L J �� �l t' -1 1 ` L -'ll ) 1. L i 1 ,� II }J .� � ��''' � [ j }� ll i U, 1 - l:` 1• i }}• � 1 U 4 1�1:� I�' �� i [l � 1 ' � V . Y II � -•f , � I , . 1.G �; , , � � t � ` ��� I uli it i � I i J1�'JL? i J � ',J]! ` "• . �l� J i - - 1 .. •i I?Il . !,T 141. �1 �L 1 .I� t �f I 1 ll � � f� -j �i II'� �[ � �TI>-I ° Y .l i, - - ,- 1 1 , t J,V ,� !�;1 L1�,1�11111i -. II � � i 1 �. � 1.�(} }. 1 , , � � L •1 !� �' �� f' -i 1 - - I �`�_� 4i, 1 ; I� ',J11`�j�' } 'IT' ll� '1 I . ill l al•I Ij�i1'I tit 11[?S i E - I - i r _ t - � -y i �f� _ �__ � —.. =— - -_- i,` _ - - -- - JI IQ �'` �1€ '! r • + �w -- -- GULI'Un gTONE �-^r fn _ e cr r c SrAIQ "TAmpro c-orJCRrr -- - cApt -� -- - - - 'RF1 AININ6 WA11 m15 510C OP 6ARAG7 nnn� - rnRffRACI' OP- 5Et:51Tf(�_•'�r,-- .- .Y-._ -;T / ��v i ` is el f� - 'T�' .� mot' }��. M �• -.'w-- ;its .',. 'd 1l 'i 1r+ •% .�.' fi��4 � 'fir r4 'y '� �_ __ z �. .• >' '>~e.,. � f or at or v Y , r � ' leo�en or YeaD1 or SILT FENCE MUST BE posl m INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY INSPECTIONS Faeab WWh=W C1 bewm .on oeI rmuMSWI � pBp d .U. IiRwd:•'~ :r Airdln&Wlaae wo • .. � . M1 mmtrm+m Woo: Dopalde9 w°^���' a6ter11 teWk to adn mean rddl ro0 evvP• and Pam Wo tU reee, a Woes poeu.am "M"", xea7.7 1mY0en 9or SM oataoo xem �wes� .9i _ s� 4sW1+� y 692.7 , / dock IB 901.6 //6 F e Y �� � aol d 900.0 O �. 07 P a c 9" _ 9Y" Oak L Pool top ,461�� _ yr �o s 1 (z cn �1C a N 90 6.57/ 4 \ 1 r � " \ \ 181 Oak 12',Cee 1 \ 1863.1 XBB7.2 903.3 901.8 i0 �5 i X899.4 7.2 \ ��pp��pp FENCING UTILITY EASEMENT X9M.9 a i f0 8" SpIv1 30.R� - \ F {L.� q99.<� 1 X1171.9 .1 O \ \ X689.4 \ py �? - �k', 9 06.7 90iL_ a Treei(9oo.a� w9.e °' x11 8.11 - Oak \\ e \ \\ REQUIRED \ p20 "`Oak a eoe.tree _ N 2g.0 "y \\6 ' •Oak _,. _-•�.• xag d 0 5 j 12' Oak\ \ \ 0 1 \ x661.3 gyp 3.s 1 X9011 � / XB9B.a • 8 65 72.0 `t X896.4 0 %0" aple i a 's s2 1 PO 0 .o \ r, 1 pR9 JbF P $ to 13 0 2x8 tees EDGE of \ x90a.e \ ��, \\ y I f 817UMINOUS s \ %Q ly \ ° X25,0, -/ � Z DRIVEWAY �' �t 6" Sprure \ ,�xB9sa / X1195.11 j(BBD.B 7 ate' Spruce race / 43.5 / EXIS77NG Wall 813 :5 14' RETAINING T, WALL 'To B£ \ 6' Spruc ,T 3.7 / / `,'REMOVED N • ! 90 . 18" Tree - A 14'Ah 6 ,,,j 1v 91x.0 Apo I ? / 111' bo� 1 x �k // a a I: \ A ` 1 > cc EXISTING O fi9t6 881.3 / "A RESIDENCE 1I 90 6 ao ggpi a 3X11 Tr XBB4.D �L 4 ' O 'de o c�!' q` 883.5 14'• Oo.. 16" Oak - 1 oy oak BB4.3 -FOVnO i/1' X915.1 X965. �I ^� 888.3 85.3 Trees to be removed .9 a� 887.8 x11e6.2 t5 Proposed Bituminous Oak j I Driveway ® 15. a p�� E BB3.B X6115.5 I 81.3 £XI577NG 85.7 Ben chm ark: RETAINING Top of manhole 884.8 Trees to be removed II WALL x9°2.3`. • 97' 3.11 �a• 890.7 898.9 16' Oak 6.4 otia .EVATIONS: Floor 909.0 D (% t Floor 899.0 " Floor 908.0 31 wn t � 1 Tln1l1>\Tn 1)71)n71 A WOOD TRELLIS BRICK - METAL SIDING �� STUCCO ROOF DECK 10,13 Courtyard Elevation WOOD TRELLIS ROOF DECK r'I r¶ F77 Iq R PI FBI Larkin TE Miller landscape Ho` arch,recture c�r*rw nT706r. err Development, LLC Ilpl Xerxes Avenue Elevation CAST STONE CAPS & HEADERS ROCK FACE CMU m.1m MACE i b 114 g 10 0 Y U W � O cn W W O U O U � a MEMO=" K PLACE 1 0$ / F. June 9, 2008 Elevatmons 106-0095.3 Fl-81 R ARCHITECTURE INC. z w z w Y O } WEST 69TH STREET r GREEN ROOF OVER UNDERGROUND GARAGE AREA: 13,300 SF 25.8% GREEN ROOF OVER APARTMENTS AREA: 4,883 SF 9.1% TOTAL GREEN ROOF AREA: 17,983 SF 34.9% PROJECT ROOF DATA: APARTMENT ROOF AREA: 33.510 SF GARAGE ROOF AREA (PLAZA) 17= SF TOTAL ROOF AREA: 51,31 D SF 0 20 40 so 100 601 %==Mmn� 9) i L`' TE Miller land scape wno Ho an �rchrrecrure aNEVS Development, LLC 4t ■ ■ now a ^s 1�■11 ia�■ ■ � ':c ?:1 111 as � AM ■_ ■ ■ eeee Oe�dO 0 ELEVATOR PENTHMSE INN w z w a U) w x cc w x to V 6.1 DJ R ARCHITECTURE INC. -- _------ =� = - =- -- f� _- - - - -- -- -- -- - - - — -- — - -- r�L-- brag- i�- r-�-rn E E T �1PLANTING SCHEDULE - Larkin TE Miller 1 and s ca p e �Yn-� archirecrure cr rreica� Ho ATTOR`NEVA Development, LLC PAH snrves� �o rn,.Q ' • I ' I � m �� l PI w wf mac - Cr •�1 ��� :,�__�' - _� -_r- _ems ■q��.' P U DJR fTECTUFZE INC. 1A <ZA_ 1 �.. - r':ae Brief Description: The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two office buildings on these sites and build the following: • Two buildings containing retail space that would total 18,000 square feet. • A 114 -unit, 4 -story apartment building located along the east side of the site, adjacent to single family homes in Richfield. The applicant has revised the previously approved plans from 2007, by reducing the square footage of the retail space from 40,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet, and increasing the number of apartments from 85 to 114. (See attached development plan book, and the narrative and plans on pages A3 -A16.) Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission (4 -3 -1) recommended approval of the project. (See the Planning Commission findings in the minutes on pages A43 -A46.) Conditions that the Planning Commission added to the staff recommendation include the following: KLFUK'1 %KLC:UMMLN LJA 1'1UN Agenda Item II.B To: Mayor & City Council From: Cary Teague Consent Planning Director Information Only Date: ,June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: Conditional Use Permit, Final ® To Council Development Plan with variances, and Lot Division for DTR Action ® Motion Architects/Tom Miller for 3201and 310169th Street West Edina, MN Resolution Deadline for a city decision: August 19, 2008 Ordinance F1 Discussion Brief Description: The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two office buildings on these sites and build the following: • Two buildings containing retail space that would total 18,000 square feet. • A 114 -unit, 4 -story apartment building located along the east side of the site, adjacent to single family homes in Richfield. The applicant has revised the previously approved plans from 2007, by reducing the square footage of the retail space from 40,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet, and increasing the number of apartments from 85 to 114. (See attached development plan book, and the narrative and plans on pages A3 -A16.) Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission (4 -3 -1) recommended approval of the project. (See the Planning Commission findings in the minutes on pages A43 -A46.) Conditions that the Planning Commission added to the staff recommendation include the following: t' Revise the landscape plan to meet all minimum code requirements. (See revised plan on pages Al2 -Al2a. The landscape plan now far exceeds the minimum code requirement.) 2. Eliminate the two parking spaces on the west side of the apartments to meet the required setback. (The applicant has revised the site plan on pages All and Al2b.) 3. Fifty percent (50 %) of the retail users in the building that faces York Avenue must have doors that have public access openings to the street. (No change to building elevation. There are two access doors facing York Avenue on the proposed elevations. (See-pages A16c- A16d.) 4. The applicant must have examples of the construction material for the buildings for City Council review. (Samples will be provided at the City Council meeting.) 5. The green roof above the garage must makeup at least 25% of the roof. (The applicant has submitted a plan that shows 35 % of the roof will be green. (See page Al2b.) Zoning Board of Appeals: The Zoning Board of Appeals (3 -0) approved the variances. (See the minutes on pages A47 -A49.) Staff Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions outlined on pages 5 -6 of this report. Staff has appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals decision, in order to all ow the City Council to take final action on the entire project. Inf ormation/B ackground: The request requires the following: 1. A revised Conditional Use Permit for the apartments. 2. A revised Final Development Plan with retail building setback variances from 35 feet to 20 feet from York Avenue and 69th Street; apartment building setback variances from 54 feet to 35 feet; parking lot setback variance from 20 to 5 feet; and a building height variance from 50 feet to 54 feet for the apartments. 3. A Lot Division. The building height and setback variances for the apartments are now required because of the recent Zoning Ordinance amendment that now requires the building height to be measured from existing grade. The proposed height and setbacks have not changed from the original plans. However the building is now over 50 feet tall when measuring from existing grade rather than proposed, therefore, the setback requirement increases from 35 feet to 54 feet, because of the way building height is now measured. Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed uses are permitted in the PCD -3 District. Retail space is a permitted use, and multiple - family housing is a conditionally permitted use in the PCD -3 zoning district. The applicant received a conditional use permit for the apartments in 2007. (See the Planning Commission minutes on pages A20 -A21.) 2. The project would encourage pedestrian movement. The proposal encourages pedestrian movement to and from the site by providing a large sidewalk along York Avenue and 69t.h Street West. There would also be a pedestrian connection from the apartments. (See page All.) 3. The retail buildings have been shifted up to the street in an attempt to screen the parking from the roadway. (See pages A16a and A16c.) 4. With the exception of the variances, the project would meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements. See pages 6 -10 within the supporting information of this report. • Would the existing roadways support the project? Yes. Wenck Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the existing roadway system could support the proposed project. (See traffic study on pages A27- A40a.) The proposed development would generate less traffic than the previously approved plan. The Edina Transportation Commission met on May 15, 2008, and recommended approval of the traffic study, subject to conditions. (See minutes on pages A41 -A42.) The required roadway improvements are shown on page A40a. • Are the proposed variances justified? Yes. Per Section 850.04.Subd.1.F., of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause undue hardship. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three hardship tests: 1) Are there practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements? Yes. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed retail building setback variances are reasonable. Section 850.16. Subd. 12.C. of the Planned Commercial District zoning regulations, state that "the City encourages i) ground level retail and service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment and ii) pedestrian connections by way of skyways and tunnels and, therefore, the City Council will consider exceptions to setback requirements for these purposes." The purpose of this request is to create an active pedestrian and streetscape and encourage pedestrian movement to and from the site. A traditional 35 -foot suburban retail setback typically encourages parking lots between the street and building. However, in this project, the buildings would be pulled up close to the street, and parking would be partially screened by the building and landscaping. Sidewalks would connect to the apartments and encourage on and off site pedestrian movement. Hopefully this project would encourage pedestrian friendly developments in the area in the future. The retail buildings could be shifted back to meet the required setbacks, however, it would cause the parking to be shifted to the front of the buildings. In regard to the height variances and setback variances for the apartments, staff believes those are also reasonable. These variances are only required now because of the recent ordinance amendment that now requires the height to be measured from existing grade. This site sits 6 -7 feet lower than the intersection of 69th and York. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to bring in eight feet of fill to raise the first floor level to be slightly above the street, and to provide the underground parking. The previously approved plan had this same grading plan; however, a variance was not required because the height was measured from the proposed new grade. The intent of the ordinance amendment was to restrict height of single - family homes, and not commercial and multiple - family residential development. 2) Are there circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self - created? Yes. The unique circumstance is that the site sits low compared to the adjacent properties and roadways. Also, the site has a prominent location in close proximity to Southdale and the Galleria shopping areas. Providing sidewalks along the street would encourage pedestrian movement between these uses. The City of Edina would like to encourage pedestrian movement in this area, and the proposed variances would help to achieve that. 3) Would the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed one -story retail building with sidewalks along the street would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor would the four - story.apartment building on Xerxes Avenue. Staff Recommendation Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan with Variances Recommend that the City Council approve the revised Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan with Variances at 3201 and 3101 69th Street West for DJR Architects on behalf of Tom Miller. 0 Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for a Final Development Plan. 2. The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it would encourage ground level retail and service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment. b. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage retail uses to create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment that can provide future pedestrian connections. c. The building height and setback variances for the apartments are now required because of the recent Zoning Ordinance amendment that now requires the building height to be measured from existing grade. d. The proposed height and setbacks have not changed from the original plans. However the building is now over 50 tall when measuring from existing grade rather than proposed grade, therefore, the setback requirement increases from 35 feet to 54 feet. e. If the project were built as a traditional strip mall with parking in front of the building, all setbacks would be met. f. The proposal enhances the entrance to the street. g. The variance for the parking setback would provide parking close to the store front entrances, similar to parallel or on -street parking in front of the stores. Approval of the Final Development Plan is subject to the following conditions: Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Site plan dated June 9, 2008. Grading plan dated April 28, 2008. Landscaping plan dated June 9, 2008. I • Building elevations dated Apri128 and June 9, 2008 • Roof plan dated June 9, 2008 2. The following must be submitted to the city before the city issues a building "permit: a. A final landscape plan for staff approval b. Record the resolution with the county. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. 4. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit. The city may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the District's requirements. 5. All storm water from this site must be treated on -site. 6. Compliance with the conditions required by the City Engineer in his memo dated May 22, 2008. 7. Compliance with the conditions required by the Transportation Commission. 8. A developer's agreement is required for public water main installation along West 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue, and for the sanitary sewer along West 69th Street. 9. Two surface parking spaces in front of the apartments must be eliminated to meet the required parking space setback from 69th Street West. 10. Bike storage must be provided to meet City Code. Lot Division Approve the Lot Division, as shown on the attached Registered Land Survey, subject to the applicant filing a cross access and parking easements on Tract A. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Key Cadillac; zoned and guided commercial. Easterly: Single- family homes in the city of Richfield. Southerly: Walgreens, Clean N Press Cleaners, Kids Hair and two medical clinics; zoned and guided commercial. Westerly: Future site of the Westin hotel, condominiums and parking garage; zoned and guided commercial. Existing Site Features The subject property is 3.7 acres in size, contains two office buildings totaling 52,433 square feet, with large parking fields. The site sits low compared to adjacent streets. (See pages A17 -A19.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Final Development Plan Review Commercial PCD -3, Planned Commercial District Section 850.04.Subd. 2.5, requires the City Council to make the following findings for approval of a Final Development Plan: a) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for commercial use. The proposed uses are permitted and conditionally permitted within the PCD -3 zoning district, which this property is designated. Therefore, the proposed uses would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. b) is consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan as approved and modified by the Council and contains the Council imposed conditions to the extent the conditions can be complied with by the Final Development Plan; There was no Preliminary Development plan for this site. Per Section 850.04.Subd.3, only Final Development Plan is required for lots that were developed prior to 1984. c) will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract; The single -story retail building and 4 -story apartment would not alter the character of the neighborhood. There are several buildings in the area that are taller than four stories. d) will not result in an overly - intensive land use, The applicant is proposing 114 units (30 units per acre) and 18,000 square feet of retail. The proposal would increase green space on the site, and meets the floor area ratio requirement; therefore, staff believes the proposal is appropriate for this site. e) will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, As mentioned, Wenck Associates conducted a traffic impact study, and concluded that the existing roadway system could support the proposed project. The Edina Transportation Commission met on May 15, 2008, and recommended approval of the traffic study. fl conforms to the provisions of this Section and other applicable provisions of the Code; and With the exception of the variances, the proposal conforms to the Zoning Ordinance. g) provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. Staff believes the proposal would meet this criterion. Conditional Use Permit Residential uses within the PCD -3 district require a Conditional Use Permit. Per Section 850.04.Subd.4.E, the City Council shall not grant a Conditional Use Permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use: a) Will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; The residential use of this site would not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the city. b) Will not cause undue traffic hazards, congestion or parking shortages; Again, Wenck Associates conducted a traffic impact study, artd concluded that the existing roadway system could support the proposed project. c) Will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment, or decrease the value, of other property in the vicinity, and will not be a nuisance; The use of the property for residential purposes would not cause a decrease in property values, or be a nuisance for adjacent properties. d) Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; The proposed residential use would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the area. e) Will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets and other public facilities; The project would not create an excessive burden on parks, streets or other public facilities. fi Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section; and With the exception of the variances, the project conforms to the Zoning Ordinance standards. As mentioned, the variances are requested to encourage pedestrian movement at the street level which is encouraged by the Zoning Ordinance. g) Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed uses of the site would conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Grading/Drainage/Utilities The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed grading and drainage plans and found them to be acceptable. (See pages A21a- A21b.) All storm water from this site must be treated on -site, as there are no off -site pond expansions available. Additionally, a developer's agreement will be required for public utilities. Grading plans are subject to watershed district approval. Parking Based on the square footage of the buildings and number of residential units, 107 retails spaces are required and 114 enclosed residential stalls required. The site plans show 108 retail spaces and 156 residential stalls, 139 of which would be enclosed. A portion of the retail stalls will be used as visitor parking for the apartments. Access to the underground parking ramp would be off Xerxes Avenue. Building Design The retail space would be built of brick and large windows. (See pages A16- A16e.) The apartments would be primarily brick, stucco, and stone, with metal siding at the top level. The applicant will have samples at the City Council meeting for review. Landscaping At the request of the Planning Commission, the applicant has submitted a revised landscape plan to meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements. (See page Al2.) Based on the perimeter of the site 44 over -story trees would be required to be planted. The applicant is proposing 140, and they meet the size requirements of the zoning ordinance. The previous plan would have planted 89 over -story trees. A scattering of landscaping is proposed around the perimeter and in the courtyard between the buildings. (See pages Al2- Al2a.) The pervious surface or green space on the site would be increased. The applicant proposes a "green roof" that would accommodate planting areas. Lot Division The applicant is proposing to shift the existing lot line through these two properties for the purpose of creating separate lots for retail and residential portions of the redevelopment. Cross access easements would be required for the'shared parking and circulation between the two sites. (See division on pages A14 -A15.) Compliance Table I City'S #azidard ! - 'Proposed Front - York Avenue 35 feet 20 feet* Side Street - 6911, Street 54 feet (apartments -based on 35 feet* height of the building) 35 feet (retail) 20 feet* Side - South 0 feet 29 & 50 feet Rear - Xerxes 54 feet (apartments -based on 35 feet* height of the building) Building Height 4 stories or 4 stories and 46 -50 feet 50 feet, whichever is less for principal building & 58 feet to the roof deck access point* Floor Area Ratio 100% 95% Parking lot and drive aisle 20 feet (street) 20 feet setback Parking Stalls 107 (retail) 108 (retail) 114 (residential) 156 (residential) - A portion of the retail stalls will be used as visitor parking for the apartments. Over -story Trees 44 required 140 (previous plan had (number is based on the 89) perimeter of the site) * Variance Required Deadline for a city decision: August 19, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 2008-55 APPROVING A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 3101 -3201 WEST 69TH STREET BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 DJR Architects on behalf of Tom Miller are is requesting a Final Development Plan with Variances and a Conditional Use Permit to tear down the existing two office buildings on these sites and build two buildings containing retail space that would total 18,000 square feet, and a 114 -unit, 4 -story apartment building at 3101 -3201 West 69th Street. 1.02 The following Variances are requested: 1. Retail building setback variances from 35 feet to 20 feet from York Avenue and 69th Street. 2. Apartment building setback variances from 54 feet to 35 feet from York Avenue and 69th Street. 3. A parking lot setback variance from 20 to 5 feet. 4. A building height variance from 50 feet to 54 feet for the apartments. 1.03 On May 28, 2008, the Planning Commission (4 -3 -1) recommended approval of the requests. 1.04 On June 5, 2008, the Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously approved the variance. Staff appealed the decision in order for the City Council to take final action on the Final Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for a final development plan. 2. The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it would encourage ground level retail and service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment. b. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage retail uses to create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment that can provide future pedestrian connections. c. The building height and setback variances for the apartments are now required because of the recent Zoning Ordinance amendment that now requires the building height to be measured from existing grade. d. The proposed height and setbacks have not changed from the original plans. However the building is now over 50 tall when measuring from existing grade RESOLUTION NO. 2008-55 Page Two rather than proposed grade, therefore, the setback requirement increases from 35 feet to 54 feet. e. If the project were built as a traditional strip mall with parking in front of the building, all setbacks would be met. f. The proposal enhances the entrance to the street. g. The variance for the parking setback would provide parking close to the store front entrances, similar to parallel or on -street parking in front of stores. Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Final Development Plan with the requested Variances and the Conditional Use Permit to allow housing at 3101 -3201 West 69th Street. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: Approval of the final development plan is subject to the following conditions: 1. Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Site plan dated June 9, 2008. • Grading plan dated April 28, 2008. • Landscaping plan dated June 9, 2008. • Building elevations dated April 28 and June 9, 2008 • Roof plan dated June 9, 2008 2. The following must be submitted to the city before the city issues a building permit: a. A final landscape plan for staff approval b. Record the resolution with the county. 3. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies 4. Submit a copy of the Nine Mile Creek watershed district permit. The city may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. All storm water from this site must be treated on -site. Compliance with the conditions required by the City Engineer in his memo dated May 22, 2008. 7. Compliance with the conditions required by the Transportation Commission. 8. A developer's agreement is required for public water main installation along West 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue, and for the sanitary sewer along West 69th Street. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -55 Page Two 9. Two surface parking spaces in front of the apartments must be eliminated to meet the required parking space setback from 69th Street. 10. Bike storage must be provided to meet City Code. Adopted by the city council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on June J 2008. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of 2008, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2008. City Clerk Ai LOGISMap Output Page MAP. —w loop If i I it T�6 q ;Jr♦wf•l fdr 01, f a F r f, err ,rrr Fwfr P T 441 f A& Most I for, 1 4 to I 'Ity 10 r v 11-W par it "PTWTII I i4oh -I m .J.- � bT 40 9 WIT I or I "Joa UMII mmivum�* owmw r f ;-.m 12. a MAP. —w loop If i I it kx Pale 0 f I Paac 1 jar I 7rar ---fT r%(--TL' T,D(-TT,4;Ma-D OV&ClientVersion... 2/8/2007 T�6 q ;Jr♦wf•l fdr 01, f a F r f, err ,rrr Fwfr Most I for, 1 4 to I 'Ity 10 r v 11-W par it "PTWTII I i4oh -I m .J.- kx Pale 0 f I Paac 1 jar I 7rar ---fT r%(--TL' T,D(-TT,4;Ma-D OV&ClientVersion... 2/8/2007 Apps N���TJvE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Project Description Located at the southeast corner of 69th Street and York Avenue, York Place is a thoughtfully conceived redevelopment proposal that brings together shopping, living and working environments to both enhance the commercial district, and create a transition to lower density residential ngighborhoods. Blending 18,000 square feet of retail with 114 apartments, York Place harmoniously integrates residential and non - residential uses. In particular the project brings high quality market rate housing to the Greater Southdale area. 1) Will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety morals and general welfare Designed to be compatible in use and scale with the surrounding properties, the project promotes and enhances the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. The project enhances the commercial district by creating a dynamic focus for a major node within the district. When paired with the Westin Galleria, this development provides a sense of balance, reinforces a mix of uses in the district, and signifies arrival at an important destination. To further enhance the commercial district, ground level retail has been introduced at York Avenue. The retail has been placed at the street edge to encourage a closer relationship between storefronts and streetscapes. The project preserves the pedestrian scale through the use of patios and clearly defined activity spaces at the street level. To make the transition from the commercial to the residential scale, the project uses several design strategies. At the interior of the site, the space between the buildings is used for a residential courtyard. The landscaped, open space between the three buildings provides a gentle transition to Xerxes Avenue. Along the single - family residential block, the installation of new walkways improves pedestrian circulation while landscaping provides a front lawn to match the residential front lawns across the street. The apartment building is setback 35' from the east property line and there is another 120' from that point to the neighboring single family residences. 2) Will not cause undue traffic hazards, congestion or parking shortages A Traffic Study has been prepared as part of this application. According to its conclusions, the proposed project will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards. 3) Will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment, or decrease the value, of other property in the vicinity, and will not be a nuisance The project will not be injurious to the use .and enjoyment, or decrease the value, of other property in the vicinity, and will not be a nuisance to properties surrounding the tract. In fact, the project enhances the neighboring commercial properties by replacing outdated office buildings with a mixed -use development that serves as a dynamic focus for a major node within the district. At the eastern portion of the site the installation of new walkways improves the pedestrian circulation, while new landscaping provides a gentle transition to single family residences by creating a front lawn to match those across the street. A3 4) Will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities By making use of the following design practices the project will improve the existing site and will not result in an overly intensive land use. Project Design- Employs retail and residential development that supports, a live -work -play land use • Places development within the context of other planned commercial districts in the City and the Greater Southdale Area that have higher intensity uses • Reduces vehicle trips and miles by providing housing closer to live- work -shop area • Improves the feasibility of mass transit by combining uses and density Site Design • As a redevelopment project, York Place will reuse and reclaim valuable land resources rather than using additional land • Significantly reduces existing impervious surface • Reduces urban heat island effect by providing plentiful green space • Creates potential for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility • Provides a green residential courtyard at the interior of the site with plantings and pervious paving Stormwater Management • Protects surface and ground water supplies through the use of BMP's • Minimizes possibility of periodic flooding through increase in pervious surface materials • Employs a grey water system that captures and recycles rainwater for irrigation 5) Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this ordinance The proposed development conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this ordinance. According to review by City staff, only two variances are required for the project. The first is a setback variance to allow retail to be closer to the street as is consistent with recommended urban design practices. The second variance is to permit two, small green decks on the roof of the apartment building. The additional height is needed for the small projections that provide required fire exiting and elevator access for building code and ADA compliance. 6) Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan In almost every aspect of its design, the York Place redevelopment supports the objectives of the City of Edina as laid out in the Comprehensive Plan and specified in Section 850.01 of the City Code, along with meeting many of the proposed goals of the Greater Southdale Area Study. York Place instigates positive movement within the life-cycle housing serving two significant demographic sectors of the Edina community. By incorporating much needed new, market rate housing within easy access of a highly desirable shopping and business district, the project provides seniors with inviting alternatives to their single- family homes. This movement in turn allows additional housing options for younger individuals and families by providing ownership opportunities through the resale of single family residences within the greater community. Maxfield Research estimates that 80% of the residents will come from Edina and the surrounding areas. - Ak b) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding tract The project will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract. In fact, the project enhances the neighboring commercial properties by creating a mixed -use development that serves as a dynamic focus for a major node within the district. At the eastern portion of the site, the installation of new walkways improves the pedestrian circulation and landscaping provides a front lawn to match the front lawns across the street creating a gentle transition to single family residences. c) Will not result in an overly intensive land use By making use of the following design practices the project will improve the existing site and will not result in an overly intensive land use. Project Design • Provides housing that supports a live -work -play land use • Places mixed -use development within context of other planned commercial districts in the City and the Greater Southdale Area that have higher intensity uses • Reduces vehicle trips and miles by providing housing closer to live- work -shop area • Improves the feasibility of mass transit by combining uses and density Site Design • As a redevelopment project, York Place will reuse and reclaim valuable land resources rather than using additional land • Significantly reduces existing impervious surface • Reduces urban heat island effect by providing plentiful green space • Creates potential for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility • Provides a green residential courtyard at the interior of the site with plantings and pervious paving Stormwater Management • Protects surface and ground water supplies through the use of BMP's • Minimizes possibility of periodic flooding through increase in pervious surface materials • Employs a grey water system that captures and recycles rainwater for irrigation d) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards A Traffic Study has been prepared as part of this application. According to its conclusions, the proposed project will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards. e) Conforms to the provisions of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code. (850.04) The proposed development conforms to the provisions of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code (850.04). f) Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features Designed to be compatible in use and scale with the surrounding properties, York Place sits between two blocks with distinctly different characteristics. To the west lies the commercial district anchored on the southwest corner by the Westin Edina Galleria. To the east lies the City boundary, marked by the single family residences of Richfield. York Place bridges those distinctions with a coherent urban design that makes use of a unified and compelling architectural profile to make the transition. M f) continued The project enhances the commercial district by creating a dynamic focus for a major node within the district. When paired with the Westin Galleria, this development provides a sense of balance, reinforces a mix of uses in the district, and signifies arrival at an important destination. To further enhance the commercial district, ground level retail has been introduced at York Avenue. The retail has been placed at the street edge to encourage a closer relationship between storefronts and streetscapes. The project preserves the pedestrian scale through the use of patios and clearly defined activity spaces at the street level. To make the transition from the commercial to the residential scale, the project uses several design strategies. At the interior of the site, the space between the buildings is used for a residential courtyard. The landscaped, open space between the three buildings provides a gentle transition to Xerxes Avenue. Along the single - family residential block, the installation of new walkways improves pedestrian circulation while landscaping provides a front lawn to match the residential front lawns across the street. The apartment building is setback 35' from the east property line and there is another 120' from that point to the neighboring single family residences. 46 VARIANCE - FRONT YARD SETBACK In the PCD-3 District, the Council may authorize exceptions from otherwise applicable requirements in the proposed district in connection with and at the same time as the Final Site Plan approval. In particular, Section 850.16, Subdivision 12, paragraph C. 2 contains the following language: "Notwithstanding the requirements of this subsection, the City encourages i) ground level retail and service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment and ii) pedestrian connections by way of skyways and tunnels and, therefore, the City Council will consider exceptions to setback requirements for these purposes." Building Setbacks: Required: 35' Proposed: 20' at front The project enlivens the commercial district, by introducing ground level retail at York Avenue. Allowing 20' front and side yard setbacks lets the retail uses be placed at the street edge and encourages a closer relationship between storefront and streetscape. The project preserves the pedestrian scale, while at the same time the street corner is maintained through the use of patios and clearly defined activity spaces along the ground plane. The project's placement invites the possibility.for development of enhanced treatment for pedestrians at the intersection, and reinforces connections to the adjacent commercial district. In addition, a front yard variance to 20' helps the transition from the commercial to the residential scale by allowing additional area for the landscaped, open space between the three buildings on the site. The more generous space provides a gentle step in the transition to the single - family residential block on Xerxes Avenue. York Place creates an active pedestrian and streetscape environment because it: • Integrates residential and non - residential uses • Provides ground level retail that positions York Avenue as a comfortable pedestrian street • Encourages pedestrian accessibility to and among developments by creating a vibrant streetscape • Reduces setbacks from public street rights of way to encourage a closer relationship between storefronts and streetscapes • Opens potential for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility • Offers an imaginative approach to the development of multi - family housing options • Uses mixed -use development to provide a wider range of housing that supports a live -work -play land use • Places the street edge within context of other planned commercial districts in the City and the Greater Southdale Area that have higher intensity uses • Reduces vehicle trips and miles by providing housing closer to live- work -shop area • Improves the feasibility of mass transit by combining uses and density Al VARIANCE - HEIGHT In the PCD-3 District, the Council may authorize exceptions from otherwise applicable requirements in the proposed district in connection with and at the same time as the Final Site Plan approval. Maximum Building Height: Allowable: 50 Feet Proposed: 58 Feet at two locations to incorporate green roof deck access The property has several features that make it different than other properties in the vicinity or zoning district. Among them: • The property sits between two blocks with distinctly different characteristics and therefore distinctly different zoning objectives. • The property sits at the edge of the commercial district. To the west lies the commercial district anchored on the southwest corner by the Westin Edina Galleria. • The property sits on the city boundary. To the east lies the City of Richfield. A height variance to 58' at two locations at the eastern and western corners of the south (Xerxes Avenue) property line allows for the installation of two green roof decks on the apartment building. The portion of the building that is 58' tall occurs at only 5% of the building (approximately 1,900 sf out of the 33,800 sf of roof). The additional 8' of height is needed for the small projections that provide rated fire stair enclosures and the ADA elevator access required for code compliance. These projections line up with the buildings vertical circulation core. These cores are centered within the building footprint and are therefore set back over 30' from the roof edge at Xerxes Avenue, West 69th Street, and the office property to the west. The additional height will be most visible at the interior of the site facing the retail portion of the development. An increase in the height of the project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. It will not interfere with air, light or ventilation for any neighboring properties. In fact, the height enhances the neighboring properties by creating an additional opportunity for sustainable practices within the development. AS FINAL DEVLOPMENT APPLICATION Project Description Located at the southeast corner of 69th Street and York Avenue, York Place is a thoughtfully conceived redevelopment proposal that brings together shopping, living and working environments to both enhance the commercial district, and create a transition to lower density residential neighborhoods. Blending 18,000 square feet of retail with 114 apartments, York Place harmoniously integrates residential and non - residential uses. In addition the project brings new, high quality market rate housing to the Greater Southdale area. a) Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan In almost every aspect of its design, the York Place redevelopment supports the objectives of the City of Edina as laid out in the Comprehensive Plan and specified in Section 850.01 of the City Code, along with meeting many of the proposed goals of the Greater Southdale Area Study. By incorporating those objectives into its design, the project corresponds to the code and the capacity it has to enhance the quality of the human and physical environment. In particular, York Place: • Integrates residential and non - residential uses • Provides ground level retail that positions York Avenue as a comfortable pedestrian street • Encourages pedestrian accessibility to and among developments by creating a vibrant streetscape • Reduces setbacks from public street rights of way to encourage a closer relationship between storefronts and streetscapes • Opens potential for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility by creating an appropriate scale at street frontage • Offers an imaginative approach to the development of multi - family housing options • Uses increased development density to provide housing that supports a live -work- play land use • Places mixed -use development within context of other planned commercial districts in the City and the Greater Southdale Area that have higher intensity uses • Reduces vehicle trips and miles by providing housing closer to live- work -shop area • Improves the feasibility of mass transit by combining uses and density York Place also instigates positive movement within the life-cycle housing that serves two significant demographic sectors of the Edina community. By developing new market rate housing within easy access of a highly desirable shopping and business district, the project provides seniors with inviting alternatives to their single - family homes. This movement in turn allows additional housing options for younger individuals and families by providing ownership opportunities through the resale of single family residences within the greater community. Maxfield Research estimates that 80% of the residents will come from Edina and surrounding areas. Al In particular, York Place: • Integrates residential and non- residential uses • Provides ground level retail that positions York Avenue as a comfortable pedestrian street • Encourages pedestrian accessibility to and among developments by creating a vibrant streetscape • Reduces setbacks from public street rights of way to encourage a closer relationship between storefronts and streetscapes • Opens potential for pedestrian and bicycle accessibility • Offers an imaginative approach to the development of multi- family housing options • Uses increased development density to provide housing that supports a live -work- play land use • Places mixed -use development within context of other planned commercial districts in the City and the Greater Southdale Area that have higher intensity uses • Reduces vehicle trips and miles by providing housing closer to live - work -shop area • Improves the feasibility of mass transit by combining uses and density Alb From: 9529262008 Page: 23 Date: 6/9/2000 2:55:30 PM Sustainable Features of York Place Building Site: ® Increased site perviousness (submittal reduces impervious area from 134,890 square feet to 114,885 square feet) to mitigate stoi mwater runoff and reduce heat island effect ® High - density development o .94 FAR e Pedestrian friendly community • Access to public transit • Bicycle storage o Sidewalks throughout perimeter and interior of site to encourage pedestrian circulation in Southdale area ® 4,683 square foot green roof on roof: of building and 13,300 square foot roof deck above parking garage — increases perviousness and reduce urban heat island effect a Reduced exposure to hazardous materials by removing them from site (asbestos in current office buildings) water Efficiency /Engery: ® Stormwater collection system and uiderground rocic trench designed to infiltrate a 1" rainfall event a Reduced water consumption of residents by individual billing of utilities and installing showerheads, aerators.that exceed :;tandards'of EPAct of 1992 Maximized natural lighting and high efficiency light fixtures to reduce electricity consumption Indoor Environmental Quality: Zero -VOC interior paints ® 100% green cleaning products used throughout fad ity mfr `4 AN Apprize, Inc. and T.E Miller Development From: 9529262006 Page: 3/3 Date: 6/9/2008 2:55:31 PM STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INFORMATION • There are two 12'x1 2'x90' stormwater storage tanks (total volume is 25,920 CF). • The bottom 6' (12,960 CF) of the tan}: storage volumes is designed to provide water quality treatment. The tanks remove sediment (Total Suspended Solids (TSS)) and phosphorus (parking lot and green space runoff). • The tanks are estimated to remove 89.4% T SS and 53.8% phosporus over an average year.. It is estimated that the underground rock infiltration trend: will remove an additional 10% TSS and phosphorus. • Stormwater runoff first flows through he two tanks then into a underground rock infiltration trench. The runoff then flows into the groundwater through the bottom of the infiltration trench within 48 hours after the rainfall even:. For rainfall events larger than the 1 " event, the runoff will flow out into the city storm sewer system (The City of Richfield). • The design of the tanks and the undE rground rock infiltration trench had been approved last fall by the Nine Mile Creek Watershed D strict. The tanks are also designed to reduce the runoff flow rate from the site for the 24 -HR - 2 -YR (2.75 "), 10 -YR (4.20 ") and the 100 -YIR (6.0 ") rainfall Events. � •7 r• � (k7 Ab Apprize, Inc. and TE Miller Development Sim fightim Law wall �l Puoing Raqu4amanle Ganmerdal R.9l .M.I: 4 61ory H� lanl to e, a5mm�M1� K, I.IP y 0,04/0 0.0 i0 TYJ l0] 10. PeW�WJ filSloasF PmrLW I.,OaOJ 99,a90J :1 Owe Pe9Yq a t. 11 i19Y H 6 0 y 9],fil9J X 91 a10J to rdW ,.090 fitF ,aI?1a rSF III 51.3maSF 0 sill RETAIL BUILDING 0 :1i:1�■ �sl�Sl , 'v son Puoing Raqu4amanle Ganmerdal R.9l .M.I: 4 61ory Below grade PnNng lanl doe. fiF [w. 9F um mou eF TYJ l0] 10. PeW�WJ filSloasF PmrLW I.,OaOJ 99,a90J :1 Owe Pe9Yq a t. 11 i19Y H 158 y 9],fil9J X 91 a10J to rdW ,.090 fitF ,aI?1a rSF III 51.3maSF Puoing Raqu4amanle PLO -] pY Wq IapW ulwo �� Pnxlma e oar lom a I>w Imo J u.9.oJ 15��mv.. .pr 1000tlhi,.mY 1 a� 19 TYJ l0] 10. PeW�WJ NeeaoO PmrLW 1 pv 1. IYrwY Door I 111 1]0 Owe Pe9Yq t. TYJ III 158 AI WEST 69TH STREET 1 2 Az \ 1 - - - - - - - - - - -. -. .- .- .- .- .- . -. --- -- - - I `a� _ - monument elfin mowmnnl al n __ 0 - - It dashed - --r -rr,- — I — Z RETAIL BUILDING _ - - 1 I _ \� W — �• •s 5,250 d - cs_ —1- _ 1 BR 1 BR I Q 740 d ( ) • I - -�- Slor 1200 of - 700811 Q fish 1 OR '- Re9d.n I — I W 71oe1 _ Guanl ParWng _ I ii r, Q 71091 -- 22 Tffr zo - i lobby • (I - _ _ _ mmmuniry r I IM Itwo. I Garage te ns, 50091 y IEnlry Commercial Perking �F o rr' -7J 1-1 I _- I I SR i I.IU-� Q? I. 1170 at 4 4 950 el _ 1, S' S99 S I - � ulling r, 1BR 2 B 50.11 1180 91 Fi .IyP I _ I lf�.f',�� `.tn� \•) 660 e1 2 a 1,lYLW.f' vfrYY7 : ".r 118091 BR I, OR 1 BR 2 BR S 2 an 700.1 970.1 790.1 1160 91 550 of I �, 11fi0af ` 1 tmah St.,. B 2 BR \ I \ 9E I16091 f BR t BR 1 an 1 BR I BR I BR 1 BR S •� 1130 el 790 el 790 el 7B0 al 790.1 790 of 790.1 550.11 /l `. ;;L• y- \ N _ m S 1T� PLAN Mo11 I-A Bl0n AI_ 20 w z LLI Y fr O v nOnnnB I —; -% Y�1dnB flnnunwnnnw rcu a p�WO mw�5W1uW. flvuY n,. H n Y1ovWan 9pu ImOJ B 0yu lam Jlt.mml i5,om.n I tl�� 5eallmpJ llh BOnYUW Wnvel Deco F." l9 TWA 111 I5n Nv11e1W Y••Ww�uq.9W 321 350 WEST 69TI -1 STREET Cpmnwrtllel Ptl101n0 —1T-Y (En t nl0 ..ant don 1, 1I nlnlWl1l1ltlrll fil n = I — tll w I BFI IT— 1 t w 1 BR X 700 e1 cc nsli_I 1 Rnnldenllal Gun91 PndAnO I _ Z— — J '•� X t1 — . 1 1 � 4— I G ... Btl y I Enlry _ _ _ _ . _ _ 1�—I_ _ _� `` 7 Slln Sncllnn j \ / � Ilullln0 c ail _� (` l BR 211 I - pp// 750 of 110 1 BR _ I1 ( 1'1YY71 YYn IY (1Y41 11 "1 "1�i Y'll V7 "Y11F SY31.1YC1 � Iltl fil ��— I l I( 1 BR I r BR I BR 2 BR S _ 1 Y'7� 1 2 Bfl 700.1 870 e1 700.1 1 100 n1 550.1 - I 4 1160.1 11 hnah Sim r 1\ J v I B4iaaac C - 4 119'.1 I_l BR 1 BR I BR 1 BR I BR I BR 1 BR 5 f> 4 36 .1 90. 760 el 700 el 760 nl 7B0 el 7B0 nl 650 nl • �'U # / - -\ Lvl..` .�..., ,... ( Y ( ;. -- i �U. °1 1 ,• ^1 - —� /�- � A.,IS .r'Y'F !'tV1� E• .�' }011 r� ��� _/ , — SETS ACY S G.", —Qw H&OWtln0W: 4 filoly 0n1ow 0retltl paWn0 lvvd CY .. BF 01oe. BF Nn4 deu BF fLuetiv 198 iu 1 51 910Ou I 1Y,mB J 99.mB J 37 3 IWv. 99pItlJ to 3nB a a9,fi1n 51 39 '99.51nJ 38 IWnv 1fi11m GBF 19�:5m G9F 114 51910 OBF Y�1dnB flnnunwnnnw rcu a p�WO mw�5W1uW. flvuY n,. H n Y1ovWan 9pu ImOJ B 0yu lam Jlt.mml i5,om.n I tl�� 5eallmpJ llh BOnYUW Wnvel Deco F." l9 TWA 111 I5n Nv11e1W Y••Ww�uq.9W 321 350 WEST 69TI -1 STREET Cpmnwrtllel Ptl101n0 —1T-Y (En t nl0 ..ant don 1, 1I nlnlWl1l1ltlrll fil n = I — tll w I BFI IT— 1 t w 1 BR X 700 e1 cc nsli_I 1 Rnnldenllal Gun91 PndAnO I _ Z— — J '•� X t1 — . 1 1 � 4— I G ... Btl y I Enlry _ _ _ _ . _ _ 1�—I_ _ _� `` 7 Slln Sncllnn j \ / � Ilullln0 c ail _� (` l BR 211 I - pp// 750 of 110 1 BR _ I1 ( 1'1YY71 YYn IY (1Y41 11 "1 "1�i Y'll V7 "Y11F SY31.1YC1 � Iltl fil ��— I l I( 1 BR I r BR I BR 2 BR S _ 1 Y'7� 1 2 Bfl 700.1 870 e1 700.1 1 100 n1 550.1 - I 4 1160.1 11 hnah Sim r 1\ J v I B4iaaac C - 4 119'.1 I_l BR 1 BR I BR 1 BR I BR I BR 1 BR 5 f> 4 36 .1 90. 760 el 700 el 760 nl 7B0 el 7B0 nl 650 nl • �'U # / - -\ Lvl..` .�..., ,... ( Y ( ;. -- i �U. °1 1 ,• ^1 - —� /�- � A.,IS .r'Y'F !'tV1� E• .�' }011 r� ��� _/ , — SETS ACY S Oam111nroW R. W.M.1 To1W laud B1dG BWn GAHME 198 iu 1 1nn 1n 1(iuE91� 191 — _ IWv. _ IOB 15h 3nB Y�1dnB flnnunwnnnw rcu a p�WO mw�5W1uW. flvuY n,. H n Y1ovWan 9pu ImOJ B 0yu lam Jlt.mml i5,om.n I tl�� 5eallmpJ llh BOnYUW Wnvel Deco F." l9 TWA 111 I5n Nv11e1W Y••Ww�uq.9W 321 350 WEST 69TI -1 STREET Cpmnwrtllel Ptl101n0 —1T-Y (En t nl0 ..ant don 1, 1I nlnlWl1l1ltlrll fil n = I — tll w I BFI IT— 1 t w 1 BR X 700 e1 cc nsli_I 1 Rnnldenllal Gun91 PndAnO I _ Z— — J '•� X t1 — . 1 1 � 4— I G ... Btl y I Enlry _ _ _ _ . _ _ 1�—I_ _ _� `` 7 Slln Sncllnn j \ / � Ilullln0 c ail _� (` l BR 211 I - pp// 750 of 110 1 BR _ I1 ( 1'1YY71 YYn IY (1Y41 11 "1 "1�i Y'll V7 "Y11F SY31.1YC1 � Iltl fil ��— I l I( 1 BR I r BR I BR 2 BR S _ 1 Y'7� 1 2 Bfl 700.1 870 e1 700.1 1 100 n1 550.1 - I 4 1160.1 11 hnah Sim r 1\ J v I B4iaaac C - 4 119'.1 I_l BR 1 BR I BR 1 BR I BR I BR 1 BR 5 f> 4 36 .1 90. 760 el 700 el 760 nl 7B0 el 7B0 nl 650 nl • �'U # / - -\ Lvl..` .�..., ,... ( Y ( ;. -- i �U. °1 1 ,• ^1 - —� /�- � A.,IS .r'Y'F !'tV1� E• .�' }011 r� ��� _/ , — SETS ACY S AOL ' e r z 4w 4W Retail Building t f� Retail ' Parkin • Entry cv r =3 c (D Q F' 'id A Retail Building WN S' Ir1w a xv� Wofir+ w�. ILarkin Larkin TE Miller 4 Story Residential Building Q, Ji Imo.. r"` , 4+ _ 4W. 4xistingtSingle,Story ,3uildjng April 28, 2008 10&00%.3 13 DJ R ------------ ...... ts-fw-5 ------ ------- ------ . L -T. A LVR6 - � - - r c . LL U-1i H I I 41T— A F-YA BE. 1111\ Mm� Nil 10 V, w H I Z F --- — 6 - IN 4 mo A-- —7 Ei ma a J-6— E-6 �A NN J M - i4lo co k oih Larkin TE Miller Hoff paunlupm Ynl, 1, L C K-P-LA June 9, 2008 Lands ap -e Plan Il 1080095.2 pi F ICJ — — — — — —1 - - -- _ I Q EST 6 9 --------- -� — T =5_ T R_E_.__— iii E E T , 51R�� 1 J. I _— __ _ 'iga'ai"u.Y — Y• ✓a lol ;,.,m - _- Pa11i.0 ;� _ � -- -rte -�' � -�.�'- � _ , YL a,.. �'• '�'��y -. ,` =��- � � •I W,� 1 � ...", I - C � "'.'" - - - _ -- I _ 1 ..uyww.- .•a- Iw -• -� - - - - - - 1 _- - � 1.� a,......�.Y. � I �,�, •�•�•1�� -s ;-, � , � _ � ' \ \"' -Y� " i '" i . 7 1. — — • I� - lmi ¢..; era — f wL.,.,, r I _� I 1 I !T"a 1' —•� - _ - J Ia, Y.w., � � � Y,..e I - 'a "rx.'- �I"'a�,�'°"m TJ `• a'� 1 ww Tuu Yuau"r" � nu .r„ - .,.. -, .. - -.. Yao• - - - — - - ,IT era,. w• ",Y. „i ..a - I'� I I I � -- I d I 1 r l Y � I j- _ - � �� - ' ��� - _ � _ •1 I � _ I ;��I _ Your, Ya _ - .. � 1 X I I yom Lij .. ' j • - - .. ,r i � I 1 I 111� �. la, �„..,..na m - � �I�lnm rYlmr I - : � / 1 , I I SC _ I - f - I I I , 1 In.,Y� ae�+�a � ur"' ulYa.,Y,�✓ f .I_ _� - I x! ! - �m,..rl, avYeeY I I- •1 I�- �I " I -, u + _, lalu -- -- -_ - -- - -- _ i. -_ wl LII I � I I_I'll• - lvl„ II II ul q,. iY�.,. _ -,il__ I"(J�,°'ala wsYU°.,"va: l \t,. I''�"'�i,P.S��`u�lp�llri I - ll u.I , t ap. j � .....uYU 1 I - - -I - lul ..Y..l.a ; w. _ I I I ➢ "aa ,. - 1 141 _ .l . 1 1- I I � I, It I � I � I I I � 1 1 � d 1 I l II 1'! , .a, 1 411 I °n1,u,,.1, I �aww• / Suir .Ya.r.a , �.. I - 1 -i; I. .1 r 1 1 L1 ► r;�w a,r I LI I ' w = l _ ` � I l � � ' � ,,,oeo •�,eY,.•:, � � � - \" „, .re,Y, .Y wY,Yw ,.. I = '�, I 1 ,. "�I;�'a.l, .'0u`°en „II � ... � , - " �: �'•� � �_ I � ��•'�� ` `aw �! � I,q r."r u_wuau— _ � , 11.,... —,�, ...�� uYaa • I I I y - - - u i•1 emr, avY l� l 1,1 .mw •a Yyur, " '�1,1 !°a'°" ., la,) ma. ue. eaau+ua I / � �' ---� -� =1y Y.... �� _ •_�" I 1 I lau ...., Ya�.+�ae lu .... ,...,.., Yw.u. _ - - I � , ..a.u, ., ,.u„ ,.. _II f- I .. I•� I Y, - ,. I� I _�_ -- 'II eu.,...Li'II/1"''. „1,,,,., — nrs<mnrw ,m nm� �r.r. y; :L�lll ��, ••�� � 1 : a+u• ��r9iaY* is uyd 1 IIlal W,y„ uu (Il r _ .P._ —. \a _ — _ 1,1 u i r 1,1 ,e I •uYr+,e � iiu 1I 111 ,.. ,.. -- -� LI11 I.....,.. 1 •.�Illl:'I 1:1,1,'I:I I.I.�I.I o Ia1., m,r ' + I I � 1 Y I lu` I 1 l i • � � 1I I ,. Il, el'i'„ ,l,ll'.uwun I� 1 I a.lni:�aln.lncro r--I N L7 x m M X m m a m Z c m U.JI HNYI PNY mPiml '3flYHYP pH-4 530 iPON N33Hfl oa 133N1S 1 -1169 1SAM i "i"L3'Aii�o� I,�II•,,Ir �n •rnnnlAnlnnnll '�� v FI �0111W 31 AAA3�Al3�� vn jlroioi`F' out o9 a6 a7 a pn„ IvnM.?NFiWY3PFMl, iP OIF 'YiM faoll lxiNIM3F N1vP iPPN 1P3FP11.1 Y.P16 iasae'I.1_vauv iVUH Ni3HV'IV101 AI'P iP CPP'� Y3HY PI N3r11HYdV H3110 31IflH N33HP iP WPFI Y311v 3flYHYP OMIPMJH3IPIN H3�P iPPN N33NO 0 y x D c m z c m Al Elm pi -° - C!f ��■eEr�,,� g+to�iir'I(������'��8 .,, � ■h, Its - �tl JIM RWOMM9 a, Vol e �_o_ ! I- Miil: lFlsom _ - F I� y�. l Ea i• ` -. - °��7 ,�c i- .u:1.• ! R � � is tit' o sL� � � Sv V, V, � � -t � a,d � � s >-� � lam* � � s op _ REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 5 11 ------------------------------------------------ -- H T R£E 0. -- -- '- - -- -- -- •f[ • rr fwYUM,F- (510.66 REOSIERM LAA0 SUPWV NO 62B) m �•PMI pda11Ya dMl]] 'a j OC 1W.1 Y / 5155 NEASIMP / 551.01 16&57 — r9 ___ !o' � 1^°• rya me m"i.mai 1_)~ 1 L I L ,/ i u g----- - - - -1- - !Ia - -- - - - -� oIu5 �� N x W j TRACT A )h �L01 �� tiL �7 M 'nY61r Y^ 1 �� ♦ 2 .c C7 !- IR•Gr M i O /. , v Ui' I "1 s- rYC-. Vl I �� -lpnN uE 6 `� •' .�. - ..:flES'� °/5667 ��`:: L� 599 51 15'W 19..01 _ TRACT B L _ 4i I rl 7 11 65i .O.Oa Yl h LJ i w I— ( I P T 3 i• I v-, W 5� .E LoT L I M :w SoI (; ... . S'S.50-w-w .317.00 '. I 7 L! 0 L , I j I ' yy )• 7T 20 -- 1 R14ClY N. fi0 0 fi0 170 SCALE IN FEET O 0-nole 1/2 htl. hr 11 hat . manumwl •.1 wd muxad ky flLS. No. 04M. IMSfi. O Gass— 1/2 Ina km mwumwt bond oakr awry In.t W oaardwu ..I. Ih. Pmaklan..1 Cnaplr 506. Mu .•eta Slat... .1 19.9. as amwaaa, t h.aa •Yrr.y.d the Idl..hg d- avlk.a P'W"t y n Ina C-11 PI Hw 01 Slot. al Mhn.a.la. Th., Parl .1 Ih. N.rth 200 teal el Iraq M. NEGISTEREO LANG 91ftVEY B. 629, Hw I& County. Mk­ 't- 1019 Wad al In. East !17 Fast IhIsa" and that port of MI. Waal 310 lal .1 said TI.d M 11W9 North al Nn South 196 laal Ihrfaal a PI Inol Part II.o..l 1y1a9 W..I of ma Waal II.. of N. East 017 1-1 al sold Iraq Y- And Iha, part of Iraq M. 11MITEflEM LANG SURVEY N0. 629, Ncwcph Coan1Y. 111nna.ola Irhg No tit of M. 5.um 191I teat and lyhg E- at M. Waal 51B 1-1 to 1. I AermY collly It this Rcglslo.d La.d Survcy la a coned ddhaalinn Of said •u� ar• that this R<gllload Land 5u 1y was P/LPasad ky ar undo my dYect sup -M.lw wd I.a 1 a duly 01- as Land 1-., ..d- me 1....1 In. Slot- .1 Yumeaol.. O.IW his — day al Yar4 5. Ilwso,,. lkm..d Lond Surveyor - - - -- MLmaa.ta Lkw1- No 15160 BOM, uu,fa01A INa fleVINUW Lord SurvcY .aa eppre+ad wa acaeplcd .y Ina ell, CanncY al Iha City al Edna. Mhnaada at a regulo meeing tho•al Wd It, b _ daY of __ -- 200_. cltY a0M,f1 M' nE Cry of Max•, Yxxllal• 6Y:_ - -_— ,1 .hies. .]._ TAItPAYEfl SEB VILES MEp Afl MENI, Ilcnnepn Ca" ^tr• Mlwnela 1 ncmy cerllry Inal l.•R Perakl. W 200. wa Prlo, y.Wa new aa.n p.W 1.r 1.a. day W.d an .I., Na,,j. a a Lana S.,-, Bata. W. AI L. Nvr•w, IlwnpN Caun11 Aud11a/ 9y --- - - - - -- 0'.t' SIAVEY DIVISION, Ilwn.pin County, Yhul.wla Por.,wl I. YIN.. Slat. Ss. 3e3B.565 (19fi9) IN. Raglalo•d Lwd Sur...... saw - PPm..d WM1am P. Bro.., N•nncyh LaunlY Swwyd er _ REGISTRAR OF TITLES, H­-ph Caunly, MI­— ..w1 homy carllly that W..Ilnh R•gbload Lwa Su,.•y NO ____ .m 12cd n I.I. aIf.. mb _ soy el YWt.d 11. fuwlll, fleglatrm of IIMea ay __ -- Oepulr sunde ff-amd surveying, IIIM I �I,� s;f �V, P �Opli,;Ollix �A'b 0.1R Y Z7'° ---- w H g1i ie �i] r A011 -k • I WEST 6ST11 STREET 1 - - �� xFi.neu�oea Il• - Z Rte] Zeelraeu.mn Om _ -� Zm- I ILL {. Ion lee lee Iew lew .ex me nor nee nor i■ w Ir • u 0 20 40 SO a, FIRbI FLOOR FLJW N �V// �Opli,;Ollix �A'b 0.1R Y Z7'° ---- w H g1i ie �i] r A011 -k m �mm I; I Llj" all 011C. in-, 1 mill � ffil ILI I 0,11 rill 1 ®R i-1 MR.. fi Larkin TE Miller Hof mj I,. .r,,. View from Xerxes Avenue and West 69th Street April 28, 2006 MOAMS.3 DJ EjNIj WOOD TRELLIS METAL SIDING 'e Larkin "1'E Miller BRICK - STUCCO WOOD TRELLIS DECK Courtyard Elevation Xerxes Avenue Elevation CAST STONE CAPS h HEADERS ROf,N FACE CMU DECK II rC,N `s�f�V -, 400 %N WYE June 9, 2008 -- Elevatons 106 0096.3 DJ R I� v?iv I York Avenue Streetricape Larkin 4 TE Miller Hoffffian llkl? EdIna, Minnosota April 28,2006 M —9 T � T-OM.3 106 DJF ALUMINUM SIUIIFFRUNI GLAZIN(: ME IAL CLAD CULUMN- ( jlnL3 URICK VLNEEIt Retail Building B - East Elevation i, Retail Building B - West Elevation Larkin TE Miller • .�� •n. �' H(!ff nUUF TOP UNIT SCRELNING CLEnESTURY GLAZING METAL PAIIAI'LT ALUMINUM SIORLFIIUNT GLAZING — METAL CLAD COLUMN — QUICK V1ENEEN — SITE LIMITING Retail Building A - East Elevation ROOF 10P UNIT SCREENING CLERESIULTY GLAZING METAL PARAPET Retail Building A - West Elevation i 1¢' 1171 4A' I /0 ',LOA I' 1A Cadillac Dealership 69th Street York Place West Retail Building A Walgreens mu 70th Street Edina Library Xerxes York Place East York Place West York Place West York Avenue Westin Galleria c ellerrl Avenue A Story Residential Retail Building B Retail Building A Building J- a Larkin "TE 11 INer Hoffman y'y 1jef.? April 28, 2008 text Fley3tocin 10fi1N196.3 FI-51 DJ R t k!') log. W, 4� le". IT I AYC S ITS oil OK--i ML IM, P -07 -6 Final Development DJR Architects/Tom Miller 3101 and 3201 691h Street Nest STAFF PRESENTATION: Mr. Teague presented his staff report noting the request is for Final Development Plan approval with building setback variances from 35 feet to 20 feet from York Avenue and West 69t' Street. The Zonino Board of Appeals heard and approved the requested variances at their February 15, 2007, meeting. Mr. Teague stated the proposed redevelopment of the site is reasonable. Mr. Teague concluded approval of the Final Development Plan (with variances) is subject to the following: Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the plans; presented dated February 28, 2007. Approval is also conditioned on a final landscape plan, Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Permit, Developers Agreement and all storm water from this site must be treated on -site, and a traffic ma- nagement plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. APPEARING FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr. lean Dovolis, architect for the project and Mr. Tom Miller, property owner were present. COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT: Mr. Dovolis, 5009 Ridge Road, addressed the Commission and pointed out the revisions to the plan. Mr. Dovolis asked the Commission to note as a result of eliminating the tower the affordable housing component was eliminated from the project. Concluding, Mr. Dovolis said he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION: Commissioner Fischer questioned Mr. Dovlis on the reason for the change in access to the senior apartment which is now from Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Dovolis responded the footprint of the senior building is larger thereby eliminating the internal access that was on the previous plan. Ob SPEAKING FROM THE PUBLIC: Ms. Michele Kalantari, 6821 Sheridan Avenue, Richfield, addressed the Commission and stated she would like to thank the developers for listening to the concerns expressed by Richfield residents and revising the project to reflect those concerns. Concluding, Ms. Kalantari encouraged the Commission to approve this proposal with variances; adding granting the variances creates a better project. Mr. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, told the Commission he applauds the applicants for their revisions. ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION: Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend Final Development Plan approval including variances subject to: • Plans presented February 28, 2007 • Watershed District Permits • Developers Agreement • All storm water from this site must be treated on -site • A traffic demand management plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit, and the developer must pay for any improvements required on West 69ti' sTreet, York Avenue, and the intersection of these roadways... Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. A ;A w91�A,r1. o MEMORANDUM — Plan Review ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDINA DATE: May 22, 2008 TO: Cary Teague — City Planner FROM: Wayne Houle — Director of Public Works/ City Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed York Place West 69th Street and York Avenue South Engineering has re- reviewed plans for the above stated project and offer the following comments: • The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) has accepted the Traffic Impact Study, see attached Traffic Impact Study and draft minutes from the May 15, 2008 ETC meeting. • A traffic signage site plan needs to be submitted for review by the City Engineer. • A Ninemile Creek Watershed permit will be required, along with other agency permits such as Hennepin County Public Works, MNDH, MPCA, MCES. • All storm water from this site shall be treated on -site; no off -site pond expansions are available within the sub - drainage area. • A developers agreement will be required for public watermain installation along West 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue and for the sanitary sewer along West W, Street. • This development will also require a peak sanitary sewer storage tank or an agreement with the City of Cash in lieu of constructing the peak storage tank — see City Code 850.16 Subd 12 Paragraph F. Sheet — AS 100 Architectural Site Plan: 1. Show dimensions of drive isles, parking bays, etc. for the site. 2. Provide landscape islands at ends of both parking trees. Sheet — A010 Lower Levels 1 & 2 Plan: 1. Same note at Sheet AS100 No. 2 above. Sheet — Boundary, Location. Topographic an Utility Survey: 1. Show existing water and sanitary server services to buildings. Sheet — Preliminary Plat of York Place: 1. Plat looks like a survey — turn off background items. Contact me if you need examples of a plat. Sheet — C110 Grading. Utility, and Erosion Control Plan: 1. Submit storm water calculations to include a 1" abstraction from the site. 2. Verify ownership of 42" storm sewer within Xerxes Avenue. 3. Indicate oil separator prior to storm sewer - holding tank. 4. Provide utility easement for Sanitary Sewer main along West W, Street because these two buildings could eventually have separate owners. This sanitary sewer main would then be City's responsibility. 5. Submit sanitary sewer calculations for both normal flows and peak flows. 6. Add two fire hydrants — one at southeast corner of York Avenue and West 69th Street and one at entrance off West 69th Street. 7. Add additional; roadway patching along Xerxes Avenue anywhere concrete curb and gutter is removed.patch a minimum of 1' from curb. 8. Extend roadway patch at sanitary sewer connection to entire width of roadway. Sheet C300 — Details: 4a 114 1. Use City of Edina details for storm sewer catch basin, fire hydrants, sanitary sewer Page 2 of 2 York Place Engineering Review May 22, 2008 manholes, and curb and gutter details, etc. These details can be downloaded at: http: / /www.cityofedina.com /Departments /Construction Standards Contract Specifications. htm Sheet C100 — Landscape Plan 2. Same note at Sheet AS100 No. 2 above. This is the first re- review of these plans. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this first review. Thanks GAFsgineering\Genera1160 - 69 Streets13101 West 69th Street Developement120080522 review of York Place.doc AAI b Page 1 of 3 Edina Transportation Commission o e t4 In Item IV. a. REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Transportation Commissioners From: Jack Sullivan, PEE Assistant City ' eer Date: May 15, 2008 Subject: Transportation Imgact Analysis — York Place - 69 and York Avenue Recommendation: Agenda Item No.: IV. a. ACTION: ® Recommendation /Motion ® Discussion ❑ Information Review the attached transportation impact analysis submitted by Wenck dated April 23, 2008 and review a memo dated May 7ti', 2008 from WSB and Associates. If so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that traffic generated from the proposed York Place (Development) does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system with the following conditions by staff: 1. This development shall address all comments in•WSB's May 7, 2008 memo to the satisfaction of the ETC and Engineering Department. 2. The developer shall fund appropriate improvements to correct intersection decencies resulting from the further study of adjacent intersection at 69th and York as required in WSB's May 7th memo. 3. The right, in /right out from the site along W' Street as stated in the traffic report date April 23, 2008 does not coincide with the site plan supplied by the developer. The plan shows a site access that could be used as a full access, however the current configuration and striping of 69"' Street does not allow full operation. Clarification of this intersection will be required as part of the approval. Info /Background: This project has been in front of the ETC on two previous occasions, at the November 16, 2006 meeting and the second at the February 15, 2007 ETC meeting. The recommendations of those meeting are included for your reference. The site has been modified to include 114 G:\EnEmbeTineVnfrwtructre\Streets\Traffic\TTmupoTtat2on Commission\Agendas\2008 R&R\20080515_3101 W69thStreet_Ya k_PlaceTrafoc_Study.doc Page 2 of 3 Item IV. a. Edina Transportation Commission unit market rate apartments and 18,050 sq ft general retail. This is a reduction from February 15, 2007 plan of 85 unit senior apartments and 39,000 sq ft general .retail.. WSB has entered all the traffic generated from this site into the Southeast Edina Syncro traffic model to evaluate the traffic implications to intersections outside of the scope of study. No negative impacts are shown further "downstream" in the system. For the November 16, 2006 ETC meeting: Recommendation: Review the attached Traffic Impact Study and if so desired by the Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that traffic generated from the proposed York Place (Development) does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system. Staff also recommends that a Traffic Demand Management Plan be submitted prior to City Council review, and any improvements required on West 69th Street and the intersection of West 69th Street and York Avenue be funded by the Developer. Info /Background: Staff has received a proposal for development of 3.7 acres located along the southerly side of West 69th Street from York Avenue to Xerxes Avenue. The proposed development includes 100 market -rate apartments, 58 -60 senior targeted apartments, and 49,000 gross square foot retail space, see attached fact sheets. Wenck Associates, Inc. (formerly Benshoof and Associates) submitted a traffic impact study. Staff also contracted with WSB and Associates, Inc. to review this report, see attached memorandum from Chuck Rickart regarding the traffic impact study. Mr. Rickart's memorandum was reviewed with Jim Benshoof and Maury Hooper of Wenck on Monday afternoon, November 13. Wenck will be submitting responses to Mr. Richart's memorandum prior to Thursday. For the February 15, 2007 ETC meeting: Recommendation: Review the attached memos dated February 5 & 9 from Jim Benshoof regarding the revised development plan and if so desired by the' Transportation Commission, adopt a motion recommending that traffic generated from the proposed re- submittal of York Place (Development) does not adversely affect the adjacent transportation system. Staff still recommends that a Traffic Demand Management Plan be submitted prior to City Council review, and any improvements required on West 69th Street and the intersection of West 69th Street and York Avenue be funded by the Developer. Info /Background: Staff .received a re- submittal of the proposal for development of 3.7 acres located along the southerly side of West 69th Street from York Avenue to Xerxes Avenue. The revisP1 development plan eliminates the 100 market -rate apartments. However, 85 senior targe- AA G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure\Steets \Traffic \Transportation Corrunission\Aaendas\2008 R&R\20080515 }101 W69thStreet York PlaceTraznc_Study.doe Page 3 of 3 Edina Transportation Commission Item IV. a.. rental apartments, and 49,000 gross square foot retail space remain, see attached fact sheets. Wenck Associates, Inc. (formerly Benshoof and Associates) submitted a traffic impact study with the first submittal. Staff requested that a reanalysis of the two adjacent intersections be submitted. Staff also contracted with WSB and Associates, Inc. to review these memorandums. G:\Engineerin9\nfi-astrocture \Streets \Traffic \Transportation Commission\Agendas\2008 R &R\20090515_ 3101 N�7 69thSveet _York_P]aceTraf5c_Smdy.doc ��//����A WSB . & Associxes, Ina Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning x Construction Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rlckart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSR & Associates, Inc. Date: May 7, 2008 Be: TE Miller Development — Fork Place Updated Traffic Study Review 69`h Street and fork Avenue City of Edina WSR Project No. 1686 -02 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #30D Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541 -48DO Fax: 763 541.17D0 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an updated review of the TE Miller Development — York Place Traffic Impact Study. The study was originally reviewed by the Transportation Commission in February 2007. Since that time, the proposed development has been modified to include a 114 -unit apartment and 1 5,050 Square Feet of general retail. The previous study included an 85 -unit senior apartment and 39,000 Square Feet of general retail. There were several issues raised in the previous review specifically with the access and impacts to 69th Street. Based on the previous comments for this development and revieva of the updated traffic study, the following additional questions /comments are made: In the purpose and background section, more detail on what and how issues were addressed in the original Traffic Impact Study. This should also include what agreements were considered and made as part of the original study. 2. A revised site plan should be included as part of the study. It is unclear if the access configuration is the same or if it has been revised as part of this new proposal. 3. As part of the comments made in the original study, 70th Street was brought up as a critical issue in the review. This intersection should be considered in the analysis as part of one updated study. 4. The previous traffic study only looked at the weekday p.m. peak hour and Saturday mid -day peak hour for development review. At that time with the senior housing component, the am. peak hour was not as much of a concern. However, with general apartment use being purposed, the a.m. peak hour will have specific impacts to the roadway system and should be considered. AoW G:lsgmciag�Geocs1160 - 69 Sces137 D] M'm 69m Sam Develop® mC�DDBD607_ mnckRiclzn _A'SB_TgIdO- wLa¢1e -0507D6 7T_ Millc.co Wayne Houle and Jack Sullivan City of Edina May 7; 2008 Page 2 of 2 5. As part of the traffic generation section in the previous studies, removal of the trips from the existing buildings was a concern. This, again, should be documented as part of this study. 6. The Traffic Analysis was based on the previous traffic study. However, since that time, the City has developed the Southeast Area Transportation Model which has documented the existing and anticipated (approved) developments in a traffic model. This model should be used in the analysis of the impacted roadway system.. 7. The analysis should also include queue analysis as requested in the previous comments for the development plan. Previous concerns raised were with the queue length storages on the 69th Street approaches to Xerxes and York Avenues. These intersections, as well as the queue lengths associated with the proposed site access, should be documented as part of the study. 8. The previous comments from the traffic study included a concern with pedestrian access issues specifically between 69b and 70'2' Streets along York Avenue. The pedestrian system should be documented, and a discussion should be included as part of the traffic study. 9. As in other studies, a transit component should be provided to document the transit availability and how the proposed development will utilize transit to help reduce traffic congestion. Based on these comments and the general review of the site configuration and traffic impacts, the proposed development should not have a significant impact on the adjacent street system. However, additional information should be provided to help document these findings. AX G: m;,q�Gmcal�bo- 6? saztgV 101 Ww 691b r NM=., 11'e�nD�andum 1 SD0 Pioneer Creek Center, Maple Plain, MN 55359 % /� � Phone: 763 - 479 -42DO Fax: 763 -479 -4242 ': ' �l Tj� To: Robb Miller, TE Miller Development From: Jim Benshoof . Ck and Mike Klobucarxfe Date: April 23, 2008 Subject: Update to York Place Traffic Study PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND _ This memorandum provides updates to the traffic analysis performed for the proposed redevelopment of 3.7 acres immediately south of 69"' Street West, between York Avenue and Xerxes Avenue in Edina, Minnesota. The project location is shown in Figure 1. The initial traffic study was performed for this development in November 2006 and updated in February 2007. We understand the plan addressed in our February 2007 memorandum had been approved by the City of Edina. This memorandum presents the results of an update to the analyses necessitated by recent changes to the development plan. The expected trip generation of the proposed redevelopment, the proposed access locations and level of service analyses for the affected intersections are presented in this memorandum. The proposed redevelopment includes the demolition of the existing buildings on the property, and the construction of three buildings: two retail buildings totaling 18,050 square feet and a four -story apartment building containing 114 units. The redevelopment is expected to be completed in 2009. Three driveways are proposed to provide access to the site. The access points are described below: York Avenue Access: Right -in right -out (RI/RO) access on York Avenue approximately 160 feet south of 69`h Street would provide access to the commercial buildings and to visitor parking for the residential building. i 69ta Street Access: A full access intersection with 69th Street between York Avenue and Xerxes Avenue would provide access to the commercial buildings and to visitor parking for the residential building. i Xerxes Avenue Access: A full access driveway at Xerxes Avenue approximately 190 feet south of 69`h Street would provide access to an underground parking garage serving residents of the proposed apartments. The remainder of this memorandum is organized into the following three sections: Traffic Forecasts, Traffic Analyses, and Conclusions. T:\] BD4\D] \REPORT\YP - Memo - AprB 23. 20OLdoc hal "Le = �� CUR ST. a l4' c tl. 62 M S. c LL yR 33, F CV.. F!. c2 nB ST. W c ey c µ'V}ITdG g• 62 rw T. � � GpRRI SOy � W °W � � c o pR• � 9. ES 3& c 4 a c 11 i 32 t. 64 4h ST. ; c R. 64th IT. W O ESM ST. W 31 it. E57h c c D. rs 6 f J ST. c G. 65 h ST. pppp u t c W = W ul ¢ F.L b6m Q ST. u+ a` G'. uc 66fn r PROJECT y ¢ `G Cornelia c r- "' A1E�`,CH�, 4� c cp 9f LD V 6a rh 4 N uRT DR. pG,h, �' YP,t 4 m itDTC4R Nr 6a. FAQ c `e a q. �'gyti `�Q10� �yP •� PAYMN a TER w r 2y 69th �0�0 qaY ¢ a c Py ,gam W /<T G ST. •�4g ca C �4. °a •+ a = o " 19. 69th ST. > > W w i > y W w Qy � 1DD g TOM ST. e. TO M v. n c Z W. 7DV2 m ST. ¢ Z 1p DR. LaRrd g 4NDOVER RD.Y4VELL E OR_ sue' c l9. "list RICHFIELD yam- �y �RBa VIDERE LA. `Sr' ¢ Y J NQLLTOit P. x W. Tl� /7 2000 POP. e Eu Dqg c 4" •� s o ST. e. 72^634,439 eSPASTA e,_ ` 41• 'u i d T2 ro RD z ST. z �• y�. 39. 07E Qc Qa 'c -d'�d, yW� O N W S•rD DR ¢ V i(i.:t j R• T3 th O g W SO C. DR- 73,6 57 N18ISC.LL6 a 8' > FONp�L OR. �+ N DR- G E a p pY is GIIFORD DR. m G a a = W. 74 +h 1-1-7. m LL. j 3 a . o W O AVE � PGRYLeAJ 4VE. L ab s $ = N a Q n z ° o z J o a I. Tam ST. ` \ o Gh W. m y = a 75+h Q qOp v SORE ua' �, Q {.� OR. a' L,L 4• a a. 76tH ST. v. TIM T6th ST. s � g gg 32 BLVD. ti• J 77 4h ST. 9 � u twe Dt>bSSo- 77+h ST. i 17 HINNESOTA DR. W R. TBf►' ST• \ To `n .r VAD65, DR. 1v� gym Rt �i �` SpUTHTOatl DR,. ?• ypE a> °c TBy� � 31 d d eve, 49 CtR sT _ aDm 3r g• TB't� 8� ° yW/ Y44E � R• SDth Yi �u, a � e Wtv > Y S7. 411. BIG+ S7. vi > i i" v. slat ST. ` ? CENTER 34 W N a �7 W. 82nd 4 ST.. Ci S. > c° a ° B'i _ � u @ ST GOQS EGING m ~ 98 aWC S� > Ir h o 4 o a b4+ 57 c •a RD. q_ RD. z Betr d LITTLE S TOGNDALE DR. APPROXIMATE SCALE W W. r 6 0 $ e R6ORPiS vi 9 > B6 +h 1 G Z G r W o a z L \p' C' a VAL B6t 0 2000' v. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 1 W i FOR YORK PLACE PROJECT LOCATION : DEVELOPMENT mmmmmmmoT -1 11 - Robb Miller, TE Miller Development Subject: Update to York Place Traffic Study Page 3 of 9 April 23, 2008 TRAFFIC FORECAST Consistent with standard practices for this type of traffic study and with the methodology used earlier for this development, traffic volume forecasts were developed for 2010, one year after the expected full build out in 2009. Forecasted turning movement volumes for the Weekday PM and Saturday mid -day peak hours were developed for the following three scenarios: 11 2006: Peak hour traffic volumes for this scenario were established based on weekday PM peak period and Saturday mid -dy peak period traffic counts completed at the intersections of York Avenue /69 Street, Xerxes Avenue /69th Street under typical conditions. ' 2010 No- Build: To account for natural background traffic growth, existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by one percent per year. This factor was established by careful review of historic traffic volume information in the vicinity and the recent area studies previously identified. Additional trips due to the Westin Edina Galleria and the Target expansion also were added to the intersection volumes for this 2010 No -Build scenario. • 2010 Build: Traffic volumes generated by the proposed retail/residential development were added to 2010 No -Build volumes and the trips generated by the existing development were subtracted to determine the 2010 Build volumes. Trip Generation Weekday PM peak hour and Saturday mid -day peak hour trip generation for the proposed residential and retail land uses were estimated based on data presented in the seventh edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). It is expected that a small percentage of the gross trips generated by the general retail use will occur internal to the site (i.e. residential walking to retail. Based on data published in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2i° Ed., and based on previous studies conducted locally, a reduction of 10 percent was applied to the gross vehicle trips for the general retail use to establish the net trip generation. A all Robb Nliller, TE Miller Development Subject: Update to York Place Traffic Study Page 4 of 9 April 23, 2008 The resultant net trip generation estimates for the proposed redevelopment are presented in Table 1, along with a comparison to the previous trip generation estimates established in February 2007 for the plan that was approved by the City of Edina. Table 1 shows that the trip generation for the current plan is less intense than the previously approved plan, with five fewer total trip ends during the weekday PM peak hour and 59 fewer trip ends during the Saturday mid -day peak hour. 'fable 1: Net 'Trip (Generation for York Place Land Use Size PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour Entering I Eritiag Total Entering Emoting Total Previous Plan Approved by City (trip generation presented in memo' dated February 5, 2007) Residential Apartments - Senior 85 DU 6 4 10 14 11 25 General Retail 39,000 SF 63 69 1 132 1 90 1 84 174 Total 11 69 1 73 1 142 1 104 95 199 Current Plan Residential A artments - Market 114 DU 51 25 76 32 1 27 59 General Retail 18,050 5F 30 31 61 42 39 81 Total 81 56 137 74 66 140 Net Difference +12 -17 -5 -30 -29 1 -59 Note: DU = Dwelling Units, SF = Square Feet of Gross Floor Area Net total trips generated by the proposed general retail can be divided into the following two trip types: • New Trips — trips solely. to and from the subject use • Pass -By Trips — existing trips on York Avenue that will include a stop at the proposed general retail component of the development. Based on data published by ITE, it is expected that 35% of the trips generated by the retail development will be pass -by trips on York Avenue. Trip Distribution and Assiynment Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. These distribution percentages are the same as those used in the previous traffic analyses. 'A 30 Robb Miller, TE Miller Development Subject: Update to York Place Traffic Study Page 5 of 9 April 23, 2008 The distribution percentages for new trips for the proposed residential and general retail uses are as follows: Residential Distribution: ® 25% to /from the north on York Avenue • 20% to /from the south on York Avenue • 35% to /from the west on 69`h Street W. 10% to /from the north on Xerxes Avenue • 5% to /from the south on Xerxes Avenue 5% to /from the east on 69b Street W. General Retail Distribution: • 25010 to /from the north on York Avenue • 25% to /from the south on York Avenue • 35% to /from the west on 69`h Street W. • 10% to /from the north on Xerxes Avenue • 5% to /from the east on 69`h Street W. The following percentages were used for distribution of pass -by trips on York Avenue: Weekday PM peak hour: 45% from the north • 55% from the south Saturday mid -day peak hour: • 52% from the north • 48% from the south The development trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during both the weekday PM peak hour and the Saturday mid -day peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 respectively. A71 °ma wu,m z M . o^ 69th St W F 11 ��11 D/114 4B/5 W *--� 212/227/211 ,/-/3 eez `ce 1° ` - 0 j y 6f-- 2/212 <-146/15B/136 24125/29 1691193/193 -� '� 257/2721296 —> ire 22123/21 I t e 175/167/2DB N -//19 �, ,� ` 246333/ m 142/148l146 50 Lo O [D y C01 4 m .5 N t O O s i Z is O c York Access m� N^ r� �+ o �O I Xerxes Access W m _/_/15 c d G w d d x N 2006 2010 NO- BUILD. F 2010 BUILD xxl NOT TO SCALE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 2 mc FOR YORK PLACE WEEKDAY tell -_ - - DEVELOPMENT 1� PEAK FLOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES co York Access N Co N 0 r� �e o� N 78/61/83 cNii cov F 82/89/106 f I t 69th St W N W 4314$/63 i 77/206/2o6 t 67[76196 T 161/188/166 � T� CWm mm N co r W Co O 47 O 0 't- //14 2006 2010 NO -BUILD 2010 BALE) YJ'JXX/XXj F 203/218/227 111/122/140 4426 N � N m d Q V Q m d r5 N L �i tD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR YORK PLACE DEVELOPMENT m � m1 = Loo m - 't- 3/3/3 ®i142!165/158 W Lj f--13114/16 11/11/12 e 89/99/102 -> o c . 18/19/36 --,� � `T ® '-fir rim Co -a �Im Xerxes Access W /8 o d C d Q H d d X N NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3 SATURDAY MOD-DAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES York Access r� �e o� o� Co 0 d CD o Q T V 2006 2010 NO -BUILD 2010 BALE) YJ'JXX/XXj F 203/218/227 111/122/140 4426 N � N m d Q V Q m d r5 N L �i tD TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR YORK PLACE DEVELOPMENT m � m1 = Loo m - 't- 3/3/3 ®i142!165/158 W Lj f--13114/16 11/11/12 e 89/99/102 -> o c . 18/19/36 --,� � `T ® '-fir rim Co -a �Im Xerxes Access W /8 o d C d Q H d d X N NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3 SATURDAY MOD-DAY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Robb Miller, TE Miller Development Subject: Update to York Place Traffic Study Pa ,e 8 of 9 April 23, 2008 TRAFFIC ANALYSES Level of Service Analysis Level of service analyses were completed for intersections of York Avenue /69`s Street, Xerxes Avenue /69th Street and the access driveways using the 2010 build volumes for both the weekday PM and Saturday mid -day peak hours using Synchro software. Level of service results range from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Most transportation agencies consider that LOS D represents the minimum acceptable LOS for normal peak traffic conditions. The analysis of the 69`x' Street/York Avenue intersection is based on signal timing parameters provided by Hennepin County Transportation Department. The delays and levels of service for the intersections of York Avenue/69 Street, Xerxes Avenue /69`h Street and the access driveways are shown in Table 2. Each of the study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday PM and Saturday mid -day peak hours. Table 2: 2010 Build Delays and bevels of Service Intersection PM Peak Dour Saturday Peak Flour Delay (sec/veh) Los Delay (sedveh) LOS Signalized Intersections York Avenue & 69`b Street 28.9 C 27.8 C msignalized Intersections Xerxes Avenue & 69`h Street 10.9 B 8.9 A York Avenue Access 13.6 B 13.3 B 69th Street Access 11.5 B 10.5 B Xerxes Avenue Access 9.9 A 9.5 A Note: Delay for unsiffialized intersections shown for stop - controlled approaches on!} AA Robb Miller, TE Miller Development Subject: Update to York Place Traffic Study Page 9 of 9 April 23, 2005 Review of Site Access Locations The proposed access locations were reviewed to determine if they would provide safe and satisfactory operations during the weekday PM and Saturday mid -day peak hours. The results are summarized below. • Fork Avenue Access: The forecasted volumes, expected level of service and spacing of the proposed right -in right -out access on York Avenue were investigated to determine if traffic operations at the intersection would be adequate. The review indicated that safe and satisfactory traffic operations would be expected at this access location. • 60' Street Access: The forecasted volumes and expected level of the proposed full access driveway on 69th Street were investigated to determine if traffic operations at the intersection would be adequate. The current plan shows that the proposed driveway is approximately 40 feet west of the existing driveway on the north side of 69h Street. This offset would cause difficulties. It is recommended that the driveway be relocated to the east to align with the existing driveway on the north side of 69`h Street. If the access was aligned with the north driveway, safe and satisfactory traffic operations would be expected at this access location. • Xerxes Avenue Access: The forecasted volumes and expected level of the proposed full access driveway on Xerxes Avenue were investigated to determine if traffic operations at the intersection would be adequate. The review indicated that safe and satisfactory traffic operations would be expected at this access location. CONCLUSIONS The principal findings from this traffic analysis are: • The significant reduction in retail space in the current redevelopment plan from the plan approved by the City in early 2007 results in five fewer total trip ends during the weekday PM peak hour and 59 fewer trip ends during the Saturday mid -day peak hour. • Level of service analyses indicate the five subject intersections would be able to effectively accommodate the projected 2010 traffic volumes. All intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the weekday PM and Saturday mid -day peak hours. • The driveways shown in the current development plan on York Avenue and Xerxes Avenue are expected to provide safe and satisfactory operations. If the access 69`h is aligned opposite the existing driveway on the north side of 69`b Street, this driveway also would provide effective operations. A,35 } • _ 19 1 ' i i 'y p r '. - � _ 1 w JL Lil he P rtts t: d.Mm 9ummwv -. Paddle BM-MY - GammwddJ flealdaldlal Trial • . ." Inal. mla. acy... tlallaGM _ In 113 la h4tFHl) .. 15 TtlrL 119 - Im -Tar... 'tlpm alP ". Ial.em fiaP 11�. a1,31a B4! PGO.ipaYO MI ®�1 RmWmI.L .. aPa 1000J[SOOatl.mllmCl� 4�'- - apu lOmtlllEAm JaY Jan91 f9�. Tad .113 'C RAY. x-113. 1� IP ♦II1B7. " O,ru Ibfma irtl lu �m TE 1� T���'7I'� nusla Inaal• LL6 . Iatl dY[alple.¢,: 1.0 el t ° _YID DOE' L• i' (p ina,.Miiu�esot� ApF.11 .29 11: ' I n Gammaldd . .:R,-kW": 4 P" B Bahr B-d- P9I'd^8 laid O Oimm : :o1er BP- . . UYS f faao BP �aD.. 1 11 AIa BLP I 1 14amJ . .:'3Lm d P P ! I Igalatl Y Y 3. - - s9Alor m m PGO.ipaYO MI ®�1 RmWmI.L .. aPa 1000J[SOOatl.mllmCl� 4�'- - apu lOmtlllEAm JaY Jan91 f9�. Tad .113 'C RAY. x-113. 1� IP ♦II1B7. " O,ru Ibfma irtl lu �m TE 1� T���'7I'� nusla Inaal• LL6 . Iatl dY[alple.¢,: 1.0 el t ° _YID DOE' L• i' (p ina,.Miiu�esot� ApF.11 .29 11: ' I n 1.0 el t ° _YID DOE' L• i' (p ina,.Miiu�esot� ApF.11 .29 11: ' I n C u u Q u Q Q 4 awmusesoue a laa . „r,r�,e„paWa o' raa �sndscape r b,racrure TE Miller 0 eue lopwaar. LLG Current development plan: Retail. 1 8,000 sq. ft. GFA total area. Residential. 114 market -rate residential apartment dwelling units. Previous development plan used for traffic analysis In report dated February 2007: - Retail. 45,974 sq. ft. GFA total area, of which 39,000 sq.ft. GFA was for active retail space and 6,974 sq. ft. was for lobby, entry, and building services. - Residential. 85 market -rate residential aparments. Weekday PM peak hour Levels of service Saturday Mid -Day peak hour Levels of service Proposed Access Plan Based on the preceding differences In development characteristics, the trip generation for the current plan Is less Intense than the former plan during both ilia weekday p.m. peals (tour and the Saturday mid -day peak hour, as presented In tine following table: Weekday PM Peak Hour and Saturday Mid -day Peak Hour Trip Generation for Current Proposed Oeveloppl ment Plan, as compared to Preulous Proposed Land Um size Unit"' Weekday PM Peak Hour Trl SaturdayMld- day Peak Hour . Td s In Out In Out Residential APIs. Mantel 114 DU 51 26 32 27 General Retail V, 18.000 SF 30 31 42 30 TOTALS FOR CURRENTPLAN 01 50 74 Be �j 0esldentlal App. - Senior B5 DU 0 4 14 11 General Retail le 99,000 SF 03 all 00 04 TOTALS FOR PREVIOUS PLAN 00 73 104 05 NET DIFFERENCE +12 -17 -30 -29 (1) DU =Dwelling units; SF= Gross Square fawage (2) Esdusiva otentrylbullding services and stall lobby With this reduction In trip generation, the traffic Implicallons of the York Place Development will be less than presented In our report dated February 2007. As presented before,we are confident that the adjacent roadways will be able to effectively accommodate trips generated by the proposed development. 106 -0095.3 t `r� al 1. NONVIRROHN 1800 Pioneer Creek Center, Maple Plain, MN 55359 �\ �l jl � enck Phone: 763- 479 -4200 Fax: 763- 479 -4242 To: 'Tom E. Idler, TE liMer Development, Inc. From: Jim Benshoof Date: February 9, 8007 Subject: Supplemental Traffic Forecasts and Analyses for Revised Plans for York Plaice Development Wenck File # 1804 -01 We submitted a memorandum dated February 5, 2007, to address changes in trip generation characteristics for your proposed York Place Development in the City of Edina that would occur in conjunction with your revised development plans. This memorandum indicated that your revised development plans would generate fewer trips than your prior development plan during both the weekday p.m. peak hour and the Saturday mid -day peak hour. Specifically, during the weekday p.m. peak hour, your revised development plans would generate a total of 142 vehicle trip ends, which is 17 percent fewer than the 172 trip ends that would be generated under your prior plans. During the Saturday mid -day peak hour, your revised development plans would generate a total of 199 vehicle trip ends, which is 13 percent fewer than the 230 trip ends that would be generated under your prior plans. Following receipt of our February 5t' memorandum, City staff requested additional information regarding traffic forecasts and level of service results for the intersections of 69`h Street with York Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. This memorandum is to provide the additional requested information. Accounting for the specific current development plan, the revised traffic volumes for the two intersections on 69th Street are shown in the enclosed figure entitled, "Revised 2009 Build Peak Hour Volumes." For both the weekday and Saturday peak hours, this figure shows two sets of turning movement volumes for both intersections: a) 2009 build volumes as presented in our original report dated November 2, 2006 and b) 2009 build volumes with current development plan. Due to the reduced trip generation for the development, this figure shows that most movements influenced by the proposed development will experience a slight reduction from the prior 2009 build projections. The only exception to this pattern is a slight increase at the 69 I Street/Xerxes Avenue intersection in movements between the west on 69`h Street and the south on Xerxes Avenue. The reason for this slight increase is that the current proposed access for the residential component of the development is on Xerxes Avenue, whereas the primary residential access under the prior plan was on 69th Street. Using the revised 2009 build volumes shown in the enclosed figure, we completed updated capacity analyses for the two subject intersections. As shown in the following table, the results indicate that intersection delays would be slightly reduced from the prior 2009 build conditions. /� 31u Memorandum to Tom E. Miller, TE Miller Development, Inc. Subject: Traffic Forecast and Analysis Update for York Place Development Page 2 of 2 February 9, 2007 Capacity Analysis Results for 2009 Build Volumes with Current and Prior York Place Development Plans The traffic forecasts and capacity analysis results presented in this memorandum confirm that traffic implications of the current proposed York Place Development plans will be less than for the prior development plans. Thus, the conclusions presented in our report dated November 2, 2006, remain valid. WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR SATURDAY PEAK HOUR LEVEL LEVEL OF SERVICE AND OF SERVICE AND AVERAGE AVERAGE DELAY FOR DELAY FOR OVERALL OVERALL INTERSECTION INTERSECTION CURRENT PRIOR PLAN CURRENT PRIOR PLAN INTERSECTION PLAN PLAN 69L° Street and C — 28.7 sec. C — 28.9 sec. C — 27.4 sec. C — 27.7 sec. York Avenue 69`° Street and B — 10.9 sec B — 11.0 sec A — 8.8 sec. A — 8.8 sec. Xerxes Avenue The traffic forecasts and capacity analysis results presented in this memorandum confirm that traffic implications of the current proposed York Place Development plans will be less than for the prior development plans. Thus, the conclusions presented in our report dated November 2, 2006, remain valid. Weekday PM. Peak Hour Volumes d m > a m d a m m N t NOT TO SCALE m m > a r Saturday Peak Hour Volumes 2009 BUILD volumes in November 2, 20D6 report 2009 BUILD volumes with current proposed development m d a w m d x N � m � 114/110 CD of r m `� ; 't-3/3 �� m to m 85!82 we m y <— 157/156 14/14 I y E--120/117 69/67 tID `r r f-25125 69th 5t W �' 17/16 t ric 191/191 R` 24/24 Z 205/20D ti 264/263 34/39 N a v 1461146 �. M o `7 r m ® m LO c e�ua� r m N t NOT TO SCALE m m > a r Saturday Peak Hour Volumes 2009 BUILD volumes in November 2, 20D6 report 2009 BUILD volumes with current proposed development m d a w m d x N � m � 114/110 CD of r m `� ; 't-3/3 j <-115/111 X81178 �<j �, <— 157/156 14/14 69th St W 204/204 �, �' 17/16 t ric 107/101 -> 1661166 o v 1021101 19130 Z rm� ®rr M o `7 r m s W� C k 11TRAFFIC STUDY UPDATE FOR REVISED 2009 BUILD wenckassocistPS,In�. 1sooPionee ckcenter YORK PLACE DEVELOPMENT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Environmental E gin=s Maple Plain, MN 55359 (I II 1 - ------------------------ 5350sf I- 24 .700 24 ' k APPROXIMATE SCALE — -; o so' TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FIGURE 1 Wenck FOR YORK PLACE DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED ACCESS PLAN FOR 69TH STREET MINUTES OF THE Edina Transportation Commission o� e Thursday, May 15, 2008 �y Edina City Hall 4801 West 50 Street j� 88B Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Les Wanninger, Jean White, Marc Usem, Paul Mooty, Warred= _P6ante, Steve Brown, Geof Workinger, Tom Bonneville MEMBERS ABSENT: - - Hilah Almog - STAFF.PRESENT: Jesse Struve, Sharon Allison - -_ - I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by cN�i�_Workinger. fl. Comments =- a. Chairman Comments - None b. Public Comm.d.fits None. - --- III. Old Business a. W. 70th /Cornelia A-cea =traffic Study dates Commissj ne%B6Wn chair .of the W. 70th /Cornelia Area Traffic Study Advisory Committee, reported -spat theyme #-::Nq_ith the Mayor, Council and consultant and he is drafting an outline of the -SAC's process foF� p -royal .try the Mayor and Council to re- initiate the study. He stated furthe4=fhat City Engineer -Fioule is-conducting a speed zone study as part of the Safe Routes to School-.P rogram and completion is not expected until June; therefore, the SAC will most likely not reconvene until August. IV. New Business - a. 6921 York'_face- The City of Edina's traffie consultant, Chuck Rickart of WSB, explained that the development at 6921 York Place has been before the ETC twice previously and on each occasion received approval. Mr. Rickart said the plan has since been revised with less retail and more residential space, and as a result, trip generation is slightly less. He said issues raised included the intersection at 69th Street and York Avenue, as well as access from 69th Street; however, the developer has since agreed to add a median at the intersection which satisfies the concern. Mr. Rickart said staff is recommending approval with the following conditions: This development shall address all comments in WSB's May 7, 2008, memo to the satisfaction of the ETC and Engineering Department. �4l 2. The developer shall fund appropriate improvements to correct intersection decencies resulting from the further study of adjacent intersection at 69th and York as required in WSB's May 7, 2008, memo. 3. The right -in /right -out from the site along 69th Street as stated in the traffic report date April 23, 2008, does not coincide with the site plan supplied by the developer. The plan shows a site access that could be used as a full access, however, the current configuration and striping of 69th Street does not allow full operation. Clarification of this intersection will be required as part of the approval. Representing the development were Robb Miller, developp r with TE Miller Development; Dean Dovolis, architect with DJR Architecture IAe_: and Michael Klobucar, traffic engineer with Wenck Associates, Inc. Mr. Miller said- ,h_ - &.is atdreeable to improving 69th Street because it will benefit their property; however, in : reference to the intersection, he said they should not be required to upg. ade a pre- exist.i.ng:.problem that will not be negatively impacted by the developfeai. He was informed by chair Workinger that who pays for the .improvemE Of ould be decided by Council. In reference to the right -in /right -out, Mr. Klobucarsa!id this is noJonger an issue because they have eliminated some entries /exits and instead_wwill have4 access to the site. Chair Workinger asked for assurance -t-hat delivery trucks: =_Will not use W. 70th Street to access the site. Mr. Dovolis said dri5esare_given directions to use the major freeways but without a tracking system they cannot. gt- af�n#ee the roti.tes. the drivers will take. He said the roundabouts should discouragd-1hem f :b;:- sing W. 70t'_:because it is no longer the fastest route. - Commissioner Brown=- a�i� -i oried to approve=## ie traffic study as recommended by staff and that the d�e`we'ioper provides an assurance that W. 70th Street will not be used by delivery trucks. The motion was-seconded by Commissioner Bonneville. All voted aye. _ �- _ _ _.. . Motion carried. b, ~ W:-65,LL-Strpet = Crosstown Medical LLC The.,Qi�ty of a's trek _consultant, Chuck Rickart of WSB, said the 6 th reaet and France Averr e -. intersec was =::she major :concern for this redevelopme , owever, he said the developer' -s traffic ultan' - has recommended upgrading th ersection with a 'protective permissive signal phasi &:affic light. Mr. Rickart said st s withholding a recommendation at this time because there - -still some issues to be a essed. Staffs position is as follows: Currently, staff and our ffic consul WSB, feel that this transportation submittal is not -yet complete. taff SB and Wenck are working to resolve the outstanding items listed in the hed memo prior to the Edina Transportation Commission meeting on Ma , 20 Currently, the conditio of the approval are. 1. This develgpfnent shall address all co ents in WSB's May 7, 2008, memo to a satisfaction of the ETC and ENieedng Department. 2. To pa cipate in appropriate cost sharing al improvements at 65th Strae and France Avenue. 2 9� A.1l�t MINUTE SUM_ MARY Wednesday, May 28, 2009, 7:00 PM O e Edina City Hall Council Chambers N o 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair John Lonsbury, Julie Risser, Nancy - Scherer,, Kevin Staunton, Michael Schroeder, Mike Fischer, Steve Brown, Floyd Grabiel and Katie Sierks MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Forrest STAFF PRESENT: Cary Teague and Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE-MINUTES: The minutes of the April. 30, 2008 Planning Commission meeting were filed as submitted. II. NEW BUSINESS: P-08 -4 Revised Final Development Plan Revised Conditional Use Permit Lot Division DJR Architects/TE Miller 3101 and 3201 69th Street -West, Edina Staff Presentation Planner Teague presented his staff report to the Commission highlighting the revisions form the previously approved 2007 plan. Planner Teague pointed out the square footage of the retail space has been reduced to 18,000 square feet from the originally approved 40,000 square feet, and the revision has increased the number of apartments to 114 from 85. dd `� Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Dean Dovolis, DJR Architects and Rob Miller, property owner. Applicant Presentation Mr. Dovolis addressed the Commission and briefly explained the major changes to the plan are an increase in the number of residential Apartment units and a decrease in retail space with two retail buildings instead of one. I Mr. Dovolis said "green" elements would be included in the project and the retail buildings will be kept close to street to encourage pedestrian participation and create an urban feel. Mr. Dovolis explained the retail components of the project will have access from York Avenue and West 69t�' Street and it is believed a restaurant will occupy the corner area of the west retail building to complement the restaurant element of the Westin. Two buildings will be constructed instead of one to avoid undesirable corner space. Mr. Dovolis stated the apartment complex continues to face Xerxes Avenue with residential access from Xerxes. Continuing, Mr. Dovolis noted the revised project should generate less traffic because of the reduction in retail square footage. Mr. Dovolis said at this time the apartment complex will be market rate, not luxury and open to the general public, which is a change from the previously proposed senior building. Concluding, Mr. Dovolis said exterior building materials for the retail project will be brick and glass and the exterior building materials for the residential building will be stucco, brick and metal siding. Commissiion Comments Commissioners expressed concern that this request is for final development plan, conditional use permit and lot division approval which requires only one review by the Commission; adding they are disappointed with the level of detail in t- he plans, especially in light of the fact that these plans are final. Commissioners did indicate they had no problem with the concept; reiterating that in their opinion final plans should contain more detail. Continuing, Commissioners stated the following points need to be addressed by the proponent by the time Council reviews this request. Issues of concern raised by the Commission that require clarification areas follows: • additional information is needed regarding storm water management, sustainability, etc. • review parking circulation, parking lot setbacks and traffic, acknowledging retail square footage has been reduced; however the proposed residential building will now be open to all, not only seniors — historically seniors drive less A+� 2 • clarify how the retail buildings will function. More information is needed on how the retail buildings will address the street (especially the retail building on York) and interact with pedestrians. Where are the entrances, how many entrances, etc? • a more detailed drawing is needed on the proposed street improvements, sidewalks throughout the perimeter and interior of the site, bicycle storage, transit, etc. • clarify the size and placement of the proposed "green roof', what is the exact percentage? • a revised landscaping plan needs to be-submitted that meets code, noting the plan presented does not meet code with regard to over -story trees • bring examples of exterior building materials for both retail and residential buildings to the City Council meeting Chair Lonsbury opened- the public testimony. Public Testimony Mr. Dennis Berg, representing Key Cadillac asked for clarification on the median. Mr. Dovolis clarified changes to the median. Commissioner Schroeder moved to close: the public testimony. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commission Comments Chair Lonsbury addressed the proponents and reiterated the Commission supports the concept of the project but is disappointed with the lack of detail present in the final plans. Chair Lonsbury asked the proponents if they would like to table their request and make the recommended changes or would they like the Commission to vote on the plans before them. Mr. Miller responded that due to time constraints he would like the Commission to vote on the plans presented this evening, adding the issues raised by the Commission would be addressed before this is heard by the City Council. Commission Action Commissioner Brown moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner Scherer seconded_ the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commissioner Fischer moved to recommend revised Final Development Plan approval with variances, and revised Conditional Use approval based on staff findings and subject to: • Site plan dated May 13, 2008 A$5-- K • Grading plan dated April 28, 2008, Landscaping plan dated April 28, 2008 • Building elevations dated April 28, 2008 • Final Landscape Plan for staff approval • Record the resolution with the county • The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies. • Submit a copy of the nine Mile Creek watershed district permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. • All storm water for this site must be treated on -site. • Compliance with the conditions required by'the City Engineer in his memo dated May 22, 2008. • Compliance with the conditions required by the Transportation Commission. • A developer's agreement is required for public water main installation along West 69th Street and Xerxes Avenue, and for the sanitary sewer along West 69th Street; and subject to the following additional conditions: • Clarify and bring samples of exterior building materials for both residential and retail buildings; • Ensure that the green roof area above garage be at least 25% • Establish clarity that at minimum 50 %p of the York Avenue facade be active; and • Revised landscaping, plan to meet Code as per over -story tree requirement. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Ayes; Scherer, Staunton, Fischer, Brown. Nay Risser, Schroeder and Grabiel. Abstain, Lonsbury. Motion carried. P -08-6 Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Rezoning Crosstown Medical LLC 4010 65th Street West, Edina A4-` 4 Zoning Board Draft Minute. Summary June 5, 2008 B -08 -21 DJR Architects/TE Miller 3101 and 3201 69th Street West Request: Multiple Variances Planner Teague informed the Board the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two office buildings on these sites and build the following: • Two buildings containing retail space that would total 18,000 square feet. • A 114 -unit, 4 -story apartment building located along the east side of the site, adjacent to single family homes in Richfield. Planner Teague explained the applicant_ -has revised the previously approved plans from 2007, by reducing the square footage of the retail space from 40,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet, and increasing the number of apartments from 85 to 114. Planner Teague asked the Board to 'note the request requires the following variances: 1. Retail building setback variances from 35 feet to 20 feet from York Avenue and 69t'' Street; 2. Apartment building setback variances from 54 feet to 35 feet from 69th Street and Xerxes; 3. Parking lot setback variance from 20 to 5 feet; and 4. A building height variance from 50 feet to 54 feet for the apartments. Planner Teague reported that building height and setback variances for the apartments are now required because of the recent Zoning Ordinance amendment that now requires the building height to be measured from existing grade. The proposed height and setbacks have not changed from the original plans. However the building is now over 50 tall when measuring from existing grade rather than proposed, therefore, the setback requirement increases from 35 feet to 54 feet, because of the way building height is now measured. Planner Teague concluded staff recommends approval of the variances as requested at 3201 and 3101 69th Street West for DJR Architects on behalf of Tom Miller based on the following findings: 1 The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it would encourage ground level retail and service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment. A4-7 2. The intent of the ordinance is to encourage retail uses to create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment that can provide future pedestrian connections. 3. The building height and setback variances for the apartments are now required because of the recent Zoning Ordinance amendment that now requires the building height to be measured from existing grade. 4. The proposed height and setbacks have not changed from the original plans. However the building is now over 50 tall when measuring from existing grade - rather than proposed grade, therefore, the setback requirement increases from 35 feet to 54 feet. and approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the conditions required by the City Council for the Conditional Use Permit and Final Development Plan required with the proposal. 2.. The variance will expire on June 5, 2009, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance or approved a time extension. Mr. Dean Dovolis and Mr. Rob Miller were present to answer questions from the Board. Chair Fischer noted Final Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit approval including variances for the project was heard and approved by the Planning Commission at their last meeting and asked Mr. Dovolis if he believes the project is over - parked. Mr. Dovolis responded the project is only over - parked in the aggregate. Mr. Miller interjected that the reason the project is over - parked is the result of the underground parking spaces. Continuing, Mr. Miller said he believes the project is only over - parked by one on the retail element. Concluding, Mr. Miller said he believes parking needs to remain as proposed because parking demands should be contained on the property and not spread to the street. Member Staunton stated he is very supportive of the variances for building height, noting the recent code change. Continuing, Member Staunton added he is a bit concerned with the parking variance and hardship test. Member Staunton asked Planner Teague to clarify his position with regard to the parking variance. Planner Teague said in his opinion this situation is rather unique because of the overly large green space between the street curb and the parking stalls that creates the appearance of compliance. Continuing, Planner Teague said the proposed placement of the retail buildings to create a more "urban feel" and pedestrian friendly project created the need for a parking setback variance. Designing on a more traditional scale would have probably •1 w eliminated the need for a variance. Chair Fischer stated he understands the reasoning for a parking variance; however, it's hard to pinpoint hardship. Mr. Miller said in his opinion the irregular shape of the subject lots creates a hardship when it comes to building placement and accompanying parking lot(s). Mr. Dovolis also indicated that parking lots are difficult to address when designing an urban project. Member Forrest said in her opinion it is good to retain that extra retail parking space and questioned if some change could be made to the residential parking stalls. Mr. Miller responded that he would like to maintain all surface parking stalls as proposed. Mr. Miller pointed out visitors need parking spaces and when a new tenant moves into the building parking spaces could be blocked for a period of time by moving trucks. Concluding, Mr. Miller stated that it is very important to him to avoid if at all possible on- street parking. Mr. Dovolis told the Board the "fat" so to speak is in the underground parking. Mr. Dovolis' reiterated surface parking is important to maintain to eliminate the potential for on- street parking on Xerxes Avenue. Mr. Dovolis also pointed out, at least for the retail element of the project, that in this area (along York and 69t' Street) parallel parking is prohibited making it that much more important to retain as much surface parking as possible. Chair Fischer asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak to the proposal. There being no one, Chair Fischer asked for a motion to close the public testimony. Member Staunton moved to close the public testimony. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye; .motion carried. A brief discussion ensued with Board Members in agreement over the Logic of the hardship for the parking variance and the building setback hardship due to a change in code. Member Staunton moved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions with the additional condition that the two (2) northern most parking stalls for the apartment building be removed, noting a hardship exists in developing an urban project when the traditionally found street parking opportunities are not available, pointing out had the lots been more traditionally developed parking would not be an issue.. Member Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. A� l G � _,e 11 � 0 v � )"Cii Discussion Brief Description: The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two- story, 26,000 square foot office building to build a 73,386 square foot, four -story medical office building with a six-level attached parking ramp. (See the applicant narrative and plans on pages A4 -A33, and the attached development plan book.) The total site area is 2.02 acres. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. (Vote: 5 -2,1 abstention.) (See the Planning Commission findings on page 5 -6 of this staff report, and in their minutes on pages A68 -A73.) Staff Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial of the project. KLYUK'1 %KLUUMMLN 1JA 11UN Agenda Item II.0 To: Mayor & City Council Consent From: Cary Teague Planning Director Information Only ❑ Date: June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends F] To HRA Subject: Preliminary Development Plan ® To Council with Variances and Rezoning for Crosstown Medical LLC - 4010 Action ® Motion West 65th Street, Edina, MN Resolution Deadline for a city decision: August 19, 2008 ❑ Ordinance Discussion Brief Description: The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two- story, 26,000 square foot office building to build a 73,386 square foot, four -story medical office building with a six-level attached parking ramp. (See the applicant narrative and plans on pages A4 -A33, and the attached development plan book.) The total site area is 2.02 acres. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project. (Vote: 5 -2,1 abstention.) (See the Planning Commission findings on page 5 -6 of this staff report, and in their minutes on pages A68 -A73.) Staff Recommended Action: Staff recommends denial of the project. Introduction/Background: To accommodate the proposal, the project requires the following: 1. A Rezoning from Planned Office District -1 (POD -1) to Regional Medical District (RMD). The rezoning includes the adjacent Fairview Hospital parking ramp property to the east, that is currently zoned Automobile Parking District (APD). 2. Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Rezoning. Seven Variances from the RMD standards: a. Front building setback variance from 74 feet to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.) b. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) C. Side building setback variance from 74 feet to 21 feet. (A 53 -foot variance.) d. Front parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 18 feet. (A 62 -foot variance.) e. Rear parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 20 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) f. Side parking structure setback variance from 70 feet to 10 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) g. A side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3.3 feet. (A 6.7- foot variance.) 4. Final Development Plan. In order to obtain the above mentioned approvals, the applicant must go through a two step process. That process is as follows: Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning. Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning is a review by the Planning Commission and City Council, in which approval simply allows the applicant to prepare a Final Development Plan. Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan requires a three- fifths vote of the City Council, but does not guarantee approval of the Rezoning, or Final Development Plan. If the Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning is approved by the City Council, the variances would be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. Final Development Plan and Rezoning. The Final Development Plan process is generally the same as the Preliminary Development Plan. A three- fifths favorable vote of the City Council is again required. Staff has received three comments from nearby property owners. (See pages A74 -A76.) 2 Primary Issues • Is the proposed use and rezoning reasonable for this site? Yes. The proposed use is reasonable for five reasons: A medical office building in this area is a reasonable use. However, the proposed use would also be allowed under the existing zoning designation of Planned Office District. An argument could be made for the rezoning regarding the extension of the Regional Medical District east of France. The site.is adjacent to the parking ramp that serves the Fairview Southdale Hospital. (See pages A2 -A3.) While this property has a zoning designation of Automobile Parking District, it is a ramp that serves the Medical District. It is considered part of the Medical District, despite the different zoning classification. The reason that this site is zoned Automobile Parking District, is that it is the only zoning district that allows a parking ramp as a principal use. Parking ramps are allowed as an accessory use in the Regional Medical District. However, because the ramp is separated from the hospital by France Avenue, it was zoned Automobile Parking District, so that it would be a permitted use. The applicant has also requested a rezoning of the Fairview parking ramp to Regional Medical District so that the district is all together. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this project, staff would recommend that the Fairview parking ramp not be rezoned with the subject property. If it were rezoned, the ramp would become a non - conforming use, making any future expansion of the ramp difficult. 2. The project would use sustainable development principles. (See page A7 of the applicant's narrative.) The applicant has pledged to implement principles . developed by the USGBC LEED. standards. Rain gardens are proposed, as is a green roof system, to reduce the rate of run -off from the site. 3. The parking ramp has been well designed to screen the cars. (See the color renderings in the development plan book.) The applicant has done a very good job in designing the parking ramp so the cars are not visible, and making it blend in as part of the building. 4. The project would encourage pedestrian movement. A new 5 -foot sidewalk is proposed along 65th Street West to provide pedestrian movements to the park to the west, and the hospital to the east. 5. The site is located in close proximity with good access to and from the Crosstown Highway. (See pages Al -A2.) Wenck and Associates conducted a traffic impact study based on the proposed development and full build out of the north side of 65th as a Regional Medical District. WSB & Associates reviewed the document to determine if it was accurate. Both Wenck and WSB concluded that the existing roadway system , could support the proposed project. (See traffic studies on pages A36 -A65.) The Edina Transportation Commission met on May 15, 2008, and recommended approval subject to conditions. (See minutes on pages A66 -A67.) • Are the proposed variances justified? No. Per Section 850.04.Subd.i.F., of the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does not meet the variance standards, when applying the three hardship tests: 1) Are there practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements? No. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff does not believe that the proposal for the site is reasonable given the number and size of the variances requested. Staff may support some minor setback variances for redevelopment of the site, given the shape, and limited depth of the lot on the west side of the site. However, staff cannot support the large building setback variances of 53 and 54 feet, and parking structure variances of 60, 60 and 62 feet. These are significant variances that are requested to all lot lines. The building and parking ramp appear to overwhelm the site. They are located no further than 21 feet from any lot line. (See page A20.) If the variances were denied, the applicant would not be denied reasonable use of the site. There is an existing office on the site which could continue to be used, or the offices could be torn down, and the site redeveloped with similar uses to meet city code. The site is slightly under utilized as the existing floor area ratio (FAR) is only 30 %. Within the existing Planned Office District, which this property is located, the maximum FAR is 50 %. The rezoning requested would allow an FAR of 100 %. The applicant is requesting an FAR of 83 %. The size of the subject site is not conducive to development that could approach the allowed FAR of 1.0 in the RMD zoning district, and come close to meeting the Zoning Ordinance standards for that district regarding setbacks, which are based on height. (See the required setbacks for the proposal on page A20.) 2) Are there circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self - created? No. The circumstances of the shape and limited depth on the west side are unique to this property and generally not common. However, the size and number of the variances are self created based on the proposed size of the development. rd 3) Would the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. In general, a four -story medical office with a parking ramp would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There are several parking ramps and medical offices in this area, including on the adjacent property to east. Planning Commission Recommendation Preliminary Development Plan & Rezoning Approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning for the proposed Crosstown Medical building. Approval would authorize the applicant to apply for a final development plan. Approval is based m the following findings: The rezoning would be an extension of the RMD district to the East. 2. The rezoning would be consistent with the City's guide plan. 3. Increase in density could be supported by existing roadways, as determined in the traffic study done by Wenck and Associates. 4. The rezoning would be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Approval is subject to the following conditions: The Final Development Plan must be generally consistent with approved Preliminary Development Plan date stamped April 28 & May 21, 2008. 2. Final rezoning would not include the existing parking ramp for Fairview Hospital. 3. The design and construction of the entire project must be done with the Sustainable Initiatives as outlined in the applicant's narrative within the staff report. 4. Trail and sidewalk connections must be included as demonstrated on the preliminary plans. Public easements must be established over all public sidewalks. 5. All buildings must be built with sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. 6. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memo. 5 7. Compliance with all the conditions required by the Transportation Commission. The Landscape Plan should be improved to add trees around the perimeter of the site, especially along the west and north lot line. 9. The top level of the parking ramp must be eliminated; and the applicant must enter into a proof of parking agreement. If parking becomes a problem, as determined by staff, the top level of the parking ramp must be constructed. Variances The Zoning Board of Appeals and the City Council should approve the Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning from POD to RMD with the following variances at 4010 65th Street West for Crosstown Medical LLC: 1. Front building setback variance from 74 feet to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.) 2. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 3. Side building setback variance from 74'feet to 21 feet. (A 53 -foot variance.) 4. Front parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 18 feet. (A 62 -foot variance.) 5. Rear parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 20 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) 6. Side parking structure setback variance from 70 feet to 10 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) 7. Side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3.3 feet. (A 6.7 -foot variance.) Approval is based on the following findings: The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the shape and limited depth of the lot, especially the western half of the site. 2. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance because the building is reasonably sized given the allowed FAR in the RMD district is 1.0. The proposed FAR is .83. The height of the ramp and building are generally consistent with buildings and ramps in the area. 4. The site's location adjacent to Crosstown Highway 62. 5. The high water table prevents the parking from being constructed under ground. Staff Recommendation Deny the Preliminary Development Plan, Rezoning from POD to RMD and the following variances at 4010 65th Street West for Crosstown Medical LLC: 1. Front building setback variance from 74 feet to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.) 2. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 3. Side building setback variance from 74 feet to 21 feet. (A 53 -foot variance.) 4. Front parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 18 feet. (A 62 -foot variance.) 5. Rear parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 20 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) 6. Side parking structure setback variance from 70 feet to 10 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) 7. Side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3.3 feet. (A 6.7 -foot variance.) Denial is based on the following findings: The applicant is requesting a Rezoning to the Regional Medical District, to increase the allowed density on the site. However, the proposed plans would not come close to meeting the minimum zoning ordinance standards of the RMD District; seven variances are requested; and large variances are requested to all four lot lines. 2. There is no hardship to justify the large variances. The variances are self created. If the variances were denied, the applicant would not be denied reasonable use of their property. There is an existing office on the site which could continue to be used, or the offices could be town down, and the site redeveloped with similar uses to meet city code. The site currently is slightly under utilized as the existing floor area ratio (FAR) is 30 %. Within the existing Planned Office District, which this property is located, the maximum FAR is 50 %. 7 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Crosstown Highway (62) Easterly: The parking ramp for the Southdale Fairview Hospital; zoned APD, Automobile Parking District, and guided for office use. Southerly: Cornelia Place Apartments; zoned PRD -4, Planned Residential District, and guided high- density residential. Westerly: An office building; zoned and guided for office uses. Existing Site Features The subject property is 2.02 acres in size. The site contains the existing office building and a 60 -foot tall cellular tower with antennas. The cell tower would be removed, and the antennas placed on the roof of the new building. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Grading/Drainage/Utilities Office POD -1, Planned Office District The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be acceptable subject to the comments and conditions on the attached page A33c. A more detailed review would be done as part of the Final Development Plan review. Landscaping The applicant is proposing landscaping around the perimeter of the site. (See landscape plan on page A23.) Based on the perimeter of the site, 33 over -story trees are required. The applicant is proposing 36 over -story trees. While this would meet the city's minimum ordinance requirement, there appears to be a greater opportunity to provide addition landscaping. There are several gaps in the plantings along the north and west lot line. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project, staff would suggest a condition that these areas be filled in with coniferous trees to provide year -round screening of the ramp and building. A full compliment of under -story shrubs is also proposed around the perimeter of the office building. Building Material The office building would be a primarily brick with cast stone. The parking ramp would be designed to match the building and be built of architectural precast concrete. The parking ramp would be very well designed to screen cars. (See plans and renderings on pages A31 -A33, and in the attached development plan book.) 2008 Draft Comprehensive Plan Update The draft of the City's Comprehensive Plan Update recommends no additional density in the Southdale area. Although no one individual site was studied, one of the considerations used in making that recommendation was a look at the area around Southdale and the additional density that may be available to property owners under the existing zoning designation of the area. (See pages A33a- A33b.) Because of the large amount of available square footage, and the current traffic issues in the area, particularly at the Crosstown and France interchange, the Plan does not suggest increases in density in the area. Rather, the Plan suggests Zoning Ordinance amendments for development standards for proposed new buildings to get to the current maximum density allowed. The Comprehensive Plan Update has not yet been approved by the City Council. 9 Compliance Table * Variance Requested Deadline for a city decision: August 19, 2008 10 C. Standard .(RMID!,Distr ct) ) Proposed Office Building - Setbacks 87 & 74' (based on 87' tall stairwell & 74' tall 52 feet* Front Setback (65th Street) Rear (Crosstown) building) 20 feet* West Side 87' & 74' (based on 87' tall stairwell & 74' tall 200+ feet East Side building) 21 feet* 87' & 74' (based on 87' tall stairwell & 74' tall Parking Structure building) Front Setback (65th Street) 87' & 74' (based on 87' tall stairwell & 74' tall 18 feet* Rear (Crosstown) building) 20 feet West Side 10 feet* East Side 150+ feet 80 feet (based on 80' tall structure) 80 feet (based on 80' tall structure) 70 feet (based on 80' tall structure) 70 feet (based on 80' tall structure) Minimum Tract Area 10 acres 4.87* Building Height No maximum (Height is determined by required 80 -foot tall parking setbacks) ramp 87 -foot tall stairwell 74 -foot tall medic' building (Variances requested for setbacks) Parking lot and drive aisle 20 feet (street) 20+ feet setback 10 feet side and rear 3.3 feet* Maximum Floor Area Ratio 100% 83% (FAR) Parking Stalls 387 (based on square footage of the building plus a 390 max. of 20 doctors on site at one time * Variance Requested Deadline for a city decision: August 19, 2008 10 RESOLUTION NO. 2008- APPROVING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY REZONING FOR CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BACKGROUND. 1.01 Crosstown Medical LLC is requesting a Preliminary Development Plan review and Rezoning at 4010 65th Street West. 1.02 The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two- story, 26,000 square foot office building to build a 73,386 square foot, four -story medical office building with a six-level attached parking ramp. Section 2. FINDINGS 2.01 Ultimately, this request requires the following: 1. A Rezoning from Planned Office District -1 (POD -1) to Regional Medical District (RMD). The rezoning includes the adjacent Fairview Hospital parking ramp property to the east, that is currently zoned Automobile Parking District (APD). 2. Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Rezoning. Seven Variances from the RMD standards: a. Front building setback variance from 74 feet to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.) b. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) C. Side building setback variance from 74 feet to 21 feet. (A 53 -foot variance.) d. Front parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 18 feet. (A 62 -foot variance.) e. Rear parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 20 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) f. Side parking structure setback variance from 70 feet to 10 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) g. A side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3.3 feet. (A 6.7 -foot variance.) 4.. Final Development Plan. 2.02 In order to obtain the above approvals, the applicant must go through a two step process. That process is as follows: 1. Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning. Preliminary development plan and rezoning is a review by the Planning Commission and City Council, in which approval simply allows the applicant to prepare a Final Development Plan. Approval of the preliminary development plan requires a three- fifths vote of the City Council, but does not guarantee approval of the rezoning, or final development plan. RESOLUTION NO. 2008- Page Two Upon approval of the Preliminary Development Plan and Rezoning, the variances would be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Final Development Plan with Variances and Rezoning. The final development plan process is generally the same as the preliminary development plan. A three- fifths favorable vote of the City Council is again required. 2.03 The rezoning would be an extension of the RMD district to the East. 2.04 The rezoning would be consistent with the City's guide plan. 2.05 Increase in density could be supported by existing roadways, as determined in the traffic study done by Wenck and Associates. 2.06 The rezoning would be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. 2.07 The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the shape and limited depth of the lot, especially the Western half of the site. 2. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance because the building is reasonably sized given the allowed FAR in the RMD district is 1.0. The proposed FAR is .83. 3. The height of the ramp and building are generally consistent with buildings and ramps in the area. 4. The site's location adjacent to Crosstown Highway 62. The high water table prevents the parking from being constructed under ground. 2.08 On May 28, 2008, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Development Plan, Variances and Rezoning. (Vote: 6 -2.) Section 3. APPROVAL NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina, approves the Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Rezoning for the proposed Crosstown Medical building. Approval authorizes the applicant to proceed with a Final Development Plan, Variances and Final Rezoning. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: RESOLUTION NO. 2008-. Page Two 1. The Final Development Plan must be generally consistent with approved Preliminary Development Plan date stamped April 28 & May 21, 2008. 2. Final rezoning would not include the existing parking ramp for Fairview Hospital. 3. The design and construction of the entire project must be done with the Sustainable Initiatives as outlined in the applicant's narrative within the staff report. 4. Trail and sidewalk connections must be included as demonstrated on the preliminary plans. Public easements must be established over all public sidewalks. 5. All buildings must be built with sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. 6. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the City Engineer's memo. 7. Compliance with all the conditions required by the Transportation Commission. 8. The Landscape Plan should be improved to add trees around the perimeter of the site, especially along the west and north lot line. 9. The top level of the parking ramp must be eliminated; and the applicant must enter into a proof of parking agreement. If parking becomes a problem, as determined by staff, the top level of the parking ramp must be constructed. Adopted by the city council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, on , 2008. Adopted this ATTEST: day of 2008. Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) James B. Hovland, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2008- Page Two CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of 2008, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of 2008. City Clerk stw a 1MM06 AV96 t01a9 �yYH +aes 16/a rota 6wo w2s w6s es96 Mwtl �M -A ,1 0 ,6670 __— 6610 6617 6629 6621 46"624 6701 e 670,9 & 6709 5706 t00 6713 6700 �3H S7w ms <aa�gciCr =G"M 0 Q _ PID:3002824140004 Y �p 4010 65th St W :a �. Edina, MN 55435 City of Edina 6217 y6 J156 w 7623 8523 6317 2/ 6325 65,95 8577 66TH n w 3100 V J30f 700 10 6515 65t8 1500 0523 2125 77M 3316 6676 / 300 V/ >` O Lagond NigniigMea Feature Morse Number Labels Street name Labels /' City Limits Creeks Lake Names Lakes Ll Perks rcels El Pa 1 4211 M °F 6312' r.:, y'� . -t ', • 4210 4206 6720 6729 ` 42UC 6335 � 6J30� � � i• ..,g . cz r f: c R aU18 t u` If I" AI 0 6400 x r A I t i f Pik h ft! 1Mi'�AIIM [cf�u� IMM ! n 17 F E; ^s • -� Rolland Ps;M, w F:A Al LOGISMap Output Page ;115 -6117— 1711106 17054• -201 sT1J _ BSI 6 1 <+N �t�P�D 134-,•7 /-o ^L.<r 126 u" N UN 46-27 6225/2/24 < `2M 627J�1Pb 62J7�A 24 , 67H �]442il <23 6]06 17/71 0713 6317 p21 6376729 ? 741 _- VALLEYIMMW TO Its ter" it011lflU P.M t 4300 14. Wfi 6613 . 6661. 6605 _ 66'la 6612 • 0617. 6666 6616 6621 6612, 6609 - \ "16. "17 6620 6629 0 6617 111624 '6674 6671 6707.6700 6701 6705 :6704 6705 670 74 1 6)06 6709 '6700 �116109 67/3'6712 -�,, g '`1 -6717 - -6717 - 6717 6716 6600 6606 660f 98001 �N0f1 6M! 1 6606 900 6901 ._.69M 6909 6901 �� .6901 ' 6621 6909 �fP'' 6825 6916 6917 69" .6829 69M�0l09r.,c nu 6901 e P 6760 rffTMSTW u PID:3002824140004 4010 65th St W Edina, MN 55435 171 ew;'. 6525 City of Edina Lftwla ­j 6716 8171 <A 61296140- 614161"- 6171 6132- 6133 6126 -6129 sull-"D 6rw - b _ -._- "t7 6706 620/-67027 6191 k�, 04'1 6701 6132 6201620/ 62076200 62016200 71 71 , 6200 4111 6205 6201 6205 �6Tf0 621 f 6206 6205 6201 620: 670, 24 6212 �- 6211 -6206 6209x62/1 5 6217 6205620E 620Y 6706 �:A 62M i'6H7' 6717 6216 216 79 6216 6217 6212 $2136212 24 i 7 �62ri-6716 8219 27] t6223 6220' 62176216 62176716 I 219 " 6273 - 6220 16227 2ffi 7 6224 6221- 62Zt1, 6221 6770 74' + 61727] 6237- 6224 h6701�62J0 6701 6700 : 6705 til 1 316229 624'/ 271 _,9r62/0 63016300 670 t�r°9" 146700 ,`6305 6d0('�• 6.10916300 NDD $::m D —10-51 63036304 430u�' 004 u >O.wxarns.Dm..PQ 6704 r't; 670! - 6706 { 6313 6Ji7- 6312 6717 `6304 �671< 6305 6700 66700 671367167/2 PCD-11Pf+ ^nw COmnnvaY O:n�c+ -1�. ® 6117 6316 �, 677/ 6J/ 6717 6314 66JI6 PCD -3 (Prm�nm Co+mm+'w� EI. - -Sr 63 1 - 6720 am 6711 : 6721 6]20 1P'mne]rnava.r %Daannl OPOD- 06'6320 63M16328 '6 M 67H 6325 ■ PRD -1 (Paw+nd FMar1 Davzt 71 ® 6335 6334 6335 ® PFD-3 PYnneP F�v4mt Oatrn -31 ® ve Pg0-S lP.-W Fmlan Om-.61 . PSG- CfPU^•eC Sa+r Fcem�asal L1 l G 1 (Sa .0—, U- D.-I ®� 14. Wfi 6613 . 6661. 6605 _ 66'la 6612 • 0617. 6666 6616 6621 6612, 6609 - \ "16. "17 6620 6629 0 6617 111624 '6674 6671 6707.6700 6701 6705 :6704 6705 670 74 1 6)06 6709 '6700 �116109 67/3'6712 -�,, g '`1 -6717 - -6717 - 6717 6716 6600 6606 660f 98001 �N0f1 6M! 1 6606 900 6901 ._.69M 6909 6901 �� .6901 ' 6621 6909 �fP'' 6825 6916 6917 69" .6829 69M�0l09r.,c nu 6901 e P 6760 rffTMSTW u PID:3002824140004 4010 65th St W Edina, MN 55435 171 ew;'. 6525 Lop6nd Mouse Number Labels Street Name Labels ./ / City Limits Creeks Lake Names Lakes Lparks Zoning APO IAPIer .-P—I D.-I UDD.(M- Demo.— D."11 . NDD $::m D —10-51 ®la 004 u >O.wxarns.Dm..PQ O PmR ■ PCD-11Pf+ ^nw COmnnvaY O:n�c+ -1�. ® PCD -2(P- wCPmmon� l)-i 2, ® PCD -3 (Prm�nm Co+mm+'w� EI. - -Sr PCD <iPran>.aC Ge valDm� ^ -� OP$i 1P'mne]rnava.r %Daannl OPOD- 10b^.en06- Data- fl OP00- 2(P-..dOff -D—.Z ■ PRD -1 (Paw+nd FMar1 Davzt 71 ® fF0.21P.PnnPP FsOmrt 0mrn --7i ® PFD-3 PYnneP F�v4mt Oatrn -31 ® PFO<tP- F4-i -O--4 ® Pg0-S lP.-W Fmlan Om-.61 . PSG- CfPU^•eC Sa+r Fcem�asal L1 l G 1 (Sa .0—, U- D.-I ®� F 2 f0ort+c Dwoc -.,s unc D.nnal . FND IFga+Y Nw:.J Oav4 -ti Parcels 1000 Twelve Oaks Center Dr. Tel 952.426.7400 Suite 200 Fax 952.426.7440 Wayzata MN 55391 www.mohagenhansen.com Crosstown Medical Office Building April 28, 2008 Design Narrative Preliminary Development Application Mohagen Hansen Architectural F6A HE Group Introduction: On behalf of Hegenes Management, Inc., Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., and Edina Crosstown Medical, LLC, we are pleased to submit this; Preliminary Development Application to the City of Edina, Planning Department for consideration. Over the past few months, the Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group Design Team and the Crosstown Leadership Team of the Med?Eal, LLC, have worked diligently to develop a solid concept for the proposed medical office building that not only meets the expansion needs of Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., but also provides a quality development which enhances the existing neighborhood. Interaction between the Crosstown Design Team and the City staff has been crucial and helpful as we have been evaluating and analyzing the complex issues associated with the proposed site. The following information provides a summary of the project components and some critical background information that has shaped this submittal. Existing Site: The site located at 4010 West 65th Street is currently occupied by a two -story, 26,000 GSF, office building that includes a number of medical, dental, and general office tenants. The existing building has occupied the site for 40 plus years and is ready for redevelopment. The existing low- profile building fronts Highway 62 and is depressed into the site with access from the flanking parking lots at the second floor level. The parking areas are accessed separately from West 65th Street via curb cuts at the east and west ends of the site. A cell phone tower and the associated support buildings are located on the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the building. Adjacentparcels include a bank building to the west, the Fairview Hospital parking ramp to the east, the Cornelia Place Apartments to the south, and two smaller commercial sites located to the southeast of the site. This project will also require permits from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District and Mn/DOT. Applications have been submitted to each agency concurrent with this application. Initial feedback from the watershed district and Mn/DOT has been considered in the preparation of this submittal. Proposed Site: The proposed project is slated to include a 4- story, approximately 76,000 GSF, medical office building. The medical building will be the new home of the Twin Cities Orthopedics Specialty Center, which will incorporate the consolidation of several facilities, including an Orthopedic Clinic, MRI Suite, Ambulatory Surgery Center, as well as General Office space for Twin Cities Orthopedics. Parking for the facility will be provided in an attached above - grade parking structure that will be integrated into the site and building with complementary building elements. Site access points will be in similar locations to the existing curb cuts, but the eastern access point will function as a service entry only, while the western entry will access the parking structure and provide the main patient drop -off area for the building entry. Two major objectives associated with the site of the redevelopment included burying the existing overhead power lines on the north portion of the site, as well as removal of the existing cell tower and reintegrating the cell tower components into the proposed building architecture. ® Mohagen /Hansen Architectural Group �1 13 Design Narrative Preliminary Development Application April 28, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Zoning Classification: The zoning classification for the existing site is POD -1 (Planned Office Development) and under this application, the Owner is requesting that the site be rezoned to RMD (Regional Medical District). The POD classification limits the total building area to .5 FAR or (.5 x the site area of 88,000 SF). That ordinance limitation results in an allowance of only 44,000 GSF of building area for the site, which is not only too small of a building for Twin Cities Orthopedics, but is also underutilizing the site relative to its proximity to the existing Regional Medical District and Fairview Hospital to the east. Upon evaluating the City's Comprehensive Plan, developing a medical office building of this type and size on this site appears to be an appropriate use relative to the adjacent properties, proposed density limitations, and traffic considerations for the greater Edina Central Business District (CBD). The extension of the Regional Medical District from the east side of France Avenue to the west has essentially already been completed via the construction of the Fairview ramp. That ramp was a required facility in order for the hospital to function and.meet its own expansion needs for staff and patient parking relative to the expansion of the Outpatient Services associated with the new Heart Center. Along with the skyway connection, the ramp itself is perceived to be an extension of the Hospital Campus. Therefore, extending the RMD classification to the ramp parcel, as well as to the adjacent 4010 site is a logical progression and alleviates the concerns over limited building size. Under the proposed RMD classification, the proposed site could be developed as an 88,000 GSF building based on an allowable FAR of 1.0. Again, this project is proposing a total building area of approximately 76,000 GSF, well under the allowable FAR. The Design Team is aware of the public's concern over increased density within Edina's Central Business District. However, upon reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the existing context, we believe that the increased density on this site, due to its unique size and location is an appropriate solution and is consistent with Edina's Comp Plan which allows for a density development with an FAR ratio between .5 —1.0. We believe the proposed project addresses Edina's density issue in a responsible manner compared to developing higher density sites elsewhere within Edina's CBD where traffic and congestion problems are most prominent. Allowing higher density developments similar to this project near sites that are already zoned as high density, such as the Hospital Campus, as well as being located adjacent to major highways serving these areas, makes the perceived and real impact much less due to the minor impact to the surrounding area. Traffic congestion and the perceived impact of a site development such as this was a huge concern. Therefore, the Ownership Team engaged a traffic engineer to analyze the traffic patterns within the area and model the impact of the proposed development. The formal report, submitted to the City, indicates that development of this site, as well as the adjacent bank site to an FAR of 1.0 would not have a negative effect on the service levels of the existing intersections surveyed around the site. However, the report does recommend adding a left turn lane and signal for the eastbound and westbound lanes of West 65th Street approaching France Avenue to alleviate the potential traffic congestion. Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group _ A5 El Design Narrative Preliminary Development Application April 28, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Site Configuration: In evaluating the development of the site and the program needs of Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A., the Design Team developed numerous options that ranged from 44,000 GSF to 80,000 GSF and even a 90,000 GSF for a multi-site project including the adjacent bank site. However, incorporating the bank site into the project was not viable, due to the Owner's inability to gain control of the site. The initial design options for accommodating parking for each of these concepts included both one and two levels of below -grade parking, on -grade parking and structured parking above - grade, as well as endless combinations thereof. Unfortunately, the presence of a high water table on the site made doing even a single level of below -grade parking cost prohibitive, due to the significant structural costs related to the design of the sublevel parking floor. The current site configuration represents a 21,000 GSF building footprint, for a total building area of 76,000 GSF, with an above -grade parking ramp to the west. Each level of the parking ramp is sloped to allow the major landings in the ramp to align with the building floor elevations. The parking structure is scaled similarly to the building fagade so that the two structures read as one uniform building mass with similar and complementary materials. The parking structure and the building also combine to create, in effect, a sound barrier between Highway 62 and the residential development to the south. In the Regional Medical District, there is not a height limit, rather, the building setbacks are tied to the height, requiring the building to be set back from the property line a distance no less than the height of the proposed building. On this particular site where the proportions of the site are not ideal, they become extremely restrictive and ultimately create a hardship, and in order for the building to be located in its optimum position, the development will require setback variances. Site Features: In developing the civil engineering and landscape aspects of the project, the Design Team has been challenged to balance the need for storm water management and green space against the need for proper site circulation, building access and building massing. The narrowing of the western portion of the site makes it extremely difficult to provide parking and building structural bay sizes and overall dimensions to work in an ideal fashion. Therefore, we have placed the building and the ramp farther north toward Highway 62 to maximize the green space on the south side of the building along 6511, Street. The public street frontage road along 65f Street has become the focal element for the landscape site concept where the Design Team has incorporated structured rain gardens, planters, stone retaining walls, steps, and canopy elements as a method of reducing the scale of the building which addresses the pedestrian scale, enhances the streetscape as viewed from the sidewalk and street, as well as from the adjacent residential buildings at Cornelia Place and Point of France. Included in the storm water management system, we are proposing the use of concealed rain water storage tanks from which water can be drawn for irrigating the plant beds and lawn. This sustainable approach to storm water management and irrigation design works toward satisfying the LEED related goals for the project as well as eliminating the need for additional ponding to satisfy the runoff from the parking structure. 19 Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group 4i ® Design Narrative Preliminary Development Application April 28, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Site Features (continued): In addition to the grade level site development, the Design Team intends to incorporate a green roof system as a way of dealing with rain runoff from the building. In essence, the landscape development for the project will be carried up onto the roof and will offer an interesting and attractive view for Cornelia Place and Point of France residents and adjacent Fairview Hospital. Other mechanical roof systems will be located in an enclosed rooftop penthouse or behind architectural screening. Service elements for the building, such as the emergency generator, transformer, and service entry components will be located on the northeast corner of the building in an attempt to screen the areas from the adjacent residences. Currently, the service access is located on the east portion of the site within the property boundaries, however, the Design Team is continuing to develop concepts for a truck turnaround area that would overlap into the open yard between the proposed building and the adjacent Fairview parking ramp and provide an integrated solution. Discussions with Fairview continue and a revised plan showing that service access condition will be submitted for review, if the layout is approved and agreed upon by both parties. Building Material Description: Twin Cities Orthopedics, P.A. and Edina Crosstown Medical, LLC Leadership Team desire to develop and create a building that portrays a sense of quality and pride within the community while providing a facility that can serve the long -term needs of their patients for many years to come. To that end, the Mohagen /Hansen Design Team has worked to evolve a design solution that creatively uses materials, color, massing, and planning principles to successfully weave together the building, the parking structure, and the landscape in a manner that is complementary to the neighborhood in both appearance and scale as well as compatible with the existing neighborhood context. Building materials will include multiple colors of brick, stone or architectural cast stone accent bands, architectural metal, and glass and aluminum curtain wall systems. The parking ramp will use complementary precast concrete components with openings and details that relate to and complement the adjacent building. As directed by the Ownership Team, it is the intention of the Design Team to design a timeless structure based on implementing the conceptual principles developed by the USGBC LEED standards for sustainable or "green' design in order to provide Twin Cities Orthopedics with a quality solution which strives to promote solid planning principles while promoting a strong stewardship for preserving our environment. k \ jobs \ crosstown medical \ cross town-medical-Shell-07430\ 001_admin \ code \ 07430_ memo _rezoning_narrative.docx2.docx ® Mohagen/Hansen Architectural Group a CROSSTOWN MEDICAL PROJECT INFORMATION Crosstown Mendical Bufliding Kid ' =sen - Project Information TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS Ha Mnen Honsen M G.ow April 28, 2008 •�� .. I •w At t�wvl�.. Site and Surrounding Context (Looking South) April 28, 2008 CRUSSTOWN MEDICAL PROJECT INFORMATION TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS Hasen �Ti; Hanson oar Site Photos - Fairview (tamp and Site, from Highway 62 April 28, 2008 CROSSTOWN MEDICAL PROJECT INFORMATION TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS NHowson ,' Own 4 Site Photos - Fairview Ramp Entry _ - April 28, 2008 CF<o,_,juWN MEDICAL PROJECT INFORMATION Cr TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS Muh:�uen Hans „n s � Site Photos - Existing Building M " k April 28, 2008 ,-RUSSTOWN htLUAI -Ak. PROJECT INFORMATION JE TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS MuhAyvn Hvisen Ado' Site Photos - Bank April 28, 2008 ,:ROSSTOWN MEDICAL PROJECT INFORMATION TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDICS M011119011 n Hansen A.cMn- r:�•e' Omun CIAUSSTOW N MEDICAL PROJECT INFORMATION or Y ;"Rif i TWIN CITIES ORTHOPEDlk Muhayen N Hansen Site Photos - Cornelia Place Apartments April 28, 2008 CROSSTOWN MEDICAL PROJECT INFORMATION A i a TWIN CITIES ORTNOPEui, Mimi Muhapen Hansen Site Photos - France and 65th, looking west at Fairview Ramp April 28, 2008 Zoning Classification: r rR r K' r r 4) POD -1 EKJ PID: -- — I 3002821140004 — 7 Address: 4010 65TH ST W — N HlGiiwAY b2 HJUH WAY ill Click here to view ( i the City Code G I\ t pertaining to tho \ C.. BbTH 9T yy POD -1 `�. classilicatioll a r �d G m V, 69 New Search PROJECT SITE 4010 651h STREET WEST Zoning Background Zoning APD (Autunruulle Parklog District) I.1DU-4 (Mixed Uevelopment UislrlCt -4) MUO -5 (Mixed Develuprnenl District -5) MDD-6 (Mixed Development Dlstrlc1-6) Palk PCU-1 (Planned Commercial Uistlict -1) 11CD-2 (Planned CU1111nerClal Wit FILL -2) PCD -3 (Planned Cumme(CWl DISlrid-J) PCD 4 (Planned (_onillICIC101 Distilcl-4) 11ID (Planned Industrial Ulslricl) I'UD -1 (Planned UIHce Ulslr ILL -1) PDU•2 (Planned Ullice District -2) PRU -1 (Planned Resident Dlstrlcl -I) PRU -1 (Planned Resldent Uislnd -2) PRO (Planned Resident District -3) Piro -4 (Planned Resident Dislrid -4) 11RU-5 (Planned Resldent DIAHU-5) PSIt -4 (Planned Semur liesldence -4) R -1 (Single Dwelling Unit Distmt) R-1 (Double Dwelling Unit Dlslnd) RMD (Reylonal Medaal D,slrk.t) FAIRVIEW WEST RAMP PARCEL 6400 FRANCE AVENUE I April 28, 2008 CROSSTOWN MEDICAL PROJECT INFORMATION MoHayen Hansen OC LEGEND 0 C) 4 MY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ;hK%p OEM. ------------- An � i i� STATE ONE CALL h-.6 %) V, " IV\ T —4;4 -- NW-51-07-E 44&" --------------- i M--M-ir. -U lTr --------------------- -- - ---------- ---- ---- r7 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ;f;7 50U 9 Ij 5 0 UA RE � ----------- FFIGC 0 PAR LOT 2 Ila .. _ ., ---------- --- -------- ------ -- BLOCK A )�IjjoN 65TH STREET OC LEGEND 0 C) 4 MY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ;hK%p OEM. ------------- An � i i� STATE ONE CALL h-.6 %) V, " IV\ e n 4 Site Development Summery Perking Summary. - yTE .00PEa: .ao OM sTI¢r .En PnOD0.4D PARR— ]le —1w - ' sIE uaw e),)w s (zo: Ao®1 Roa P— - E>o9T.A aEEHSPAtL Mtge 4 C-71) a -j mAQ P)ANWO - PRmOYD a�ISPAQ: ]....e 4 (EA' e� ]fie TOTAL S1NiS - - CIP]lae L.mlf: PGalm mYE O.IWCT IPao -IJ . pEa1wEIlpn mm® xa..x neowAE .m.:AE mTerr D.m) s / STALL amDwO PAnWnO oxen / an - ]m srAUS I.ou.m - sreAa IEe1.IElIENi4 mart ]S' a Btm PT. xd AUII N d SIDE xd A We4 Nr. Id I1CDY:M 6i[£ Pn6'DS[e UY BI]IIYNI. 9xL .]00) IS f YIeE �R'.mEwMn x0.d 811N1AP0 S A. EA4YWrt IHE CII® NA CUrtN - - .. 10.4 vM.IWO SETBAq - PANJIEPT - u ke • _ tTawtla Pala. ^� -- r 3YY .MIS� IVIEDI ' AL OFFICE 600 unr ■ INS ■EE ■ •tip non Woo n■ •�. .o' Pm RAW aR -wAU I . WA 6T AT AT TaST .NNwr _ Il.d ' eErono PnePmTr r 11xE A1W IAPd moPVan sWCxN1 ro _ _ General Site Notes 1. eAOtalOaW ..aIYATa1 M nD PROLCT PNUTnIro 0• rrtsr.neo PAOTE59alAL AAVIQ9•. x EDCATNKS Axo uEVATnxrs or EMSmW ToPmAPPr ATD Mums u sxo.x o. Tlvs Pow 1 TO QGVAna1 /DaAiPUC11DPS11HL iIIDSahDIJD S ARE EpP.. ll£0E11fY1EFA 91DIL0 A PaETI TO MCWTECTMAL PGX9 fdi ENACT ..ax0 aeW119We MID LaJTl015 Q fLlS. PAYPS. AX0 nMa ooau e. Nl CYPe PAW A1E Se.1LL eE SO fQ1 ITO rAQ Q awel 11111E55 OMAwY eroTEA ' e. a�me�Arm rMA110iTa'w�al wZN TE ng wi ec ieele W 2 L o' =O Tgin'ro�. Au - ). ME CannACTTA SNALL R nUPa M Pe0N0.M MID IAAMTAMPO T — —IRM OMQS 9D1 An BAPWfJOE+ wMER�Aa�9Ep1N5[, OWECna1AL 9Sxlr rYCOme AP0 Wl9 ro ��� n'�jE C�jy)µQ0 Mplp p pWal Tp RAQIIFII�T.�MrIG CRIIWCL pENQ4 SHML Q . Cand.1 ro APPn(pWWI�TE 1e10eT STYWMWS e. ldcoawETWAnows s a 11.'. QOTFt•MP11 FJOrIDi. BC N MSaWN1Q rM TIK o.. TA(—i2M41.MPPEGWTId NE�NlY TO c Av F—Rv TDNI iOM.MR T�PPOP CMS lo. wo waa A11a.m W Poor Warr a wAr vPae ro AaaNanw Di u.oDT vEWOr. QIM�e rmaATrox eASw � � I _ Wal � �AnA� I eElp,�, anm 1 _ 1 1 PCe GOPHER STATE ONE CALL A..e en- ese -Dmx u-rmin. I- eno -xsx -nee >m Sign Legend a w. d xd 0 6d NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION STTP SDI ]0' Y ]Y - x NAw01GP ALQ59.L Ir Y IY Pi -ew S . PAWa10 IY Y Ix' R- ,te Legend EMM IDl W4 EA4YWrt IHE CII® NA CUrtN PETMNN6 wM1 _ MQ PANJIEPT - Dwoe;TE SIDE1M,1 .TDI.Pa,e vAVaWI1r ® TAAAaR 6 P— SIM19 . ©' IPMRaaFP *. 91E 1D1n.o TnMTIC ad w • PO.fA vaE ' eauno / PDSr . a w. d xd 0 6d NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10.0' PARKING SETBACK mom No No RKING RAMP on • - - —, P© ' ■ ■■ r • .�� _-.�• t�s�\�••s•F :. mogul. • / ..r� - __ iii —� ONE ONO in •��III f• +V.'� � IRA SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR RETAr"ING WALL DETAILS MONUMENT SIGN CURB CUT �`��`` 7 0, CONC.'WALK Erosion Control Nola . mr rpa wu eE rxrAllm ARaiI,R srz m .IZ Tu .rrtw uw touraxs Mme: smx w.Rx xx°rr wr uw,rt nc s,c Hero m Yn Eawv.nw/mrsrxuc,or Y:,M1p 2 1100f CaCiRrICIIN p111N,R ,Irl a vCirAaID AT .Il 0)511UCnN Exaa110_. 0. TT WTAME _7 — TM amm.c. 91YE USE waRVa1 wCANa xftg ar A.rr�ITl4 r1E pmt .xa RTTAT- NCtIAM BUf NUT 1➢,am — — —M xro1 msTRUCna11 pTxAMM O, ®ax rSx1a0L aUM1T. A C aT — mrrel 9�ML mnU4 - -- nM OlAaxa Am WaTxuE TxapW,a1T T1R all Xr. -t0. �,Y a Tm w w w a M T.vnRASroxs amvamaurr NRUOE9 AIL RVI[YpltAllal A9 nEam®m PNEnpT FnosN YD 11R w ®rxa a saT. 1K o�En wT e—T na TnTm.cTW'a xenms A9 of£r,]T nt ro rR0.R0 PRtDFMr Ynr mrxa4,6!Y1s Y,v RPOQaw 6 mr ON -a w 1rzw N [mrru IA4,p1T a x aoer1m1 -0, A� AT 'MU rul m�maeuw+pm a+�Nxl�eTl awl E�sE mar nH TsMx1a�.C�mT .smarm nQ IIrC A EelAal9,m. .. ivTm.crm s1A1i xs,AU rzRSmYtT xrtT rnartcrial (dm a tWVYpT) ammo YL utrm aA9x aArz run Yrtcrm n 11n TM cvlsminml. s n.rmmx wiTr i .�mo v moi w v Tcr�a a ersrom wrx sm mm xau sm..om tau a.wRr aT a -. L rm Y6A5 •x SLOS ar ):, a1 pRAT[R ROIanA1m, xln ®a aR wam rmm anxRn 9 rmil,lm. T. xlae srRms usm ran wuu,a sous ®r rtsx o sa um oreas snaar s�r< s,AU ee owwEETm rYET. s s�rr s1Yi a amuTm Yx -tors rvwwr snu a Amuxm Ham ro Yn wAm1a ox arz .. . r ma oaaT n _ rb t R'. Am •rY.n xOIL 1W - axG ea,x stlsEr -_, Grading t&b"•' coma 01013m ._ - ... wrap xDG taltax ' �E� —� RRVY canam axe A. Gur1p —a slop- 4wm 'Am po 4c,1a+ M. pxRM) ' —i— TARP wm —.— 9.MTYIY 4 R — — YaaE uxE ® x101 ax9rR11caN pmAx� 0 u®N mxma awNiai _ mar ET1vAa°r1 now omECTO1 roP Yo eanw a -:ureic wY1 \� nolGlscT awalow e m a» sm eomrc EacAl,or O O nL1 p -RC11N 5 —STORY r'° - ZKING RAMP �Nx ° 8. �• s-, MEDICAL OFFICE } '63,000 'S.F. I FFE= 876.00 m I�iBI -1 u. r` �Y Y. pool •,r 1 /r v^rses 1 NOTE: wT1m ` x 0a5 OIYRa YNO aam snvn w[sr I MHarmn m u xmry — aborts 0"M STATE ME CALL ,x. Tm rr.. t- eao-ax -„es EROSION Hamm CONTROL PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL EDINA CROSSTOWN C 4 -- - -" MEDICAL LLC �• vsrlui RaEr morzcnul wrcr$rxrnarnro .' Grading Notes ,aTr x Rm.,.rR WlwmlmaalT o / EDINA CROSSTOWN 01YIYa mpAlxMa (T1'V) ,. la Ji11�IS 41a E1LYAlIMS ar EOanxa Tn`aP — /°D URl,a9 A9 soN N 1ws aw YR YrowowAlz calm.erm sau nru vrrmv MEDICAL BUILDING 9rt @a11Ne A,la URTTT LOCAl1�6 Rllal ro pGVAIM1fx /a)5,1MaA. nR EmilaDl s,luA a xaRCD m4ouT¢T u Axrc drmsuao AIR 4010 65th STREET _ ra,nml. auecn . - s+ aarE caws w WEST z — .AcTUR 9,YL Imp ro YIOwRCM1Y r,Ya rm FsecT IacAriaa Yo RESTxulr_ sam v..volr, orT RonwES. RrYrs. rRllaT 000ti RRL04 91xLx0 DntlQQIS [RACr mIEA10 UaU1T orwYla ,.canals .,a Duct wunax Ym xuTmT ar aam�wa trw) ... .._. -- --..... EDINA. MN moxx� roT wart wo�x �.aor A9 PREwYaD eY 111E OrY n1v1[FID ASSDaATN m laaormalT v y. �} s T c A—A .- aE � a raowoxa " xAM-mro mECnm1AE ° 8. �• s-, MEDICAL OFFICE } '63,000 'S.F. I FFE= 876.00 m I�iBI -1 u. r` �Y Y. pool •,r 1 /r v^rses 1 NOTE: wT1m ` x 0a5 OIYRa YNO aam snvn w[sr I MHarmn EROSION Hamm CONTROL PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C 4 .' Grading Notes ,aTr x Rm.,.rR / ,. la Ji11�IS 41a E1LYAlIMS ar EOanxa Tn`aP — /°D URl,a9 A9 soN N 1ws aw YR YrowowAlz calm.erm sau nru vrrmv relmrMQl l alml ,a x°nn ,axe 9rt @a11Ne A,la URTTT LOCAl1�6 Rllal ro pGVAIM1fx /a)5,1MaA. nR EmilaDl s,luA a xaRCD m4ouT¢T u Axrc drmsuao AIR .x�ew y z — .AcTUR 9,YL Imp ro YIOwRCM1Y r,Ya rm FsecT IacAriaa Yo RESTxulr_ sam v..volr, orT RonwES. RrYrs. rRllaT 000ti RRL04 91xLx0 DntlQQIS [RACr mIEA10 UaU1T orwYla ,.canals .,a Duct wunax Ym xuTmT ar aam�wa ' O1frei :n ®mv, u. w maanwl z ec m ,aaTw.r¢ .,x „c axlaalT tonmx a orwvAnol ar -SrYmYm SPEanGrgG ran mU1W F1avAllal Arc 9.nU0.1/TJ1CAR Or •� �.aor A9 PREwYaD eY 111E OrY n1v1[FID ASSDaATN 1. �amlr® uxx.Vm AREAS ARE ro R[mvE rpm xDFS 6 rovsos SaT aA 4rA 1104 YR.S eL -.Rpm WR . 1EILLl11Y 4IAIx �WWT.rm S[E IAxaY.p[ RM rat Rllxlxa Arx 1U16 �} s T c A—A .- aE � a raowoxa " xAM-mro mECnm1AE YTC m11xGl oEVUS Sua1 aNAs eYNaGEa. wYaNe eats. 9p; RAOrtx Yes 00115 10 TpaE eR YopvnlT 6 Tpr,rro ar TUE K NERSappT. plA¢1al,T a nRS o[T+m s1Ya a Mx1°4a ExOxEp ro xAmlpT. xMS cNnR aETV 9 sWl CPfUx AT ro --ATE -root e,AxoA -s 0. l TRACIaR 91YL UMraRUET wAeE YEAS xM1 Uxl9 R GR/aM0 NA nnaSWE A -a01H I,MSxm 91Rr11� xIN unto- S11PE9 BEIRFY Pm1r9 wp11pE' FUEVAaNS Y1E SNaN OI 9ElY@1 m01 xmn9 NA EASmO T. IM9® FA .11pDlD Au RMT - o� nrAGTE /aa1�9m suprus -AM 9 D ^/! O6 ffE SaLS p(Pp1 rN FAY[xFNT / `�`, s1YS xloxom A RETYING w,tu vsoi� ' 9. w1RALT01 ,` QA1e® eT . Il0Y5m ppsE •EnnROI. ::� � ;; is Ys aTrsxucuml 91.11 ILGY. s T1E pATp1Y .w aaO,YeGE NNAIAI,i101I n n xauoxc nOapT gFamaxEllR 11, t n C Cxa ,,. YL xas .,x R.rzmus Tr M 1,1'E�aIx1/Ia�rF�,D 1 ¢arEawRr p l Ux9xAB uwa As YlE A U! QUROnaL pOx[Lr. r1[ rN 91Y1 E R[40®1E fA WOOx.,ma YL P[OII1m 1a Ar1a r®[GOaa wM T11E p>D.ow• „wt1mE ¢alEarar [x06IA �a��� A. X PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C 4 1 1 ' Io• - .. .- .- � mrlCn�nQ I ' 5 —STORY FCRTCIIVG-R7MP--- n,aro cwtw I 1 �cxmcr[nnn taunn ¢xu I ' rut 51m A1M m vr'wrn i , MEDICAL OFFICE '63,000 S.F. 1 FFE= 876.00 Z � CD , 1 I m• -ir rut grow- 1 t[wca a s.os r� ism TwR ro euaomo n:.emn w[ rx�rtm � I c- ee•.es I I 1 I � -' " rsmucrtrn a�ilai aim mt � ¢ at•L wy[ E -eRfA eplrtlR 9Aw¢ _ w 1, . t taxtct ro ors,wm w raYUrr wm 4tT �Y tl w w w so p NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION e: ' =r. e.ar. ®aaYa TATE Q1E CALL y .n arc w.r ear- •s• -aom I rre. rm n.. r- sm- :at_rres Geleal UtWty Notes EDINA CROSSTOWN ' MEDICAL LLC ° r. m[ caR.crm rs w[¢iuur cwnaae nur rw[ [OGna! wmn u. I uzv,rior w ussme ururws .s swrw ow rwtg rws wa e etmans ¢ >R vwewa rne)n mrrerao wm rnmm ewwvsmr[wrs rwml a m nua me ewwurmr s "�, wor et rmm a N eawc E u W carnrrz nrt ca+a,crow a.... v[wn [wmm mana+a rnq Rwror ww wwrsr nc oamr a aYartrn v EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING z wt sweTUrc stet arwer swm wo w,rm www emwurua awt 4010 65th STREET et rw w'ixawr. wureno w¢ ,row n •tmm•w¢ .,w nc ammort WEST nr�wu,r¢nr-iro werwrtstru s�n.mwunar was mnwww n rrc arc armr¢la wsmo,riw ¢ ura[sorw EDINA, MN a rwca ro aN4a11cnaL ne mrn,crar sw,u OBT/el 11w wE�,wr rma,t s,¢ ,so t¢x rump Toa rrw rea'osm wvw a utrai - wraw>sm ws arw nE owm a mariaw nr,T rvmn w,vt ems+ ®T,ran. r.mer ¢row¢ teurwr uu�,xan wTM r'Mic rto'�.�un 6 ra mrm•crm urnca wars[ •. �m,t'mw swwz Haul m ManTECMiI1 awn rm roc* tarwrm+ arpl9alS Or anpnw,K aIJV� rNUd OOIXA PfROSE 9M➢Ma `� �. TpYa90rs NID MCI aaClw URlli CLawtnd tLC,nd9. ��� S wl rcev,rt rlalln3 Se,rl BE WrarMmrm R ,fIDmw4 wml nE _ _ aA[wlGrrRn ¢ M WTwle,rt Uriurc COwr,wr, mE aflR,Crw SwwL twaaar,rE 112 aEllw¢ Lm: allarRll'11aw 111M M Uallr �r� GoPwE 1 6 Nwa.Crar 9rwL ®Troll wL MC¢S,nY arc rF)mrs M U11Urc RTC , tw[crols wm urtnas slwt et e®[crm ,wo ,mlmm ei nw Mohapan , ■ ■ arc. Marc Swwl wurewo •a -rW/l9 rRm m OAdU1DA wM Ho �n .. nrt vrtlrc m wn iaa� rmow cvin,crw scar. �. wwr oU,rG MowDa .nt mw2nr rv[ w was m w r,r AralRe�el µY qIM Y,a ®Ow>la ro IIE Orc UreLSS ou[i ,UnrnrnIID ro w I ° sa er rlw an. wli MvprsE GL�tRamll65 v SulmwID a " _ , I uwsawnum osmm�wa a sm+¢ ro ra wait ,wt ro a rte IRSPOYa6al1Y w M maTn,craa w,rfA YWl ID1aMa /9 awp1N wa ,prwpww,lE wbWtrwl,t IFwM9. '. ,uww cal ,oanax,[ nrt www earwum w awts a wml w[zcnale ,wt lrtae�ao. ce mwr wrceliws e.• , xor n® nw , •mnn lwrneolom e. rrc cwt w.wur,rnma d, m inr t mR r Yomren 1 ° wwar�ismGiei :';�m�mrorsr°�wlrnrcailmwamun w „ar a..� I e �.m.Ylr uurirwt sau,ruw a re woes rs ezarnm ,r wt w,rtn n rn ,� cn®lo wm s,wrwrc atwm w arrow sws[ rimMm, I a wn�^wwaa�sm.r m rwrtn�•r[ s• wrsot aaam wwi uatss ns.ove ..uso 1 ° rrarrmr rmur� � Y,n]nLL9 SYNL Lpw[i wim rw ire A M aT. _ _ A rpt ro et amrtz wow wet MW a sz uw r.a w"'.r'°1Oi w°aPOmwr nR)1ag wrm. 01wfo aM , raen ¢ .a REl ¢ mb1. 1 I rz rtL 9,aTMr 5[wm SuveE pePE ro E M mr -r uru� wrrmlwQ m rmwPIM I rx cowux,Tt .0 swnrulr, sraw wro w,TFA sww¢ mmtcnalc wro r .rxt arc a mx, uiaxmaxa ,wo roam canes ov,nm[wr twsznTemp 1 •. tU111R,crUP awl YuTrww wz -aw.T wNrs rrwauarour tv+snwcwr ww slmT nest rrnws ro wal¢n woo tnlalanw a' want / l ! � I UHl1ty Legend I O� � .mnrwrr ux[ 1 rtiaYrrlT — 1 ° aam rxo arrtn w —a snrer,ei sawn swerwrc strove con¢ wlw I — � —a srwY srww rmnrmm _ c rrw Y,a anec m. Q . ' 7O uwwaroum ocnrae m .es UIIII 1 OWewAa azcrmc R ram I RE�i � uMmmawe 1[Ill'Na! ° vEO nw>r�ln rtrmlora ..mn..n C CU ntmrart rrem o•m c,aE nuwaox ua vuut - w,nm vro scnw from nseev) � rc PRELIMINARY 1p ��•� UTILITY PLAN 8 �J e CITY SUBMITTAL ® C5 00000000000 O O O�O�O�O O OOO OHO 00 00 - 00 I� 1 ��� ��.7i`ifrr. °_u o�oon..� �='= := asa�'�.� ... :��m:�� ►-:._:DLO,_= '��•P�.l� - .��±S'��� �.ir� "► -j emu► CROSSTOWN JMEDICAL LLC ®INA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BURDING 408165th STREET W. RMIA, MN ■.;L:�� /� \C' .:/ I 900 rr'p�p p�00000 pr 0..�p� �': ::� 00��I +r � � O I }� ppOp A �•� �1:: 6.5th, Street W, Vs est .� —„-.' -.cam �• � ^':'' %e * tttt�ttt�t•® tI -- a®v 1010' MI. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN tttt�ts� Y ®° oo� mmw '® rr -ar-a _ tom• r. -. I,.m- GREEN ottttte� v ROOF SCHEDULE PLANTING SCHEDULE 3 MohaW Hanaen nrdanm•v .� a om v vvvaa � m 12M PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN & SCHEDULE Carr SUBtArrrAL A� L1 STATE HKa MAYtNO, (a e _ • � i s (F lift _ Hill a FAIRVIEW is I PAKIm/C CAKAGE SOIIRpVF SrR 1 _ OOM0. I OOMABLCA t Tom! ^ r� raw K OF m/M ` 0 Moilill A 7 t o f f k ^' igFi 511ffE W. r •f t REGIONAL SITE PLAN ..e -e SITE DATA _ 20106 t7ASSIFICAT OM .RUM SET SAGO aa� )v a KKAOC won, waf♦m a annnn Mmnrr. rnaenn� PARK04G SE1 IIAM A a e1KP4 won, Mi 6 aURP M9w¢ �SPRn RM1 )e' a MOMi wan, nl�piwl n a6AnA � auKFD )a a e).ae woe. fFnnn PARKING KFQUENAAeR Mn0 )a 1V6 R119pn! • M) D1 P.115 Raenm (ems 9gwf� < LLVns T Ol7}rtA IDx1. ..naafi n ie sK)s w eevuw a �F swu __— _. SM AREA G40ILAIIM amaKe A eune; muFCc aKOw rrton� urrao - nm m 4)ewa ease rF, �K ,ease 4,.a))r9 cas � Ps )xn n� a.nc ramam sawn 4 usaas nn), ar ns 4 ism�in eee wt aea s sn xnn rone erne s awaee rw)wen/vn an�vmarr) puunc mrtn MAn 4mre 4- >s elCpnnl6/4n NeMRRwn eYWMS ei,r 4m.re s- m sea score 4- m leM 4m.� 4• lIi < iD W oj cl T 's �TREET W FIRST FLOOR PLAN as at EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL LLC EDINA CROSSTOWN I MEDICAL BUILDING - - - 4010 65th STREET W. EDINA, MINNESOTA Mehow Hrssn Ip man r e mm n rf vv� .o rill � �s 1 - -- m —o i nTM- FIRST FLOOR PLAN CCTV SUBMITTAL (1) A2.1 5 r�� at � ax a� at a� a�c ar � ra� ra ra va ae es a-Y a-a ec EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL LLC I I I I EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING STREET , EDINA, MINNESOTA f - -- '- - -- _ - -- Mnhag. Hanson § B I I e l I �ECOND RO¢R 20847 PLAN I I p M P2 I n STALLS , , I ' 2"O 1 Y��YN� - - -- >Ag1o06P� 16Ynr - - -- �� —I - -- �:E'®a �® A l Ma®{ a p _ I , I I I I 1 p Irmlmu •.fie 2�0! I E - - -- I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 Imrranac I I I I I I I S� t SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1 t Ma, 1 £ SECOND FLOOR PLAN CITY SUBMfTT A2.2 ae � ae 4 ae I ae � ae } ae � ae Ire }Ire � Ire I Ire Iael a-v � � 1 � I 1 � 4 G v `� THIRD FLOOR PLAN a l E b MINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL LLC EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING 4010 65th STREET W. EDINA, MINNESOTA Me n Ha Hanasn w mapilr wry f� I woI mai na ve Iun o°�°imir om vmm iIa l�O 1 � � Ya u ®IIC1®.'I uF01 w La a rr mm ar..ima wLl�t� mnnY •�0 1650! A aid` I� 19.�P0 Q >a1R LL �aUR 61WWIIM NO ��M oo0m 6C�OR 6n uma I®rlrrlmc anuna a5me THIRD FLOOR PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL A2.3 3' A, oft t s Irr� I II _ JAI I I I I �r�rl re rs• Irs r-r sa- r I I I I 1 1 1 1 —T EDINA CROSSTOWN - MEDICAL LLC I I - - _ EDINA CROSSTOWN ' MEDICAL BUILDING 4010 65th STREET W. — - I 4 I p EDINA, MINNESOTA q I FOl1RTF1 BOOR' I lu I p p I I I 0 i5F Hanpn ve • I I I I - �%.P • 1 I I�p1 s.rrra Imo p LL P4 I T! STALLS I I I I I I I I n PEMH �a Ewa re Ilia ° wmE amuu puI. �.e, fmoe�oe 4 _ ®Iw .m1."OUI°i n°In aais�' amI • � I I I I I I I I I I mw .� an...n. awa I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I FOURTH FLOOR PLAN - -- IiL• C` '0 •,� vmn m MpVo..s.....ms FOURTH FLOOR $ a PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL FIB A2.4 p I I I I L p I I I I LLLI C - -- — I • I p PSI n STALLS tt I _ V I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 LEVEL PS • PARKING RAMP S re Ire r na Ira # Ira as �___ >Q I I� EDINA CROSSTOWN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p I I I I L p I I I I LLLI C - -- — I • I p PSI n STALLS tt I _ V I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 LEVEL PS • PARKING RAMP S re Ire r na Ira # Ira as �___ >Q I I� EDINA CROSSTOWN I I I I I I I I I MEDICAL LLC I I I I I I I I I I I I EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING - - — — - - — - — ' - - - — - 4070 65th STREET W. EDINA,- MINNESOTA I I I I I § b _ x-- 11 -- � III I I - - - I I I � I 1 p FOI.A�tLT�H BOOR I I a� IIj MHNHne �. PENTHO n n 6.205 . . em'm1O°olaaa"o°sr m — - - — - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I p - - — A501 wa wa u°.a swmal � m Y��'1C3 � Ran JAM LEVEL P5 PARKING b _ RAMP CITY SUBMITTAL _Tll T 6 7 8 9 ` - rs l as a-v a-r na� na as ae rs� ralr sa ra w< c'�c —� as na �'° I I EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL LLC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING ' - -- - - - — - - — - 4 - — - 4010 65th STREET W. EDINA, MINNESOTA _ �_ —_ _ _ _ _ •oum _ _L� � - - n MHanw Nw �� TTUT rc P6 r • r.�.. 75 STALLS enact • 1 914. I I MR 9 m� _ 4 - -- - -- LA n•.00a+ e... ®oe woe � v�oar E- - - -- -- - I I I I I I I I LEVEL P6 • PARKING RAMP/ROOF PLAN I I I I I I I I I I J c J C s R" 1QOB A a ti LEVEL P6 PARKING S RAMP 1 CITY SUBMITTAL A26 IN I ffli` I HT -1, It'll-: ; I 111 wool dJ c REGIONAL SITE SECTION - NORTH /SOUTH vw[r wn naru a u�oESai� w1v urm `PAMM REGIONAL SITE SECTION - WEST/EAST S I EDINA CROSSTOWN I MEDICAL LLC EDINA CROSSTOWN I . BUILD MEDICAL ING 4010 65th STREET W. EDINA, MINNESOTA Moliapan Han�sn MddM1Car/ u ob w mmnm w o� imam � ,am awn e umm mvo¢ A ®R• d� mIW1�A CYm! REGIONAL SITE SECTIONS CITY SUBMITTAL A3.1 ' MINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL LLC oomos 7n — MINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING 4010 65th STREET W. MINA, MINNESOTA 3 1 ' 1 !ffnxEn En I III HavM cvr Qap BURRING SECTION - SOUTH BAY ar...�a maoa — vJ I i •r� l BUILDING SECTION - NORTH BAY {y rxv®.1 aHv MAY 2 1 JON � ^� F .y BUILDING a SECTIONS CITY SUBMITTAL. A3.2 . LOGISMap Output Page 6309 22162'1'17 '6317 4213 �b325 420. fi32.4 4200 HXOIWA V B2 HIGH WA V M.— £ae 4015 .1� P 1 6609--T 4jVl 66'2 ',861766D8;_ 6D9, �66Y6�`6621,6616 `567 > > �656� 6620 l �.6E20 1 66171 6624 6624 16621{ 969121 46705'6700 701 I6709�670d �66 705 670E p y +6 713�.67YZ 16713 El r7 6716 6717 I6805'680D 1x6891 16804 fi805 8r�i 8131` X904 46'17, 6908 ,690! 146B912 f i \—� \,6825;, rfi916 f 6905 - .6900 fi913 �6B29a 6920/69D9 6977,' 69D4 69n1� 6921.6y2a'6913. 6908 b90f 6932 2174bQ12 69.05 69QD,6909 `` X16 6909 691: 6936 6925�i. 6904 fi940 6929 8920 fi913;6908` �6917- 241617.4912' :6921 6964 I 6928 8921 6916 f 6125 6944 6941.6932 6925 6920' 4929 692 69331 EX ( S�ItiG j-- 6304 —t6309 1 f ]/6: 5 - 6313 6317 6312 6Jt J fip� 6313 % p'1� 6 x6321 6316 6317163 0 6 x6325 6329 6324 6326 16321 ,6320 � 6325 1 ,T{6 2 6133 �6 rc.5 9363 ,fir FgR as Rags m u� A S ?2 y �! ssrx, G 4�4'ys � r4 ^ z 4040 3905 6950 x0170017000 iDOt17000 7 Y� p90T 7005 7004 70057000 005 ° '0 7005 7006 700970 08 11 si_ami a'- 4zIH> j.vr CC L:.' 2]]"> 3625 A 1A 6517 4 6525 3:4DD 6533 4� 13+ i !OD 1 O 9� FAak of 1 631'L D 163 III 6400 I 1 1'6476 24164201 64261 0 6453 64321 6525 250 ` 33D 3316 350" E 3425 acrc5 2D() � 66M f 30D 24 24 3500 ;4DAiF564y�RD BD7M 57 W 3501 24 �24_ �4t —�Ra4 24 3i OI 3501 0^-_'^°- 3101 /3 " 3230 6725 5755 6775 6715 r— y 6803 6805 y 6825 3201 1 3101 fi97�310° 7001 It r �1 Rte' hcjEA G BEAK a Fsi G A 3s�� ►� -7 4 Crc S lij 1 sG3 s. F. *Tore. FAR •3z FAR 0065 ND�- INCLODE ��e kas P ji-h L - A-5 ExC-MQ l PA RCEL -, 1_-- „—.`I7 !lr`_7C T,C)GrTSMan OV &ClientVersi... 11/14/2007 Mid LOGISMap Output Page e L of 1 r �� 63041 6309 �5304i6309�� ���Bi08 r s 631s31n 6309 4221421? 4216 308 631 6 ?92 . '13'6317 631? 6313r� 6313 h�E 6304 0 '6321 E317 4213 42t2 311 �" 317J6316 632E 631 0317,6316 6317 �M�1 L i—� 6325 4209 4208 6316 a 632 6320 6325 4 6321 6320' SD 6_36 3 42A 632 6329 6328 6329 6325 �36632E m 6333 6331 D 6i'�I Sa ct<S n o O� Ah� nve2 r /6�3 424 64DO� I f, q AY C2 O 1!t 24 6400 Q 640BI . 1 VV I S [� X24 6416 4'0!8 10 6401, O 15420 6�0 6455 !6432' y d438 _ ... 4075 R�` .� �--I db05 6500 a %' 3625 65 6525 6517 �, 0 6 b545 24 6523 3400 3250 1 � 3316 .S r 4 P413330 652 Q51 O'Y►�141 \ 6533 G67H ST W 66094207 4% 6616613; / �. 6bb5� 5f1 3425 3200 3101 661 Cd.08i. 6661 �Z Aces `3� 4acs 321 6616 `663!1 661& ,`6673 „„ rt �j ( 616 X662,629 6 1!6647 'i'� 1 d " �� 0 J p 4x S� 6624 16624 1l6621 C ' 3230 3 4 :6700 6705;67°0 6701 40 200 6 6 6704 LL4 6704 16709 1 5 670 671367702 67Q3 S F�Q)D7 6712 !671767}6 O 6717 66DO 'rc X6 A801,6800 G80 30 +UB F0303 �4 '60, 804 d80 ,,6611 �q 755 6775 18 9 iG808 ��6809 r�y 6900 ,b8i36900 6813 6775 6901 - 6904 6817 j 9: 6905 6008 690! 4682!j 24 .009.:6912f M l �6825j m 6803 6913 16 /6905.6900 `682gy 24 6805 6920,�69D9, - 6917,' 6964 6901x, ,4 6978661 `3,690B 590 ? 696909 > 6825 E9329Y} :6912 6905:600 1 3500 6936602-5 6 15909.6904 6913 7f taAL� S�EV 6940 6029 692# 15913 6908` :6917 BG7N t7 h' i1�.6924 6917 6912 ` ,15921 894, 6928 69216916/ :6925 3939 3905 6900 3501 21 3201 6948 6941693? 25.6920! 6929 3101 J �� j .6 92S 6924' -6933 b937 6950 24_ �t1 + ;U4 15945 422! 4209. 1_ 6941 i0 3950 24 3100 20$.4 6 4208 4200' 853 6.449 391E 6996 70TH 5T �4201-70bi 7 000 �0017000 7001 '7001 7Dos7004 70057004 7D ° 7004 70097008 700G7006 35oi 3501 7 ac�rc5 304, 9 ab = 1f 0 FAR PAR CliaAi RFS. 7001 7,3�fr� +b f 33 1) 7,3�1i4" ,.,�.,.� ,;�,,�� �,•„R nr.TC Arr^T%4q /irnc ?CPrvir.PName =ed LOGISMav OV &ClientVersi... 11/14/2007 w � y MEMORANDUM - Plan Review ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT a CITY OF EDINA DATE: May 22, 2008 TO: Cary Teague — City Planner FROM: Wayne Houle — Director of Public Works / City Engineer SUBJECT: Proposed Crosstown Medical Building 4010 West 65th Street Engineering has reviewed plans for the above stated project and offer the following comments: O The Edina Transportation Commission (ETC) has accepted the Traffic Impact Study, see attached Traffic Impact Study and draft minutes from the May 15, 2008 ETC meeting. O A Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit with a courtesy review by Ninemile Creek Watershed will be required. O An executed pond expansion agreement will be needed for this project. Sheet — C2 Removals Plan: 1. Show storm sewer connection, if this exists, for storm sewer catch basins in middle of property. 2. Remove westerly sanitary sewer service wye at main. Sheet — C3 Preliminary Site Plan: 1. Show dimensions of radii at driveways. Sheet — C5 Preliminary Utility Plan: 1. Please respond with what will be done with the storm water that is stored on site. Will this be able to percolate and at what rate. 2. Replace easterly sanitary sewer service all the way to main or reline with CIPP liner. This is the first review of these plans. Staff will require a more detail review of the Civil Plans if this project is approved by the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this first review. Thanks h 33 GAEngineering \General \60 - 69 Streets\4010 West 65th Street\20080522 review of Crosstown Medical Bullding.doc Page 1 of 2 Edina Transportation Commission Item IV. b. REGULAR TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Transportation Commissioners Agenda Item No.: IV. b. From: Jack Sullivan, PE ,S ACTION: Assistant City Engin ® Recommendation /Motion Date: M, ay 1. 5, 2008 ® Discussion Subject: Transportation F-1 Information Impact Analysis — 4010 W 65th St. — Crosstown Medical Office Recommendation: Review the attached transportation impact analysis submitted by Wenck dated April 23, 20L and review a memo dated May 7th, 2008 from WSB and Associates. Currently staff and our traffic consultant WSB feel that this transportation submittal is not yet complete. Staff, WSB and Wenck are working to resolve the outstanding items listed in the attached memo prior to the Edina Transportation Commission meeting on May 15, 2008. Currently the conditions of the approval are: 1. This development shall address all comments in WSB's May 7, 2008 memo to the satisfaction of the ETC and Engineering Department. 2. To participate in appropriate cost sharing for signal improvements at 65th Street and France Avenue. Therefore staff is withholding a recommendation on this project pending the resolution of the outstanding issues. Info /Background: Staff received a proposal for a 76,966 sq ft medical office facility and parking structure on *' site of the existing two story office building located on the north side of 65th Street just wes the Fairview parking ramp. ,AA G:\Enginemng\Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \Transportation Comrrrission\Agendas\2008 R&R\ 20080515_ 4010W65th _Medical_Office_Traf5c_study.doc Page 2 of 2 Edina Transportation Commission Item IV. b. The traffic study covers three development scenarios ranging from the proposed building footprint and parking ramp up to incorporating the existing bank at 4018 W. 65th Street. The evaluation of the traffic study was based on the site layout of the 76, 966 square foot building and parking ramp. The largest concern of the development is due to the additional traffic generated at the intersection of W. 65th and Valley View and W. 65th and. France Avenue. Both the Valley View intersection and France Avenue intersections are closely tied to Highway 62 interchanges and County roadway network. All turn lane lengths, lane usage, turn movements and level of service will need further study to ensure appropriate operations. A35 G:\EngineeringVnfras=cture \Streets \Traffic \Transportation Conurission\Agendas\2008 R&R\ 20080515_ 4010W65th _Medical_Office_Tmffic_Study.doc Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director /City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: May 7, 2008 Re: Edina Crosstown Medical Building — 410 65`" Street Traffic Study Review City of Edina WSB Project No. 1686 -02 As requested, we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. for the proposed Edina Crosstown Medical Building located at 4010 65"b Street West. The proposed development is located between France Avenue and Valley View Road on the north side of 65th Street. The analysis included review of three development scenarios including: Scenario 1— 88,472 Square Feet of development Scenario 2 — 117,973 Square Feet of development Scenario 3 — 117,973 Square Feet of development and a 540 space parking ramp addition Based on our review of the Edina Crosstown Medical Building Traffic Impact Analysis, the following questions and comments are made. 1. In the existing conditions section under the existing roadway network, reference is made to Valley View Road carrying three lanes of traffic in each direction with a raised median. I believe this condition applies only to the intersections and not as a typical condition. This should be clarified and revised. 2. A figure should be provided which shows all existing lane configurations adjacent to the site including turn -lane configurations and approximate turn -lane lengths. 3. In the traffic forecasting section the 2011 no -build condition indicates the existing traffic counts were increased by 2 percent per year to determine the 2011 no -build volumes. What was the basis for the 2 percent per year growth? Were other approved developments in the area considered as part of the background no -build V l 3 � ' GAEogmeenglGmer2116D - 69 SV=LSW010 Wes 651D Svm\20080507 mn� Ricl®n_WSB_MEMOw bode- 050708 Medical Bldgdoc WSB701 - Infrastructure ■ Engineering ■ Planning ■ Construction Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 &Associates, Inc. Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 5414600 Fax: 763 541 -1700 Memorandum To: Wayne Houle, PE, Public Works Director /City Engineer Jack Sullivan, PE, Assistant City Engineer City of Edina From: Chuck Rickart, PE, PTOE Transportation Engineer WSB & Associates, Inc. Date: May 7, 2008 Re: Edina Crosstown Medical Building — 410 65`" Street Traffic Study Review City of Edina WSB Project No. 1686 -02 As requested, we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc. for the proposed Edina Crosstown Medical Building located at 4010 65"b Street West. The proposed development is located between France Avenue and Valley View Road on the north side of 65th Street. The analysis included review of three development scenarios including: Scenario 1— 88,472 Square Feet of development Scenario 2 — 117,973 Square Feet of development Scenario 3 — 117,973 Square Feet of development and a 540 space parking ramp addition Based on our review of the Edina Crosstown Medical Building Traffic Impact Analysis, the following questions and comments are made. 1. In the existing conditions section under the existing roadway network, reference is made to Valley View Road carrying three lanes of traffic in each direction with a raised median. I believe this condition applies only to the intersections and not as a typical condition. This should be clarified and revised. 2. A figure should be provided which shows all existing lane configurations adjacent to the site including turn -lane configurations and approximate turn -lane lengths. 3. In the traffic forecasting section the 2011 no -build condition indicates the existing traffic counts were increased by 2 percent per year to determine the 2011 no -build volumes. What was the basis for the 2 percent per year growth? Were other approved developments in the area considered as part of the background no -build V l 3 � ' GAEogmeenglGmer2116D - 69 SV=LSW010 Wes 651D Svm\20080507 mn� Ricl®n_WSB_MEMOw bode- 050708 Medical Bldgdoc Wayne Houle and Jack Sullivan City of Edina May 7, 2008 Page 2 of 3 traffic? Developments such as the Westin and Target Development should be included as part of this background number. 4. The traffic generation section indicates that the traffic generation for the orthopedic use was estimated based on anticipated staffing and scheduling. The assumptions on how this was determined should be documented. 5. Scenario 3 addition indicates a significant increase in traffic would be generated from the parking ramp. How is this determined? Typically, a parking ramp does not generate traffic, it's the uses associated with the parking ramp. If this parking ramp is providing parking for new uses, those uses should be documented as part of this study. If this parking ramp is replacing or supplementing from another use, then the diversion of traffic from those other facilities should be documented as part of a study. 6. In the trip distribution section of the report, the distribution to France Avenue and TH 62 to the east seems low when comparing to other studies in the area. A more detailed determination of how these figures were determined should be provided. These distributions should be compared to other proposed, approved projects in the area. 7. The forecasted a.m. and p.m. peak -hour traffic volume figures (Figure 3 -1 and 3 -3) do not show the traffic volume information for the project driveways. These should be included as part of the figures and analyses. 8. As part of the Traffic Analysis, a table should be provided which documents the level of service, delay, and queue length for each approach, and overall, for each time period at each intersection. This table would be a quick reference to compare each scenario with the no -build condition. 9. The Traffic Analysis section indicates some queue analysis was completed but does not document the queue lengths and available queue storage. This should be documented specifically on France Avenue where issues have been seen. 10. The intersection of France Avenue and 65t' Street has been a concern of the City with the existing conditions and proposed improvements to the hospital and medical buildings on the east side of France Avenue. The impacts of this development on the east side should be clearly discussed, and it should be verified that all improvements assumed as part of previous studies are included. 11. The only improvement proposed as part of the study was the change of the signal phasing on the east and west approach at 65th Street. If this change is being proposed, it will have an impact on the entire France Avenue network and should be documented as part of the study. These intersections were included as part of the overall model provided by the City. A-37 G:En &=in9G =ffW 60 -69 Ser=\4010 Weg 651h Streri\ 70060507 _mndc_Rir]®n_WSB_MEA4O -dLodn 050708 M.&W H1dg.dm Wayne Houle and Jack Sullivan City of Edina May 7, 2008 Page 3 of 3 12. This study does not document any impact from the. proposed development driveways on 65"' Street. The study should document their level of service and required, if any, improvements on 65'�' Street. 13. The transit impact section discusses all the transit routes located in the area. This should be expanded to include a discussion on how this development will utilize the transit service. The purpose of this is to help "relieve" traffic in the area and promote Travel Demand Management (TDM). 14. The bicycle and pedestrian impact section has a discussion of the sidewalks in this general area. This should be expanded showing figures of existing and proposed pedestrian facilities, as well as the pedestrian facilities proposed as part of the proposed project. Based on these comments and my general review of the site configuration and the traffic impact study, additional information and analysis should be provided before any approval recommendation can be made. AA G.EnglnceemBKimcell6o . 69 S..sWl0 Wen 651L Suw%7oo6o667_muck_Ridmn N'SB_MEMO- wbmle- D50706 Medical Bld6.dm Wenck File. #2047-01 Prepared for: Crosstown Medical, LLC Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P.O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 -0249 (763) 479 -4200 }j3O� Transportation Impact Analysis for Edina Crosstown Medical Building 4010 65th Street West Edina, Minnesota April 23, 2008 �Wenck Executive Summary The purpose of this Transportation Impact Analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed medical building located at 4010 65`x' Street in Edina, Minnesota, between Valley View Road and France Avenue. This study examined traffic impacts of the proposed development on the following intersections: • Valley View Road/65t' Street • Valley View Road/Westbound TH 62 Ramp • France Avenue/65`h Street • France Avenue/Eastbound TH 62 Ramp • France Avenue/Westbound TH 62 Ramp In addition to traffic related impacts, impacts to on -site parking, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit were also examined. Discussions with the project team and city staff resulted in the establishment of three development scenarios to be analyzed. The three scenarios are summarized below: • Scenario 1: Replaces the existing building at 4010 65th Street West with a new 88,472 square foot building which will house a 60,000 square foot orthopedic office and 28,472 square feet of medical office space. The current site plan for the proposed building is shown in Figure 1 -2. • Scenario 2: Includes the Scenario 1 development at 4010 65th Street West plus the replacement of the existing bank on the 4018 65th Street West parcel with a 29,501 square foot medical office building. • Scenario 3: Includes the Scenario 2 developments at 4010 and 4018 65th Street West plus the addition of two levels to the existing parking ramp at 6400 France Avenue South. Each of the development scenarios is expected to utilize existing access along 65th Street. The project is expected to be completed in 2010. The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development will generate 211 trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 321 trips during the weekday PM peak hour under Scenario 1, 284 AM and 431 PM peak hour trips under Scenario 2, and 432 AM and 557 PM peak hour trips under Scenario 3. A' o The study intersections of have adequate capacity with existing geometncs and control to accommodate the proposed development while maintaining acceptable levels of service. It is recommended that protective /permissive phasing be used for the eastbound and westbound approaches of 65th Street at France Avenue to alleviate potential operations issues for the left tam movements. The development traffic is not expected to require any other changes to the existing roadway network. • With the inclusion of dedicated visitor and staff parking area, parking impacts for the proposed facility are expected to be minimal. • No significant impacts are expected to the existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities due to the proposed project. Ii Na l Table of Contents Page 1.0 Purpose and Background ...................... ................................................. ............................1 -1 2.0 Existing Conditions ....................................................... ............................... ..................... 2 -1 3.0 Traffic Forecast ................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 4.0 Traffic Analysis ............... ............................4 -1 ....................................... ............................... 5.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................... ............................5 -1 6.0 Appendix ............................................................................................ ............................... 6 -1 FIGURES Figure 1 -1: Project Location ..............1 -2 ........................................................... ............................... Figure1 -2: Site Plan ........................................................................................ ............................1 -3 Figure 2 -1: Existing Roadway Network ....................................................... ............................... Figure 3 -1: Trip Distribution ........................................................................ ............................... 3 -3 3 -4 Figure 3 -2: Forecasted AM Peak Hour Volumes ......................................... ............................... Figure 3 -3: Forecasted PM Peak Hour Volumes .............................. 3 -5 ............ ............................... Figure 4 -1: AM Peak Hour Levels of Service ..4 -4 ...................................... ............................... Figure 4 -2: PM Peak Hour Levels of Service .................................................. ............................4 -5 TABLES Table 3 -1: Trip Generation for Development Scenarios ............................... ............................... 3 -2 i � �a -.. .•�� T – '. 1/000MILLN QUK. J \ X 17 ST. F55 Q E. o AVE.. KENT v� OAK = DR. x W. 55 th a ¢ ST. o LL – w ? W a hG th v ¢ STAVE. o w r= a u QUO 55th St i m TER. WI L4 NOM EVl f` N LEXING TON 5T. > 't c O'e�`' L a Q� O C', va 9 u Z �'� , W. S T • I W. u YV ONNE /` 4V. W. 56 th $yO W i 24• a m ST. ?�!/tlelor y - �k• '' <¢° c TOWER WOODL 4 ryO a w. 57th W. J. SOUTHVIEW LA. OW L CONCORD RD. °� w ; P Lu "¢� TER. PHILBROOK LA' p0�Q• ; c c w 1 c a ,. th ST. i W th ST. c c w pVE. \, = c ~ o N w Lv OaIM ES o a a c c LA. c w ST. W. 59th 5T, u W. 59 th ST. 4. J p z W. 59 th 5T. N o o u RD. u z x w W = W ic w x° D w > > > a a HOOL W. 60 tLl p ° ST. a c a w ¢ u o ° W. c c c 60 th CLOVER U TER LA. v RIDGE z O' y4LLFY W zd o ✓ = a o 3 w " a o i 5T. o � w z w Z o a c o z o E u c LL W. 61 5t ST. W. e z o x x 2147 v EW �J CH WRVE� > a < RDa CU a W 62 nd n nd E2nd ST- 33. W. J 62 nd ST. `IIIV%%/__J O W o �a c 44• it a a W a HERITAG€ W• 62 nd z Z GpRRl SDry (4 w >^ a w ° DR. 63 th ST. d ¢ 35 0 36. > Y c c x 11 35. ¢ O Lu Lo W W U o W ¢ a > > a a a c o u ° "' 6Z W. 64 th T. > c W. i hh 5T. > Q 64 th ST. ¢ o r J c °¢ o z > c ; c > c O 3 J . q ¢ o a W. c 65 th ST. Z �_ z ? W ; > ¢ \ a > �3 a c ° r 66th ST• �n CD ¢ v w a W. a 66th O ST. W. i z a o ¢ o o Cam' °� UT H ALE 167� Ly E a N G oS \~ —l7 C ��� �—= ' ` PROJECT C1R. W. OCR FOR LpGV`a P • �J I� 68 to vi v R0 R Z} LOCATION > " " C" RfD�F PAYTDN BAL AN2 o R� UPPER RD. �c I i > c „" 68 APP CT. �24� gyp• gyp• PL414 N W TER- o JUDS 0ry YCnORD c0 Lz / 69th WAY �� �v 4 t v� h0 W. 69th ST. W. 69 �lON rz p DUNG p R4 S T. ERRY (4. p� 6 38. o IDD J a c a a c 70 W. 3 70th o > h� w ST. W. ' DR. LA%? ANDOVER w RD. c MAVELI c o i c j 31. HOLBORN AVE. 32. ROLF AVE. N W, 70 SAG 8EL ViDERE ASPgs�q LA. " of v~ zo m DR. 33. ROBERTS PL. x W. 71st RICI Ap C`gRFM ORF o ? _ HAZELTDN RO' x j W. 71� /z �Q( C 7Rt� !4 4SPASIA CfR (qRF " o a z 34. BIRCHCREST DR. or 25.`tGM D� 4y DUlyy4�RpRF W' 72 cT \'1�ca c �9CIR• o o 9tSl aST. 36. NANCYdLAT N G �p N •FORTH DR. a z = v crRO(r 37. MILLER'S LA. i c HIBISCUS FONDFLL ¢ 3B. CHURCH PL. / 1\ ST. > J !A CFc ' o° PHLO% f 3 a GILFORD DR. 3 z 0 6n = pR. z w J z a ¢ 1 J W O ¢ V APPROXIMATE SCALE x W I. AVE. Y > J C T. U 0 1600, TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FIGURE 1 -1 Wenck ANALYSIS FOR EDINA Z CROSSTOWN MEDICAL PROJECT LOCATION = BUILDING y a, 100 Purpose and Background The purpose of this transportation impact analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed medical office building located at 4010 65`h Street West in Edina, Minnesota. The project location is shown in Figure 1 -1. Study Intersections This study examined traffic impacts of the proposed development on the following intersections: • Valley View Road/65 b Street • Valley View Road/Westbound TH 62 Ramp • France Avenue /65th Street • France Avenue/Eastbound TH 62 Ramp • France Avenue/Westbound TH 62 Ramp In addition to traffic related impacts, impacts to on -site parking, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit were also examined. Development Scenarios Discussions with the project team and city staff resulted in the establishment of three development scenarios to be analyzed. The three scenarios are summarized below: e Scenario 1: Replaces the existing building at 4010 65th Street West with a new 88,472 square foot building which will house a 60,000 square foot orthopedic office and 28,472 square feet of medical office space. The current site plan for the proposed building is shown in Figure 1 -2. o Scenario 2: Includes the Scenario 1 development at 4010 65th Street West plus the replacement of the existing bank on the 4018 65th Street West parcel with a 29,501 square foot medical office building. ® Scenario 3: Includes the Scenario 2 developments at 4010 and 4018 65th Street West plans the addition of two levels to the existing parking ramp at 6400 France Avenue South. Each of the development scenarios is expected to utilize existing access along 65`h Street. The project is expected to be completed in 2010. SERVICE ACCESS -------------------------- - - - --T ---- ,--,,4AeWenck STREET W TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING FIGURE 1 -2 SITE PLAN APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 60' 2.0 Existing Conditions The proposed site currently consists of a single building containing general office and medical office uses. The project site is -on the block bounded by TH 62 on the north, Valley View Road on the west; 65th Street on the south, and France Avenue to the east. The development property is situated to the east of the existing bank on the northeast corner of the Valley View Road/65t' Street West intersection and to the west of the existing hospital parking garage. Full access is provided onto 65`h Street at two locations. Existing Roadway Network One lane of travel in each direction and a two -way left -turn lane are provided on 65`h Street. Valley View Road carries three lanes of traffic in each direction with a raised median south of TH 62. North of TH 62, Valley View Road carries one lane of traffic in each direction. France Avenue carries three lanes of traffic in each direction with a raised median south of TH 62. North of TH 62, France Avenue carries two lanes of traffic in each direction. The existing roadway network adjacent to the development property is shown in Figure 2 -1. The signalized intersection of Valley View Road and 65th Street provides one lane shared by left turn and right -turn movements on the westbound approach. The eastbound approach, which serves as the eastbound exit ramp from TH 62, consists of one shared through/left -turn lane and one free -flow right -turn lane. The northbound approach consists of three through lanes and one channelized right -turn lane. The southbound approach consists of one left -turn lane and one through lane. The southbound left turn operates on a permissive basis. Split phasing is used for the eastbound and westbound approaches. This intersection shares a controller with the intersection of Valley View Road and the westbound on ramp to TH 62. The intersection of Valley View Road and the westbound on ramp to TH 62 consists of two exclusive left -turn lanes and one through lane on the northbound approach, and one through lane and one exclusive right -turn lane on the southbound approach. The northbound left turn operates with protected phasing. This intersection shares a controller with the intersection of Valley View Road and 65a' Street. The signalized intersection of France Avenue and 65`h Street.provides one dedicated left turn lane, one through lane and one right -tam lane on the westbound approach. The eastbound approach consists of one left -turn lane and one through/right -turn lane. The northbound approach consists of an exclusive left -turn lane, three through lanes, and one exclusive right -turn lane. The southbound approach consists of one left -tarn lane, two through lanes and one through/right -turn lane. The left turns from France Avenue operate on a protected basis. Permissive phasing is used on the 65`h Street approaches. The signalized intersection of France Avenue and the eastbound entrance ramp from TH 62 provides of one shared through/left -turn lane and one free right -turn lane on the eastbound 2 -1 approach. The northbound approach consists of two through lanes and one channelized right - turn lane. The southbound approach carries two through lanes and one exclusive left -turn lane. The southbound left turn lane operates using protective /permissive phasing. The signalized intersection of France Avenue and the westbound entrance ramp from TH 62 provides one exclusive left -turn lane and one shared left/through/right -tam lane. The northbound approach consists of one left turn lane and two through lanes. The southbound approach carries one through lane and one shared through/right -tam lane. The northbound left turn operates with protective /permissive phasing. Existing Traffic Data Turning movement volumes were obtained from the City of Edina for the AM and PM peak hours at the study intersections. Traffic counts were conducted at the existing access points for 4010 65`h Street West during the AM and PM peak hour in December 2007. Traffic counts were conducted at the parking garage access during the AM and PM peak hours on March 26, 2008. 2 -2 I E-�x la`s im g„ Bamk�� 1 ' Study Intersection ^" Wenck �f I T- .01 �RSI � •Wig p .,C � '' } (cif ill i��•�IT n ":�i�t t .�� r�l i TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING ALkt F N APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 240' FIGURE 2 -1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK i •1 .I r t< � ' A 7 s �• ..- E f F N APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 240' FIGURE 2 -1 EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK i 3.0 Traffic Forecast To adequately address the impacts of the proposed project, forecasts and analyses were completed for the year 2011. Weekday AM and PM peak hour traffic forecasts were completed for the following scenarios: • Existing (2007): Existing volumes were obtained at the subject intersections from the City of Edina. • 2011 No- Build: Existing volumes at the subject intersections were increased by two percent per year to determine 2011 no -build volumes. • 2011 Scenario 1: Trips generated by the proposed Scenario 1 development were added to the 2011 no -build volumes and trips generated by the existing building at 4010 65th Street West were subtracted to determine 2011 Scenario 1 build volumes. 2011 Scenario 2: Trips generated by replacing the existing bank at 4018 65th Street West with medical office space were added to the Scenario 1 volumes and trips generated by the existing bank were subtracted to determine 2011 Scenario 2 build volumes. • 2011 Scenario 3: Trips generated by the proposed expansion of the parking ramp at 6400 France Avenue South in Scenario 3 were added to the 2011 Scenario 2 volumes to determine 2011 Scenario 3 build volumes. Trip Generation Weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the orthopedic use was estimated based on the anticipated staffing and scheduling of the business. Generation for the proposed medical office development was calculated based on data presented in the seventh edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Trip generation for the parking ramp addition in Scenario 3 was estimated based on the observed rate of generation and approximate number of spaces created by the addition of two levels. 3 -1 ��ak The resultant trip generation is shown in Table 34. �. mY - 1_,. urr1WWnAV TR1FP GENERATION FOR DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS _ v -- - Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Size FE teri Exitin Total Enterin Eidtin Total Scenario 1 orthopedic Office 60,000 s . ft. 112 28 140 61 154 215 106 Medical Office 28,472 a±. 56 15 71 29 77 Scenario 1 Total 168 43 211 90 231 321 Scenario 2 orthopedic Office 60,000 s . ft. 112 28 140 61 154 215 Medical Office 1 57,973 s . ft. 114 30 144 I 58 158 216 Scenario 2 Total 226 58 284 119 312 431 Scenario 3 Ortho edic Office 60,000 s . ft. 112 28 140 61 154 215. Medical Office 57,973 s . ft. 114 30 144 58 158 109 214 126 Parldn Ram Addition 540 s aces 118 30 148 17 557 Scenario 3 To 344 88 432 136 421 Due to the nature of the land uses, it was assumed that no internal, diverted, or pass -by trips would occur with the proposed development. Trip Distribution Trip distribution percentages for the subject development trips were established based on the nearby roadway network, existing and expected future traffic patterns, and location of the subject development in relation to major attractions and population concentrations. The distribution percentages for trips generated by the proposed development are shown in Figure 3 -1. Trips generated by the expanded parking ramp trips traveling through the TH 62 ramps on France Avenue were distributed based on,the existing traffic patterns. Traffic Assignment The development trips for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 were assigned to the surrounding roadway network using the preceding trip distribution percentages. Traffic volumes were established for all the forecasting scenarios described earlier during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The resultant traffic volumes are presented in Figure 3 -2 and Figure 3 -3. 3 -2 N5 � TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL *Wenc BU ILDING N APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 400' FIGURE 3 -1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION N m� i0 O m TO WESTBOUND US 62 W TH 62 It f9 C* m N 10 0O W N _m �m NI•m FROM EASTBOUND US 62 W 65TH STREET 40143/43/43/43 261/ U33=501389 4521489/489/4891489 T f� 0 0 a� 86/83/107/1181133 9/10/14115/17 N p N S N 90 N N TO WESTBOUND US 62 FROM EASTBOUND US 62 75/81/81/81/81 -d` 21212128 —� 312133813353351344 2007 Existing AM Peak Hour Volumes 2011 No Build AM Peak Hour Volumes 2011 Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour Volumes 2011 Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour Volumes FF2011 Scenario 3 AM Peak Hour Volumes XXIXX/XX/XXM Y V enck FROM WESTBOUND US 62 &- 170/184/184/1841184 9- 41614501472/476/49D it o ww mo is N I TO EASTBOUND US 62 t� c� o �w oa aid o�N N ti N M ti� N w N 65TH STREET y 51/55/62/6699_&` -'L- 131/142/14211421142 151/1831163/183 /171 <— 48 52( 5 1 6/1 7/2 2/25125 —, , .� a n.- �aa aa� e& N NOTTO SCALE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR EDINA CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING Asa FIGURE 3 -2 FORECASTED AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES .Rem N A [� m m� TO WESTBOUND US 62 y TH 62 IT col �m m a� 11 m C1512 .[9 9 9 N1 FROM EASTBOUND US 62 W 65M STREET 28/30130130130 -h- 57/62W/100/103 -+ 381/412!4121412 /412 0 s t� H I- I �Cc e�e eo m m TO WESTBOUND US 62 FROM EASTBOUND US 62 81188188/86/86 -,` 0/0/0/0/o 179119411831193 /193 -� 2007 Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes 2011 No Build PM Peak Hour Volumes 2011 Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Volumes 2011 Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Volumes 2011 Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Volumes XXIXX 65TH STREET FROM WESTBOUND US 62 4-- 265 a7=7=71M F 0/0/000 330==757=4 1 I N else 3 g� vm �a I` 11 To EASTBOUND US 62 Tf s� o� oa �a om URL�� Jy6 88/95/1441160181 -J` 109/1181118/118 /142 118/128/1511167JI87 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT We ANALYSIS FOR EDINA �� � CROSSTOWN MEDICAL BUILDING AS3 4- 322/349/3491349 /349 g � 1121121/121/1211129 194/9 O N� a 0� a�`3e Ell i3 O N NOT TO SCALE FIGURE 3-3 FORECASTED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 4.0 Traffic Analysis Traffic analyses were completed for the subject intersections for all scenarios described earlier during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours using Synchro software. The analysis was completed using the analysis network obtained from the City of Edina for the study area. The initial analyses assumed no changes to existing intersection geometrics and control. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which range from A to. F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection. LOS F represents the worst intersection operation, with excessive delay for each vehicle using the intersection. Level of service results at the study intersections for each of the analysis scenarios are shown in Figure 4 -1 and Figure 4 -2. An analysis of each intersection is presented below. • Valley View Road and 65th Street. The intersection as a whole operates at LOS B during the weekday AM peak hour under all analysis scenarios. During the AM peak hour, all movements operate at LOS D or better under all analysis scenarios. During the weekday PM peak hour, the overall' intersection operates at LOS B under existing conditions and LOS C under all future scenarios. All movements operate at LOS D or better under all analysis scenarios during the p.m. peak hour. No improvements are necessary at this intersection to accommodate the proposed development. Valley View Road and Westbound TH 62 Ramp. The intersection as a whole operates at LOS B during the weekday AM peak hour under all analysis scenarios. -During the AM peak hour, all movements operate at LOS D or better under existing, 2011 No Build, 2011 Scenario 1, and 2011 Scenario 2 conditions. Under the 2011 Scenario 3 conditions, the northbound left turn operates at LOS E. Further analysis indicates that no queuing issues are expected for the northbound left tam movement despite the LOS E condition. During the weekday PM peak hour, the overall intersection operates at LOS C under all scenarios.. During the PM peak hour, all movements operate at LOS D or better under existing and 2011 No Build conditions. Under the 2011 Scenario 1, 2011 Scenario 2, and 2011 Scenario 3 conditions, the northbound left turn operates at LOS E. Once again, further analysis indicates that no queuing issues are expected for the northbound left turn movement despite the LOS E condition. No improvements are necessary at this intersection to accommodate the proposed development. • France Avenue and 65th Street: The intersection as a whole operates at LOS B during the weekday AM peak hour under the existing, 2011 No Build, 2011 Scenario 1, and 2011 Scenario 2 conditions. Under the 2011 Scenario 3 conditions, the intersection 4 -1 . �sA operates at LOS C. During the AM peak hour, all movements operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios. During the weekday PM peak hour, the overall intersection operates at LOS B under existing and 2011 No Build conditions. Under the 2011 Scenario 1, 2011 Scenario 2, and 2011 Scenario 3 conditions, the intersection operates at LOS C. The southbound left turn operates at LOS E under all scenarios during the PM peak hour. With the existing signal phasing, the westbound left turn operates at LOS F under all scenarios. The remaining movements operate at LOS D or better under existing and 2011 No Build conditions. Under the 2011 Scenario 1, 2011 Scenario 2, and 2011 Scenario 3 conditions, the eastbound left tam operates at LOS E. To improve the intersection operations, protective /permissive phasing for the eastbound and westbound left turns is recommended. This would improve the eastbound and westbound left turns to LOS D or better during the PM peak hour. The southbound left turn would still operate at LOS E under all scenarios, but further analysis indicates that no queuing issues are expected for this movement during the PM peak hour. • France Avenue and Eastbound TH 62 Ramps: The intersection as a whole operates at LOS A during the weekday AM peak hour under all analysis scenarios. During the AM peak hour, all movements operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios. During the weekday PM peak hour, the overall intersection operates at LOS A under all scenarios. All movements operate at LOS D or better under all scenarios, excluding the eastbound left turn and through movements, which operate at LOS E. Once again, further analysis indicates that no queuing issues are expected for the eastbound movements despite the LOS E condition. No improvements are necessary at this intersection to accommodate the proposed development. • France Avenue & Westbound TH 62 Ramps: The intersection as a whole operates at LOS C during the weekday AM peak hour under all analysis scenarios. During the AM peak hour, all movements operate at LOS D or better under all analysis scenarios. During the weekday PM peak hour, the overall intersection operates at LOS C under all scenarios. All movements operate at LOS D or better under all analysis scenarios during the PM peak hour. No improvements are necessary at this intersection to accommodate the proposed development. 4 -2 � � � Parking Impacts The proposed project includes approximately 420 on -site parking stalls to accommodate all visitor and staff needs. The project will not impact any off -site parking facilities or any on- street parking areas. Transit Impacts Existing transit routes are located on Valley View Road, France Avenue and 65h Street. The Southdale Transit Center is located a few blocks southeast of the proposed development. Bus stops are located along Valley View Road, 65th Street and France Avenue. Routes 6, 152, 587 and 631 provide regular transit service to this area. The proposed development is not expected to significantly impact the need for transit service in this area. Maps of the existing transit routes are shown in the Appendix. Bicycle and Pedestrian Impacts Sidewalks are provided along all streets surrounding the proposed project. The proposed project will include access from the building to the existing sidewalk system. No significant impacts to the sidewalk system are expected due to the proposed project. 4 -3 A5 � III TO WESTBOUND US 62 � J 1 TH 62 FROM EASTBOUND US 62 D/D/D /C/C —#- A/A►NAA/A c33, CD TO WESTBOUND US 62 I ` FROM WESTBOUND US 62 4- C/Cd0/C/C ' !r C/C/CIC/C D/DID/D/D a a as T a: a a. aae aao STH STREET D/D/D/D/D /I� 2007 Existing AM Peak Hour Level of Service 2011 No Build AM Peak Hour Level of Service 2011 Scenario 1 AM Peak Hour Level of Service 2011 Scenario 2 AM Peak Hour Level of Service I F- l I 2011 Scenario 3 AM Peak Hour Level of Service no�oc xxnovxxiv NOTE: ALL RESULTS SHOWN ASSUME EYJSTING CONTROLAND GEOMETRICS. TO EASTBOUND US 62 lT� �a 4-- BIAIAIA/A E— D/D/D/D/D �r D/D/D/D/D N NOTTO SCALE _ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FIGURE 4-1 wenc f ANALYSI S FOR EDINA I\ CROSSTOWN MEDICAL AM PEAK HOUR BUILDING LEVELS OF SERVICE ,A. a TO WESTBOUND US 62 y 1TH62 it �a a oa �a'•m FROM EASTBOUND US 62 W 65 TM STREET DID/DIM 4- awc/C Bs AI CIC T� e� a0 a s � w ee ee TO WESTBOUND US 62 C/C/C1C/C L.-OM WESTBOUND US 62 4- AB/BBB DIID/D/DD//D �a a a� a� a FROM EASTBOUND U6 62 W I E/EVEIE A/AfAfAIA T a; a as 65TH STREET 1 1 D/D/E/E/E DDS MM TO FASTBDUND US 62 It1 eaa oaa 4- AIA/AIAIA E-. D/D01D/D Ir F/F/F/F/F 2007 Existing PM Peak Hour Level of Service N 2011 No Build PM Peak Hour Level of Service 2011 Scenario 1 PM Peak Hour Level of Service 2011 Scenario 2 PM Peak Hour Level of Service I I 2011 Scenario 3 PM Peak Hour Level of Service I MOTTO SCALE )OW000(00(m NOTE: ALL RESULTS SHOWN ASSUME EXISTING CONTROLAND GEOMETRICS, TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FIGURE 4 -2 ��'� ANALYSIS FOR EDINA ._�'����� CROSSTOWN MEDICAL PM PEAK HOUR BUILDING I LEVELS OF SERVICE fll�� 5.0 Conclusions The conclusions drawn from the information and analyses presented in this report are as follows: • The proposed development will generate 211 trips during the weekday AM peak hour and 321 trips during the weekday PM peak hour under Scenario 1, 284 AM and 431 PM peak hour trips under Scenario 2, and 432 AM and 557 PM peak hour trips under Scenario 3. The study intersections of have adequate capacity with existing geometrics and control to accommodate the proposed development while maintaining acceptable levels of service. It is recommended that protective /permissive phasing be used for the eastbound and westbound approaches of 65th Street at France Avenue to alleviate potential operations issues for the left turn movements. The development traffic is not expected to require any other changes to the existing roadway network. • With the inclusion of dedicated visitor and staff parking area, parking impacts for the proposed facility are expected to be minimal. • No significant impacts are expected to the existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities due to the proposed project. 5 -1 6.0 Appendix Bus Routes Route 6 Southdale Shopping Center 65th St 'E 66th St ° 'F Q' n) E Door Cub U .@ 13 18 Foods r m � L A N�. 69th St 6 -1 Route 152 Ll 44th CD a Excelsior Blvd & Cuentin Ave Lake Harriet ED O o - •c®'T14 3 U . G Nei a 54th LL N C d C SouthdaleTransit Center x °' Metro Transit Routes: � x G) (ED (W �mm 100 BeLine Routes: SW Metro: 0 Fairview S uthdaael 62 I m, ?■ i- 6 -2 I, l� Zi [I Lake Minn, St. Pi Inten Airpc Route 587 6 -3 Rya Route 631 16 62 ,11WIMITMON " ROUTE 631 ❑ TIME PRINT O PARK 8 RIDE Ml Fairview Soathdole ��3 Hospital to Uj a W 65TH ST W 66TH S1 W X W W 68 o i A A W Y ce STOPS BY DOOR 13 W ALSO sew BY z BAT 5158 BE WIE 539 0 ��3 ru-2 T 9.O L PE-Z- Lm BG J RAMP SAM CUT EXISM. 90EMAUL AT rIM AMT BEYOND PROPpTTT LINE AM TAPAI PROFCSm 90EMALTL TO MATCH General Site Notes I. OAOLOROUND ON'URMARON Fm TIa9 PROJECT PROHOED BY MEB`MCO MorES9mAL SERVKEI L LOCAB" Apo ELEVATIONS M M5NNC TOPOGRAPHY AND UTMIE9 A9 SHONN ON MLT PUN ARE APPROPIATE. CONTRACTOR MALL 11„1.0 vuI SITE COTOTIm9 AND UM1R LocAMN9 PRIM TO EaCAVADm/COHIMICRON. F ANY OPJMVANOES ME FOND. THE ENG9IIEN BNORD BE NUTTETm NNEDIAIELY. 3 ALL UIMMSIONS ME TO FACE M CORD OR ENIUmR FACE M BURUNc UNLESS OMmRISE NOTED. A. RESER TO AROATECIURAL PUNS FOR EXACT BUICONO OIMEISm9 MO Lm INNS OF EXTT9. RAMP& AND MUM OOCIL& 1 ALL CURB RAm ARE 94ALL BE &O FEET (TO FACE OF CURB) UNLESS OTNEBMSE NOTED. B. ALL CURB AND CUTTER ON PRIVATE PROPERTF 94ACL BE BY2 UNLESS OTHERSSE NOTED. ALL CORB Am WTIM ON pU X PROpEENTY SHALL BE Ba1B UNLESS OWERY NOTE& T. DEVICES SUCH AS BwRRICAOE;R 9CNA ORECDmAL SGN9. FUGCER9 AND UC HS RI APPROVED 8Y MOEdCT AM MEMPRER P.a. E 1 PLACEMENT. CONMM OEM �SNACL R COMMOL CONFORM TO WE -DOT STANDARD& a. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND CONCRETE SECTIONS TO BE M ACCORDANCE BON WE RECOMUEMANON9 W THE CEOTECNNOJ ENONEER- 9. T CONMA,= WALL NE ALL MIECAURmS MAWTMN FULL ACCESS M TO AVOR) PROPUIRTDA..CE M ADJA[pN0 mNED9 mCRm AM IM NO MORN ALLO M MART YORT W BAY PRINT TO ACMASNON OP MAOT PERM'. �__� PIAPFA LOT Um Ca0 HRN. b.r— 4199„7 -- - - - - -- EASEMENT UNE GOPHER STATE ONE CALL NOLMAL MATER LEVEL cl r7 -BOD-9 — FENCE Yti Tdl Fr.e T -990- 192 -1184 to Development b:TmAr Y CONCRETE 90EMALT ® MRMVK]US PAVEMENT E ADORES: FMO a9M STREET HEST TmOPOSED PMNNC: Fo STALLS/ MANS MMEN E AREJM 87.M4 V (LOX ACRES) 11ECNRm PANNN@ Fla STALLS. . . _ MAFTIC 9m SING OEEMPACE 406190 SF W21 / INMWE% .. _ _. _ _ ]B 9rIPACE PARgNO STALLS .. - - _ a F . ® Slo Legend 9OLL— / POST p0¢D CRFD6PACE ]9.990 SF (4565) - .. ]IO TOTK srALLS - .. RFrRPFNS 9. •-^^ -r nrRlilArnY SRN. ZMRN2 PUNNED GF TCE OSMICT (Pm -1) . mmpNELUTr: _ . _. BTOP 91m m' X FN" R- 939" A .090]! - T &a . - S1 R7-eM OPOgO IONOM. ROONAL MEDICAL OISNTM (NMD) 119 ♦ 1910. 211 Dr / STAIL 83aT5 / 075 - m2 STALLS 1Ewlpm S, 14y�Opp A.+rcmF &S NO PARwO II' 121 p 12" RB-OB TBAnt RE"EMENTS: TAW, NEAR B mim PMXINC 17 ON 8106 i Q SCE 20. OR BLOC. T. IG Site Legend OPOsm USE MWCAL OT _ um mm Blom IS sn. .nnsmP nRMYM r- PROPOSED TENS/ smR M WALL E7� � T Ip E ru-2 T 9.O L PE-Z- Lm BG J RAMP SAM CUT EXISM. 90EMAUL AT rIM AMT BEYOND PROPpTTT LINE AM TAPAI PROFCSm 90EMALTL TO MATCH General Site Notes I. OAOLOROUND ON'URMARON Fm TIa9 PROJECT PROHOED BY MEB`MCO MorES9mAL SERVKEI L LOCAB" Apo ELEVATIONS M M5NNC TOPOGRAPHY AND UTMIE9 A9 SHONN ON MLT PUN ARE APPROPIATE. CONTRACTOR MALL 11„1.0 vuI SITE COTOTIm9 AND UM1R LocAMN9 PRIM TO EaCAVADm/COHIMICRON. F ANY OPJMVANOES ME FOND. THE ENG9IIEN BNORD BE NUTTETm NNEDIAIELY. 3 ALL UIMMSIONS ME TO FACE M CORD OR ENIUmR FACE M BURUNc UNLESS OMmRISE NOTED. A. RESER TO AROATECIURAL PUNS FOR EXACT BUICONO OIMEISm9 MO Lm INNS OF EXTT9. RAMP& AND MUM OOCIL& 1 ALL CURB RAm ARE 94ALL BE &O FEET (TO FACE OF CURB) UNLESS OTNEBMSE NOTED. B. ALL CURB AND CUTTER ON PRIVATE PROPERTF 94ACL BE BY2 UNLESS OTHERSSE NOTED. ALL CORB Am WTIM ON pU X PROpEENTY SHALL BE Ba1B UNLESS OWERY NOTE& T. DEVICES SUCH AS BwRRICAOE;R 9CNA ORECDmAL SGN9. FUGCER9 AND UC HS RI APPROVED 8Y MOEdCT AM MEMPRER P.a. E 1 PLACEMENT. CONMM OEM �SNACL R COMMOL CONFORM TO WE -DOT STANDARD& a. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND CONCRETE SECTIONS TO BE M ACCORDANCE BON WE RECOMUEMANON9 W THE CEOTECNNOJ ENONEER- 9. T CONMA,= WALL NE ALL MIECAURmS MAWTMN FULL ACCESS M TO AVOR) PROPUIRTDA..CE M ADJA[pN0 mNED9 mCRm AM IM NO MORN ALLO M MART YORT W BAY PRINT TO ACMASNON OP MAOT PERM'. �__� PIAPFA LOT Um SETBACN UNE -- - - - - -- EASEMENT UNE CURB AIM OUTTEN NOLMAL MATER LEVEL RETAMUNC WALL FENCE -"-EM PAVEMENT CONCRETE 90EMALT ® MRMVK]US PAVEMENT ® NUMBER OF PANILMO STALLS MANS MMEN _ MAFTIC 9m .. AP PORN POLE r • 9OLL— / POST Li). LINO: �'r'�� •' lAg .A7M�.. TO X 0 2O FTr aw NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION EDINA CROSS MEDICAL LLC EDINA CROSZ MEDICAL 6UII 4010 65th 5 WEST EDINA, MN MHanson Hansen ArddNckwd Nil e1m1P I grNFpr'MTTI'TNT tM1I LlCOM4� fwSlaPRp A tll pl@MITYI AaaprR 6x9 �IYAI AAP .TIFII m 9aF.mmap /YIRr RvAIR fOMTR wn raELYP .D c uR YT LIa.M OIRTEP .MNMMn PRELIMINi SITE PLAI CITY SU81V N--Y- .4 I 3i Aw Np� 611 f IT; ..... . ....... ff SrTE DATA CI.ASSIFICATIOM ZONING POSING --1 SET BACKS - - BURRING PARKING SET BACKS fP11M A' RfM 10 PARKING REQUIREMENTS 2. The developer shall fund appropriate improvements to correct intersection decencies resulting from the further study of adjacent intersection at and York as required in WSB's May 7, 2008, memo. 3. The right -in /right - out from the site along 69th Street as stated i e traffic report date April 23, 2008, does not coincide with the I site pl supplied by the developer. The plan shows a site access that could used as a full - access, however, the current configuration and stripin f 69th Street does t allow full operation. Clarification of this intersec ' n will be required as p of the approval. _ Representing the evelopment were Robb Miller develoee with TE Miller Development; Dean olis, architect with DJR Archi ture Ine_ g9d Michael Klobucar, traffic engineer with We k Associates, Inc. Mr. M' r said:t3�9 aW eeable to improving 69th Street because it ill benefit their pr erty; however, inference to the. intersection, he said they s Id not be requ' d to u e a pre- exisk"in_:g�roblem that will not be negatively impa d by the evelo�iti�. He was info�rraed by chair Workinger that who pays for. a im oveme ould be decided by' cil. In reference to the right -in /right -out, lobucar-sUid this is no- Jonger an issudtecause they have eliminated some entries/ and instdad -Will have f-access to the site. Chair Workinger asked for a ranceAha elivery trucks' Will not use W. 70t" Street to access the site. Mr. Dovol' said driv —. ' 'ven directions-to use the major freeways but without a tracking sy em they canr3oL gn ee the roU es -the drivers will take. He said the roundabouts ould discouraged m fro W. 70t! _.because it is no longer the fastest route. Commission e rowrrfatione o appr6visE �e traffic tudy as recommended by staff and t the, deaWoper provides an assurance tha .70th Street will not be used by livery tirzs. The mot on was seconded by Co issioner Bonneville. All vo aye. MO n carried. / b, -_4010 W.-6V�treet _ C_rosstown Medical LLC The.-C�trof Edina's trafta consultant, Chuck Rickart of WSB, said .the 65th Street and France Aveiib� intersection wasiM a maia &.concern for this redevelopment; however, he said the develolse �. traffic consultaf has recommended upgrading the intersection with a 'protective permissive = signal phasing' traffic light. Mr. Rickart said staff is withholding a recommendation at this time because there affE'still some issues to be addressed. Staffs position is as follows: Currently,' s#affi: aid- our traffic consultant, WSB, feel that this transportation submittal is noif=Wcomplete. Staff, WSB and Wenck are working to resolve the outstanding items listed in the attached memo prior to the Edina Transportation Commission meeting on May 15, 2008. Currently, the conditions of the approval'are: 1. This development shall address all comments in WSB's May 7, 2008, memo to the satisfaction of the ETC and Engineering Department. 2. To participate in appropriate cost sharing for signal improvements at 65th Street and France Avenue. 2 . A Representing the developer were Ed Terhaar, traffic engineer, with Wenck Associates and Mark Hansen, architect with Mohagen Hansen. Mr. Hansen said they are willing to work with both the City and County to upgrade the 65th Street and France Avenue intersection Commissioner Wanninger motioned. to accept the traffic study with staffs recommendation and that the developer works with the City and County to improvement the intersection at 65th Street and France Avenue. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mooty. 7 voted aye. 1 abstain (Brown). Motion carried. V. Approval of Minutes - --- -- a. Regular Meeting of April 17, 2008 Commissioner Plan requested that the resolution:�i'.'h.---:8-t.'7was approved aft-"t-fie- April 17 meeting part reques e - be included as pa f the meeting minutes. Thd-4,611-Owing change is to 136-- ade to Page 2, para. 1, "...reviewing the composition of the S-A,__1C-_, however, -the composition-will remain the same." Page 2, para. 2, "Commissioners Brown ,--U.§em and.,.dha& Workinge will-ii ieet with the consultant..." Commissioner Wanninger motioned = -tb-_Approve the'-mj-n:utes of April 17, 2008, with the above changes. The motion was s'ecohddd-,--bv--Commiss-i.-o-n-.er Brown. All voted aye. Motion carried. VI. Planning Commisiloin- U_iiCate (Commissioner Brown) Commissioner Brown'.. giii id regionally. d eveiopqfe-nt has been down. He said at their upcoming May 28 meeting they will be discuss�ffhg the two developments that were presented tonight. VII. Staff Liaison Co6i _U fe) - a. ET-t-] ee i b b e r 0 fi _&nft i bi o n With oni�-n-OW meffiberon bbaf --and another expected fairly soon, Sharon Allison reported that staff4._ -d like to schedule a new member orientation for mid-June. The orientation would be opeff f&- all to attend. Z7 b. d for Livabli�_t--Pmmunities _`7 --: The Engineering Departmbrift has applied for four grants from the Transit for Livable Communities. �ft e-.four grant applications are for: 1. City -wide Pedbstrian and Bicycle Route Marking and Signage Improvements 2. Bicycle Marking and Signage Improvements and Pedestrian Connection Improvements along 54th Street 3. Upgraded Pedestrian/Bicycle Tunnel at York Avenue 4. Information Accessibility Improvements VIII. Adjournment Meeting adjourned. 3 MINUTE DRAFT SUMMARY PC MEETING MAY 28, 2008 P -08-6 Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Rezoning and variances Crosstown Medical LLC 401065 th Street West Staff Presentation Planner Teague presented his staff report noting the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two -story, 26,000 square foot office building and construct a new 73,386 square foot, four -story medical office building with six -level supporting parking ramp. Planner Teague said the proposal requires a' preliminary development plan, preliminary rezoning and variances from the RMD standards. The requested rezoning is from POD -1, Planned Office District to RMD, Regional Medical District and the rezoning also includes the adjacent Fairview Hospital parking ramp which is'currently zoned APD, Automobile Parking District. Planner Teague concluded staff recommends denial of the Preliminary Development Plan, Rezoning from POD to RMD and the. following variances at 4010 65th Street West for Crosstown Medical LLC: 1. Front building_ setback variance from 74 feet.to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.) 2. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 3. Side building setback, variance from 74 feet to 21 feet. (A 53 -foot %variance.) 4. Front parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 18 feet. (A 62 -foot variance.) 5. Rear parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 20 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) 6. Side parking structure setback variance from 70 feet to 10 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) 7. Side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3.3 feet. (A 6.7 -foot variance.) denial is also based 'on the following findings: 1. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to the Regional Medical District, to increase the allowed density on the site. However, the proposed plans would not come close to meeting the minimum zoning ordinance standards of the RMD District; seven variances are requested; and large variances are requested to all four lot lines. 2. There is no hardship to justify the large variances. The variances are self created. If the variances were denied, the applicant would not be denied reasonable use of their property. There is an existing office on the site which could continue to be used, or the offices could be town down, and the site redeveloped with similar uses to meet city code. The site currently is slightly under utilized as the existing floor area ratio (FAR) is 30 %. Within the existing Planned Office District, which this property is located, the maximum FAR is 50 %. Commissioner Brown addressed the Chair and Commission and explained he has a professional conflict with the proposed project and will abstain from the vote. Appearing for the Applicant/Proiect Mr. Alan Hill, BKO Development, Dr. David'Holte, Twin Cities,Orthopedics, Mark Hansen, Mohagen and Hansen Architectural Group and Larry Hegenes, property owner. Applicant Presentation Mr. Hill told the Commission he believes the proposed development concept is good, it re- invests in the community and the, proposed use for the site is appropriate, adding the site will be redeveloped with high level design quality. Mr. Hill explained as they evaluated the project it became clear that a request to rezone the site to a regional medical district made the most sense, pointing out the proportions of the site is not ideal. Mr., Hill said he was encouraged by the traffic report adding the close proximity to mass transit and the incorporation of places to park bicycles will aid in reducing,vehicle trips. Concluding, Mr. Hill said the proposed medical use of the new building would serve the needs of the community pointing out the,change in demographics as Edina ages. Mr: Hill introduced Dr. Holte'of Twin Cities Orthopedics. Dr. Holte addressed the Commission and explained Twin Cities Ortho has three offices within 6, blocks of Fairview Southdale Hospital (FSH). Dr. Holte said the proposed medical office building will office those physicians scattered in three area buildings and will also contain a surgery center. Dr. Holte explained 75% of the orthopedics cases at FSH -are serviced by Twin Cities Ortho. Continuing, Dr. Holte said the proposed building will be a one owner building that will be tastefully designed and constructed. Concluding, Dr. Holte said it is very important to Twin Cities Ortho to have good access to FSH. Mr. Hill introduced Mr. Mark Hansen. Av Mr. Hansen gave a power point presentation highlighting features of the project. Mr. Hansen reported they are using a sustainable approach to storm water management and irrigation designs working toward satisfying LEED related standards. Mr. Hansen said exterior materials were chosen to combine materials, color, massing to weave together the medical office building and supporting parking structure. Building materials will include multiple colors of brick, stone or architectural case stone accent bands, architectural metal, glass and aluminum curtain wall systems. It is proposed that the supporting parking ramp will use complementary precast concrete, components with openings and details that relate to the medical office building. Commission Comments /Questions Commissioner Staunton questioned the reasoning behind the square footage and square shape of the proposed building. Mr "Hill explained that a square building is needed to accommodate the surgery room. Continuing, Mr. Hill explained the square footage is needed to house the doctors that presently office out of three different locations in the immediate area. Commissioner Risser questioned if the development team looked into parking somewhere else. Mr. Hill explained the close proximity to the'FSH ramp made that an option; however, when FSH was approached they expressed concern with their potential for growth and how that would be, impacted if parking spaces in their ramp were leased to Twin Cities Ortho. Mr. Hill added the owner of bank building to the west of the subject site was approached for purchase; however he declined. Commissioner Schroeder said he does have some concern with how the water garden -Could work. Mr. Oliver responded that at this time they are in the preliminary , stages-6f development and by,the time of final approval more detail would be,available. `Chair Lonsbury asked if the public would like to comment on the project. Public Comment. No public comment. Commissioner Grablel moved to close the public testimony. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Commission Comments Chair Lonsbury noted for the record that the Commission received four letters regarding this proposal. Two favorable; and two against. Alb A discussion ensued with the majority of the Commission expressing their support for the project as proposed. Commissioners acknowledged the proposed office building with supporting ramp is large, and multiple variances are required for redevelopment; however, the proposed rezoning makes sense as an extension of an already existing medical campus; albeit by a different property owner and the location of the site directly abutting Crosstown Highway minimizes impact. Continuing, Commissioners expressed some regret that this site wasn't identified earlier for redevelopment and growth, noting to under develop the site could also be a mistake. Continuing, Commissioners expressed positive feelings for the development as a whole noting the building is tastefully designed. The discussion continued and focused on the rezoning of the site, questioning if this would be spot zoning, questioning the size of the building and .supporting ramp, and the appropriateness of rezoning the'existing FSH ramp. Commissioners also questioned if more parking could be added below grade reducing the scale of the supporting ramp. Commissioners were informed that due to the high water table in this area putting the parking below grade would be difficult. In conclusion Commissioners reiterated that rezoning this site is a continuation of the medical office corridor zoning and should be viewed positively. Commissioners also acknowledged the mass and scale of the project; however, the location abutting the highway minimizes the impact. Commissioners did indicate they would prefer that the.existing FSH ramp is not rezoned. Chair Lonsbury and Commissioner Staunton, expressed their opinion that the project is beautifully designed; however, the density of the site more than doubles with this project adding this request does "spot zone" this site. Chair Lonsbury said when Cornelia. Place was developed he struggled with its mass, adding he-8 till believes it is overbuilt, adding the mass, size and density of this project. exceeds that of Cornelia Place. Commissioner Staunton agreed with comments from Chair Lonsbury adding,the ,,proposed change in zoning, along with the increase in density is something that needs to be carefully considered, adding with great reluctance he can't support the proposal, it is too much, pointing out that in the past the Commission was mindful of increasing the density in the greater Southdale area. After further discussion Commissioners were of the opinion that the existing FSH parking ramp should not be rezoned, and that one level of parking on the parking ramp should be removed and a proof of parking agreement implemented.. Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend that the City Council approve the preliminary development plan and preliminary rezoning for the proposed Crosstown Medical building based on the following findings: 1. The rezoning would be an extension of the RMD district to the East. All 2. The rezoning would be consistent with the City's guide plan. 3. Increase in density could be supported by existing roadways, as determined in the traffic study done by Wenck and Associates. 4. The rezoning would be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare. Approval is also subject to the following Conditions: 1. Final Development Plan must be generally consistent with approved Preliminary Development Plan date stamped April 28 & May 21, 2008. - 2. Final rezoning would not include the/existing parking ramp for Fairview Hospital. 3. The design and construction of the entire project must be done with the Sustainable Initiatives'as outlined in the applicant's narrative within the staff report. 4. Trail and sidewalk connections must be included as demonstrated on the preliminary plans. Public easements must be established over all public sidewalks. 5. All buildings must be built with sprinkler systems, subject to review and approval of the Fire Marshal. 6. Compliance with -all, of the conditions, outlined in the City Engineer's memo. 7. Compliance with all the conditions required by the Transportation 8. The Landscape Plan ;should be improved to add trees around the perimeter of the site, especially along the west and north lot line; and 9: The top level of the'parking ramp must be eliminated; and the applicant must enter into a. proof of parking agreement. If parking becomes a problem, as determined by staff, the top level of the parking ramp must be constructed. Approval also includes recommending that the Zoning Board of Appeals and the City Council approve the following variances: 1. Fronibuilding setback variance from 74 feet to 52 feet. (A 22 -foot variance.)., 2. Rear building setback variance from 74 feet to 20 feet. (A 54 -foot variance.) 3. Side building setback variance from 74 feet to 21 feet. (A 53 -foot variance.) 4. Front parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 18 feet. (A 62 -foot variance.) Oak 5. Rear parking structure setback variance from 80 feet to 20 feet. (A 60 -foot variance.) 6. Side parking structure setback variance from 70 feet to 10 feet. (A 60- foot variance.) 7. Side yard drive -aisle setback variance from 10 feet to 3.3 feet. (A 6.7- foot variance.) Variance approval is based on the following findings: 1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the shape and limited depth of the lot, especially the Western half of the site. 2. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance because the building is reasonably sized given the allowed FAR in the RMD district is 1.0. The proposed FAR is .83. 3. The height of the ramp and building are generally consistent with buildings and ramps in the area. 4. The site's location adjacent to Crosstown Highway 62. 5. The high water table prevents the parking from being constructed under ground. Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. Ayes; Risser, Scherer, Schroeder, Fischer, Grabiel.,Nays Lonsbury, Staunton. Abstain; Brown. Motion carried. 473 Page 1,6f 1 Cary Teague From: Craigalshouse @aol.com Sent:. Wednesday, May 28, 2008 3:40 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Proposed Crosstown Medical Office at 4010 65th St. May 28, 2008 Mr. Cary Teague Planning Director City of Edina 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Teague, As asset manager, I represent the owners of Cornelia Place Apartments located at 4025 W. 65th St. in Edina. Our luxury apartment building is located directly across the street from the proposed medical office complex. We cannot support this development and strongly object to this complex as it is currently designed. This development is simply too massive, too high, too large with too many required variances. Under the current zoning, an office building with a maximum size of 44,000 square feet would be allowed with parking of 180 spaces. This proposed rezoning and development would increase parking to 387 spaces and increase building size to 76,000 square feet. This density is not consistent with Edina's comprehensive plan and it is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. While we went to extra cost and engineering to put our 2 levels of parking underground, as the City required, this proposal calls for 6 levels of above grade parking. We object to the look and size of a 6 story parking ramp across from residential housing. We have approximately 200 residents, half of which would have their view and vista eliminated if this development is, approved. In fact, our penthouses can see the downtown skyline and we use that as a marketing feature. The height and massiveness of this building means all North facing residents would be looking into a parking ramp. Also, the increased traffic and congestion on 65th St. would be a big negative to us. We commend the development team for the asthetics of the design and for contacting us to show us the. plan. However, due to the height and size of this proposal, we request and urge the planning commission and city council to deny applicant's request for project approval. Thank you for your consideration of these remarks. Yours sincerely, Craig Alshouse The Craig Company 1300 Willowbrook Dr. Wayzata, Mn 55391 ph: 763- 473 -6414 Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. A�1 �- Jackie Hoogenakker "IM: Clow, Ruth A [ruth.clow @nwa.com] .It: Thursday, May 22, 2008 11:52 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Southdale Office Park 2nd Addition I amsubmitting my views on the request for rezoning from planned office district -1 to regional medical district. We live just across the 62 highway (6328 Halifax Ave) from the medical parking ramp and every since this was erected, the traffic noise level has increased immensely. In fact I was informed by an MN Dot employee that in testing the noise level, it was found to be extra high and dangerous to one's hearing level. I feel that creating another tall building and parking ramp will only increase this noise level more and I sincerely believe that a noise barrier should be erected asap to improve our quality of life here in Edina. I only approve this move if a noise barrier can be erected. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing a positive action from my input. Ruth Clow Flight Safety, Data Analyst- 612 726 -3155 - A T� Jackie Hoogenakker From: Charles Prine [charlesprine @earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:32 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Crosstown Medical LLC Rezoning Plan We are residents of the Point of France complex at 6566 France. We are not in favor of the project. Two concerns ... 1. increase in traffic 2. rezoning there will lead to additional rezoning of other properties in the area. Sincerely, Chuck and Mary Lou Prine A74 <n 11 iIInno TO: Mayor & City Council REQUEST FOR PURCHASE FROM: I Wayne D. Houle, PE, City Engineer VIA: Gordon Hughes, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000 DATE: June 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM IV. A. ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2008 Morningside Water main Lining Project: Contract No. ENG 08 -5; Improvement No. WM-481 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. $ 1,238,974.00 2. J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc. $ 1,548,917.00 RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. $ 1,238,974.00 GENERAL INFORMATION: This project was discussed at the June 3 City Council Meeting. The award of bid was continued so the apparent low bidder, Insituform, could provide answers to the product's safety and longevity. It was also continued so staff could comment on the possible water rate increase for the Morningside Area and if there is a possibility to rebid the project using a concrete liner for the northerly area and a structural liner for the southerly area of Phase One. Staff requested that a representative from Insituform be available at the City Council meeting to answer any questions regarding the products' safety and longevity. Council asked to have our utility rate consultant analyze the potential rate increase for the Morningside Neighborhood water system. Ehlers and Associates will require more time to have a rate analysis performed. However, the financial department has ran a basic analysis and feels that a potential rate increase of $0.60 to $0.90 per 100 cubic feet of water would fund future capital improvement projects to this water system. Staff suggests that Ehlers and Associates perform a rate analysis prior to January of 2009. Staff analyzed the cost of lining the pipes in phase one with cement mortar lining on the north half and structural lining on the south half. Combining the two systems would cost more than the structural lining due to the high cost of two out -of -state contractors needing to mobilize for a small project, along with overlapping of access pits and temporary water. Staff does not recommend combining technologies. Attached is the power point presentation from June 3 along with the June 3 request for purchase form. Staff maintains that Insituform product meets all of our standards and recommends awarding this project to Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. If Council does not wish to award this project to Insituform, staff would then recommend ' that a pipe bursting method be designed and bid out for 2009 implementation. // x - Signature The Recommended Bid is within budget not Public Works - Engineering allin, Finance Director 4;ddon Hugh&, Ck Manager GAEngineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08-5 Momingside WM - Pipe Relining\NDMIN\MISC\ENG 08-5 RFP.doc MORNINGSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD WATER MAIN LINING PROJECT Request for Purchase June 3, 2008 >1 11 CITY OF EDINA Majority of calls 7]1 CITY OF EDINA Area of red water ca Momingaida Watarmain + FIgurat Project Nee • Major Red Water Issue — Nitrification • Pipes are 49 to 69 years old • Unlined cast iron pipes • Soil conditions vary.... very corrosive in the lower areas not so corrosive in higher areas 2 ®® CITY OF EDINA Solutions • Short Term ■ Continuous flushing ✓Open water valve running through the winter (3.2 million gallons to date) ■ Continually monitor chlorine levels • Long Term ■ Reline / replace cast iron pipes RUN CITY OF EDINA Project Scop • Reline pipes north of 42nd Street - 2008 *Complete relining of pipes with roadway -- ; rehabilitation projects — 2012 / 2014 ➢3 CITY OF EDINA on M " r Locati, 01 CITY OF EDINA Project Scope / Material -Methods analyzed: • Structural Liner — polyethylene • Cement liner — mortar cement • Pipe burst — high density polyethylene • Open cut — high density polyethylene Structural liner Open Cut Method Open Cut Method ➢4 ®fM CITY OF EDINA Cost Comparison �® Estimated Life Added to Method Cost System (in Years) Structural Liner $ 1,238,974 80 -120 Cement Liner $ 820,000 20 Pipe burst $ 1,160,000 80 -120 Open cut $ 1,010,000 80 -120 CITY OF EDINA Hassel factors and direct cost Method Hassel factor Cost to to residents residents Structural Liner Low Increase rates Cement Liner Low Increase rates Increase rates Pipe burst High plus Special Assessment Increase rates Open cut High plus Special Assessment ➢5 �® Estimated Life Added to Method Cost System (in Years) Structural Liner $ 1,238,974 80 -120 Cement Liner $ 820,000 20 Pipe burst $ 1,160,000 80 -120 Open cut $ 1,010,000 80 -120 CITY OF EDINA Hassel factors and direct cost Method Hassel factor Cost to to residents residents Structural Liner Low Increase rates Cement Liner Low Increase rates Increase rates Pipe burst High plus Special Assessment Increase rates Open cut High plus Special Assessment ➢5 Method Hassel factor Cost to to residents residents Structural Liner Low Increase rates Cement Liner Low Increase rates Increase rates Pipe burst High plus Special Assessment Increase rates Open cut High plus Special Assessment ➢5 ➢5 �® CITY of EDINA Potential construction schedul Start P Postponement '. Structural Liner J June N No cost Cement Liner S September $ $6,000 Pipe burst M May —2009 $ $24,000 Open -cut M May - 2009 $ $24,000 * Based on cost of continuous flushing ($2,000 per month). Method S Start P Postponement '. Structural Liner J June N No cost Cement Liner S September $ $6,000 Pipe burst M May —2009 $ $24,000 Open -cut M May - 2009 $ $24,000 CITY OF EDINA Company 1. Insituform Technologies 2. J. Fletcher Creamer & Son Bids Amount of Bid $ 1,238,974.00 $ 1,548,917.00 ➢6 ➢7 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Wayne D. Houle, PE, City Engineer VIA: Gordon Hughes, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000 DATE: June 3, 2008 AGENDA ITEM IV. C. ITEM DESCRIPTION: 2008 Morningside Water main Lining Project: Contract No. ENG 08 -5; Improvement No. WM-481 Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. $ 1,238,974.00 2. J. Fletcher Creamer & Son, Inc. $ 1,548,917.00 RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. $ 1,238,974.00 GENERAL INFORMATION: This project includes relining the water mains north of West 42nd Street, which includes Lynn Avenue, Kipling Avenue, Grimes Avenue, and Inglewood Avenue, see attached map. This is the first phase of upgrading water mains in the Morningside Neighborhood. Other phases will be proposed with pavement rehabilitation that will be brought forward in 2012 to 2014. The proposed rehabilitation is a structural liner called PRP Thermopipe manufactured by Insituform. This liner meets all federal standards for potable water use. This project is in the Capital Improvement Plan, which allocated $480,000 for this phase. This estimate was based on cement lining of the pipes, which is a similar process that City of Minneapolis uses (the actual cost to cement line the pipes would be approximately $700,000). This process does not provide additional longevity of the pipe. Staff analyzed projects that have been bid and ones that are close to bidding and find we are below the estimated CIP by $1,300,000 for the years 2008 -2012, see attached worksheet. Staff also analyzed other methods for rehabilitating the watermain and feel that this method is the most feasible method to quickly line these pipes. Funding for this project will be funded by the current watermain fund. However, water customers within the Morningside Neighborhood that obtain water. from City of Minneapolis are paying almost the same rate that Minneapolis charges the City of Edina. The meter charge for this area generates approximately $18,000 per year. It is difficult to rehabilitate the system without any substantial up- charge for future capital improvements. To help defray these costs, staff will have our water rate consultant reanalyze the rates for the Minneapolis water users this fall for a potential increase in 2009. Staff recommends awarding this project to Insituform Technologies USA, Inc. Signature The Recommended Bid is within budget not withi Public Works - Engineering Department n)KAlin, Finance Director (Gordon Hughes, "City:Manager GAEngineering\Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08.5 Momingside WM . Pipe Relining\ADMINVN MENG 08-5 RFP.doc LEGEND HYDRANT REPLACEMENT WATERMAIN LINING 0 Im !W It" M FM :a (— f: - Il L i 1 N • - - - -- 1 41ST 5T w I �• I �I , , I 1 N • I �• I �I CIP UTILITY ANALYSIS 2007 -2012 Project Est. / Bid Country Club $ 7,740,872.00 $ Well No. 7 $ - $ Water Treatment Plant No. 5 $ 6,683,000.00 $ Neighborhood Recons $ 618,362.00 $ Morningside Water $ 1,238,974.00 $ Pipe Lining $ 464,607.00 $ Total CIP 8,504,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 7,600,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 480,000.00 $ 450,000.00 $ Difference 763,128.00 60,000.00 917,000.00 381,638.00 (758,974.00) (14,607.00) 1,348,185.00 Note: This analysis only covers anticipated substantial differences than what is listed in the CIP 20080530 CIP Analysis.xls 11:36 AM 5/30/2008 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: . Mayor Hovland and Members of the City Council FROM: John Keprios, Director of Parks and Recreation VIA: Gordon Hughes, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000 DATE: June 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: W.B. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Adventure Peak Remodel Improvement — Edinborough Park Compan y Amount of Ouote or Bid 1. Earl F. Andersen, Inc. 1. $53,390.00 RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Account #: 5600.1780 Earl F. Andersen, Inc. - $53,390.00. GENERAL INFORMATION: This remodel/improvement to Adventure Peak will be our third major addition to the structure since the installation in 2003. These new and exciting improvements will definitely add interest to Adventure Peak, which will attract new customers and help maintain existing customers. The center point of this project is a new, fast and exciting slide. This improvement also includes upper level supports and attachments that will give the entire structure much needed additional structural stability. Other benefits of the project include giving guests another exit from the bottom of the orange slide and also providing a second path to climb to the top of the structure. Additional play events are also included in this play structure improvement as shown on the attached colored drawings. This project is an addition to the existing Adventure Peak play structure which is manufactured by International Play Company (IPC). Earl F. Andersen, Inc. is the only bidder because they are the original and local sales representative company for International Play Company who provided the equipment that is now Adventure Peak. These unique play components; which make Adventure Peak so popular, are proprietary to IPC (the sole provider). Their components include larger tunnels and taller levels which allows parents to climb alongside their children. IPC is also the only provider of the parts, such as, pipes, pads and tubes that are needed for this expansion. This play structure improvement is funded by Edinborough/Centennial Lakes Park's 2008 Capital Improvement Plan, which is budgeted at only $50,000; however, we are under budget on other 2008 CIP projects, such as, the pick -up truck ($2,969.05 under budget) and the Centennial Lakes roof replacement ($138,748.00 under budget). John Ko6r16s. Director This Recommended bid is Edina Park and Recreation Department _X within budget not within bud t J Gordon ] Director ty Manager Note Actual colors may vary. ill ifliaged murals are single sided only unless otherwise noted. /Vl site dimensions to be verified by the pur&aser (%20% International Play Co. AlI Rights Reserved i Elevation 1 Elevation 2 EXISTING EQUIPMENT (PHASE I AND II) D NEW VERTICAL POST AND FOAM - NEW HORIZONTAL PIPE AND FOAM NEW EQUIPMENT IN FULL COLOR Project Name: Notes : +►*r�♦ Intornatlonal Play Co. ti Scale: N.T.S. 702169!1411 avenue, Edinborough Park Drawn by : B.E. _: C `" Sal"' 1604; -1IN 9G/ Checked By: C.R. Elevations ,.0 ' rax: (604) 882.110" - PHASE III - Revision No: 001 E-MaI, IpeQsb&Nblr ca Date :March 19, 2008► A www•I1Hpmallonniplpyco.GOm su:v�Air trl lwpv Car,'. IY.I IF2 TRIO 'v; • Note- Actual colors may vary; All imaged murals are single sided only unless otherwise noted. All site dimeneious to be verified by the purchaser C12008 Inlefriaticnal May Co, All RIglls Re-prved. Feature Event 7ft Drop Slide to be installed above existing Orange Loop Slide Proposed Triangle Steps Provide alternative access from ~`•� lev -2 up to lev -7 �•� Project Name : Notes : ,� ►"Owe International Play Co. Scale: N.T.S, 2OZiF Ott", AvoFIUtl, Edinborough Park Drawn by: B.E. Chocked By: C.R. Rendering 1 � C Langley, 8C, Canada, VIM 3G1 Fa3v 41 ass -Ilea 4, sa:nnrr - PHASE III - Revision Nu: 001 �� MIRI tl0 E IAeil° Iper�hawUFZCe VrWWA"tarnaltonalplayca.com p Date: KIarch 19, 2008 A'.1d1ny ce 1p ay +n Cnq, IId 1F+- rlx -v,. Note: Actual colors may vary: All imaged murals are single sided only unless otherwise noted, All site dimensions to be verified by the purchaser. C'2DDt3 International tray Co, All Rights Regerved Project Narne Edinborough Park - PHASE III - Scale: N.T.S. Drawn by : B.E. Checked By: C.R. Revision No: 001 Date : March 19, 2008 Notes : Rendering 2 *AT'O& International Play Co. �� f 20316 56th Am, , s C `'^Q'6al";1 �;;�;1vAg �G1 ;,�,• Fax: t904, W-1977 E#1e1C Ipeg@S1haub17 ca, w.11,W madonalplayao.00m A urc AfWf ei 1papi, U :, I r1 (P,' TRX.y I-7 ?.ba 8 -To F-a i X o , C'(-� jta f-F a A d) (F� COLWI cwt/ R ,Pl �� ! o -� -�' l� a+b- ch e c lei' Y� 61� �' �'c�a k _� by (0,Y) Cc 'rV1i5 p �F�� Gl &2 o cx- It ilL.c, fiea-,(,)i -f ay GL X111 � n t ►�� G�i d,e, ►���,rd> >� - �'lt.e.. �vv��� Vl�a��r�l � � }nr . I'-j �d -E'e n C►�e Q �e�o �1.� r c�i ►� a. -Pt� 1 t � n s -p4&4) 6-n Is A� rc i t,�a � - �l�t_2_ %UI av n 5rc� N bay azs b 4 by Cam 4 � -rk"k yo-K REGENE� nf' 952 G29 `-o t� PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: Address: i(0 1-YAM) Signature: This petition is supported by: 'KT--- A AAvaao Riannhire 1/U RAC 00 \ \ Date J r r , 0 VeIv- i WWM / L � � � � ■ter% � __ � , /40� 00", pzev� US - - - - - - - - - - A . , , , ME I� ME �21 Ma -A �\ 19, XMIA 6 MS.' WMIN IL I 100"'Pa" 0 VeIv- i PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. � This petition is circulated by: Name: � Address: YO v L Signature: This petition is supported by: X.- -- - A AA.— // Qionwhire, SF44 ✓,raw e9Fr ?00', Date WA���c "Pill !/ I MOAN, Id La -- _ ♦ Aliff"11,1B MUNFRA101116 l I M WIP0, � _ M ILI PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to acceptin,Ta bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: (,r e l.wS Grl phi Address: p x Signat "l 4--� ►'� rl ure: ` �..r i�,�8, This petition is supported by: -- Ri nnah,rP Date J v / 1 ►1 v� . `irk PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. GwC l c� c� This petition is circulated by;Name: 1 Address: S• r N Signature: This petition is supported by: \ A -1 -3---- Ci anatnre Date 1 INUMU a - s� L 7z - 2 a -'N 3 6 Z 4 D lr 6 1/e, GyIS S rj-eLdL{YUC �J Cf Z i <S 8 446-1 •\lv ` 4 2�'— 5-{ .t 9 �J A l 10 ao� Ls ' 11 a LL 12 Z/z z klwe ri PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of �the/ proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: j (A LI rc �� Address: 4000 U�)nY'N e-- �d►v� �;Ft ,, ,.'" x Signature: �) `� This petition is supported by: �`,v� AT Signature Date 1 �ktr 114dw-i-ris /f 05- Dm ttloen- L:i- Edi1nA 2 �JU l ► e a:vl Lem 40 00 A v�.. r ✓� 6�� 3 I elp T M ve eU' 4 Io LU 01A kZ td1'00--- q Mvv ►Nr� %r���� 5 YJ0a c.Lf A o I 6 li m r rrr ur�t A rVWA , 7 t'G�v l e 000 L• n .n I 8 9 goo Ava- CJ4 L/ to 4z°`' Sri— 11 0 1! 56 LO I)Vb I' :S rid��-- ld � 12 m PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: JU I ( 2 Bl n &r- Address: $00(j �j n n Av -) Signature: f This petition is supported by: N I F . I Address Signature Date' ZU11G irro 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. A c/rr This petition is circulated by: Name: Tavv,_ B 1zA`( Address: 4cor, i-pl , A-LW_ Signature:jy�i This petition is supported by: V \ ,.T__ _ e rMrPCC Sianature Date IN arlle 07 1—YAf 2 61 4 � W 5 6 -1 -air ? R o � S�a2d. F�sbvJ goko �j��'r�� �� S 6 /G � 0 8 L 1 �_ _ 9 '1024 UC.�^ A ✓a S d—, Mt\, / � iG 0& 10 tAW A �pz� - 0 11 12 nor r PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to acce ' g�a bid. �p1aA Cl j , This petition is circulated by: Name: "o-'o-et P j ?� Ali �y Address: �p5 y fir; Signature: _,,,Z !�,�- �`'�:�►, ,,� This petition is supported by: Address Signature Date Name 1 J ZP� 4 2a... i�evr� 8001 L r✓� 1qr� ��l a p.r zt 4 DOS h v� 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting_a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: Cori 5 10A^1 � Address: 4-33o U e,' ,s Signature: This petition is supported by: MQMP A ddracc We", M/710.1 17) Ilk Date 0 I If . ►.. ��� .�. �MAA M on _ ., �WMMUMEE, M �;' M-�� • 1 l ,�a��� FAVORrl� K 1011M.- WMUILM��� �11 Elva . M-4 F, 0 I If PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City -of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: �� �, Address: 4-330 o Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date MA 1 W Lc���� / /&rlo;�L•z��. 6/1 Mffllz M 1� r �, NO 0�Wi ���� W11 IBM _WA _A • /y A • ffFf Ma" � V 44 090 IPA M4 Milk M in WN lld�WZVMAW M�� MA PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting abid. - This petition is circulated by: Name: kxs Address: 43 3 Oc. �c�- S• = .Signature• ,op,__,® This petition is supported by: ,.r.-- a AdrP.QC Signature Date s •. , �i� own "12;� / l PAR owl Was I a-r PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: J2� ` �'�` o Address: ,. r ,.-� s ,Ave S Signature: This petition is supported by: V.' Name Address _. Signature Date 1 .4 � � i u C 01- a v e �L CtiV-L. wu 3 vE-FF 9%-k4e5V-MQ `1 224 4 G✓ e c l� l�-r -. �4x'e / �i -l/ 5 42 l 6 LM�L `ke. t L two 'W • Il�' 8 9 r o U i fC Pr Z r 10 4 11 L�Q �CVU[�L �. 3 C--Ar(cMQs Ap, so, ta 12 � �c U PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: Address: 4330, G klc s Signature: � This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date 1 Mo.,AL \�o ov\ �a' G 2 Corrn( �o h ns 3S0 �a� h� a - 7 -C 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: 0 ?a-�� Address: O S � S Z Cv V' Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date DqX1 l< 71f cD 2 3 UA&A qaTd NA W 1-716 9 4 . LEM �c r 422 L Z� sL_ &111 � - 22Z� -e t911 -?-foe 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: }' { Address: Signature:. . This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date 2 - Ooll J JP 4 5 O O 6 8 I►�n�� Ell R! J o! RI .rte AV- rs 07jo� 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to acceptin did. This petition is circulated by: Name: Address: 42.4 (o C1 r` wi e5 ffve-, Se , Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date 1 ( �� � ,,. '-F gas �1�+'►� -a Aj sD AP 2 �►'►' i anti i Gh z Z G� S �� So G -/G .0 3 Li z z--7 G o:�-. e,--s Ce - i .o 4 �6 -16 0 5 r�VG 6zk-1 uK)%�. 4 2-34 G -7rtyWS &1�e 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 �u ne I-7 z6a 8 —TO F-� I,n a-, ��ty S�ta ff OVK CO 6� CCOrl C:v 1, c i rcaZteb by co'1 a>t, q r b--f -1' t M 6 n 10 ode. b� o� el a 4h, aC Eck; ✓ict . �n l tc t� n j -F6 CL l I r l Nl � n � ►� � d.e, re��d►'� � �vtsp�e�Q V l�a��r �� pe 2.�Q ► n Nt4c a Gerd- (4-n nwrjS aAA `'` +kk- me+h a-zQ� �� Q.� c� P I ✓) Gv Q, 3--f -! 1W y, U J D - � 0.d(jt Y) CL, I nq� , —rh,l S is no� Ahyylly�r,?IIQP-t�46-V64 A-:�;So b 14 by Cm C-Ornel c i J G�SY c �Ut y� o�Ps�'� L� i n Avg qSZ G29 4-o t � PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: SG � �)v4A Cjp- C' Address: U Ly/✓►'� E E� in�q F SS�� �U Fq4 Signature: / f% R�N� >? P This petition is supported by: Name � O Signature Date 2 I aivt So NOW. Ww"ella M WN W 'AKIN, rM , - AFM Y'r 'M US w4mm, M11001 1,10, lvt, 11 M7,101 all ff� IN, EBY M1, 01 1 MM I= 0 o - "010,11, VA APJ i W"t LMM MM. 2 I Li PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: /t N C /Ty Address: z/40 L YAW FI> > -Mn/ gs vl Signature: ✓UN e9FCF/ � 08/ This petition is supported by: \D Name Address Sianature, ^ Date' " ON MM ��/I� �r1►�� MA T �. r it ��✓ W�.1 WE Wwq, (10 Mil A v -- -_ • WIN MW or JL ffff 61 A. WE,, V M1 F M1, A., now _I PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to acc a bid. °\ C/, Thispetition is circulated by: Name: M (,r'e 1 w -s A phi ✓� SFq� p�, Address: Signature :�0 r rl v--e,,. This petition is supported by: \o Name Signature Date ,8 I Rowan?, An, RE-Ozo. �,,Rrimml IM `TAMA r, AM ffff� " -, wt, ?� t 4 PA. P, .0 1 -ftft-M! 'LIN Mr .. MI iff, Mz Wu o, Mo e � 5-12. PAF I.,- r "r W�M VA I I �Wavz M NFL, V—I Hill! ,8 I PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. �� �P /T This petition is circulated * ame: M C �' C)n � �N&- n Address: !�� C�� rl h �_ S, ✓U,y� �� Signature: eycccFi� ?��8� This petition is supported by: \ Name Address Signature Date J MIS W, _ J2W.1 :: � ...� 1 ✓j J PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type'of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to ac5q), d. This petition is circulated by: Name: J U L E B At J kE2' Address: 40 0 O U) nr AY'- 15ci) w Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature SFq � kC 4/11 Date A I �16MTO%� , US a ` W'".1" 1( , w �- M RVE MICLII `iu 1 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name:JU Ire Bl�nC2�. n^,\tAAQ/ Address: 0006 » vCJ Signature: This petition is supported by. Name Address Signature Date 1 0 11� V4W qW 5�- Fd, v&55q)1 t, (00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June =1`S; 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: -!Guro- B A v Address: yaps aIhK fie- Signature: U y FO This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date 1 #0 0 7 Z. aI & A ✓� . S c�-� ea-- 3. ' _ �5 5 /q-0 6 A4'e' K/6 -0 8- 9 I f _ `f02`{ Vi; h A a S c�,nC M`V - 10 e —l� o 11 12 Uoe z Z5 L/ C7 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to acce a bid. \NA CITY This petition is circulated by: Name: `�R ra 13 SF44 Address: q�5 n 11 ANN J, Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date r2-4 ik, qg/ L y��� t/�. (0 2 Ear... %la.rl, Hoot L4,%,, Av-*- y 3 lea a �IZ(� r 4boS L Kh j, G 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the .City of Edina, request the City- Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accept' a bid. �( A CITY This, petition is circulated by: Name: l.K rl S SFq� Address: 4t33o oo- .S ✓UN Signature: eyFCF p8 \O This petition is supported by: Name Address . MgdaM Date NA F �1600 � W-0, - _ , _. , _ o �.. !� MI ,0 .� = WMAi2_44'/1: "N.F. RIVA �o� : - G.�,... rte; 1100MV0,11' _ I ^� ,I" . _ �rw •; — F SIRA v1 1 ■ ./ own!"121 , ,y' ..1 , , h / 1�f MEN M M tr i PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accep og -a-bid y This petition is circulated by: Name: r�'S �° �'� ✓U SFq� r Address: Signature: �AFCFj�FdB. This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date , J W ol �'IWW A I A �Ak VIA off -MEWLWA Ma AM URI � ` �' I y ►sir i' , M" / / `�f'AQO i i ME _ • M0/ Ell IN I M NMI ��' i ■ 0 0, 2 VIA I :.� it M / M, 60, , J W ol PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community,concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside; water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on. this project prior to.accepDa This petition is circulated by: Name: ( r �� 'o ktiS Address: 43:3o p4,k� Signature P This petition is supported by: Name Address Sinnature Date W-1 MCI 2MV-VIN—W. M W--.. A M -0. M� W ffl., 0- mo - i I el" al M � 0- M. g2pFOP low Tall 0 WMM�� W, , "Wr A- A M, M, - Md, Z0. NIN PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: %2� ., ° ''�4 �� 1 Q�NA CITE Address: 'It Signature: -fig This petition is supported by: ey CF���O Name Address _ Signature Date OPP- _ o ,, _,� M, Must:101m MICAMEAM Psi, oll- �' PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the. City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. �` , Q \�1A C/-- This petition is circulated.by: Name: Cjv� _S JokKS SFq� Address: 4330 ►`�� ��N J Signature: eyFCFi�F 48 This petition is supported by: Name Aaaress Nignatpre gate 1 Q � 0Y.,` �a�a, - 6 2 Orra( -ohhs 330 OakdaEALY-Sz) 3 _ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing ` Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. / OlNP CITYC This petition is circulated by: Name: - 1 ?Q--� ��� SEAL ` Address: a C, r, s de-) v S JUN 17 Signature: REC 208 This petition is, supported by: Name Address Signature Date k� u S (t�c�l ��11 R 5 fr—� .� .� < 7 f0 2 &, —0=,-4 3 4 . i OTC (� 422 �' 4Z� SE, j/,�"' 222 to/[ � 08 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. O�NP This petition is circulated by: Name: SEA Address: Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address YE�E1 �E� Signature Date -c 8 IL M1'1!4.MMmvm 11"A Ulm AQ121'' - eJ ►Oil r ;.., �_ , �.., CFA il Iry PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the; .safety -of pipe'material- and the cost of the Morningside water_ main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearingon-this "project prior to acceptin � a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: A?IePL/ L' <� Address: -24(0 G re os e5 f VR, SO, I Signature: ay ;E 08 O This petition is supported, by: Name Address Signature Date 1 ? �i► r i or�G� i Gh 2?7 S �� So -/G -V 3 c_l -lN6--) 4, l'-t �,s ✓C. Sa L C.e ► .a 4 -}Z rr - 16 5 l-�' _evG 6z4.__1lAuK'%N 42-34 G -7rVV%eS &0e 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ;l REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Wayne D. Houle, PE, City Engineer VIA: Gordon Hughes, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15,000 DATE: June 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM IV. C. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Browndale Bridge Improvements: Contract No. ENG 08 -3; Improvement No. BR -3 Comaany 1. Landwehr Construction, Inc. 2. S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. 3. Sunram Construction, Inc. 4. Park Construction Company 5. Robert R. Schroeder Construction, Inc. 6. Redstone Construction Company, Inc. 7. Lametti & Sons, Inc. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Landwehr Construction, -Inc. Amount of Quote or Bid $ 460,300.97 $ 494,974.46 $ 533,582.72 $ 735,085.85 $ 790,311.00 $ 835,858.50 $ 852,269.00 $ 460,300.97 GENERAL INFORMATION: This is for the rehabilitation and preservation of the Browndale Bridge and dam. This bridge is structurally sound, however the concrete facade of the bridge has been eroding over the last ten years. During the design of the bridge our bridge consultant, TKDA, found a scour hole downstream of the dam, along with some repairs needed for the dam. The proposed project will, cap the bridge with structural concrete. The columns and rails will be replaced with the original designed lattice railing, see attached plan. The pavement over the bridge will be replaced with bituminous pavement. Council suggested a paver type pavement; however the design of the bridge requires an impermeable surface. There will be brick paver crosswalks along Browndale Avenue at West 50"' Street and at Country Club Road. The Heritage Preservation Board has reviewed the plans and has issued a certificate of appropriateness for the project. This project is in the Capital Improvement Plan, which allocated $380,000 for the project. Minnehaha Watershed District has appropriated $50,000 for the scour repair. Staff will be resubmitting to the watershed a request for $63,000 to accommodate any channel repairs such as the work proposed on the dam. The overage for this project would come from the construction fund; this amount could be $17,000 to $80,000 depending on additional fund from the watershed district. Consultant and staff have analyzed the bids and feels that rebidding the project would not acquire lower bids. Staff recommends awarding the bid to Landwehr Construction. Inc. The Recommended Bid is within budget not within Hughes, GAEngineeringZontracl NumbersWOMENG 08-3 Browndale BridgeWDMIMMISM20080617 ENG 08-3 RFP.doc Public Works - Engineering _,--n Departrioent in, Finance Director . .......... ...... ........ ................. -�.- CITY OF EDINA e .em vesT Soen 4 Eoan. Mx 55.2.-179 -139 P. 952-826 E.a• 952-W6-0389 038 9 Vp 13 L�o aTw Ml. T� TTHAATT I ii .°�' r�i er .[ m uorn THDA BRDtI &E AVENUE M IBBI �' .a °A r � BRIDGE NO. MAX PwLsv ocum maw rrE uus aPiK i ., °ar .m.csm. Iwo mm u.n.. ti.7. CONSTRUCTION PLAN mn+A.lmrMEwT" AND PROFILE 92643 a o.�ic� ucra mns mmn amp ommis• uomsas• Ru.or: s s�sm. CITY DMVE1FNT ND.BR -3 SHEET NO. 5 OF 29 SHEETS Q 10+65.75 LT. \ RT. END C a G DESIGN ease. BEGD/ C \ G DESIGN SPECIAL l� ® 10 +75.75 LT. \ RT. DO C \ G DESIGN SPECIAL. O BEGIN C \ G DESIGN GRADE BEAU ® 10+65.75 LT.! C \ G DESIGN GRADE BEAIL LONST. BEGIN C \ G DESIGN N CALL CAP DESIGN LIMITS Q ¢¢ Q 11+07.75 LT.\ RT. END C k G DESIGN CALL CAP END TAPER STA.10 +80 2 b Y' '.y �D ® 11+52.72 LT. \ RT. BEGIN C \ G DESIGN WALL CAP ©11+68.72 RT. END C l G DESIGN WALL CAP. 50 , RDS RDSA N r1 s 111333 1 �y rri F\I S AND CHARM ARDRAIL C BEGIN C \ G DESIGN GRADE BEAM SCALE IN FEET 6 57� bJ LLQTS $ j i !D �1 Q 12+00.72 LT. END C \ G DESIGN WALL CAP. BEGIN C k G DESIGN GRADE BEAM �8 Us V� i QB 12+20 LT. \ RT. END C \ G DESIGN GRADE BEAM. L99 - TCH OQSTIIOs _ BEGDI C \ G DESIGN SPECIAL 2,_1. PAS SIT TAPE 12 +30 LT. \ RT. EEO C \ G DESIGN SPECIAL. BEGIN C \ G DESIGN Bale . .......... ...... ........ ................. -�.- CITY OF EDINA e .em vesT Soen 4 Eoan. Mx 55.2.-179 -139 P. 952-826 E.a• 952-W6-0389 038 9 Vp 13 L�o aTw Ml. T� TTHAATT I ii .°�' r�i er .[ m uorn THDA BRDtI &E AVENUE M IBBI �' .a °A r � BRIDGE NO. MAX PwLsv ocum maw rrE uus aPiK i ., °ar .m.csm. Iwo mm u.n.. ti.7. CONSTRUCTION PLAN mn+A.lmrMEwT" AND PROFILE 92643 a o.�ic� ucra mns mmn amp ommis• uomsas• Ru.or: s s�sm. CITY DMVE1FNT ND.BR -3 SHEET NO. 5 OF 29 SHEETS 1.4 yyyyyy��� C X C�n W' Z O� PANEL E DITEtaOR POST -'1 T f0• - E DTTEHIOR POST r-u• 3•_u. Y f-E PANEL BAR Ts OIL HOLE RYPJ • TS 6x6x" SECTION A -A TOP VIEW TOP OF INSIDE ELEVATION CURB IVOL1. -TS ]x2 u TOP -14- PLATE CAP r7 HALF CIRCLE bw� EL HOLE TYP. TS 6x6x300 • RAILPOST • OIA. H.L y &TS WITH I• DIA. HALF COTCLE HARDENED WASHERS F ;r LG BAH Z. PLATE D CAP WEEP HOLE TYP. 10' ELEVATION VIEW C-C OUTSIDE ELEVATION SIDE VIEW RAILPOST RAILPOST ANCHORAGE BASE PLATE DETAIL CITY CONTRACT NO. ENG 08 -3 E mrtm nu, v Km us P v n �c a um� BRO•tDALE AVM 04 � m Az w m U1OIO) rR� BRIDGE NO. M. 'iWLr •'i u'�mTM",K',"ACs',R� .rL�;�$P,m.csorA =Dg „oo P.u,u,iu,,,.n ORNAMENTAL METAL RAILING °d � O° a WWR Y FAADI 40 mD snou YaESGTA TYPE SPECIAL SHEET NO. 26 OF 26 SHEETS 92643 - -- _ ... ...... emxne...emma RAWm tAOR PAU mESOrA CITY DPROViH4R N0. BR-3 t TO: Mayor & City Council REQUEST FOR PURCHASE FROM: Wayne D. Houle, PE, City Engineer VIA: Gordon Hughes, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $15.000 DATE: June 17, 2008 AGENDA ITEM IV. D. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Highlands Neighborhood Reconstruction: Contract No. ENG 08 -8; Improvement Nos. BA -342, SS -438, STS -343, S -092 & W M -476 Company 1. Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 2. Valley Paving, Inc. 3. Midwest Asphalt Corporation 4. Max Steininger, Inc. 5. Hardrives, Inc. 6. Thomas and Sons Construction, Inc. 7. Bituminous Roadways RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Northwest Asphalt, Inc. GENERAL INFORMATION: Amount of Quote or Bid $ 1,1,65,104.75 $ 1,268,677.57 $ 1,307,101.10 $ 1,326,682.98 $ 1,364,672.72 $ 1,451,992.68 $ 1,624,692.70 $ 1,165,104.75 This project is for street and utility improvements throughout the Highlands Neighborhood and sidewalk along Doncaster Way. The project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, rehabilitating the watermain and sanitary sewers, upgrading the storm sewer systems, street lighting system and the sidewalk. The Doncaster sidewalk was ordered by the Edina City Council on September 4, 2007. The Highlands project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the April 15, 2008, Public Hearing. During the Highlands public hearing the City Council requested a new street light survey be sent to the residents with alternative options to be bid out for the streetlight system (see attached Lighting Survey No. 3, May 2, 2008). On April 29, 2008, staff met.with a member of the neighborhoods street light committee, (see attached meeting summary). A street light survey was then sent out. After the survey was sent out, an email was circulated in the neighborhood suggesting that resident's reject all alternatives presented by the survey. Therefore, the survey results are not particularly conclusive. The results of the survey are attached to this report. Staff bid out the streetlights using the following three options: 1. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at key locations along Ayrshire Boulevard. (6 light locations) - $30,450, $600 /REU 2. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) — $54,390, $1050 /REU 3. Construct new underground wiring and new decorative poles with acorn style lights at all existing light locations within the.neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $111,510, $2150 /REU Some neighborhood residents have advocated a street light plan that would utilize existing poles and fixtures where possible. Staff believes that such an alternative may result in a piecemeal approach to the lighting project, which would not serve the neighborhood well into the future. Staff recommends that the Council accept Option 3 as the best long -term value. However, Options 1 and 2 are feasible from an engineering standpoint. The estimated total project assessment per residential equivalent unit (REU) is $12,600, which includes the streetlights. This is approximately $ 2,400 per REU lower than the feasibility estimate. This project will be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study project estimate is $1,443,661.50. Staff recommends awarding the project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. 55 / WI N , The Recommended Bid is within budget Public Works - Engineering epart ent not within budget JgKn Wa 'n, Finance Director G. Hughes, Iffty anager G: \Engineering \Contract Nun bers\2008\ENG 08-8 Highlands Neighborhood & Doncaster Sidewalk\ADMIN\MISC \ENG 08-8 RFP.doc PROPERTY OWNERS QUESTIONAIRE SHEET HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD AREA.. SEWER, WATER AND STREET RECONSTRUCTION CITY OF EDINA February 1, 2008 Attachment B Please do not answer these questions until after you have read the entire newsletter. Complete and return this survey to the City by February 8, 2008, using the self addressed stamp envelope or hand deliver at the February 13, 2008, Open House. I. II. Sump Pump Discharge Service Line: A. Does your home have a drain tile /footing drain? B. Does your home have a sump pump? Please sketch in the space to the right: your house, garage, driveway, and approximately where along the ROW line you would like the service connection pipe placed. Residential Roadway Lighting Option: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑Unknown ❑ Yes ❑ No HOUSE ROW EXAMPLE GARAGE HOUSE SERVICE OCONNEC710N PIPE HERE ROW C-URB - --L-INE ------ -- -- -- - - --- - - - - -- Many neighborhoods have simple wood -pole intersection lighting systems, or they may have existing decorative lighting systems that are in need of replacement. Asa part of. the roadway residential roadway reconstruction we plan on upgrading the lighting system by adding new decorative lighting, or replacing the existing poles with new styles. The information contained in this guide will help you select a style appropriate for your neighborhood. Pole placement will usually be limited to one pole at every intersection and one pole per mid -block between intersections. Your neighborhood may elect to have either intersection only lighting or mid - block lighting which neither of these installations will provide security lighting levels. To give ample security lighting this would require mid -block placement of the poles and intersections. From the following spacing options, please tell us which spacing you prefer. Rank the spacing options in order from 1 to 2 on the lines provided below (1 being the most desirable). GAEngineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood & Doncaster Sidewalk\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DES IGNTEASIBILITIY\20080128 Highlands Resident Questionnaire.doc 1 of 4 J 1 Mid -Block and Intersections February 1, 2008 Attachment B Intersections Only MID -BLOCK & INTERSECTIONS INTERSECTION ONLY 10 Please rank Basic Lighting Style Options in order from 1 to 2 on the lines provided below (1 being most desirable). _Cobra Head Light Shoebox Light Please rank Decorative Lighting Style Options in order from 1 to 4 on the lines provided below (1 being most desirable). Acorn Light _ Coach Lantern _ Postop Lantern _ Arlington Lantern G:\Engineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood & Doncaster Sidewalk\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DESIGNTEASIBILITM20080128 Highlands Resident Questionnaire.doc 2 of 4 February 1, 2008 Attachment B Lighting Styles: A. Which style of lighting do you prefer? ❑ Basic Lighting ❑ Decorative Lighting B. Why? III. Pedestrian Issues: A. Do you prefer constructing new sidewalks in your neighborhood? ❑ Yes ❑ No B. If Yes, Where? C. Please list any specific neighborhood pedestrian comments below (e.g. crossing problems, etc.). IV. Private Underground Utilities A. Do you have an underground lawn irrigation system in the City right -of -way boulevard and if so which company services your irrigation system? (Typically the right -of -way is 10' to 15' behind the roadway.) ❑ Yes ❑ No B. Do you use an irrigation company to maintain your system? ❑ Yes ❑ No If Yes, please include the name of your Irrigation Company: Phone number: C. Do you have an underground electric pet containment system in the City right -of -way boulevard? ❑ Yes ❑ No V. Local Drainage Problems: GAEngineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood & Doncaster Sidewalk\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DES IGNTEASIBILITIY\20080128 Highlands Resident Questionnaire.doc 3 of 4 February 1, 2008 Attachment B VI. Stay Informed with the Project Process: The City recently introduced the "City Extra" e-mail notification service. This service is free and allows individuals to sign up to receive e-mail messages from the City on a variety of topics. To sign up for the service go to the City Extra website at hgp:Hcilyextra.cilyofedina.com and place a check mark in the box next to this project's name, "Highlands Neighborhood ". Please contact the City at 952- 927 -8861 if you are having trouble signing up for City Extra. Please tell us how we can reach you if we have questions or comments about the data you have given to us on this questionnaire. Day Phone Email Address Evening Phone The Minnesota Data Practices Act requires that we inform you of your rights about the private data we are requesting on this form. Under the law, your telephone number and email address are private data. This survey when submitted will become public information. There is no consequence for refusing to supply this information. Thank you for your cooperation. Please mail this questionnaire in the enclosed self addressed envelope. It is postage paid for your convenience. Please complete all questions and return to the City of Edina by February 8, 2008, or hand deliver at the February 13, 2008, Open House even if your answers are "No." GAEngineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood & Doncaster Sidewalk\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DESIGN\FEASI13ILITIY\20080128 Highlands Resident Questionnaire.doc 4 of 4 CITY PROJECT BA-342 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBHORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 8/1212008 OUESTIONAIRE RESULTS Attachment C FROM FEBRUARY 1, 2008. QUESTIONAIRE g�EryYeehdY:.4rrl NunbeA200eEND OB. MdemblYgwedemd cp .6begelMAL7Hgtlmb MeeW1EL IMDESICdAFEA51BeJIMV4Yeeee 5ureye1 —m 5112a M11'21 AM Sump Pump Obchege S.nrk. Llrre Rmmmtle Roedwev Llandm Onden p.dmbin Imam PIHeb 10W.rpnund Utllltlm pren6b wl`png Dreln HM.Sunp Pump Pole Plemrrenl Bmk Lininno D.tareNe LbIlM. Liahtno SPA, Pnfennoo Ref "n Irlgpetlan M -In blvd. Cpnpny nehl, IM.Ihn s .7 None d IITI.ear Petantemrrenl a .Imn W..Wk. Mltl-BN A Inbnecl Cdee Shm Reamed Spe 10c Nl, p Petlmblet ADDRESS 6urvev Yes No Unkn Yes N. Inbraml Only Heed bat At nC—h Pw Adlnplon B.e. Deco Why Yee No Cane .tn— .W— Wk.W,n7 Camenls Yee No Yes Np Yee No La:d drenem plablene MnyMd hnhu lvetsdown Dunaelg, Lmhkvy, Ayrshke nd arse Bn wind by wdbM bow I'd Rte de me Ir Mw hwme an Ayrerhs breed hbnedyllghdng rrve Du-neg ed Lochby. We need" AweCeVhIgedan 612. " 5277 Lah Or 1 1 1 7 2 2 1 4 3 2 1 1 f eoer i 1 Th L n.k. sure the, b see. 7 I 85&3300 1 B Ball b hne. - beery Oury. Vw .LodAn b fdn2Y. Very anew, r41 h p* p *ee pule 211+ - The 'nelw.er. TM kw d 525715252 Ldd yed ds ebow-1kv 1 bbok d AyrNbe ee ft epde ee Your kMI b be eeee ceeful. The Ike beparree 0 b • b&W bw and Tege gghl eem dawn the ...-d braer r —Y- re0rer mn wt Hew The -IV mebon me o.Id ml dvarpl dra Duramr emp. Keeplobet— ndk dshaM khr povebly need men b ArWft TMnstd NSnlnodhm ywd 4eedana Danl ab belt' han Oonc_ww bwee Ltddpy. vbm6ly end w lee good=wr 5284 A 7 1 1 mwlocmans. 1 2 1 3 3 3 1 veWpbdlbdwr. 1 IJOwhlre elmil kw. __.L 1 1 1 Dosnl nett", which- 5236 Loch Or 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 3 2 "aeneM. 1 1 7 1 Onlyonepnbl. (psd)WbeW Nd In arppvl d arts a rwnked rA01 eepelpl e 5210 Du Rd 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 4 -1 1 hlermetln d A 6 1 1 1 Nana Have bved hen 25 Were nd eves d ny —hg pmbk- wept HlphlW Sdnd a w- O -eeanel elndhg wem a NW tune Beel Sb me enbbno ed11d k d- away Aynhke b AyMhe 8 Lpchmy 2rthg hsevy nt,. 5209 Looh Dr 7 1 1 2 1 1 2 4 4 4 4 1 d me nl ood. 1 H lent Perk hn Danpeeer. 7 1 1 Unewee d o dh" gem The md'gp dm Yld—Ww 9—w Mddr b epP- a R bee mn Aryehke hee beet p of Ie me enee —...d h 12 yre gp.3a4 mrelaeumrn,brbph e y rmlebrrk dte wtlY rulhhrg deal Ayre2s - a'e>we me arrb aq flews apeel m ' drhwey eM bpeem 1J b. d w� h tl1. gegp- The geep d b heee by eurrpe W*h ewe Welly pwoo ee mew" eW ehv he goys b 4'1 w Men the b'"" I , 8848 meat hod eef w h de bees ee t We Dan1 welt ddswede whkh warts arsdoob me d1e". d AyeWS" kd e It ael gs esre eoum w b boo geel Ipso end 'reds l eie C&G(nd M mW asphettee prd"deW. Hswbsel mrnw 50sr.AyMke BNtl me pn my hen) eW eel, me Vag ep dept kid me dam hes ds pe2 curb be PMW b 1-W. _. Pey ems seen b mb bow. We nwrmg ^pry dlegm pebp nry. Mny 1rlghb h ds ebe eek me _y knicn boo m sW bmle dm nd. eumrr tt N dpgPtl eeh peked Msbowmt bdgeln 753 "'M_Wy w__ M m"afae, neepn 5217E Ik 7 7 1 1 . 2 2 1 1 4 2 -J 1 Need more hfd 1 n bW ebm. 1 1 5583018 1 drKeeev Mon rretlem, nd w 5301 Glnbr Clr 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 2 1 mrvallw. 1 Dwcmleru mechtd. 1 7 Kew Green 1 5240 L=MW Or I 1 - 7 1 1 - wdry Lawn 812- 6128 Duncrdg Rd 1 7 1 1 1 1 ltd—th. 1 1 1 724 -7013 7 Curml eyb eW b Otmaelp b on bkdc bed ad. "rally Laew 812- 52]2 Rd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- - 1 1 724.7013 1 Nana 5273 Lmhb Or 1 I 1 2 1 2 4 3 1 2 1 I aheetly hew deco u.. 1 1 1 1 Good nivootlb nahgneeee- trd edlnvky pw --W Merl M God ...0 HlphleW Pek wamn by)udor Oran Aom 812- . 5225 Lah Dr _ 1 1 1 1 3 4 1 2 1 h b tlleesr. 1 embbe nd dak n. 1 1 929- 1 Nine. Whkhev" glees me Plane" MldwesL Inc. 5248 Looh Or I 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 3 treat L 1 1 1 783420 -0585 1 Nan.. . I hew geed m dd. Mgfdeds one la 40 V.. Th—b In need /e N. rsw lghb n eMlwada Np pI2E hee erel been Lodbp Dr 1 1 nestled. 1 h)und weWph db n%-d. 1 1 1 Nvn. 5245 Lwhby Or 1 1 I 1 Ctsl 1 1 1 1 Vey h.-y. feet .0 an AyMke- klb wabb b eddy aoee a 90 . M.My, bdh Wee -plcft. down ds.be.L 30r" eymd Ii fl Camby Ckrb Dbbkl d nd bdm, not "eyed. Vey dame -l. ws w Mee'dmy., Beek pbeee wl ds eke n wr aced Iv art ddtlrel own a me 5305A BNtl 1 1 1 2 7 ] 4 2 1 1 kdegnf b. 1 eWa, eWdwr 1 1 1 6308 A In BNd 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 1 ] 1 Unleue keit. 1 treft nd nwM not Ilke me etreel 1 1 1 Nane. g�EryYeehdY:.4rrl NunbeA200eEND OB. MdemblYgwedemd cp .6begelMAL7Hgtlmb MeeW1EL IMDESICdAFEA51BeJIMV4Yeeee 5ureye1 —m 5112a M11'21 AM CITY PROJECT BA-342 HIGHLANDS NEIGHSHORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 6/12/2008 OUESTIONAIRE RESULTS Attachment C FROM FEBRUARY 7, 20011, OUESTIONAIRE '7121 AM D1Erpwxq`Ca ]WCEfO¢dl•pr•.b. MlpeolvmlDarwtlw 6Mw. VABA' H] 1yNed. Me, PiE4N DESaIrNF.ABIB0.RM1grLM, ?newel RarAe �b Bump Pump Obehmp, S,mic, Um Reeld-0.1 Rout— Llphtlm OpBen Pedsblen luau Prlveb Und,,uww d Utlllee Drontlle v Faflnp Drdn Hee a Sunp Pu Pde Plecsrlml BmIcL tln DeooretNeL tln L tln 5 Pnlerence Pnler nex Irippetlon M- In bW. CornpsrY rrdnt ld s .? Na sdlM etlon Pel oontelnrmnt a bon eWewelk. Mb-B68 Inbreed Cdr, Shoo Rammed Spaclflc Nheod Pw..Men L¢ddronr ADDRESS Survav Yes No Unkn Ye No Intereed Only Heed box Acorn Caechpm Arlbplon Beek Darn Why Yee No ConabucinowdI- Wkeehme? Co le Ye No Vee Na Vee No OroNem 6237 Dr 1 -1 1 '2 1 1 2 1 7 2 4 1- 1 1 1 1 Depend. on W— Ihey ore behp plead m the nhad. M hee bore oecwcd Uaege end 6280 Lach Or 1 1 I 1 2 2 1 4 1 3 2 l tum. 1 1 1 I . A 4wmy & 4 nwdetl on en AyMYa6 DvraWr way - 5215 Lpch d 1 I 1 .2 1 2 1 7 3 4 2 1 Becmre B look. b.em. I vdvat. - W,thhaevy -1 runts n— deanI- DunvdptoGl.n - Ck, mnfnp haevlly pbonply) W the area et the bo d ar dri —ey, —ding l.dmeping end - pllnon mound ptoe but and penwel erect el bohml 5300 Gbnbr. Cb 1 1 7 I 1 2 2 3 I 4 1 Sule aldm nhad.. I 1 1 d drlw. Dr larbp dm nd - ' Po�nm nary lure, By MuM b I ten abatdy oppmd b atlea6. t3na. Aua. 852- . 5317 A . BNd f 1 1 1 7 1 1 3 2 1 nb w. t b th, nik o.d 1 1 8787232 Andr.on Sprlrlklnp 952- 1 1 1 1 1 828.7007 1 None. Dunv Rd 1 7 1 1 1 2 1. B.Om 1 Nor Not ewme d uy proble— If tamed "boll Hlphlade school Dee IIph7Inp pl'vm very d7Mmn, I —ld ,appeal a few r5-221 s ool 53rd b apsetl buns, m Ayahbe v " honsoMalt even ebw tlro drool bus Loh Or 1 1 1 1 1 1 elb0 1 - dr,, —tloen- 1 1 43"135 1 None 1155 Woo there b• pe king ,unable fu tor. on Wd? WB the blvd YB be ewe denoted,? We mad borer the bNd wan NIlb.ne eW ple" 6318 A Blvd 1 I 1 I 1 2 1 Look, a bl bead 1 .aet I 1 1 Mae elbe -We. I bell thd eh.", not h, sled. II.hald be It Cmemp std web Aynhhe b peel b We have a eel erect on the north eba d ar famn, epp—W by the .chord he been a eouroe d v ony properly that dr . Inb a Bo drain tlls. Thle Intl Dmk Sky Along AyMlhe on bath abed fa ns When my Nbe ewe Abs,Ina1 drain Ale enrplbe thro the orb m .h— m Frleretlal. Then bkd a It annoob Wth Vema he gee cst tlrM trs ncltba4y mtl ek.". Then Ie InedT :lent WW for the wpmved hpht, dreel eA bkcke done to Vemon. On 1.t tlonp Ary.hhe. Thor erne on dreln6b to dreto Inb the pee„ end rkxv won 1phbdun,Wowefed Nthwaided AyrNtref— Loohby)uelpeelarhem,40.a the orb.oew pipe hrEetlded Inthe orb4 fight 9*M up Into the D.—all; b Donc.br. N. erm ooecwn fro peda ebm roe nec envy to dew drdn4 We hew a 2M .ky. Low w,lte8e We Ir to hnk Aynhba Wih —11— 9. sand the ante 153 dNnbb the errptlee Into the g— a drevn. bums ctel be ueed Wth Vwnoo. Need only d fun let Pwhep. Lwhby cab ed Orton Hodaal 852 - On the rlh elde d ha., pm tf o We 6261 L¢hby Or 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 2 1 1 aA Aphl belry used. 1 Duncrelp to Vwnon. bete the 77 end 7? her? 1 1 839 -0 155 1 bets m ha. erld nhwe. - Wa n sum hvn HVda d Pmk . ehich pew rrsat of fool "ff. tle ebeeatk 1. MA .pal h b the - WhlN anblaet eaprNNeb On leek pw"- ee.t Woo- Pedc l—W ml11. to 1 1 1 1 2 1 m.8v f north and amth. aldevveBi . 1 1 k:F7 W�td iW 5778 Dom Le6721 Ayrahhe BNd 1 7 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 of d dote. I 232118 1 Crmmp Vmral d • big . Abo tb Non. er tno p�bmfune . Fle ln%oad *top. brMaoluutlDa.uedr wee 6288 Loch Or 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 1 2 I Nte -fefthrl. I Nab hem 6236 Looh Dr 1 Leant Legent Ayshlry the width It Is Mrr- tlmlr the teed bnvrav the dmineetl ebaxahs' ems W -don and .hb. Well ees a drten rrv. the beck d ar yed. ' m np wt nom the—er d Ayrehln6 Lochby -then 1, mnafl run the hlphw 5220 DunoWa Rd 1 1 1 7 2 I 0 3 1 2 1 Enhmlm sae. 1 1 1 1 elevated ham. behind ue. 5288 Loddoy Or 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 4 1 7 2 1 1 Sleets on NyNha ml I f t 1 1 Bnmra 1 1 1 None 5280 S.100A Louhlov Or k.RM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 3 I 2 1 1 1 -1 Hoff Cor.bursm 1 I teal the deoo aryl, VN .pead..swn m be on Isr. I feN.bp clpn. o ApNbe 6 ewe enhance the Dunadp sib hop, a pcselbty 5320 A him Blvd 1 1 1 7 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 nhood'e 1 bu 1 7 1 Yea, voter lbw, doter frwnLVllby and teoond mm gynhk, - nemrd Ilow end horn BeW 1v blr.ctlon nbo.dnhtbp wderhantlsb Pode- ulthah - alloy, dam to, — sly he bo:A —dual 5301 A BW 1 1 t 1 2 - 1 2 eMoultutCe Lark..1 - --M Ake W add Ake ebswelk m ee.bl wdkme the wJk to HIO Wd. 5213 Omcm. 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 4 2 1 1 toknwvmstdiRmmm. I SNPd. 1 1 1 - Sm.WmW -every dtlmes n%-d and boar en d oom^nY11" (rue w Iv ate Goeet be 952 - 6308 A Bhd 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 .2 1 Look, nlmr. 1 1 -1 9781232. 1 '7121 AM D1Erpwxq`Ca ]WCEfO¢dl•pr•.b. MlpeolvmlDarwtlw 6Mw. VABA' H] 1yNed. Me, PiE4N DESaIrNF.ABIB0.RM1grLM, ?newel RarAe �b CITY PROJECT BA-342 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBHORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT W12lAOe OUESTIONAIRE RESULTS Attachment C FROM FEBRUARY 1. 2W8. OUESTIONAIRE O?E�gb�- edfvaed Nm- ra7 -w�ENO w-e lryraaw Mlp- -enml6 Opm�- 6Ne.eMBAM711g14rW Rr -RIELw �6- 3MFFASI6�UnWyYd+6urvry elRmiNffi 6112/2 0 0 6 11;21 AM Sump Pump Dl -h-p, 9ervke u- R- Iden6d R-ode Llnhll-CPU- Ped -bleu heu- Prkeb Und-RroundUdlltl- Ominbte -FwWq H-e S. Pn1-n Irlppetlm rye.W C- rpmy-Int. Pel- tAn-nl Ordn Pu Pde PI- enlenl Beek L 5n DemolWd L 6n L tln 9 Preleren -e sldewelwe blvd. WI .b- .7 N-ra d -tl-n Wm Yee No Unwn Ye- No Mld-BN 5 InMnecl Inbr -c1 Cn h' Cobra Heed Shw b-r Am C-edi Pw A.n pkn Beek Dora Why Y- No Y- N. Y- N. ADDRESS R-Wmed Sv and Yes' N- CmeWrcl new eWewelwa whmei 8peclne Nhood PedeeWan G-rt t. L.. drdnew p -blerm 5712 Avrehhe Blvd 1 1 1 I 1 1 Cwt 1 1 1 1 .. - CrweWp pr- big -1-L- Ivy . AO dame lr ww d6 Gls-b- l- eW-We h d r- hblstl. Le i. W Ww Naed dd..& ld edwd' rrva.'Serpk y-d bah 57008 6704 ArydJe.. .,Wbdc bl-We W R-Idsd of 5700 h- dl-ed hk 5258 LoddV Dr 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1- 1 be6ere1 ovbra. 1 Iv dde 1 1 1 _ N - lean- I-ue W 27 ye-e, (s- Ov- dI waw end fed, Wee Wbl. driven, y - -but but Whd b tln ®1 eWewdwe en nd 514 adutlm m 52721- h Or I I I 1 I 1 1 1 t I 1 11 d0 --rwi 1 Oa 1 1 sld..r- S,..Ird new--v -W •vdd drenpe the nhmd, M0J. 5]25 A BNd 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 2 7 1 1 Ira- -Id need In be ­dd. 1 1 ' Gnari A-ee 1 I lhlnw We b-k ehwbw wax. noe nwe Ihe'ere -de- Aynhln end D-n—c DO not 5224 Dun Rd 1 I 1 1 1 1 501101 50'4. t eneed -D-rd . 1 1 1 BuL only tl - n ra51Wp 5252 LohId, Dr i 1 t 1 1 2 .: a 3 2 1 t I 1 1 Green A-- 1 T- 1dS- Yeye -7e w 12 22 7 u 29 27 32 {5 45 u S/ 22 0 33 ze 20 21 21 7 37 59% 27% 50% 10% 72% 61% 73% 109% 102% 20% 75% O?E�gb�- edfvaed Nm- ra7 -w�ENO w-e lryraaw Mlp- -enml6 Opm�- 6Ne.eMBAM711g14rW Rr -RIELw �6- 3MFFASI6�UnWyYd+6urvry elRmiNffi 6112/2 0 0 6 11;21 AM Highlands Neighborhood Residents RE: Estimated Lighting Costs and Lighting Survey Dear Resident, ATTACHMENT F February 27, 2008 As discussed at the February 13 open house, the current lighting system in your neighborhood is past its useful life. The system is beyond repair and therefore, requires total reconstruction. The estimated assessment of $2,800 per Residential Equivalent Unit (REU) that was used at the open house includes the cost of replacing the existing wiring system and all overhead lights with the Cobra Head Light on bronze pole in the same locations as the existing lights. In addition to replacing the lighting, we've suggested decorative lighting options that are not significantly higher in cost to the Cobra Head Light. The total estimated cost per style for decorative lighting is listed below. As you can see, the costs difference between the decorative and basic styles are minimal due to the relatively small number of lights (16 lights) verses the number of homes being assessed (approximately 73). Decorative Styles Coach Lantern Acorn $3,0001REU $3,000/REU 1 of 2 6 -Sided Post -top $3,000/REU 8 -Sided Arlington Lantern $3,000/REU ATTACHMENT F Basic Styles Cobra Head Light Shoebox Light $ 2,800/REU $ 2,800/REU At the open house, we promised that we would re -survey you once the cost for decorative lighting was determined. Please tell us which style you prefer by completing the enclosed survey. A stamped - addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Please note that the overall estimated assessment of $14,000 included the base price of $2,800. If you choose a decorative style, the overall estimated assessment would increase by $200. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Regards, Jack Sullivan 952- 826 -0445 Sullivan _,ci.edina.mn.us 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT F 2 of 2 o41 Llghtlnj! SLlrvey ATTACHMENT F Please rank Lighting Style Options in order from 1 to 6 on the lines provided below (1 being most desirable). Basic Styles Cobra Head $2,800 /REU Shoebox (recommended by staff) $2,800 /REU Decorative Styles (Will increase your overall assessment by $200) Coach Lantern $3,000/REU Acorn $3,000 /REU 6 -Sided Post -top Lantern $3,000/REU 8 -Sided Arlington Lantern $3,000/REU Lighting Styles: A. Why? 1 of 1 . CITY PROJECT BA -342 HIGHLANDS NEIGHBHORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT 611212008 ESTIMATED LIGHTING COSTS AND LIGHTING SURVEY RESULTS ATTACHMENT G FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2008 ADDRESS Returned Survey Residential Lighting Options Basic Style Decorative St fle .. Why Cobra Head Shoe box Coach Acorn Postop Arlington 5313 Ayrshire 1 5 6 3 1 4 2 We believe the add'I 5200 /REU assess, is worth It for a decorative style light which will contribute not only to enhancing the n'hood, but providing visual cues for non - residents that they have entered a residential area and that they should adjust driving accordingly. Thank you for providing this additions information. 5216 Duncrala 1 1 III looks classic and more traditional than the others. 5308 Ayrshire .1 3 4 5 6 1 2 like to keep It that way. 5300 Glenbrae Chr 1 2 1 3 4 5 6 5225 Lochlo Dr 1 6 5 1 4 2 3 5264 Lochlo Dr 1 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 6 5 Ithis Like the height of Basic Styles. They give nice ovemead tight and are not so close to the ground that they look Waring' The Decorative Styles are loo short for overhead street lighting. Sems like theyd shine more Into people's homes and yards more than creating a softer type street lighting. We much prefer the (cobra' or'shcebox' for lighting our n'thwd streets because they truly are overhead lighting. We've seen these other tights around and they're just not tall enough for street lighting! Plus, we foresee them being broken more often and M need of repair often - kids, etc. You always hope sort of thin wont happen. but we've seen quite a few broken ones around! Thanks. 5272 Lochloy Dr 1 4 5 1 2 3 6 Just personal preference - #5 too 'busy-," #5 too "clunk y.' 5301 Glenbrae Cir 1 1 5229 Lochloy Dr 1 1 2 Least costly. 5200 Ayrshire 1 1 5209 - Doncaster Way 1 6 5 2 1 4 3 corn looks like best fit tot our s) homes. Would like to see several more lights on Doncaster/Highlands Park can get very dark. 5273 Lochlov Dr 1 4 5 3 6 1 2 5225 Duncraig 1 5 6 3 4 2 1 It looks timeless and should last a long time. 5605 Ayrshire - 1 6 1 4 2 5 3 IShoebox matches the architecture of the n'hood - the others belong N Country Gub. 5305 Ayrshire 1 1 All the residents say they want to have a "classy" n'hood, so DON'T DO the basics ones. Another suggestion: add lights to green "Edina Highlands* signs at the entry. It Is difficult to see in the dark, or i ht. next t0 si ns. add choosen light 5215 Loch! Dr 1 6 5 2 1 4 3 Quaint n'hood. We should have lighting that reflects a style: we could use upgraded nicer signs for nl6od entrance Iit. 5261 -Lochloy Dr 1 6 4 5 3 1 2 1 JTop choice Arington. Attractive and little up lighting. 5241 Lochloy Dr 1 We like what we have - don't want change or more assessments. 5217 LoChloy Dr 1 0 2 0 1 3 4 5301 Ayrshire 1 1 2 Basic (ShDebox) for street comers. Decorative (6 -side) to replace the existing postsllamps. Front entrance should be reviewed as well for ll htin - lord. Cobra heads across Vernon. Thanks. 5280 Lochloy Dr 1 1 More in keeping" with house style. 5246 Lochloy Dr 1 3 2 4 1 5 6 Wife'S preferences. 5228 Dunc.i 1 2 1 Nothing has been mentioned as to which gives the "BEST' lighting. Street lights should be functional the "Design* should be able to answer that uestion!!!? 5256 Lochlo Dr 1 1 2 Which one puts out more light? Which one is the most energy efficient? Why not go to LED lights to save energy? You have not presented these facts with your options! They style of lights should work with the style of homes N the rt hood. Ali the houses in Highlands are rectilinear ramblers that look better with the basic styles. All of the decorative styles only work with older style architecturer. Obviously, no one with any design sense at the city look this into consideration when suggesting the decorative es! I am telling you this as an architect and interior designer. 5232 Duncraig 1 1 2 5 3 6 4 Isimpie and less costly. 52121Duncrain 1 7 I 1 2 5257 Lochloy Or 1 5 2 1 6 4 3 5225 DoncasterWav 1 6 5 3 1 4 2 5236 Lochlo Dr 1 5 6 1 4 3 2 Like the look better. 5249 Lochlo Dr 1 4 2 3 1 5 6 Simple basks would be okay, acorn appears forward looking - others old fashioned. 5258 Lochlo Dr 1 1 3 2 4 Something with a little characture that will be fairly easy to maintain. Basic style not in keeping with acre of Highlands. 5621 Loch) Dr 1 1 1 5244 Lochlo Dr 1 5 6 2 4 1 3 ILess industrial decorative styles will better match many of the exterior lights on residents' homes in the Highlands N'hood. 5213 Duncra 1 1 We like It. 5309 Ayrshire 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 5213 Doncaster Way 1 6 4 5 3 2 1 Like the more ornate look! 5240 Lochloy Dr 1 None, not necessary. ' 5312 Ayrshire 1 2 1 6 3 5 4 Shoebox based on your recommendation. 5200 Duncraig 1 1 2 4 3 5 6 6221.Lochloy Dr 1 1 ShDebox is ugly. As we have indicated twice to you already - decorative styles are totally unnecessary and are the responsibility of the individual. We want nothing N do with decorative. It would be nice If the staff would listen t0 the people who live in the highlands. So far have had no response to my letter of Feb. 7, 2008 to Mr. Sullivan. 5229 Doncaster Way 1 2 Why confuse the issue with all of the variation. Buy one style In quantity and keep the price down. 5321 Ayrshire 1 5201 Lochloy Dr 1 3 4 2 1 1 Jack, as you know, I am totally opposed to all of the project. I am choosing lights only in case we cannot stop your intrusion Into our n'hood. Total Surveys= 74 43 105 97 81 80 91 86 T 1`11 58% No4e: LDwes�- V4iue t.5 1­o_77Z Iylac ILI �LJJ 7 GiEngmeeringtContreot Numbersl2005\ENG D&3 Highlands Neighborhood x Doncesler SldewelMBA342 Highlands AmahPRELIM DEMN FEASIBILITn'Wighlmrds Lighting Surwry Resutis.rds 6/12200811:14 AM I Project Number: Telephone No.: Person Contacted Organization: Location: Project Name: Subject: MEETING REPORT Eng 8 -08 Date: 4/29/2008 ® AM x❑INCOMING Time: 8:30 ❑ PM ❑OUTGOING Bob Tengdin N/A At City Hall Highlands Highlands Lighting Routi Recorded By: A.) SUMMARY OF CONVERSATION (including any decisions made and action agreed to) Bob Tengdin and I meet to discuss the Highlands residents concerns with the lighting costs and appearance. I understood that Bob was speaking on behalf of the neighborhood and the Lighting Committee Members. The group was concerned with 3 major items: 1 Cost of system 2 Appearance of wiring 3 Lighting levels and # of lights Bob and I discussed the concerns and recommendation of the committee. He handed me a copy of their evaluation of the lights /poles The committee desired to keep the same # of lights as today and to keep all wiring below ground for visual reasons but reduce the costs per REU to somewhere around $1,000 /reu He believed that many of the existing poles could be salvaged. 'I stated that I'd look to design a system that keep all lighting below grade, the same # of lights as exist today and as cost effective as possible. However, I and Public Works believed the poles are beyond being salvaged and need to be replaced. ACTION ITEM RESPONSIBLE PERSON no-it Hi hi�mq- V.1L1 JNJJJ 1GG1 NJ JUN— IN UVi..u,..vv. v.......... . -•-- -- - -' ".7 Neigh borhood \ADMIN \CORR\20080429_Bob Tengdin1 TF- LECON.xlS 5/5/200811:44 AM Highlands Neighborhood Lights Current Status (4/21/08) 4�vl 5 There are 13 (not 16) street lights within the project limits. All have Cobra head style lights which appear to be in good condition. However, five of these are currently not working. Six of the 13 are installed on city -owned property. Eight are functioning adequately. The following is a status report for each of the 13: 1. Located on city property on Aryshire near Vernon (SW corner). The light is not functioning. Light serviced by underground wiring. Conduit up pole to light is several feet short of light. Exposed wires to light thereafter. Wooden.pole is in need of replacement. Is marked with yellow ribbon. 2. SW corner of Aryshire.and Vernon. City property. Light out. Short conduit. Underground wiring. Wooden pole in need of replacement and marked with yellow ribbon. 3. 5304 Glenbrae Circle. City property. Pole functions dually as utility pole for overhead wiring but has underground wiring for its light. Conduit reaches all the way to light fixture. Light working. Pole in good condition. 4. Glenbrae Circle. Located on the pathway further east on city property. Underground wiring. Pole is cracked in several places. Conduit is about four feet short of light fixture. Light is out. 5. Corner of Duncraig and Ayshire. On private property. Pole is in need of replacement. Conduit short of light fixture. Light is working. Underground wiring. 6. Corner of Duncraig and Glenbrae Circle. On private property. Pole in need of replacement. Underground wiring but conduit quite short of light fixture. Yellow ribbon on pole. Light not working. 7. 5221 Duncraig. Pole on private property. Underground wiring with conduit all the way up to the light fixture. Light working. Pole is in so -so condition. 8. End of Duncraig on island. City property. Underground wiring redone 4 -5 years ago. Light is working well. Conduit reaches all the way to the light fixture. Pole cracked at top but otherwise okay. 9. Comer of Aryshire and Lochloy (5280). Underground wiring with conduit a couple of feet short of light fixture. Pole cracked at.top but otherwise okay. Light working fine on private property. 10. 5261 Lochloy. Pole on private property and is in okay condition. Underground wiring but conduit very short, even though rewired not long ago. Light working well since repair. 11. 5249 Lochloy. Pole on private property. Light is not working. Underground wiring. Conduit several feet short of light- fixture with what seems to be very shoddy workmanship. Pole is in so -so condition. 12. Lochloy and Croyden. Pole on an island which is city property. The underground wiring was excavated and redone 3 -4 years ago. Conduit goes all the way up to the light fixture. Light has functioned well since the redo. Pole is cracked at top but otherwise okay. Looks as though it was a "second" or improperly cut to begin with. 13. Comer of Ayrshire and Lochloy (5221). Pole is on private property. Underground wiring with conduit all the way to light fixture. Light working well but pole cracked in several places and should be replaced. R.C. Tengdin 5241 Lochloy Drive Highlands Neighborhood Residents RE: Estimated Lighting Costs and Lighting Survey No. 3 Dear Resident, May 2, 2008 As discussed at the April 15, 2008 Public Improvement Hearing, the City will be updating the lighting in your neighborhood. The current system has surpassed its' useful life and is beyond salvageable. We have received a large amount of input from residents regarding the type and locations of lighting that would best be suited for the neighborhood. A few options that were presented in the feasibility report for council ranged from $500 to $3000 per REU. It is our understanding from the information provided by residents that all wiring should be underground and proposed lights should be placed in the same locations as today. City Council directed staff to resurvey the residents to help in determining a lighting layout that is cost effective and meets the aesthetic and light levels residents desire in the area. The following are three lighting options for the neighborhood (see attached map for location of lights): • Option No. 1 - Lighting only at key intersection along Ayrshire Boulevard. This will include installing new underground conduit wiring with new cobra head lights and wooden poles. Option No. 2 - Install new underground conduit wiring with new cobra head lights and wooden poles at existing locations. • Option No. 3 — Install refurbished decorative traditional lantern lights with new underground conduit wiring at existing locations. Option No. 4 — Install new decorative acorn lights with new underground conduit wiring at existing locations. All three lighting options would move the two light poles from the north side of Ayrshire to the south side of the roadway inside the islands at Lochloy Drive and Ayrshire Boulevard. City Staff has a lead on refurbished traditional lantern lights that would save approximately $1,000 per REU. It is anticipated that these lights would last 40 years. Using refurbished lights is unique to this project and is not typically done within Edina. All the lighting options have been reduced in price somewhat by changing the method of installing the underground conduit. The estimated assessment cost per Residential Equivalent Unit (REU) per option is: Option No. 1 - $1,100 per REU Option No. 2 - $1,900 per REU Option No. 3 - $2,000 per REU Option No. 4 - $2,300 per REU (estimated at $3,000 in previous survey) 6/11/2008 R LA Wooden Pole with Refurbished Decorative Decorative Acorn Light Cobra Head Light — Traditional Lantern — Option 4 Option 1 and 2 Option 3 (Similar to current pole design) Please tell us which option you prefer by completing the enclosed survey. The surveys must be returned by Friday, May 9, 2008. A self addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Regards, Jack Sullivan 952 - 826 -0445 a sullivan(aD-ci.edina.mn.us 2 of 3 G:\Engineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood & Doncaster Sidewalk\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DES IGNTEASIBILITIY\20080501 Lighting Costs and Survey #3.doc 6/11/2008 r ..... w..... w ... ............... 0...... w ........................... 5201 1 5249 5253 5257 — - - - - -. 5245 + - 5201 5241 5200 '5207 1 5237 - �•••. 5248 i�5252 r 5261 5203 3 5209 5244 -- ROYDEN LN 5240 -- 5256 5205 = 5265 - = 5213 5236 5260 -��- 5233 5209 "..".'.: 5232 5269 ' - -- 5217 - -- 5212 3 5229 0 5228 5268 a 5213 � ° o'0 5273 -- — - a 5225 c 5224 ` 2 -5216 ° 5217 z°o= 5225 5276 ° - -- 5200 5277 5220 — - -- 5221 _ u 5221 �! 5280 - -- -- ` 5229 j 5281 5224 ° ` -- � 5225 � h � 5217 h + 5301 5228 j - 5229 5305 5232 5005 5215 5201 5209 5205 5300 - 11......... ti .............................. 5309 5301 5405 5701 FPROJECT LIMITS :5304 j ; c 5705 54 Option #1 5313 I Key Intersection Lighting y 5300 F $1,100 REU 5308 N 5317 c+,1P Option #2 : s 5504 New Wooden Poles 531E yam with Cobra Heads $1,900 REU ; m 5321 5304 +i Lights Relocated to Island Side of Ayshire Blvd 5316 5325 5501 NOTE: Option #3 and #4 Light Locations 5320 are the same as Option #2 5504 Highland P�� School / �o# 5508 5509 wut •.5509 // Highlands Neighborhood Lighting System Options Improvement No: BA342 5210 5291, r � N w +E S En*—#V DOO may. 2M 3 of 3 GAEngineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood & Doncaster Sidewalk\13A342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DES IGN\FEASIBILITIY\20080501 Lighting Costs and Survey #3.doc o lop, o e �y Liqhtinq Survev #3 6/11/2008 Please rank all four Lighting Options in order from 1 to 4 on the lines provided below (1 being most desirable). Rank Liqhtinq Option #1 $1,100 /REU Option #2 $1,900 /REU Option #3 $2,000 /REU Option #4 $2,300 /REU Rank Lighting Most Desirable to Less Desirable 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 G:\Engineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood & Doncaster Sidewalk\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DESIGNTEASIBILIMV0080501 Lighting Costs and Survey #3.doc 1 of 1 CRT PROJECT BA-342 HIGHLANDS NEIGHSHORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - LIGHTING SURVEY NO. 3 - May 2, 2008 �I e 4e .� �es ;V-4Ab � 5' .µo5 � J 0N1 a:leedm.ekraxca Mxnent20091EN0 De41 H riwi Nxl#rseiem a Do s de -all ls2 Hmtlmtx Amdun ELiN DESIGN' FE SteILMYHOdeim LVOV 8urvet' 63 Rmlem Gfl 12DD84:35 PM Rank Lighting Options ADDRESS COMMENTS Most Desirable to Less Desirable ' Returned - - - Option 1 Option 2 Option a Option 4 S 51,1001REU #1,9001REU $2,00WREU $2,3001REU 5313 A } 3 2 1 Option 1 is not coca ble not enough f for safety. 6308 A 1' 3 2 1 4 5300 Gbnbrae Cir 5225 LochID Or 1 1 2 4 3 - Reject an opdDns. Please euarate eM rewhe for the 12 existing lights wino Immediate change in pole or fixture. The old willing could 53DI Mantras Ca 1 be recycled rebateltaedl back o the n'hood from the old copper. Reject all options. None of these options are acceptable. Please 5229 Loch or 1 Isom to what fessbnal a ns are advising Bob Ta din. - Concern with paying for lighting which should be a bask service the City or Edina provides. Will we next be asked to pay for new slop Doncaster W 1• '4 3 2 1 ns? Lochby, Or 1 1 4 4 4 [52 For just a 68 more, we an here a good looking "Doti. The a dstig A 1. 4 1 2 wooden ins ere horrible bold I Please, corWder Installing lights that con use more enengyeffbbN mot odobgy. sutlu n LED. Please replace lights at the same time Dr 1 4 4 3 1 91e Is done. Please et this whoa project done before winter. We request that you only repall »24ebench those lights that are not harctkni g pmpery and have rot been fled In ream years The us1: of LED Bghtag should be closely studied. No new lights 5241 Lnctdo Or 1 4 2 4 4 should be beaded et this time. 5301 A 4 3 2 1 4 5248 Lochlo or - t 4 1 2 3 Reject atl options. D 7 Have tie - CRY Engineers heard what the climate areol comm have been working on the LED. Seams that a huge rush by the Cky Engineer has cot allowed dud office to hear what offers are working on o 5228 D 1 Edina. - Reject all options This survey appears to be from the City Engineers DepL (Mecffic*. Jack Suavan). Where Is the input from the n'hood - fighting committee? s was my nadersaMmg that this was o be a cooperative effort. Also, I thought there was o be a feasibility Study 5232 D 1 of LED hU 5286 Loddo Dr '1 Reed an options. Letter attached. 5309 A 1 4 2 1 3 Reject es options. Feel the city could excavate and rewire the 12 - exbtrip tpide with no flange o the pole or fixture. This would set things up for future rharee - Possbly. LED oghtbg or a more energy 5213 Doncaster Wa 1 eflbfeN hL Thenk u for heir out ' Reject all options. Well agreed that you didn t work with the fighting committee. Sea attached May 3 letter recommendations from the 5240 Lmt1b Or 1- commAree. 5312 Ayrshire 1 1 - 2 3 4 5321 A 1 4 4 1. 3 - - Needs o be reviewed by the lighting committee before being am 5224 Or 1 out. 5245 Lotto or 1 Re ed atl o ns. None of tie above. Re as where recessa . _ Reject all options Only rewire 12 lights Provide recycling rebate 5281 Dr 4 credit on all co removed when . Consider LED 5201 Dmxva 1 4 3 2 1 5215 Lochloy or 1 2 3 1 4 Rejected as the committee recommends until amended and 5249 Locinloy or 1 a roved by n'hood. 5229 Duncraig 4 4 4 4 5252 Lochloy or t 3 2 1 4 5205 Duncrain 1. LED Lights Reject all options. The dry Should excavate existing wire and rewire for 12 of the existing lights No Immediate Barges in poles or fcroses. A credit for all wire that is removed or existing lights for copper recycling credit. What Is the possbBiily, of LED tights being - used in this project? shDebox fights are best option and bast costly. 5232ILochloy, Or Why are these not alven as an option? Reject atl opdars As suggested 11y a n'hood 09MM committee: - excavate avid mwae: racycag rebarMcredt;LED lighting; see campy Or 1• or additional commends. Lode Or 1 excavate and rewire m iftM LED' [52217 A t 3 1 4 Lochlo Dr 1 3 2 5304 Mantras Ctr would be rearey benefiting the :g4 ad b ore way and usual blocked for access. You could 5221 Dwcfa 1 2 1 3 the nd save the expense. You might warn m check this out. A 1. 1 Dn 1. 4 3 1 Durora 1. 4 4 4 4 Please as to our rehood f committee m: tie best o ' n. D t [52.1 Lochb Dr 1 0 n1 cobahead hts . Dr f Re atl o ns. 1 l Surveyed a 74 41 Be 57 50 65 55% �I e 4e .� �es ;V-4Ab � 5' .µo5 � J 0N1 a:leedm.ekraxca Mxnent20091EN0 De41 H riwi Nxl#rseiem a Do s de -all ls2 Hmtlmtx Amdun ELiN DESIGN' FE SteILMYHOdeim LVOV 8urvet' 63 Rmlem Gfl 12DD84:35 PM May 3, 2008 Jack Sullivan From: Gordon Hughes Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:30 AM To: Wayne Houle; Jack Sullivan Subject: FW: Lighting Survey and Committee update Importance: High I just received this from George Klus. Let's discuss. From: gklus @trinityms.com [mailto:gklus @trinityms.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 9:17 AM To: Gordon Hughes Subject: FW: Lighting Survey and Committee update Importance: High Page 1 of 4 From: gklus @trinityms.com [mailto:gklus @trinityms.com] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 3:00 PM To: 'Andy /Brigid Laske'; 'Ann Compton'; 'Anne Klus'; 'Annie /Nick Cronin'; 'Beth /Mike Gibbs'; 'Bill /Judy Crandall'; 'Bob /Emilee Markman'; 'Bob /Fern Tengdin'; 'Bruce /Lisa, Foreman /Diehl; 'Cal /Lucille Smith'; 'Carl /Aundria Schreiner'; 'Carol Conley'; 'Charlotte Abrahamson'; 'Chip /MaryKay Fuhrmann'; 'Chris /Gailen Krug'; 'Christianson Family'; 'Christine Ruppert; 'Curt/Gretchen Schaefer'; 'Dan Azar'; 'Dan /Jean McLeod'; 'Dave /Marcia Carlson'; 'David /Carolyn Larson'; 'Debra Page'; 'Dick/Gayle Severson'; 'Don /Helen Duncan'; 'Doug /Sara Nessan'; 'Ed /Anne Stych'; 'Ed /Sydney Berris'; 'Ed/Vicki Kennedy'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Eric /Cyndi Swanlund'; 'Galye Wilson'; 'Gary/Carol Brahms'; 'George Klus'; 'George /Sue Punch /Hess; 'Greg Page'; 'Gretchen Anderson'; 'Iain /Jane Boyle'; 'Idell and Ahmud Longman /Hatamopur; 'Jack Stoddard'; 'Jack/Lori Mertes'; 'Jacqueline Andrews'; 'Jeff /Gretchen Doom'; 'Jeff /Jodi Upin'; 'Jim Jones'; 'Jim /Cora Jane Blanchard'; 'Jim /Joyce Holbrook'; 'Jim /Liz Denn'; 'Jim /Sherre Roberts'; 'John /Amy Haben'; 'John /Carla Schwappach'; 'John /Patti Mazzara'; 'Kathryn Bradbury'; 'Kevin Mollet; 'Kevin /Maria Staunton'; 'Kristen Christianson'; 'Kristi Mollet'; 'Lee Azar'; 'Mark/Sue Teien'; 'Matt/Monique Jepson'; 'Norm /Helen Groth'; 'Pat Forrest; 'Paul Nelson; 'Paul /Allison Manley'; 'Paul /Julie Walthour'; 'Robert McKlveen '; 'Roberto /Susan Ballarni'; 'Ros Ultan'; 'Rosemary/Tim Mason'; 'Russ /Gena, Lemker /Bossert'; 'Sal/Tom Hussian'; 'Sharon LaBine'; 'Shu -Ho /Ming -Fung, Yung'; 'Steve Christianson'; 'Susan Walker'; Ted /Ellen Dryden'; Ted /Rebecca Canova'; Terry/Cindy Anderson; Tom /Kelly White /Klein' Subject: Lighting Survey and Committee update Importance: High Please read the attached memo. Thanks May 3, 2008 To: Edina Highlands Neighborhood From: Neighborhood Lighting Committee Subject: Estimated Lighting Costs and Lighting Survey No. 3 The City of Edina mailed a new lighting survey to each household on Friday. Most of you should have received it on Saturday. The City asked the survey to be returned by May 9th. As a lighting committee we were disappointed that the City sent this survey out without our 6/12/2008 May 3, 2008 Page 2 of 4 knowledge. The committee has been working with the Engineering Department on street lights and we had an understanding with the Department that we were going to review any survey before it was sent out. Unfortunately, this did not occur. The lighting committee suggests the following for your consideration with the survey: Survey option #1: Reject this option. It is the same option the City proposed to us at the April 15th hearing, only the power lines are now buried. This does provide enough lighting to the neighborhood. Survey option #2, Reject this option. It is the opinion of the committee that only new cobra head lights and wooden poles should be replaced that need to be replaced at this time. Doing this work is more than we need to do. Survey option #3 and #4: Reject these options. Same rationale as option #2, including, in the interest in saving assessments per household, adding new decorative lights that only increase our assessment per household. RECOMMENDATION Request on your survey that the City should excavate and rewire only for the twelve existing lights with no immediate change in pole or fixture. Tell the City when they excavate and take out the old wiring that the neighborhood would like a recycling rebate /credit given back to us on all the old copper taken out at that time. We all know from watching the news this could be a substantial rebate /credit. Request that the possibility of installing LED lighting in the neighborhood be explored. Within a month we should have an answer as to the feasibility of installing LED lighting and/or the most cost effective system that is compatible with our Highlands neighborhood. It is the committee's feeling that getting the City to rewire all the necessary lights properly at this time will allow them to attain some of their priorities with our street project. Mainly, reduce future maintenance costs on lights by fixing all the wiring. We know the City has already rewired some of our lights in the neighborhood. If, in the future, the neighborhood and city decide to change the light fixtures, at least there does not need to be any streets dug up for new wiring and just replacement of either or both light fixtures and/or poles. We also encourage you to add your own personal comments to the survey prior to its return. JUSTIFICATION /COMMITTEE COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDATIONS The survey and letter you received is misleading. The letter infers that there are now reduced costs on the lights, when in fact they have merely reduced the number of lights by 25% to reach their new lighting cost. The Engineering Department's example of an existing cobra head light shown in the survey you received is not representative of lighting fixtures within our neighborhood. The pictured light has a much longer arm and overhead wiring. It seems to the committee that the City is trying to promote decorative lights. At this point we do not know how effective or energy efficient such installations would be. The City states that refurbished traditional lantern lights would last 40 years. They have failed to also state that the cobra lights will also last 40 years. In other words, all the lighting proposed has a useful life of 40 years. The committee had asked the City Engineers for information regarding the use of LED lights in our neighborhood. This has not been forthcoming. Yet, St. Paul, Boulder, Colorado, Austin, TX, Ann Arbor, MI, all have either implemented, or are implementing LED street lights. LED lights typically last 5 to 10 times longer than traditional street lighting fixtures. One article on LED 6/12/2008 May 3, 2008 Page 3 of 4 lights stated the LED lights can last up to 100,000 hours versus the traditional lights that last 10,000 hours. The LED lights consume far less energy and replacement costs are dramatically reduced. One of our neighbors is working on a potential pilot project for LED lights in our neighborhood. If this becomes possible it will further reduce our lighting costs. Jim Jones from our neighborhood serves on the Climate Control Commission, (CCC), with the City of Edina. (We can blame him for our weather! HA!) This Commission is part of the Edina Environmental Energy Commission at the City. The CCC is working with the City on finding ways to save energy. Jim states that they are endorsing/encouraging the City to use LED lighting. The City has agreed with this commission's recommendation. We are not sure why this has not been considered for our street project. Another issue still remains regarding who should pay for lights that are on City property and what we consider not part of the neighborhood project. Two of the twelve lights proposed for the neighborhood are situated on City property and we do not consider part of our neighborhood cost. Please note that the City has gone from 16 lights in their original plan to now 12 lights, which is the current number of lights we have in our neighborhood. In a conversation George Klus had with our mayor regarding this issue, the mayor agreed the cost for these two lights is still an open issue. There needs to be clarification from the City or Council as to who needs to pay for these two lights. The City stated that our "current system has surpassed its useful life and is beyond salvageable." This language is from the first survey and is not the case. At least three of the current lights in our neighborhood have been rewired in the last three to five years and do not need to be redone. Therefore only the seven remaining lights need to be rewired or are in need of work. The costs to us as homeowners are misleading and oversimplified as stated in options 1 -4 on your current survey. No breakdown of the actual, (estimated), specific costs have been provided. In meetings with the City we have been provided data which you will find on attachment number one to this letter. The cost used on attachment #1 are from the original proposal which included 16 lights. In as much as the number of lights has been reduced by 25% and two of the lights may not be our responsibility, these assessable costs should be diminished. Please feel free to direct any of your comments or thoughts to any of the committee members listed below. We need to stay unified as a neighborhood as we continue this process. We thank you for your time and consideration on these matters regarding our beloved Edina Highlands neighborhood. Lighting Committee Members, Jim Jones George Klus Carl Schreiner Bob Tengdin Susan Walker Vic Walker 6/12/2008 May 3, 2008. ATTACHMENT #1 Cost Estimates for Highlands Neighborhood Lighting (Sixteen Lights) 1. Wooden Utility poles with new cobra head hardware. $17,600 2. Directional Drilling. $55,000 3. Plowing or trenching. $17,000 4. One Conductor #6. $21,000 5. One Conductor #8. $10,500 6. Service cabinet & foundation $7,700 7. Engineering & Clerical $25,000 8. Pendant Laminare $51,000 9. Acorn Light $47,500 10. Post op(six sides) $44,500 * These numbers were provided by the City Engineering Department. 6/12/2008 Page 4 of 4 ° Vie To: Mayor & City Council From: Debra Mangen City Clerk Date: June 17, 2008 Subject: Resolution Receiving Donations Recommendation: Adopt Resolution. REPORT /RECOMMENDATION Agenda Item V.A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Action ® Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Info /Background: In order to comply with State Statutes all donations to the City must be adopted by a resolution approved by four favorable votes of the Council accepting the donation. I have prepared the attached resolution detailing the various donors, their gifts and the recipient departments for your consideration. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -54 ACCEPTING DONATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF EDINA City of Edina WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 465.03 allows cities to accept grants and donations of real or personal property for the benefit of its citizens; WHEREAS, said donations must be accepted via a resolution of the Council adopted by a two thirds majority of its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council accepts with sincere appreciation the following listed donations on behalf of its citizens. Donation to the Edina Park Department: U of M Center for Teaching and Learning $30.00 Dated: June 17, 2008 Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) In memory of Bonnie Wingert James B. Hovland, Mayor CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of June 17, 2008 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20_ City Clerk City Hall 952- 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952 - 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952- 826 -0379 Under the new language the employee would start their employment with the amount of sick leave that they would accrue in the first six months of employment in their sick leave bank. The new, employee would be allowed to use the sick leave as provided for in the Personnel Ordinance, but they would not accrue any additional sick leave until the first day of their seventh month of employment. This proposed change does not increase the amount of sick leave an employee can accrue, it allows the new employee to use sick in the first six months of employment. The proposed change to Section 150.07 Subd. 5 of the Edina City Code, which addresses overtime, is to delete the language that allows each individual department head to administer the overtime as permitted by law to suit the various departments. This meant that overtime was being administered differently in each department. The proposed change will allow for a more consistent administration of overtime /compensatory time. Staff has found this will facilitate the tracking of overtime through the payroll system. The proposed change to Section 150.10 Subds. 3 and 4 of the Edina City Code is for providing consistent language when referring to work days within the sick leave provisions of the Code. Staff is proposing the to use scheduled work days for any references to work days. Within the Code sometimes the terms such as "days ", "calendar days ", "work days" are used when referring to work days, the change will- give consistency to the term "work day ". ON ORDINANCE NO. 2007 -6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION OF THE CITY CODE CONCERNING PERSONNEL POLICIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 150.06 Subd. 4 Of the Edina City Code is amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 4 Leave Benefits During Probation. During the first six months of each probationary period, except a promotional probationary period, an employee will not be entitled to use vacation leave. Vacation leave shall accrue from the start of the probationary employment even though not usable during the first six months of the probationary period. During the first six months of each probationary period, except a promotional probationary period, an employee will be entitled to use sick leave. Sick leave that would accrue during the first six months of the probationary period will be placed in the sick leave bank of a probationary employee for use from the first day of employment. No further sick leave will accrue until the first day of the seventh month of employment." Section 2. Section 150.07 Subd. 5 Of the Edina City Code is amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 5 Overtime. Employees to whom either the State or Federal Fair Labor Standards Act apply shall be compensated for overtime at one and one -half times the regular rate of pay. To the extent permitted by law and policy then established by an employee's department head, and which policy has been approved by the Manager, an employee may accrue and use compensatory time instead of pay at overtime rates." Section 3. Section 150.10 Subds. 3 and 4 Of the Edina City Code are amended to provide as follows: "Subd. 3 Purpose. Sick leave with pay may be granted to employees entitled thereto when the employee is unable to perform scheduled work duties due to illness /disability, the necessity for medical, dental or chiropractic care, childbirth or pregnancy disability, exposure to contagious disease where such exposure may endanger the health of others with whom the employee would come in contact in the course of performing work duties. Sick leave with pay may also be granted for a variety of other family and medical circumstances. The amount and conditions under which sick leave with pay may be used for such circumstances is provided in the family and medical leave policy adopted pursuant to Subsection 150.13 of this Code. Sick leave with pay may be granted for a maximum of five scheduled work days in the event of the death of an employee's spouse, father, mother, spouse's father or mother or child and a maximum of three days in the event of the death of an employee's grandparent, grandchild, brother or sister. Ordinance No. 2008 -6 Page 2 Subd. 4 Proof. A. To be eligible for sick leave with pay, a regular full -time employee shall report their absence to their supervisor within the first thirty minutes of the start of that employee's scheduled work period. B. To be eligible for sick leave with pay, an employee entitled thereto shall keep their supervisor informed on a daily basis of their condition or the condition of the family member that is ill and if the absence is of more than three scheduled work days duration, submit a medical certificate in form and substance acceptable to the Manager or department head. The Manager or department head shall have the right to verify any reported illness of an employee by such means as they deem necessary. The employee may also be required to submit proof, satisfactory to the Manager or department head of their physical /emotional ability to perform their duties upon their return from sick leave." Section 4. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: Attest: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor i i REPORURECOMMENDATION To: Mayor Hovland and members of Agenda Item V.C. the Edina City Council. From: John Keprios, Direct Consent Park & Recreation Dep ment Information Only ❑ Date: June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Subject: 2008 Braemar Inspection Tour ® Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the 43rd Annual Braemar Inspection Tour, scheduled for Tuesday, July 8, 2008, for those invited guests shown below. The event will include an 18 -hole round of golf and use of golf cars followed by dinner at Braemar Golf Course. The actual cost of food, beverage and golf event prizes will be covered through a user fee. INFOBACKGROUND: For 42 years, the Edina City Council has extended an invitation to the following groups to gather for an 18 -hole round of golf, including golf car, followed by a dinner and nominal golf event prizes: Current members of: • Art Center Board • Edina Community Health Committee • Edina Resource Center • Construction Board of Appeals • Heritage Preservation Board 2 • Housing and Redevelopment Authority • Edina Human Rights & Relations Commission • Edina Park Board • Edina Planning Commission • Recycling and Solid Waste Commission • Zoning Board of Appeals • Edina Community Foundation • East Edina Housing Foundation • Edina Transportation Commission • Edina Board of Education • Superintendent of Edina Schools • Representative City Staff And all former members of. • Edina Park Board • Edina City Council • Edina City Attorneys Staff proposes that the City Council approve the 43id Annual Braemar Inspection Tour for those invited guests listed above and that the event include an 18 -hole round of golf and use of golf cars followed by dinner at Braemar Golf Course. The event is scheduled for Tuesday, July 8, 2008. Staff will charge a fee for all those who attend the dinner. The fee will be set a level that will cover the cost of all food, beverages, and golf event prizes. Otte •,v v • REP ORURE C OMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item' V.D. From: Mike Siitari, Police Chief Consent ❑ Information Only Date: June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To EWA ® To Council Subject: Amendment to-MN Financial ® Motion Crimes Task Force Grant ❑ Resolution Agreement ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion RECOMMENDATION: Approve Amendment No. 2 to the current grant contract with the State of Minnesota to extend funding to Edina to continue to provide a detective to the Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force.. INFOBACKGROUND: The Edina Police Department has been participating in the Minnesota Financial Crimes Task Force for the past five years. The Task Force is multi jurisdictional unit that focuses on identity theft and large -scale financial crimes on a statewide basis. We have one detective assigned on a full -time basis. The Edina Police Department has seen a rapid rise in identity theft and organized groups involved in fraud activity. The statewide focus is a preferable method to address this growing problem. The current grant agreement expires on June 30, 2008. Amendment No.2 would extend funding through June 30, 2009. We would receive $50,000 for our continued participation in the Task Force. E FjtOFP(�B4 Office of Programs .Justice 444 Cedar Street, Suite 100 ° St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -5100 Phone: 651 /201 -7350 FAX: 651/284 -3317 TTY: 651/282 -6565 �OF 1A Internet http: / /www.di)s.state.mn.us /OJP/ June 5, 2008 Alcohol & Chief Mike Siitari Gambling Edina Police Department Enforcement 4801 W. 50th St. Bureau of Edina, MN 55424 Criminal Apprehension RE: 2006 -FC -00273 Capitol Security Driver & Vehicle Dear Chief Siitari, Services Emergency This letter is to notify you that we intend to formally amend the Communication above referenced grant to award an additional $50,000 for your Networks agency to continue to provide a full -time investigator to the Office of Justice Financial Crimes Task Force through June 30, 2009. The formal Programs amendment will extend the end date of the grant and add the Homeland $50,000 to your current grant amount. Please contact me Security and immediately if you do not intend to accept this grant offer. Emergency Management We will be taking the steps necessary to .amend the grant and in a State Fire Marshal/ few days we will email you the grant amendment paperwork. You Pipeline Safety will need to print off 3 copies and have these documents signed by State Patrol the individuals that signed the original grant contract documents. We ask that you take this action as quickly as possible as we must Traffic Safety have the amendment fully executed by June 30, 2008. If you must take formal action with your jurisdiction's governing body to accept the additional funds, we request that you take this action as soon as possible. Please feel free to call me at 651- 201 -7338 if you have any questions related to this matter. Sincerely, Sue Perkins Sue Perkins State Program Administrator Equal Opportunity Employer AMENDMENT NO.2 TO GRANT CONTRACT #2006 -FC- 00273/9300 -1754 Original Contract Effective date: October 1. 2005 Total Contract Amount: $290,123.00 Original Contract Expiration date: June 30, 2007 Original Contract Amount: $163.923.00 Amended Contract Expiration date: June 30, 2009 Previous Amendment(s) Total: $76,200.00 Current Amendment Amount: $50,000.00 This amendment is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Public Safety, Office of Justice Programs, 444 Cedar Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, Minnesota 5 5101-5 100 ( "State ") and City of Edina, Police Department, 4801 W 50th Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424 ( "Grantee "). Recitals 1 • The State has a grant contract with the Grantee identified as Grant Contract 2006 -FC- 00273/9300 -1754 for the purpose of investigating major financial crimes. 2 The State and the Grantee have agreed that additional time and funding are necessary for the satisfactory completion of this project. 3 The State and the Grantee are willing to amend the Original Grant Contract and previous amendments as stated below. Grant Contract Amendment and previous Amendments In this Amendment deleted contract terms will be struck out and the added contract terms will be underlined. REVISION 1.*Clause 1, "Term of Grant Contract ", Section 1.2 of the Original Grant Contract and Amendment No. 1 are amended as follows: (2) Expiration date. 3une 30, 2009 June 30, 2009, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. REVISION 2. Clause 4, "Consideration and Payment ", Section 4.1, Paragraph (1) and (3) of the Original Grant Contract and Amendment No. 1 are amended as follows: (1) Compensation. The Grantee will be reimbursed an amount not to exceed $240,123.00 $290,123.00, according to the breakdown of costs contained in Revised Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated into this grant contract. The Grantee will submit a revised budget for any deviation of at least 10% or $200.00, whichever is greater, between approved budget lines in Revised Exhibit A and the revised budget must be approved by the State's Authorized Representative before any expenditures can be made based on the revised budget. (3) Total Obligation. The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this grant contract will not exceed $240,123.00 $290,123.00. $81,962.00 is available from October 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Funds not expended by the Grantee for this program through June 30, 2006 will be available in the following state fiscal year of this grant contract. $143,944.82 is available from July 1; 2006 through June 30, 2008. $14,216.18 � $64,216.18 is available from July 1, 2007 through june 30, 2009 June 30, 2009. Grant Amendment 05/07 1 AMENDMENT NO.2 TO GRANT CONTRACT #2006 -FC- 00273/9300 -1754 Except as amended herein, the terms and conditions of the Original Grant Contract and all previous amendments remain in full force and effect. By execution of this amendment, the terms and conditions of the Original Grant Contract and all previous amendments are expressly restated and reaffirmed. 1. ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION 3. STATE AGENCY Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as required by Minn. Slat. §§ 16A.15 and 16C.05. Signed: By: (with delegated authority) Date: Title: Grant Contract No.: 2006 -FC -00273 / 9300 -1754 Date: 2. GRANTEE The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions, or ordinances. By: _ Title: M Date: By: Title: City Manager Date: By: Title: Date: Distribution: DPSIFAS Grantee State's Authorized Representative Grant Amendment 05/07 2 r S, 0 e Cn 0 REPORURECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council From: Boyd Tate. Traffic Safety Coordinator Date: June 17, 2008 Subject: Traffic Safety Staff Review for June 4, 2008. Recommendation: Agenda Item: V. E. Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Review and approve Traffic Safety Staff Review of Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Info /Background: It is not anticipated that residents will be in attendance at the Council meeting regarding any of the attached issues. G:\ Engineering \Infrastructure \Streets \Traffic \Traffic Advisory Committee \Staff Review Summaries \08 TSAC & Min \06- 04- 08.doc TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW Wednesday, June 4, 2008 The staff review of traffic safety matters occurred on June 4, 2008. Staff present included the City Engineer, Assistant City Engineer, City Planner, Traffic Safety Coordinator, Sign Coordinator, Police Traffic Sergeant and Chief of Police. From that review, the recommendations below are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They were also informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the June 17, 2008, Council Agenda. SECTION A• Requests on which staff recommends approval: Request for directional arrows to be painted on Parklawn Avenue, east bound at France Avenue. Request is from an Edina resident who travels daily on Parklawn Avenue. He states that some motorists are confused as to which lane to be in because the intersection is slightly offset. He states that he has had several close calls at this intersection by cars switching lanes while traveling east through the intersections. Parklawn Avenue has an average daily traffic count of 2,777 vehicles an 85'' percentile speed of 33.7 MPH. There have been several accidents at this intersection in the past five years. Staff agrees with requestor that this intersection should be marked with directional arrows with an advisory sign. The center lane should have an arrow indicating a left turn. The outside lane should be marked with an arrow indicating straight ahead traffic as well as a right turn arrow. Staff recommends approval of the request for directional pavement arrows as well an advisory sign located west of the intersection of east bound Parklawn Avenue at France Avenue. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 1 of 5 June 4, 2008 2. Request for a left turn lane on east bound Hazelton Road at France Avenue. Requestor is a resident on Glochester Drive who is concerned with traffic being backed up while attempting to make a left turn off of east bound Hazelton Road to north bound France Avenue. She states that cars can get backed up while waiting for the person in front of you to make a left turn. Hazelton Road is a 42 -foot wide city street with an average daily traffic count of 1,703 and an 85th percentile speed of 27.1 MPH. The intersection is controlled by a traffic signal and there have been several accidents at this intersection in the past five years. Hazelton Road has a 12 -foot wide striped center marked with a double yellow line in the middle of the roadway for east bound traffic. Requestor would like this "no mans land" made into a left turn lane. Staff feels that this area can be made into a left turn lane without having to make any changes to the traffic signal. Stripping would be done at the direction of the Engineering Department. There may be a need for some no parking signs as well. Staff recommends the approval of making- a left turn lane on east bound Hazelton Road at France Avenue. 3. Request from staff to put up no parking signs in the Southdale and Woodhill neighborhoods where the streets were narrowed by the installation of center islands. Staff feels that cars parked too close to the center islands will cause traffic flow problems. These areas are: 68th Street and Valley View Road Cornelia Drive and 66th Street Cornelia Drive and 70th Street Southdale Road and 66th Street Brittany Road and 66th Street Southcrest Drive and 66th Street West Shore Drive and 60h Street West Shore Drive and 70th Street Staff recommends approval of the installation of no parking signs at the above locations. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 2 of 5 June 4, 2008 4. Request from staff to install no parking signs on both sides of Braemar Blvd south of Hilary Lane. Parking in this area has become excessive from people attending events at Courtney Fields, as well as a safety issue at the intersection of Hilary Lane. There is ample on -sight parking available and the no parking signs would encourage people to use the parking lot rather than park on city streets. Staff recommends the approval of no parking signs for Braemar Blvd south of Hillary Lane. SECTION B: Requests on which staff recommends denial of request. 1. Request for a mid -block crosswalk on W. 65th Street between Drew Avenue and France Avenue. Requestor is an employee of the Paul Larson Clinic located at 6525 France Avenue. The clinic is located directly across the street (south) of an entrance to Fairview Southdale Hospital. Requestor is concerned for the safety of pedestrians trying to cross W. 65`h Street from the clinic and the adjacent parking ramp. Requestor states that cars seldom yield to pedestrians in that area. Pedestrian crosswalks are currently in place at both the east (Drew Avenue) and west (France Avenue) intersections. City policy states that pedestrian crosswalks shall only be placed at intersections unless certain exigent circumstances exist. Staff feels they do not exist at this location. City policy further states that the improper placement of crosswalks creates the potential for accidents and injury and that excessive use of signs and pavement markings can substantially reduce the effectiveness of such devices. Consistent application of this policy will serve both the motorists and pedestrians within the City. Pedestrians must obey signals and yield to motorists if not crossing at an intersection or a crosswalk. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 3 of 5 June 4, 2008 Drew A warrants. 2. Request for a "Yield" sign for southbound Lakeview Drive at Lexington Street. Requestor is a resident of the 5600 Block of St. Andrews Ave who had a near accident at Lakeview Drive and Lexington Street and feels that a yield sign is needed for southbound Lakeview Drive traffic. Lakeview Drive at Lexington Street is a typical Edina residential intersection. The streets are narrow with no sidewalks. There have been no accidents reported in the past five years and there are no clear view issues. As a result of this request, a traffic study was conducted on all three legs of this intersection from 05/30/08- 06/08/08, which produced the following data: Lakeview Drive west of Lexington Street: Mon. -Fri. average daily traffic count = 466 — 85th percentile speed = 28.8. Lexington Street east of Lakeview Drive: Mon. -Fri. average daily traffic count = 273 — 85th percentile speed = 24.4. Lakeview Drive north of Lexington Street: Mon. -Fri. average daily traffic count = 135 — 85th percentile speed = 25.2. City policy states that relevant speed, volume, accident records, sight distances and other pertinent data shall be reviewed when considering the installation of a Yield sign, and that absent engineering data in support of a Yield sign, intersections shall remain uncontrolled. Warrants do not exist for a Yield sign at this intersection. Staff recommends denial of request for a Yield sign for southbound traffic on Lakeview Drive at Lexington Street for lack of warrants. 3. Request for no parking signs for the 6200 block of Beard Place adjacent to Strachauer Park (west side of street). Requestor is a resident of Beard Place who is concerned with vehicles parked on both sides of Beard Place when events take place in the park. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 4 of 5 June 4, 2008 Requestor states that cars park too close to her driveway making it hard for her to drive in and out. A similar request was received in March 2007. At that time, staff surveyed the residents who would be affected by the parking restrictions. The majority did not want any parking restrictions in front of their homes. The Edina Fire Marshal attended several events at Strachauer Park to determine if there was a safety issue with cars being parked on both sides of the street. He stated that there was enough room for emergency vehicles to get by. With no safety issue and the majority of the residents not wanting parking restrictions, that request was denied on 05/15/2007. Staff recommends denial of the request for no parkins on the west side of Beard Place, in the 6200 block ,for the above stated reasons. SECTION C: Requests that are deferred to a later date or referred to others. 1. Request to change the 2 -Hour parking restrictions on W. 44h Street between France Avenue and Eton Place by adding Mon. -Fri. as well as time specifications. Survey to be sent to residents. Traffic Safety Staff Review Page 5 of 5 June 4, 2008 I REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item # V. F. From: Jack D. Sullivan, PE ;�; Consent Assistant City Enginepr Information. Only ❑ Date: June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Subject: Resolution for Participation Action ® Motion in Preliminary Engineering ® Resolution of Intelligent Transportation El Ordinance' systems ❑ Discussion Recommendation: If the Council determines the grant appropriate, Council shall adopt resolution 2008 -57 accepting the MnDOT grant. Info /Background: The Minnesota Department of Transportation has awarded the City of Edina a grant of $10,000 to develop and deploy Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) solutions to traffic safety related deficiencies on the local road system. The grant monies were assigned to retain a consultant for the development of ITS solutions along W. 701h Street from Highway 100 to France Avenue. G:\ Engineering \lnfrasWcture\Streets \Traffic \ITS Grant Application \Grant Award\20080817_RR_200857.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2008-57 STATE OF MINNESOTA AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CITY OF EDINA City of Edina A RESOLUITON FOR PARTICIPATION IN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR S.P. 120 - 070 -01; M.P. ITS 08(002) BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Stat. Sec. 161.36, the Commissioner of Transportation be appointed as Agent of the City of Edina to accept as its agent, federal aid funds which may be made available for eligible transportation related projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Mayor and City Engineer are hereby authorized and directed for and behalf of the City to execute and enter into an agreement with the Commissioner of Transportation prescribing the terms and conditions of said federal aid participation as set forth and contained in "Minnesota Department of Transportation Agency Agreement No. 92626," a copy of which said agreement was before the City Council and which is made a part hereof by reference. Passed and adopted this 17th day of June, 2008. ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) James B. Hovland, Mayor CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of June 17, 2008, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of , 20 City Clerk City Hall 952 - 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952 - 826 -0390 EDINA, MINNESOTA, 55424 -1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952 - 826 -0379 Mn/DOT Agreement No. 92626 STATE OF MINNESOTA AGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND CITY OF EDINA FOR PARTICIPATION IN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR S.P. 120 - 070 -01; M.P. ITS 08(002) This agreement is entered into by and between City of Edina ( "City ") and the State of Minnesota acting through its Commissioner of Transportation ( "Mn/DOT "), Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 174.02 the City and Mn/DOT are entering into this agreement to explore Intelligent Transportation Solutions ( "ITS ") for local transportation agency issues, hereinafter referred to as the "Project "; and The City is proposing a project to coordinate pedestrian crossing warning lights and traffic signals to enforce safe pedestrian crossings along West70`h Street; and The Preliminary Engineering is identified in Mn/DOT records as State Project 120 -070- 01, and as Minnesota Project ITS 08(002); and Mn/DOT requires that the terms and conditions of this agency be set forth in an agreement. THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. DUTIES OF THE CITY. A. ELIGIBILITY / COSTS. 1. It is anticipated that up to $ 10,000 of the cost of the Preliminary Engineering is to be paid from funds made available for ITS projects by the Minnesota Department of Transportation and others. The City will pay any part of the cost or expense of the work that Mn/DOT does not pay. 2. Eligible cost and expense, if approved, may consist of the following: a) The cost of designing the integrated signal system for the West 701h Street Corridor. b) The cost incurred by the City to employ outside forces to perform any or all of Page 1 (Mn /DOT Agreement No. 92626) the work pursuant to this agreement, subject to the provisions of section I.C. SUBLETTING. 3. Expenditures for general administration, supervision, maintenance and other overhead or incidental expenses of the City are not eligible for participation. 4. Acceptability of costs under this agreement will be determined in accordance with the cost principles and procedures set forth in the applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations, Contract Cost Principals and Procedures, 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 31 which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement. 5. For costs expected to exceed $ 10,000 the City must pay any overage in costs. 6. It is expected that the preliminary engineering completed by this project will result in a future construction project. B. STAFFING. The City will designate a publicly employed registered engineer, ( "Project Engineer "), to be in responsible charge of the Project and to supervise and direct the work performed under any contract let for the Project. If City elects to use a private consultant for engineering services, the City will provide a qualified, full - time public employee of the City, to be in responsible charge of the Project. The services of _the City to be performed pursuant to this agreement may not be assigned, sublet, or transferred unless the City is notified in writing by Mn/DOT that such action is permitted under 23 CFR 1.33 and 23 CFR 635.105 and state law. This written consent will in no way relieve the City from its primary responsibility for performance of the work. 2. During the progress of the work on the Project, the City authorizes its Project Engineer to request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from Mn/DOT, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 161.39. Such services may be covered by other technical service agreements. If Mn/DOT furnishes the services requested, and if Mn/DOT requests reimbursement, then the City will promptly pay Mn/DOT to reimburse the state trunk highway fund for the full cost and expense of furnishing such services. The costs and expenses will include the current Mn/DOT labor additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. Provision of such services will not be deemed to make Mn/DOT a principal or co- principal with respect to the Project. 3. The City will furnish the personnel, services, supplies, and equipment necessary to properly supervise, inspect, and document the work for the Project. C. SUBLETTING. The City will prepare request for proposals in accordance with Minnesota law and applicable Federal laws and regulations. 1. The City will solicit proposals for Preliminary Engineering after obtaining written (Mn /DOT Agreement No. 92626) Page 2 notification from Mn/DOT to begin the project. 2. The City will prepare the request for proposal. 3. The City will prepare and publish the proposals- solicitation for the Project as required by state and federal laws. 4. The City will prepare proposal packages and prepare and distribute any addendums, if needed. 5. The City will receive open, and evaluate proposals. 6. This written consent will in no way relieve the City from its primary responsibility for performance of the work. Subcontractor agreements must contain all appropriate terms and conditions of this agreement. D. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. 1. The City will prepare reports, keep records, and perform work so as to collect the funds sought by the City. The City will retain all records and reports in accordance with Mn/DOT's record retention schedule. 2. Upon completion of the Project, the Project Engineer will determine whether the work will be accepted. E. PAYMENTS. 1. The entire cost of the Project is to be paid from funds made available by Mn/DOT and by other funds provided by the City. The City will pay any part of the cost or expense of the Project that is not paid by Mn/DOT. 2. The City may request payments upon completion of the project. 3. The invoice and supplements thereto, will contain all details that may be necessary for a proper audit. Such details will consist of at least the following: (a) A breakdown of labor by individual, classification, dates and hours worked times the applicable rate to arrive at a total dollar amount for each individual. (b) The labor additive shall be applied to total labor dollars. (c) The equipment charges shall be broken down by type of equipment times the applicable rate and dates used to arrive at total equipment charges. (d) A detailed breakdown of outside services used and supporting invoices and documentation that costs of outside services have been paid. Page 3 (Mn /DOT Agreement No. 92626) (e) Detail for materials, supplies, and other items with the description, units, and unit prices included in the invoice. If materials or supplies are purchased from an outside source, a copy of that invoice should be included. (f) The invoices will include 100% of eligible charges applicable to the Preliminary Engineering so that the prorata share of federal. and City participation can be applied to the total costs. 4. Following certification of the final estimate, the City may request reimbursement for costs eligible for federal funds. The City's request will be made to Mn/DOT and will include a copy of the certified final estimate along with the required records. 5. Reimbursement of costs under this agreement will be based on actual costs. F. LIMITATIONS. 1. The City will comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations. 2. Nondiscrimination. It is the policy of the FHWA and the State of Minnesota that no person in the United States will, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (42 U.S.C. 2000d). Through expansion of the mandate for nondiscrimination in Title VI and through parallel legislation, the prescribed bases of discrimination include race, color, sex, national origin, age, and disability. In addition, the Title VI program has been extended to cover all programs, activities and services of an entity receiving Federal financial assistance, whether such programs and activities are Federally assisted or not. Even in the absence of prior discriminatory practice or usage, a recipient in administering a program or activity to which this part applies, is expected to take affirmative action to assure that no person is excluded from participation in, or is denied the benefits of, the program or activity on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. It is the responsibility of the City to carry out the above requirements. 3. Workers' Compensation. Any and all employees of the City or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required or permitted by the City under this agreement will not be considered employees of Mn/DOT, and any and all claims that may arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of Minnesota on behalf of said employees, or other persons while so engaged, will in no way be the obligation or responsibility of Mn/DOT. The City will require proof of Workers' Compensation Insurance from any contractor and sub- contractor. (Mn /DOT Agreement No. 92626) Page 4 G. AUDIT. The City will comply with the Single Audit Act of 1984 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circular A -133 including amendments and successors thereto, which are incorporated herein by reference. 2. As provided under Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, subdivision 5, all books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of the City are subject to examination by the United States Government, Mn/DOT, and either the Legislative Auditor or the State Auditor as appropriate, for a minimum of six years. The City will be responsible for any costs associated with the performance of the audit. H. MAINTENANCE. The City assumes full responsibility for the operation and maintenance of any facility constructed or improved under this Agreement. I. CLAIMS. The City acknowledges that Mn/DOT is acting only as the City's agent for acceptance and disbursement of federal funds, and not as a principal or co- principal with respect to the Project. The City will pay any and all lawful claims arising out of or incidental to the Project including, without limitation, claims related to contractor selection (including the solicitation, evaluation, and acceptance or rejection of bids or proposals), acts or omissions in performing the Project work, and any ultra vires acts. The City will indemnify, defend (to the extent permitted by the Minnesota Attorney General), and hold Mn/DOT harmless from any claims or costs arising out of or incidental to the Project, including reasonable attorney fees incurred by Mn/DOT. The City's indemnification obligation extends to any actions related to the certification of DBE participation, even if such actions are recommended by Mn/DOT. II. DUTIES OF Mn/DOT. A. PAYMENTS. 1. Mn/DOT will receive the funds for the project. 2. Upon completion of the Project, the City will prepare a final payment request in accordance with the terms of this agreement. Mn/DOT will review and certify the final payment request with a final audit. 3. No more than 90% of the reimbursement due under this agreement will be paid until completion of the final audit and approval by Mn/DOT's authorized representative. 4. Mn/DOT does not obtain funding from other funding source, or funding cannot be continued at a sufficient level to allow for the processing of reimbursement requests, the City may continue the work with local funds only, until such time as Mn/DOT is able to process the federal aid reimbursement requests. (Mn /DOT Agreement No. 92626) Page 5 B. AUTHORITY. Mn/DOT may withhold funds, if Mn/DOT determines that the Project was not completed in compliance with requirements. C. INSPECTION. Mn/DOT, or duly authorized representatives of the state and federal government will have the right to audit, evaluate and monitor the work performed under this agreement. The City will maunder, for a minimum of seven years following the closing of the construction contract. III. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES. Each authorized representative will have responsibility to administer this agreement and to ensure that all payments due to the other party are paid pursuant to the terms of this agreement. A. The City authorized representative is Wayne Houle, City Engineer Edina, 4801 West 50`s Street, Edina, Minnesota 55424, phone 952.826.0371, or his successor. B. Mn/DOT's authorized representative is Lynnette Roshell, Minnesota Department of Transportation, State Aid for Local Transportation, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, Mail Stop 500, St Paul, MN 55155, phone 651- 366 -3822, or her successor. IV. TORT LIABILITY. Each party is responsible for its own acts and omissions and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and will not be responsible for the acts and omissions of any others and the results thereof. The Minnesota Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 3.736, governs Mn/DOT liability. V. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party will assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this agreement without prior written approval of the other party. VI. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments /supplements to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the same parties who executed the original agreement, or their successors in office. VII. TERM OF AGREEMENT. This agreement will be effective upon execution by the City and by appropriate State officials, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, and will remain in effect for three (3) years from the effective date or until all obligations set forth in this agreement have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. VIII. TERMINATION. This agreement may be terminated by the City or Mn/DOT at any time, with or without cause, upon ninety (90) days written notice to the other party. Such termination will not remove any unfulfilled financial obligations of the City as set forth in this Agreement. In the event of such a termination the City will be entitled to reimbursement for Mn/DOT- approved federally eligible expenses incurred for work satisfactorily performed on the Project to the date of termination subject to the terms of this agreement. (Mn /DOT Agreement No. 92626) Page 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION City certifies that the appropriate person(s) By: have executed the contract on its behalf as required by applicable resolutions, ordinances, or charter Title: Director. provisions State Aid for Local Transportation Date: By: Date: Title: By: _ Date: Title: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION By: Date: (Mn /DOT Agreement No. 92626) Page 7 9Z�TA �?l O KLYUK 1 %KLUUMMtiN llA'1'1UN To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item V.G Consent ❑ From: Cary Teague Planning Director Information Only Date: June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA To Council Subject: An amended variance to one of the conditions required for Action Motion the variance granted to allow wall signs, to face Centennial ❑ Resolution Lakes Park for Cypress Equities at 7311 France Ave. ❑ Ordinance Discussion Deadline for a city decision: August 19, 2008 Brief Description/Recommendation At their June 5, 2008 meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a request to amend one of the conditions that the City Council placed on the variance approval to allow signage to face Centennial Lake. The revised condition would allow the maximum height to the top of the signs at 16 feet 8 inches, rather than 14 feet, as originally conditioned. The difference is due to a change in the grade from north to south. (See proposed plan on pages A2 -A3.) The Board conditioned the approval on the City Council reviewing the request, since it was a condition required by the City Council. (See the minutes from the Zoning Board meetings on pages A8 -A10.) If the Council agrees with the action taken by the Zoning Board, no action is necessary. If the Council has any concern with the approval, or would like to take public testimony, staff would recommend that a public hearing be set for July 1, 2008. Introduction/Background Mr. John Bohan appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of a variance on December 20, 2007, to allow signage to face a public park. On February 4, 2008, the City Council upheld the Zoning Board's approval of the variance. (See minutes on.pages A4 -A7.) The following were the conditions that were negotiated and required by the City Council at their February 4th meeting: 1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the area of the store front. 2. No wall signs shall be allowed on the east elevations of Buildings B and. C. 3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., provided however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any time that the business is not open to the public. 4. Signs shall be illuminated only by indirect, up- lighting methods. No neon, fiber optic or direct light sources shall be allowed, provided, however, that projecting signs may be illuminated with reverse channel lighting. 5. No portion of a sign shall exceed 14 feet in elevation. 6. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to a business. 7. Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height. 8. Businesses with a principal entrance on the south elevation of Building C shall be identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the sign panel facing west and with a blank face on the east side. Condition #5 was suggested by the applicant at the Council meeting to keep the signage at an acceptable and uniform height. Please note from the original plan shown on page A3a, this condition keeps the signs lower, and at a uniform height above the canopy. However, now that the building has been constructed, the signage for the West Elm store cannot meet the 14 -foot limitation based upon the 2 -foot grade change from the north to the south end of the building. (See page A2.) Therefore, the applicant requested a revision to condition #5 to read as follows: 5. No portion of a sign on the East wall of Building A shall extend more than 4 feet above the canopy. The purpose of the request is to maintain a uniform and consistent sign band along the building. Essentially, the maximum height would be 16 feet 8 inches at the south end of the building. (See page A3.) Zoning Board of Appeals Decision Per staff recommendation, the Zoning Board approved the revision to condition# 5 of the original variance approval. Approval was based on the following finding: There is a grade change from the north end of the building to the south that makes it difficult to meet the original condition of the variance approval regarding maximum height of the wall signs, and still maintain a uniform sign band above the store fronts. Approval.is subject to the following conditions, which include the original conditions of approval: 1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the area of the store front. 2. No wall signs shall be allowed on the east elevations of Buildings B and C. 3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., provided however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any time that the business is not open to the public. 4. Signs shall be illuminated only by indirect, up- lighting methods. No neon, fiber optic or direct light sources shall be allowed, provided, however, that projecting signs may be illuminated with reverse channel lighting. 5. No portion of a sign on the East wall of BuildingA shall extend more than 4 feet above the canopy; no portion of a sign may exceed 16 feet 8 inches above grade. 6. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to a business. 7. Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height. 8. Businesses with a principal entrance on the south elevation of Building C shall be identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the sign panel facing west and with a blank face on the east side. 3 Supporting Information Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Macy's Home store; zoned and guided commercial: Easterly: Centennial Lake and condominiums; zoned for mixed use and guided multiple - family residential. Southerly: A five -story medical building; zoned for mixed use, and guided commercial. Westerly: A three -story office building zoned and guided office. Existing Site Features The_subject property is 4.2 acres in size, and previously contained a 40,000 square too movie theatre and large parking lot. Retail buildings with a parking ramp are currently under construction. Planning Guide Plan Designation: Commercial Zoning: MDD -6, Mixed Development District 4 I 7401 (004 7440 1000 2 <. Bneim Fork r 712' 7420 7428 b I. T425 7424 ', 7429 7428 720} 7201 T205 720D V' T209 r D � 7302 7250 0 7335 7260 7190 4000 7400 7450 3955 7200 tl A-d15- G—gr.(CI Lfl+R 0e2115 tit P' T I r� a LOCATION MAP I 740; I 3650 I I 0 24 7401 0 S B -07 -47 in Variance PID: 3202824230283 3821 Gallagher Dr Edina, MN 55435 g� m �.. Legend Wgtt9l"d Feature Hmme Number Labels Street Name Labels .l City limits J Creeks Lake Names C, Lakes ED Parka Parcels SIGNAGE EXHIBIT Jeb N:mDSOd File Neme. SIBnage Exhibit dw0 Retail/Restaurant Dew March 18.2008 Edina Minnesota Drew. by :JDF Q togtliFulton�& FarraiI Arahiteote T t •� �1 _ 4 T P- - i ... f - 1t09Pi�wA� 'FµFIFIIFUI/111�. t; k Fdy 300 � { F14Ai131F /iniii . ajl,'OWW.Tem 76101 -' � �,wxeylmm r - r I- o RICO aRl6lIUu1,1 peopost-0 StC�NS BUILDING A a w 288 5c[ Ft. 1445 ot Ft. 96 5q Ft. 5q Ft. 96 5q Ft. 524 5c[ Ft. or 4 Q I ! 1 Q I I I 9 �.,w.n. w,rr.• erY,h,C Ana ',i�w ' aww nuwo•. av w.. o.n e r: Augi�, tM .Aall i _ isr►,A � 1 Aug: `+��., �D YUgalR1i01�pus WAAiM�MilMS wE wIIP U� ` °IMbIJ @7.1°lUl'J _ PY�iI FMi SCALE: NT5 EDINA RETAIL CLIENT - EDINA MN LOGTION- RANDYANDREWY ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE - NATE CHAPEK UFSiGNER- EDINA RETAIL DRAWING- 12-13-07 DATE - REVISION - U OMER APPROVAL THESE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF LAWRENCE SIGN AND ARE THE RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL WORK OF ITS EMPLOYEES . THEY ARE SUBMITTED TO YOUR COMPANY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO PURCHASE THESE PLANS OR TO PURCHASE FROM LAWRENCE SIGN A SIGN MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO THESE PLANS. DISTRIBUTION OR EXHIBITION OF THESE PLANS TO ANYONE OTHER THAN EMPLOYEES OF YOUR COMPANY, OR USEDF THESE PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A SIGN SIMILAR TD THE ONE EMBODIED HEREIN, IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN. IN THE EVENT THAT SUCH EXHIBITION OCCURS, LAWRENCE SIGN EXPECTS TO BE R E I M B U R E E O 9 2, 0 0 0 I N COMPENSATION FOR TIME AND EFFORT ENTAILED IN CREATI NO THESEPLANS. 192 Ft. 144 5q Ft. 64 5q Ft. 64 5q Ft. 64 5q Ft. 2165q Ft. 4 Q 4 Q 9 Q 4 Q 4 Q Q •ig:.lStC, �} � � 111Aw�PaIkdDln�"��j w�3onlmv�w 44CUn9dr�m� rAwlelr.3e 5�)yQ'J�i13(J�lA3 P ' tu�.n POMRelO a w 288 5c[ Ft. 1445 ot Ft. 96 5q Ft. 5q Ft. 96 5q Ft. 524 5c[ Ft. or 4 Q I ! 1 Q I I I 9 �.,w.n. w,rr.• erY,h,C Ana ',i�w ' aww nuwo•. av w.. o.n e r: Augi�, tM .Aall i _ isr►,A � 1 Aug: `+��., �D YUgalR1i01�pus WAAiM�MilMS wE wIIP U� ` °IMbIJ @7.1°lUl'J _ PY�iI FMi SCALE: NT5 EDINA RETAIL CLIENT - EDINA MN LOGTION- RANDYANDREWY ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE - NATE CHAPEK UFSiGNER- EDINA RETAIL DRAWING- 12-13-07 DATE - REVISION - U OMER APPROVAL THESE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF LAWRENCE SIGN AND ARE THE RESULT OF THE ORIGINAL WORK OF ITS EMPLOYEES . THEY ARE SUBMITTED TO YOUR COMPANY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF YOUR CONSIDERATION OF WHETHER TO PURCHASE THESE PLANS OR TO PURCHASE FROM LAWRENCE SIGN A SIGN MANUFACTURED ACCORDING TO THESE PLANS. DISTRIBUTION OR EXHIBITION OF THESE PLANS TO ANYONE OTHER THAN EMPLOYEES OF YOUR COMPANY, OR USEDF THESE PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A SIGN SIMILAR TD THE ONE EMBODIED HEREIN, IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN. IN THE EVENT THAT SUCH EXHIBITION OCCURS, LAWRENCE SIGN EXPECTS TO BE R E I M B U R E E O 9 2, 0 0 0 I N COMPENSATION FOR TIME AND EFFORT ENTAILED IN CREATI NO THESEPLANS. February 4, 2008 City Council Regular meeting minutes Page 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL FEBRUARY 4, 2008 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson and Mayor Hovland. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Masica approving the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of Item V.D. Ratify Edina School Board Appointments to Human Rights and Relations Commission and Item V.G. Resolution No. 2008 -14 Affirming Support for Active Living Hennepin County. Rolccall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. " EDINA UNPLUGGED" PROCLAIMED FOR MARCH 10, 2008 Mayor Hovland read a proclamation that proclaimed March 10, 2008, as "Edina Unplugged" day in Edina and encouraged families to set aside that day that no homework, no meetings, no practices and no organized activities be scheduled. Member Bennett made a motion proclaiming March 10, 2008, as "Edina Unplugged" night in Edina. Member Swenson seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 15, 2008, WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 15 2008, -STUDY SESSION OF JANUARY 22, 2008, WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 22, 2008, AND WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 29, 2008 APPROVED Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Masica approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 15, 2008, Work Session of January 15, 2008, Study Session of January 22, 2008, Work Session of January 22, 2008, and Work Session of January 29, 2008. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 -18 ADOPTED UPHOLDING ZONING BOARD VARIANCE CYPRESS EQUITIES SIGN Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. Planning Director Teague explained Cypress Equities received final development plan approval to tear down the old 40,000 square foot AMC movie theatre, and build the following: • A 31,000 square foot single level retail building along France Avenue. • A 22,000 square foot retail building with a five -level parking ramp above. Attached to the south would be a 32,960 square foot two -level retail/ restaurant building. A httn• / /unvLrw r.i Prl;nn mn MeetingMimite. /20090204Reg.htm 5/7/2009 February 4, 2008 City Council Regular meeting minutes Page 2 of 8 Mr. Teague stated the development has been designed to face Centennial Lakes Park. It was also designed to encourage pedestrian movement to and from the site by providing connections to Centennial Lakes Park. He added that during the final development approval it had been acknowledged a sign variance would be necessary to allow signage facing the park. Continuing, Mr. Teague said Edina Code Section 460.05 Subd. 7.1 stated wall signs shall not be allowed to face a public park or residential uses. For that reason Cypress requested a variance to allow signage above the store fronts that face the park. All other signage within the development would meet the sign ordinance requirements. The Board of Appeals, to reduce the impact on the park, required that the signage be reduced from 15% to 10% of the front face of the building; required the signs must be front lit, signs facing the park may not be illuminated between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, however, signs would be allowed to be illuminated at any time the use identified by the sign was open for business; and signage would not be allowed on the walls of Buildings B and C that face east, as there were no store entrances at that elevation. Following the December 20, 2007 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting where the Cypress variance request was approved, Mr. John Bohan appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of a variance to allow signage to face a public park. Mr. Teague gave his recommendation that the Council uphold the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to approve the requested variance to allow signage to face a public park at 7311 France Avenue for Cypress Equities based on the findings listed in the staff report dated February 4, 2008, including the following: • The hardship was caused by the design of the project, with its store fronts facing the park. Approved plan encourages pedestrian movement between the park and the commercial area. • If variance were denied a hardship would be brought upon the applicant. • The proposed signage was reasonable. • The variance would not set a precedent. Mr. Teague answered questions of the Council including which buildings and their subsequent elevations' signs were in question, the times during which the signs would be lit, what signs would be placed on the back of buildings along France Avenue, history of the sign regulations, and illumination schematics. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, described his appeal of the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Bohan displayed photographs demonstrating that in his opinion, the signs would be very visible from his home and presented a graphic noting what he deemed were deficiencies of the code and subsequent recommendations. He said he was appealing the variance for two issues: 1) there was no notice or publication of the proposed variance; and 2) any variance should be for specific signs at specific locations with specific lighting. Brett Witzig, Cypress Equities, 15601 Dallas Parkway, Addison, TX 75001, used a PowerPoint presentation, to depict examples of proposed signage on the buildings with elevations facing AS httn: / /www.ci. edina .mn.us /CitvCouncil/CitvCouncil MeetinLMinutes /20080204Ree.htm 5/7/2008 February 4, 2008 City Council Regular meeting minutes Page 3 of 8 Centennial Lakes Park. He noted Cypress had agreed to reduce their signage from the 15% allowed by Edina sign regulations to 10 %. The Council asked questions and discussed the proposed signage with Mr. Witzig. Their questions included: minimal level of lighting necessary, why 10% signage was needed, was Mr. Witzig aware of any communities with regulations allowing less than 10% signage, and what would happen to the size of the signs if only two or three tenants were to lease the space instead of the proposed six tenants. Ed Khouri, Cypress Equities, 15601 Dallas Parkway, Addison, TX 75001, stated he was the National Director of Leasing. He stated the retail leasing tenants dictate how their "brand" signs look. Mr. Corey also answered the Council's questions regarding the requested variance. The Council continued their discussion with Mr. Witzig and Mr. Khouri. The discussion covered clarification of what was meant by i0% of the store front, what type and size of signs would be proposed on the west side of the buildings, time to allow lit signs and logistics of the restaurant signs, would developers agree to height limitation and location above each store front, noting that the developers have a self imposed limitation since choosing a location next to a park, would signs be identification or advertising, whether or not the decision would be precedential, goal of mixed use to integrate development with park, limitation to no neon or fiber optic lighting, allowing one sign per store front as identification at principal entrance to store, limiting hours of allowing signs to be lit, all signs to be front lit, except that projecting signs could have channel lighting on their westerly face with a blank face on their east fagade, overall elevation should be limited to 14 feet with no more than 3 feet of signage, lights must be extinguished when business not in operation, and restaurants must turn off lights when doors close even though patrons remain in establishment. Public Comment Cindy Jarvis, 1016 Coventry Place, stated her concern over the impact the proposed signs will have on her home. She urged the Council to not allow signs along the park. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, asked that the actual height of any proposed sign be explicitly stated. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Housh to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Masica, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Following a discussion, Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett adopting Resolution No. 2008 -18 upholding the variance granted to Cypress Equities for their signs with the following conditions imposed on signs located on east elevations of Building A and Building B, and the south and.east elevations of Building C: 1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the area of the store front.. 2. No wall signs shall be allowed an the east elevations of Buildings B and C. 3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., provided however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any time that the A httn- / /www.ri.f- lina..mn.rnc /C itvCnllncil /C'.itvC',nrnnci1 MeetingMinutec /20080204Reg.htm 5/7/2008 February 4, 2008 City Council Regular meeting minutes Page 4 of 8 business is not open to the public. 4. Signs shall be illuminated only by indirect, up- lighting methods. No neon, fiber optic or direct light sources shall be allowed, provided, however, that projecting signs may be illuminated with reverse channel lighting. 5. No portion of a sign shall exceed 14 feet in elevation. 6. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to a business. 7. Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height. 8. Businesses with a principal entrance on the south elevation of Building C shall be identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the sign panel facing west and with a blank face on the east side. Rollcall: Ayes: Bennett, Housh, Swenson, Hovland Nay: Masica Motion carried. lam, PUBLIC COMMENT Virginia Borgeson, 6216 Ewing Avenue, presented a petition requesting the Council hold a recall election and expressing her displeasure with the Comprehensive Plan Draft as proposed, and with recent development decisions. Donald Dietz, 6405 Rolf Avenue, presented a petition requesting the Council hold a recall election because of recent decisions of the City Council. He contended the Council intended to make density higher contrary to the desires of the residents. Cheryl Ouellette, 6215 France Avenue, stated she agreed with the previous two speakers and suggested that any increases in density or height be kept to the York Avenue neighborhood that already had some tall buildings. Kim Montgomery, 5300 Evanswood Lane, requested the Council consider building a Community Center on the existing Public Works site. *AWARD OF BID TWO 2008 CHEVROLET SILVERADOS - POLICE DEPARTMENT Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Masica approving the award of bid for two 2008 Chevrolet Silverados for the Edina Police Department from the recommended low bidder Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet (State Contract No. 433607) at $48,571.88. Motion carried *on rollcall vote - five ayes. *AWARD OF BID SIX 2008 FORD CROWN V_ ICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTORS - POLICE DEPARTMENT Motion made by Member Swenson and seconded by Member Masica approving the award of bid for six 2008 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors for the Edina Police Department from Denny Hecker's Monticello Ford (State Contract No. 438386 Release QA -174 (5)) at $134,442.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *AWARD OF BID TWO CHEVROLET TRAILBLAZERS - POLICE DEPARTMENT Motion lhttn-// vv- ww- ri. erlina.. mn.us /C'.itvCouncil /CitvCouncil MeetinLyMinutes /20080204ReE.htm 5/7/2008 Draft Summary Zoning Board Meeting June 5, 2008 B -08-47 Cypress Equities 7311 France Avenue Request: Approve amended variance condition as per City Council Mr. Teague informed the Board that Mr. John Bohan appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals approval of a variance on December 20, 2007, to allow signage to face a public park. On February 4, 2008, the City Council upheld the Zoning Board's approval of the variance. The following were the conditions that were negotiated and required by the City Council at their February 4ffi meeting: 1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the area of the store front. 2. No wall signs shall be allowed on the,east elevations of Buildings B and C. 3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. 'and 7 A.M., provided however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any time that the business is not open to the public. 4. Signs shall be illuminated only, by indirect, up- lighting methods. No neon, fiber optic or direct light sources shall be allowed, provided, however, that projecting signs may be illuminated with reverse channel lighting. 5. No portion of a sign shall exceed 14 feet in elevation. 6. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to a business. 7. Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height. 8. Businesses with a principal, entrance on the south elevation of Building C shall be identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the sign panel facing west and with"a blank face on the,east side.. Continuing, Mr. Teague'said at this time applicant is requesting a revision to condition #5 to read as follows: 5. No portion of a sign on the East wall of Building A shall extend more than 4 feet above the canopy. Mr. Teague, concludes staff recommends that the Zoning Board approve the revision to condition number five of the original variance approval based on the following finding: There is a grade change from the north end of the building to the south that makes it difficult to meet the original condition of the variance approval regarding maximum height of the wall signs, and still maintain a uniform sign band above the store fronts. MI Approval is also subject to the following conditions, which include the original conditions of approval: 1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the area of the store front. 2. No wall signs shall be allowed on the east elevations of Buildings B and C. 3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., provided however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any time that the business is not open to the public. 4. Signs shall be illuminated only by indirect, up- lighting methods. No neon, fiber optic or direct light sources shall be allowed, provided, however, that' projecting signs may be illuminated with reverse channel lighting. 5. No portion of a sign on the East wall of Building A shall extend more than 4 feet above the canopy. 6. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to ,a business: 7. Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height. 8. Businesses with a principal entrance on the'south elevation of Building C shall be identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the, sign panel facing west and with a blank face on the east side. Mr. Brett Witzig was present representing Cypress Equities, the proponent and property owner. Chair Fischer stated to be clear the request before the Board is only for a change to one condition. Planner Teague responded that is correct. This request is only a modification to the Council condition. #5. Member Staunton questioned if hearing this request is procedurally correct, adding in his opinion it isn't so much of 6, variance but an amendment or modification to a condition of approval directed bythe Councill. Planner Teague responded that the City Attorney advised staff to bring this�beforethe Zoning Board. Member Staunton said .he believes'this modification should also go before the Council, noting it was their condition. A brief discussion ensued with regard to the process noting the signage variance was granted by both the Zoning Board and City Council; therefore, the hardship test was met.' Continuing, Members asked Mr. Witzig to clarify how the Board got to this point. ` Mr. Witzig explained at "the time of the Council hearing he was asked how high the sign(s) would be. Mr, Witzig said he responded 14 feet. Mr. Witzig said he came up with the 14 feet without�realizing there is a grade change. Continuing, Mr. Witzig stated in reality nothing has changed, the signs will be erected as indicated; reiterating, there is a grade change which changed the height of the sign on one end of the building. Chair Fischer asked if anyone is present in the audience that would like to speak hi to this matter. Mr. John Bohan, 800 Coventry Place, agreed that there was an oversight on the part of Cypress, adding he would like to see the signage lowered by 6 inches. Member Forrest moved to close the public testimony. Member Staunton seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Chair Fischer asked Mr. Witzig if signage could be lowered 6 inches as suggested by Mr. Bohan. Mr. Witzig responded that would be difficult to say. Mr. Witzig said he really would be uncomfortable saying yes it can be reduced, or no it can't. He added he isn't proficient in signage, adding the,brackets.the signs are fastened with could be different for each store front which could make a difference. Concluding, Mr. Witzig said he honestly can't comment on 6 inches. Chair Fischer acknowledged that requesting that an applicant (or anyone for that matter) redesign "on the spot" isn't in the best interest of anyone, the City or the.applicarit. Member Staunton said he has no problem with this request; however, he wants the City Council to review it. Member Staunton moved variance approval based orr staff findings, subject to staff conditions and subject to the, following conditions as set forth by the Edina City Council: 1. Wall signs shall not exceed 10% of the, area of the store front. 2. No wall signs shall be allowed on the east elevations of Buildings B and C. 3. Signs shall not be illuminated between the hours of 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., provided - however, that no sign shall be illuminated for a business during any time.that the business is not,open to the public. 4. Signs shall-be illuminated only,by indirect, up- lighting methods. No neon, fiber optic or direct light sources -shall be allowed, provided, however, that %projecting signs may be illuminated with reverse channel lighting. 5. Signs shall only be placed at the principal entrance to a business. 6: , Wall signs shall not exceed 36 inches in height. 7. Businesses with a principal entrance on the south elevation of Building C shall be identified only with a single faced projecting sign with the sign panel facing west and with a blank face on the east side. Approval is also conditioned on: no portion of a sign shall exceed 16'8" and that the City Council will review this request for the requested amendment/modification to their condition #5. Member Forrest seconded the motion. Ayes; Staunton, Forrest, Fischer. Motion carried. AID 0 e \N v 886 A G ENDA I TE M' V. H.', Set Hearing Date (07/01/08) Public Works Facility Relocation No packet data ❑ Oral presentation ❑ Information coming �11 To: Mayor & City Council From: Gordon Hughes City Manager REPORT /RECOMMENDATION Agenda Item V.I. Consent ❑ Recommendation: Grant First Reading. Info /Background: The following ordinance amendment has been suggested by the City Attorney in order to remove an ambiguity that exists in our current City Code. In our opinion, it does not alter the intent of the Code. Information Only ❑ Date: June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Subject: ORDINANCE NO. 2008 -07 AMENDING THE CITY CODE Action ® Motion CONCERNING LIQUOR LICENSING FOR ❑ Resolution ESTABLISHMENTS WITH AMUSEMENT DEVICES Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Grant First Reading. Info /Background: The following ordinance amendment has been suggested by the City Attorney in order to remove an ambiguity that exists in our current City Code. In our opinion, it does not alter the intent of the Code. ORDINANCE NO. 2008- 07 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EDINA CITY CODE CONCERNING LIQUOR THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Subsection 900.09, Subdivision 5, of the Edina City Code is hereby amended to provide as follows: On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses. In addition to the requirements of Subd. 1 of this Subsection, no On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License shall be granted to i) any establishment other than a restaurant or hotel located in the PCD -2, PCD -3, POD -2 Subdistricts or the Mixed Development District as established by Section 850 of this Code ii) any amusement or recreation establishment including amusement arcades, bowling centers, pool halls or establishments offering amusement devices which means: A. A machine which upon the insertion of a coin, slug or other token, or upon payment of a fee, operates, or may be operated, as a game, contest or other amusement. B. Miniature pool tables, bowling machines, shuffle boards, electric rifle or gun ranges, and machines patterned after baseball, basketball, hockey and similar games and like machines. C. Amusement devices designated for and used exclusively by children, such as, but not limited to, kiddie cars, miniature airplane rides, mechanical horses, and other miniature mechanical devices In addition, no On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License shall be granted to any establishment located in the PCD -2 Subdistrict which will contain more than 200 seats; provided, however, a premises in the PCD -2 Subdistrict holding a wine license issued by the City which was in effect on December 31, 1998, and which contains more that 200 seats may be issued an On -Sale Intoxicating Liquor License but the licensed premises shall not be thereafter expanded to include more seats than existed on December 31, 1998. For purposes of the preceding sentence, outdoor, seasonal dining areas shall not be included in the seat count provided that such outdoor seating comprises 20 percent or less of the total seating capacity of the licensed premises. Section 2. This ordinance is effective immediately upon its passage and publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk James B. Hovland, Mayor r ° R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF -NA 6/31k..o 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 1 615/2008 --6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Descrlpllon Business Unit 309894 6/5/2008 101833 A.T.O.M. 900.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING 186884 12371253 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 900.00 309895 6 /5/2008 100613 AAA -_ 18.25 TITLE 26.205 186675 052308 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 18.25 TITLE 26.206 186675 052308 1553.6260 LICENSES & PERMITS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 36.50 309896 6/5/2008 101971 ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC. 507.75 BANDING TOOL, BANDS 00005847 186676 1- 803504 1646.6556 TOOLS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 507.75 309897 6/5/2008 100715 ACCLAIM BENEFITS 661.90 FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCT ADMIN 186677 005056 1550.6040 HOSPITALIZATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 157.00 COBRA ADMIN 186678 005234 1550.6040 HOSPITALIZATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 818.90 309898 6/512008 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 40.60 186748 494273 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 99.16 187070 494272 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 139.76 309899 615/2008 100616 ACTION MAILING SERVICES INC. 445.22 MAIL PROCESSING 186885 209935 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) 445.22 309900 6/5/2008 101949 ADDED TOUCH 900.00 PAINT POOL PADS 186886 052808 5311.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL OPERATION 900.00 309901 6 /5/2008 102626 AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES 346.80 CONCRETE 00005752 186820 4217841 1314.6520 CONCRETE STREET RENOVATION 1,295.53 READY MIX 00005752 186887 4218231 1314.6520 CONCRETE STREET RENOVATION 1,190.46 READY MIX 00005752 186888 4218041 1314.6520 CONCRETE STREET RENOVATION 2,832.79 309902 6/5/2008 120168 ALLIANCE ELECTRIC INC. 1,860.00 HAND DRYER WIRING 00002156 186889 5275 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,860.00 309903 6/5/2008 122607 AMERICAN LEGION BASEBALL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 2 6/5/2008 6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 99.00, BRAEMAR GOLF DOME AD 186928 042408 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 99.00 309904 6/5/2008 102118 ANCHOR INDUSTRIES INC. 2,623.51 UMBRELLA TOPS 00007024 186821 726246 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 2,623.51 309905 6/5 12008 100630 ANCHOR PAPER CO. INC. 1,026:48 COPIER PAPER 187069 10160066 -00 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 1,026.48 309906 6/5/2008 102109 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 12.50 RADIO REPAIR 187006 2634 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 230.76 HEAD SET REPAIR 187007 2773 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 243.26 309907 6/5/2008 101548 ANbERSON, TOM 95.85 PLANTS 186929 052908 5422.6275 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 95.85 309908 6/5 /2008 102470 AON RISK SERVICES INC. OF MN 5,957.00 PREMIUM 186679 6100000097730 1550.6200 INSURANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 5,957.00 309909 6/5/2008 102172 APPERT'S FOODSERVICE 679.03 FOOD 186930 963720 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 679.03 309910 615/2008 101282 APWA 535.00 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 186822 101897 1260.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ENGINEERING GENERAL 535.00 309911 6/5/2008 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 151.38 COFFEE 186890 6013 -009011 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 151.38 309912 6/5 /2008 100634 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 215.13 BACK RACK 00001118 186680 10039251 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 215.13 309913 6/5/2008 119206 AZTECA SYSTEMS INC. - 1,900.00 CITYWORKS TRAINING 186823 4147 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation 80840900 5822.5515 600.00 CITYWORKS TRAINING 5842.5513 186752 2,500.00 5820.6406 309914 6/5/2008 5822.5515 100638 BACHMAN'S 44826800 5822.5513 279.31 70TH ST PLANTINGS 5842.5512 364.23 70TH ST PLANTINGS 153.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES 643.54 186891 309915 61512008 93.72 100643 BARR ENGINEERING CO. 00003151 186892 4,415.25 MANHOLE INSPECTIONS 92.53 OFFICE SUPPLIES 195.00 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OE- 158751 -1 1470.6513 4,610.25 RETURN 309916 6/5/2008 CP- OE- 158751 -1 117353 BASSFORD REMELE 324.90 789.25 LITIGATION FILE 789.25 309917 6/5/2008 120517 BEITEL, DAWN 70.41 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 70.41 309918 615/2008 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 254.70 8.75- 1,380.94 24.11 98.29 CITY OF --.NA Council Check Register 6/5/2008 -- 6/5/2008 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 186824 4156 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 00005662 186681 1489 1644.6541 00005418 186682 1488 1644.6541 186825 2327G96 -10 5923.6136 166826 2327354 -159 5932.6103 PLANTINGS & TREES PLANTINGS & TREES 6 /3 /- 14:54:47 Page- 3 Business Unit DISTRIBUTION TREES & MAINTENANCE TREES & MAINTENANCE PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER COLLECTION SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL STORM SEWER 186683 122513 1120.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 187010 053008 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 186749 44826900 5862.5513 186750 80840900 5822.5515 186751 44827000 5842.5513 186752 80842900 5820.6406 186753 80842800 5822.5515 186754 44826800 5822.5513 187071 44827100 5842.5512 309919 6/5/2008 103486 BEND IN THE RIVER BIG BAND 125.00 PERFORMANCE 6/11/08 187062 060108 5610.6136 125.00 309920 6/5/2008 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 153.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003150 186891 WO- 508646 -1 1400.6513 93.72 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003151 186892 WO- 508930 -1 1400.6513 92.53 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00003661 187008 OE- 158751 -1 1470.6513 15.23- RETURN 187009 CP- OE- 158751 -1 1470.6513 324.90 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE GENERAL SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR ADMINISTRATION PLAYGROUND & THEATER VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH STREET GENERAL 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 4 615/2008 -- 6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 309921 6 /5/2008 101691 BETZEN GOLF SUPPLY CO. 339.97 GRIPS 186931 23174 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 339.97 309922 6/5/2008 105120 BIGELOW, DEBBIE 150.00 PERFORMANCE 6/9/08 187059 060108 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 150.00 309923 6/5/2008 122599 BIOLAWN 714.56 WEED CONTROL 00005987 186827 958 1643.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL TURF CARE 2,362.39 WEED CONTROL 00001203 186828 MAY 2008 1643.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL TURF CARE 3,076.95 309924 6/5/2008 100711 BLOOD, DAVID 100.00 POLICE SERVICE 186815 060508 1419.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RESERVE PROGRAM 100.00 309925 6/5/2008 100664 BRAUN INTERTEC 95.00 INSPECTION SERVICES 00001206 186684 293612 47050.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COURTNEY PARK MAINT GARAGE 95.00 309926 6/5/2008 122496 BREAKTIME BEVERAGE INC. 387.46 CANDY 186932 2340:014450 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 387.46 309927 6/5/2008 101366 BRENTS SIGNS & GRAPHICS 55.91 SIGNS 00006049 186933 8198 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 55.91 309928 6/512008 121118 BRUESKE, JEFF 200.00 PERFORMANCE 6/10/08 187061 060108 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 200.00 309929 6/512008 100669 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 471.98 BALLFIELD AGLIME 00005758 186829 051508 1642.6542 INFIELD MIXTURE FIELD MAINTENANCE 471.98 309930 615/2008 100776 BUTLER, GEORGE 100.00 POLICE SERVICE 186814 060508 1419.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RESERVE PROGRAM 100.00 309931 61512P'- 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF CITY Or .AA 6/3t- , 14:54:47 R55CKREG LOG20000 _ Council Check Register Page- 5 6/5/2008 -- 615/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 72.45 GOLF CLUB 186934 915629613 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 226.06 GOLF CLUBS 186935 915566030 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 298.51. 309932 61512008 102482 CAMPBELL PET COMPANY 438.15 COLLARS FOR OFF LEASH PARK 186893 0224353 -IN 1450.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ANIMAL CONTROL 438.15 309933 6/5/2008 108688 CANTON COMMUNICATIONS INC. 786.08 CABLE ADS 186936 080520 -1 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 786.08 309934 615/2008 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 354.90 186755 305083 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,843.75 187072 305093 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,198.65 309935 615/2008 116683 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE 207.00 187073 77549 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 207.00 309936 6/512008 119661 CENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION 338.00 BROCHURES 187011 64588 1140.6575 PRINTING PLANNING 338.00 309937 6/512008 105038 CENTRAL MN TREE SERVICE LLC 1,172.38 TREE REMOVAL 00001198 186830 052108 4088.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREE REMOVAL 1,172.38 309938 6/5/2008 113151 CHURCH OFFSET PRINTING INC. 1,296.54 GOLF COURSE MAILING 00006046 186937 044658 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF ADMINISTRATION 1,296.54 309939 6/5/2008 101345 COLOURS 500.00 PRESS RELEASE TEMPLATE 187012 9924 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 701.00 RECYCLING BROCHURE DESIGN 187013 9941 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 1,201.00 309940 61512008 101323 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS 44.02 EAR PROTECTION, RESPIRATORS 00001166 186831 03273369 4090.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET REVOLVING 113.68 EAR PROTECTION, RESPIRATORS 00001166 186831 03273369 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 129.80 EAR PROTECTION, RESPIRATORS 00001166 186831 03273369 5913.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 6 6/5/2008 -- 6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 139.52 GLOVES, EARPLUGS 00001176 186832 03274336 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 427.02 309941 615 /2008 102269 CONSOLIDATED CONTAINER CO. LLC 28.65 EVIDENCE CONTAINER 186833 INV00030102 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 28.65 309942 6/5/2008 102230 COPY CHECK 148.12 REGISTER REPAIR 00006040 186938 14801 5430.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 148.12 309943 6/5/2008 100513 COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES IN 2,742.38 CUSTODIAL SERVICES 187065 7070131590 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY HALL GENERAL 2,742.38 309944 6/5/2008 104020 DALCO 168.28 CARPET CLEANER, DUST WIPES 00002154 186894 1981782 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 428.32 FLOOR PRODUCTS 00002154 186895 1983159 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 596.60 309945 615 12008 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING 1,922.55 186756 458741 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 18.40 186757 458742 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 79.95 186758 458713 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 2,926.39 186759 458712 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 719.60 186760 458714 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5,666.89 309946 6/5/2008 118490 DEEP ROCK WATER COMPANY 9.58 609425 WATER 186693 6463705 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 9.58 309947 6/512008 100720 DENNYS 5TH AVE. BAKERY b3.92 BAKERY 186939 274230 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 48.56 BAKERY 186940 274398 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 62.90 BAKERY 186941 274478 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 103.46 BAKERY 186942 274539 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 106.35 BAKERY 186943 274540 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 77.76 BAKERY 186944 274636 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 452.95 309948 6/51" 119222 DESIGNWRITE STUDIOS CITY OF -- iqA 613/x,._.. 14:54:47 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 7 6/5/2008 -- 6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 163.75 PHOTO CONTEST POSTER 187014 5318 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 851.25 GRAPHIC DESIGN 187015 5319 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMUNICATIONS 1,015.00 309949 6/5/2008 106022 DEVANT SPORT TOWELS 1,542.20 TOWELS 186945 DEV215303 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,542.20 309950 6/5/2008 102831 DEX EAST 22.00 186685 315566289 5430.6188 TELEPHONE RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 137.00 186685 315566289 5511.6188 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 316.00 186685 315566289 5420.6188 TELEPHONE CLUB HOUSE 353.00 186686 315566283 5610.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 828.00 309951 615 /2008 121546 DICK, KENNA 1,995.00 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 186896 052808 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,995.00 309952 6/5/2008 100420 DOGGIE WALK BAGS 827.00 DISPENSER BAGS 00005834 186834 200805214 1647.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PATHS & HARD SURFACE 827.00 309953 6/5/2008 100730 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 1,310.97 LEGAL 186687 1491127 1195.6131 PROFESSIONAL SERV - LEGAL LEGAL SERVICES 1,310.97 309954 6/5/2008 122603 DOUGLAS, JUDY 100.00 AMBULANCE OVERPAYMENT 186897 052808 1470.4329 AMBULANCE FEES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 100.00 309955 6/5/2008 120696 DRAPER, LAURENE 410.04 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 187016 052908 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 410.04 309956 6/5/2008 116357 DUNHAM ASSOCIATES INC. 4,251.05 FIRE ALARM ENGINEERING 186898 200900457 5600.1720 BUILDINGS EB /CL BALANCE SHEET 4,251.05 309957 6/5/2008 104868 DUNN, MATT 175.00 PERFORMANCE 6/10/08 187060 060108 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 175.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page- 8 6/5/2008 --6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier ! Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 309958 6/5/2008 100739 EAGLE WINE 267.45 186761 59118 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 554.45 186762 59124 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 821.90 309959 6/5/2008 119716 EASTERN PACIFIC APPAREL INC. 974.35 MERCHANDISE 186946 393187 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 974.35 309960 6/512008 105467 EDINA CRIME PREVENTION FUND 60.00 PLATINUM PROTECTION DONATION 186835 052708 1400.4128 SOLICITOR PERMITS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 60.00 309961 6/512008 101630 EDINA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 468.00 GYM USE PERMITS 186688 6876 4077.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES EDINA ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION 468.00 309962 6/5/2008 116448 EGAN OIL COMPANY 28,730.81 UNLEADED GAS 00005413 186947 149815 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 28,730.81 309963 6/512008 117375 ESRI 3,000.00 ARCINFO MAINTENANCE 00005931 186689 91740654 5910.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL (BILLING) 3,353.87 ARCVIEW MAINTENANCE 00005931 186689 91740654 1554.6160 DATA PROCESSING CENT SERV GEN - MIS 6,353.87 309964 6/5/2008 100752 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC. 833.90 GRATES 00005757 186836 LL1778 5932.6536 CASTINGS GENERAL STORM SEWER 833.90 309965 6/5/2008 116303 ETONIC WORLDWIDE LLC 1,307.78 MERCHANDISE 186948 114321 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,307.78 309966 6/5/2008 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 146.99 ARMS 00005807 186837 6- 1040675 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 178.83 ARMS 00005807 186838 6- 1040785 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 146.99- CREDIT 186839 6- 1041291 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 393.20 JOINTS, END KITS, LINKAGE 00001049 186840 6- 1042386 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 96.40 END KITS 00005814 186841 6- 1042664 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 79.47 ARM 00005813 186842 6- 1042648 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPER' 'GEN R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY Op AA Council Check Register 6/512008 --6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS ADVERTISING PERSONNEL 6 /3 /-d 14:54:47 Page - 9 Business Unit PSTF OCCUPANCY EDINBOROUGH PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 747.90 PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP 309967 6/512008 100297 FAST FOTO 8 DIGITAL 1,126.26 PHOTO MOUNTING 6530671 187017 T2- 264525 7411.6103 1,126.26 309968 615 /2008 100755 FAST FRAME 289.81 PHOTO FRAMING 186899 19276 5620.6406 289.81 309969 6/512008 106035 FASTENAL COMPANY 260.98 DRILL 00001029 186690 MNTC294116 1646.6556 260.98 309970 6/5 /2008 119211 FIRSTLAB 39.00 DRUG TEST 186691 303858 1550.6121 39.00 309971 6/5/2008 101475 FOOTJOY 568.92 SOCKS 186949 4950013 5440.5511 833.17 SOCKS 186950 4948539 5440.5511 70.50 RAINSHIRT 186951 4952225 5440.5511 58.70 SHOES 186952 5088488 5440.5511 1,531.29 309972 6/5/2008 101931 GEAR FOR SPORTS 214.40 SOCKS 186953 40279998 5440.5511 1,430.23 SHIRTS 186954 40279876 5440.5511 1,644.63 309973 6/512008 100775 GENERAL SPORTS CORPORATION 270.00 PARK MAINTENANCE JACKETS 00005825 186692 76504 1646.6201 270.00 309974 6/5/2008 103185 GERTENS 351.23 PLANTS 186900 146367 5620.6620 351.23 309975 6/5/2008 119936 GLOBAL OAK 543.75 E- COMMERCE 186843 521 5310.6103 1,256.25 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 186843 521 2210.6124 1,800.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS ADVERTISING PERSONNEL 6 /3 /-d 14:54:47 Page - 9 Business Unit PSTF OCCUPANCY EDINBOROUGH PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES LAUNDRY TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WEB DEVELOPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE EDINBOROUGH PARK POOL ADMINISTRATION COMMUNICATIONS R55CKREG LOG20000 186763 100686 5842.5513 CITY OF EDINA YORK SELLING 199.90 186764 100724 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE Council Check Register 597.65 187074 100813 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 615/2008 --615/2008 187075 Check # Dale Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 309976 615 12008 186844 101679 GOLFCRAFT INC. 05464.1705.30 457.85 172.50 PUTTERS 00002344 187018 21178 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 120834 GREEN, RICK 172.50 309977 6/5/2008 186955 101103 GRAINGER 5422.6406 48.95 108.60 LAMPS 187019 9644176258 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 100785 GREUPNER, JOE 178.80 TOOLS 187020 9641952941 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 7,090.00 GROUP LESSONS 287.40 052908 5410.6132 309978 61512008 120201 GRANICUS, INC 309984 6/5/2008 100782 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. 829.64 WEBSTREAMING 187021 7110 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,585.56 829.64 59122 5862.5513 309979 6/5/2008 186766 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 5862.5515 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Page - 10 Business Unit CENTENNIAL LAKES PSTF OCCUPANCY PSTF OCCUPANCY COMMUNICATIONS 245.85 186763 100686 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 199.90 186764 100724 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 597.65 187074 100813 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 391.80 187075 100701 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 469.75 187076 100814 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 309980 61512008 100783 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. 772.08 WIRE REELS 00005291 186694 934046221 47050.6710 772.08 309981 6/5/2008 119787 GREEN LAWN UNDERGROUND SPRINKL 457.85 SPRINKLER REPAIR 186844 139580 05464.1705.30 457.85 309982 615/2008 120834 GREEN, RICK 48.95 ANTIFREEZE 186955 052708 5422.6406 48.95 309983 6/5/2008 100785 GREUPNER, JOE 7,090.00 GROUP LESSONS 186956 052908 5410.6132 7,090.00 309984 6/5/2008 100782 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. 2,585.56 186765 59122 5862.5513 78.65 186766 59123 5862.5515 98.45 186767 59120 5862.5515 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT COURTNEY PARK MAINT GARAGE CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES WM -464 TODD PARK NHOOD MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS PROFESSIONAL SVCS - GOLF GOLF ADMINISTRATION COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF LOINA 6/312uU8 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 11 6/5/2008 --6/512008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 3,280.57 186768 59121 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 822.63 186769 58056 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,395.88 186770 58055 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 131.48 186771 59126 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 1,411.95 186772 59127 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 870.90 186773 59128 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 862.68 187077 60004 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 11,538.75 309985 6/5/2008 100787 GRUBER'S POWER EQUIPMENT 299.07 LAWN TOOLS 00005991 186695 8983 1641.6556 TOOLS MOWING 299.07 309986 615/2008 122608 GUARDIAN PEST CONTROL INC. 186.38 PEST CONTROL - 6308 WILRYAN 186960 052908 4298.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HEALTH SPECIAL ASSESSMENT 186.38 309987 6/5 /2008 102301 HARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC 29,613.08 DIESEL GASOLINE 00001437 186845 64904 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 29,613.08 309988 6/5/2008 100800 HEDGES, DIANA 104.24 186961 052908 5111.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT 113.30 186961 052908 5101.4413 ART_ WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 217.54 309989 6/512008 101209 HEIMARK FOODS 205.44 MEAT PATTIES 186962 021066 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 205.44 309990 6/5/2008 105436 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION 1,441.14 RADIO ADMIN FEE 187022 28028015 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,441.14 309991 615/2008 122604 HIGH -TECH CLEANING INC. 625.05 GRAFFITI REMOVAL 00002337 186901 6133 5630.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CENTENNIAL LAKES 625.05 309992 6/5/2008 103753 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 72.76 CLEANING SOLUTION 00002162 186902 2495327 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 402.31 CLEANING SUPPLIES 00002160 186903 2493993 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 475.07 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 12 6/512008 -- 6/512008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 309993 6/5/2008 101271 HINDING, CHRIS 125.00 PERFORMANCE 6/12108 187063 060108 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 125.00 309994 6/512008 100805 HIRSHFIELD'S 124.93 SEALER 00001173 186846 003288870 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 124.93 309995 6/5/2008 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 409.00 186774 453209 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 409.00 309996 615/2008 102114 HUEBSCH 28.99 RUG CLEANING 186904 2196895 5620.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK 28.99 309997 615/2008 101426 HUGHES, GORDON 325.73 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 187023 053008 1120.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE ADMINISTRATION 325.73 309998 6/512008 112628 ICEE COMPANY, THE 440.38 CONCESSION PRODUCT 186905 738173 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 440.38 309999 6/5/2008 121161 IDEARC MEDIA CORP 44.00 PHONE LISTING 186696 390013330778 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 44.00 310000 61512008 101714 IDENTISYS INC. 3,086.08 ID CARDS, RIBBON 00007030 186847 40066 5310.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL ADMINISTRATION 131.75 CARDS 00006048 186963 40262 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 3,217.83 310001 6/5/2008 105756 IN THE HEART OF THE BEAST 120.00 SUPER SUNDAY TRIP 5/18/08 186964 00006201 1629.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 120.00 310002 6/512008 100814 INDELCO PLASTICS CORP. 27.96 PVC CEMENT, PRIMER 00005986 186697 521028 1642.6530 REPAIR PARTS FIELD MAINTENANCE 27.96 R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date 310003 6/5/2008 310004 6/5/2008 310005 6/5/2008 310006 6/5/2008 310007 6/5/2008 310008 6/5/2008 310009 6/5 12008 310010 6/512008 611-o 14:54:47 Page - 13 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL TURF CARE RESERVE PROGRAM YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 18.00 186775 1169435 CITY OF --ANA COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 16.00 186776 Council Check Register 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 334.20 6/5/2008 --615/2008 5421.5514 Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 101732 INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO. INC. 260.60 186967 905386 5421.5514 571.91 OVERHEAD DOOR REPAIRS 186906 0129975 -IN 1400.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 337.76 OVERHEAD DOOR REPAIRS 187024 0129848 -IN 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 909.67 RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 966.45 100386 J.R. JOHNSON SUPPLY INC. 412.75 PEAT AND COMPOST 00002328 187025 4885 5630.6540 FERTILIZER 412.75 105153 JACKSON LANDSCAPE SUPPLY INC. 1,544.25 HYDROSEEDING 00001204 186698 0175731 1643.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,544.25 101400 JAMES, WILLIAM F 100.00 POLICE SERVICE 186819 060508 1419.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 100830 JERRY'S PRINTING 283.29 BUSINESS CARDS 186699 43311 5842.6575 PRINTING 283.29 BUSINESS CARDS 186699 43311 5862.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.04 GIFT CARD ENVELOPES 186907 43312 5822.6575 PRINTING 25.04 GIFT CARD ENVELOPES 186907 43312 5842.6575 PRINTING 25.05 GIFT CARD ENVELOPES 186907 43312 5862.6575 PRINTING 641.71 102146 JESSEN PRESS 373.82 LETTERHEAD 187026 3187 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 373.82 121075 JIMMY'S JOHNNYS INC. 529.39 HOLDING TANK SERVICE 187027 21670 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 529.39 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 611-o 14:54:47 Page - 13 Business Unit POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CENTENNIAL LAKES GENERAL TURF CARE RESERVE PROGRAM YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING VERNON SELLING CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 18.00 186775 1169435 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 16.00 186776 1169433 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 334.20 186965 905927 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 223.00 186966 1170406 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 260.60 186967 905386 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 11.00- 186968 1163755 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 125.65 186969 905108 5430.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 966.45 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/312008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 14 6/5/2008 --6/5/2008 Check # Dale Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310011 6/5/2008 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 112.00 186777 1444738 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 68.44 186778 1445247 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 4,586.79 187078 1447133 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 238.37 187079 1447130 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1.12 187080 1447122 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,678.92 187081 1447129 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,272.53 187082 1447131 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 2,394.39 187083 1447125 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,672.69 187084 1447124 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,784.95 187085 1447128 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 15,810.20 310012 615/2008 102719 JOHNSON, PHILLIP 19.20 VOLTAGE INVERTER 186908 052708 5125.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MEDIA STUDIO 55.96 CD'S 186908 052708 5125.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD MEDIA STUDIO 61.85 HARD DRIVE 186908 052708 5125.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT MEDIA STUDIO 137.01 310013 615/2008 122609 KEATING, SARAH 180.00 TRANSLITERATOR SERVICES 187028 053008 4078.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUSION PROGRAM 180.00 310014 615/2008 117792 KIDDE FIRE TRAINERS INC. 920.53 REPLACEMENT CENSOR 187029 4998 7413.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PSTF FIRE TOWER 920.53 310015 6/5/2008 119420 KLINGGRAEFF DESIGN STUDIO 94.25 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187030 052808 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 94.25 310016 6/5/2008 118542 KOEHL, GLORIA 20.00 CLASS REFUND 186909 052808 5101.4607 CLASS REGISTRATION ART CENTER REVENUES 20.00 310017 615/2008 119947 KRAEMER MINING & MATERIALS INC 742.94 FA -2 CHIPS 00005745 186848 193445 1314.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK STREET RENOVATION 742.94 310018 6/5/2008 116260 LAW ENFORCEMENT TARGETS INC. 276.37 TARGETS 186910 0104072 -IN 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GEP' R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY O. AA Council Check Register 6/5/2008 --6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description SNOW & LAWN CARE SNOW 8. LAWN CARE TOOLS WORKERS COMPENSATION WORKERS COMPENSATION WORKERS COMPENSATION WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE INSURANCE WEED SPRAY ADVERTISING OTHER 6/3,, , 14:54:47 Page - 15 Business Unit PSTF OCCUPANCY PSTF OCCUPANCY BUILDING MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL TURF CARE GOLF DOME PROGRAM 276.37 310019 615/2008 122517 LAWN PATROL 962.00 PLANT SHRUBS, LAY MULCH 187031 153 7411.6136 632.43 LAWN SERVICE - MAY 2008 187032 154 7411.6136 1,594.43 310020 6/5/2008 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 50.17 TORCH 00001098 186700 6852253 1646.6556 50.17 310021 615/2008 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 114.84 WORKER'S COMP 186701 114833A1 -08 1470.6045 114.84 310022 615/2008 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 988.37 WORKER'S COMP 186702 124776A1 -08 1400.6045 988.37 310023 6/5/2008 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 1,196.77 WORKER'S COMP 186703 109858A1 1470.6045 1,196.77 310024 6/5/2008 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 6,061.16 WORKER'S COMP 186704 116093A1 -08 1400.6045 6,061.16 310025 6/5 /2008 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 8,752.88 DEDUCTIBLE 186705 0200104705 -4108 1550.6200 8,752.88 310026 6/5/2008 101552 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 2,838.46 DEDUCTIBLE 186706 0200104706 -4/08 1550.6200 2,838.46 310027 6 /5/2008 100855 LESCO INC. 556.62 WEED SPRAY 00001197 186707 F4639A55 1643.6546 556.62 310028 6/512008 116760 LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL ALL -STA 105.00 BRAEMAR GOLF DOME AD 186970 051308 5210.6122 105.00 SNOW & LAWN CARE SNOW 8. LAWN CARE TOOLS WORKERS COMPENSATION WORKERS COMPENSATION WORKERS COMPENSATION WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE INSURANCE WEED SPRAY ADVERTISING OTHER 6/3,, , 14:54:47 Page - 15 Business Unit PSTF OCCUPANCY PSTF OCCUPANCY BUILDING MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL GENERAL TURF CARE GOLF DOME PROGRAM R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 16 6/5/2008 -- 6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310029 6/5/2008 101876 LOYALTY DAY PROGRAM BOOK 125.00 BRAEMAR GOLF DOME AD 186971 050108 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 125.00 310030 6/5/2008 122610 LUBICH, JEFF 40.00 PARKING PERMITS REFUND 187033 053008 4090.4751 PARKING PERMITS STREET REVOLVING 40.00 310031 615/2008 122472 M & 1 BANK 63.97 FLASHDRIVE (OFFICE DEPOT) 187034 051408 7410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES PSTF ADMINISTRATION 95.93 PLANTS (MICHAELS) 187034 051408 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 159.90 310032 6/5/2008 105677 MAGC 20.00 PLAQUE 186849 052808 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 350.00 NORTHERN LIGHTS AWARDS PROGRAM 186849 052808 2210.6106 MEETING EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 370.00 310033 615/2008 100865 MAGNUSON SOD 74.91 MASONRY TOOLS 186972 043008 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 332.06 SAND, MULCH 186972 043008 5630.6540 FERTILIZER CENTENNIAL LAKES 474.51 ROCK 186972 043008 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 881.48 310034 6/5/2008 100868 MARK VII SALES 3,180.55 186779 327466 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 3,319.79 186780 326843 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 74.40 186781 326844 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 298.60 186973 328484 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 592.00 1 86974 325940 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 7,465.34 310035 6/5/2008 112360 MAY, DOUG 348.17 REPAIRS TO PRESSURE WASHER 187035 053008 5630.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CENTENNIAL LAKES 346.17 310036 6/5/2008 113023 MEGGITT 104.51 CLAMPS 187036 0033739 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 204.63 BRUSHES 187037 0033726 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 309.14 CITY Or _-,NA 6 /1-o 14:54:47 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 17 615/2008 -615/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310037 6/512008 101483 MENARDS 192.48 LUMBER, LAMINATE, SLIDES 00001177 186708 34188 5820.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH STREET GENERAL 21.80 PARTICLE BOARD 00001177 186709 34189 5820.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH STREET GENERAL 188.13 SCREWS, CONCRETE MIX 00001169 186710 33838 1344.6577 LUMBER RETAINING WALL MAINTENANCE 402.41 310038 6/5/2008 101987 MENARDS 95.85 SOIL 00002169 186911 94159 5620.6540 FERTILIZER EDINBOROUGH PARK 65.43 AIR TOOLS 00002165 186912 92940 5620.6556 TOOLS EDINBOROUGH PARK 161.28 310039 6/5/2008 100882 MERIT SUPPLY 313.11 SOAP DISPENSERS, SOAP 00001180 186711 74076 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 95.00 TIRE DRESSING 00001170 186850 74075 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 695.33 ROLL TOWELS, TISSUE, LINERS 00001170 186650 74075 1552.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 1,103.44 310040 6/5/2008 101891 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 129.34 SOCCER NETS 00005838 186851 107656 1642.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIELD MAINTENANCE 129.34 310041 6/5/2008 103192 METRO LEGAL SERVICES 43.00 TITLE/TAX SEARCH 187038 1448871 2127.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMM DEV BILK GRANT 43.00 310042 6/5/2008 103192 METRO LEGAL SERVICES 40.00 TITLE/TAX SEARCH 187039 1449778 2127.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMM DEV BILK GRANT 40.00 310043 6/5/2008 122304 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 3,366.45 DIAL -A -RIDE APRIL 2008 186712 0000874988 1514.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DIAL -A -RIDE PROGRAM 3,366.45 310044 6/512008 100891 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. 2,379.13 ASPHALT 00005748 186913 92311MB 1301.6518 BLACKTOP GENERAL MAINTENANCE 2,379.13 310045 6/512008 121053 MILLER, SUSAN 15.86 PETTY CASH 187068 060208 5610.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ED ADMINISTRATION 20.00 PETTY CASH 187068 060208 5610.6105 DUES R SUBSCRIPTIONS ED ADMINISTRATION 31.70 PETTY CASH 187068 060208 5610.6235 POSTAGE ED ADMINISTRATION 210.55 PETTY CASH 187068 060208 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK R55CKREG LOG20000 22,283.00 CITY OF EDINA 052208 5915.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER WATER TREATMENT Council Check Register 22,283.00 6/5/2008 — 615/2008 310050 Check # Date Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 278.11 342.90 HYD MAIN VALVE SEATS 00001171 186975 0223074 310046 6/5/2008 DISTRIBUTION 100913 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN SEWER & 342.90 1,760.00 WATER SERVICE REPAIR 00005701 186852 33159 5913.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 6/512008 1,760.00 310047 6/5/2008 100522 MINNESOTA AIR INC. CRS II 00005753 186855 57232 1301.6519 ROAD OIL 73.98 RELAYS 00001091 186853 2099773 -00 5911.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.98 310052 310048 615/2008 100898 MINVALCO 101302 MINNESOTA CITY /COUNTY 112.95 MCMA ANNUAL DUES 186914 050108 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.95 99.35 310049 6/5/2008 1646:6530 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BUILDING MAINTENANCE 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Page - 18 Buslness Unit DISTRIBUTION PUMP & LIFT STATION OPER ADMINISTRATION 22,283.00 CONNECTION FEE 186854 052208 5915.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER WATER TREATMENT 22,283.00 310050 6/5/2008 101376 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT 342.90 HYD MAIN VALVE SEATS 00001171 186975 0223074 5913.6530 REPAIR PARTS DISTRIBUTION 342.90 310051 6/512008 112908 MINNESOTA ROADWAYS CO. 726.86 CRS II 00005753 186855 57232 1301.6519 ROAD OIL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 726.86 310052 6/512008 100898 MINVALCO 91.66 CALGON ICE GUARD SYSTEM 00001172 186713 651693 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 99.35 VALVE COMBINATION 00001172 186713 651693 1646:6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 191.01 310053 6/5 12008 120996 MOBILE MINI INC. 599.91 TRAILER RENTAL 187040 151011647 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 599.91 310054 6/5/2008 122611 MORNINGSIDE BUILDERS LLC 2,321.00 SHOWER REPAIRS 187041 1149 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,321.00 310055 6/5/2008 102776 MRPA 100.00 EMAIL DISTRIBUTION 187042 5728 5610.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 100.00 CITY OF - -ANA 6/3/2uu8 14:54:47 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 19 6/5/2008 --6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310056 6/5/2008 106662 NET LITIN DISTRIBUTORS 465.99 PLASTICWARE FOR RESALE 186915 31218 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 465.99 310057 6/5/2008 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 1,072.25 186782 49633 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 317.00 186783 49632 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 715.25 187086 49634 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,104.50 310058 6/5/2008 100724 NISSEN, DICK 100.00 POLICE SERVICE 186818 060508 1419.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RESERVE PROGRAM 100.00 310059 6/5/2008 104232 NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY 135.18 LIGHT BAR 00001119 186856 17418 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 725.41 LED LIGHTS 00005711 186857 17276 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 860.59 310060 6/5/2008 100930 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO. 73.75 SCRAP TIRE FEE 00005959 186858 NW- 112732 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 31.60 SCRAP TIRE FEE 00005959 186859 NW- 112956 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 105.35 310061 6/512008 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 124.59 UPS BATTERY 00006034 186976 430598819 -001 5410.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 124.59 310062 6/5 12008 102712 OFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOG 19.60 ARNESON 186714 W08040600 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 39.20 GREENHOUSE 186714 W08040600 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 78.44 186714 W08040600 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 78.70 186714 W08040600 5311.6188 TELEPHONE POOL OPERATION 98.00 186714 W08040600 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 98.00 CARD ACCESS -PARKS 186714 W08040600 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 98.20 186714 W08040600 5661.6188 TELEPHONE VERNON OCCUPANCY 102.75 HISTORICAL 186714 W08040600 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 117.75 186714 W08040600 1481.6188 TELEPHONE YORK FIRE STATION 125.91 186714 W08040600 5210.6188 TELEPHONE GOLF DOME PROGRAM 127.58 186714 W08040600 5111.6188 TELEPHONE ART CENTER BLDG/MAINT 156.80 186714 W08040600 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 20 6/5/2008 - 6/5/2008 Check # Dale Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 196.00 186714 W08040600 1622.6188 TELEPHONE SKATING & HOCKEY 539.70 186714 W08040600 5610.6188 TELEPHONE ED ADMINISTRATION 421.31 186715 W08040607 5420.6188 TELEPHONE CLUB HOUSE 2,297.94 310063 6/512008 104303 OLSON, THOMAS 107.86 TRAINING EXPENSES 186916 052808 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 107.86 310064 615 12008 101484 OSWALD HOSE & ADAPTERS 113.57 HOSE FOR WATER TANKER 00001213 186860 103888 1644.6530 REPAIR PARTS TREES & MAINTENANCE 113.57 310065 6/5/2008 100940 OWENS COMPANIES INC. 947.50 SERVICE CONTRACT 00006047 186977 21804 5210.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT GOLF DOME PROGRAM 947.50 310066 61512008 118188 OXFORD GOLF 1,211.16 MERCHANDISE 00006374 186978 253952 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,211.16 310067 6/5 12008 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 869.95 186784 8186036 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 2,389.00 186785 8186039 -IN 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 20.00- 186786 8185783 -CM 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 52.00- 186787 8185789 -CM 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 160.00- 186788 8185597 -CM 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,026.95 310068 61512008 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 964.08 186979 04345738 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 376.23 186980 03803592 5430.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 1,307.49 186981 04345671 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 2,647.80 310069 615/2008 100743 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 568.70 186789 2611110 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 58.24 186790 2611109 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 282.33 187087 2612632 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,021.29 187088 2612631 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,325.33 187089 2612630 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 34.76 187090 2612624 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF _-.NA 6/3/2uu8 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 21 615/2008 -- 6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 37.12 187091 2612626 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 252.06 187092 2612627 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 6,579.83 310070 615/2008 103322 PINNACLE SIGNS & GRAPHICS INC. 436.65 SIGNAGE 187043 23885 5311.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL OPERATION 436.65 310071 615/2008 100819 POPP.COM 764.94 NETWORK WIRING 186917 90586 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 63.90 PHONE 00006052 186982 90483 5410.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT GOLF ADMINISTRATION 218.96 PHONES 00006051 186983 90708 5410.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT GOLF ADMINISTRATION 1,047.80 310072 6/5/2008 100961 POSTMASTER - USPS 330.00 NEWSLETTER POSTAGE 187064 060108 1628.6235 POSTAGE SENIOR CITIZENS 330.00 310073 6/512008 100968 PRIOR WINE COMPANY 464.25 186791 59125 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 121.10 186792 59119 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 585.35 310074 615/2008 105690 PRO -TEC DESIGN INC. 398.75 SECURITY SYSTEM CHECK 187044 #72562 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 398.75 310075 615/2008 100971 QUALITY WINE 3,012.82 186793 015381 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,458.41 186794 003319 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,145.90 186795 015749 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,768.88 186796 015428 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,840.00 186797 015750 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,291.21 186798 015410 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 3,479.35 186799 015440 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 407.00 186800 014508 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 243.20 186801 014516 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 912.60 186802 015751 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 304.00 186803 015382 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,723.30 186804 015429 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 19,586.67 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/312008 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 22 6/5/2008 -- 6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310076 6/5/2008 103930 QUIST, SUSAN 124.95 UNIFORM PURCHASE 186716 052708 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 124.95 310077 6/5/2008 101965 QWEST 112.63 952 920 -8166 186717 8166 -5/08 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 39.57 952 922 -9246 187045 9246 -5/08 1400.6188 TELEPHONE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 55.05 952 929 -0297 187055 0297 -5/08 4090.6188 TELEPHONE STREET REVOLVING 122.94 952 927 -8861 187056 8861 -5108 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 78.42 952 929 -9549 187057 9549 -5/08 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 408.61 310078 6/5/2008 100977 RICHFIELD PLUMBING COMPANY 100.00 DRAIN CLEANING 00006041 186984 49610 5420.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CLUB HOUSE 723.60 REPLACED DRAIN LINE 00006041 186985 49584 5421.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GRILL 823.60 310079 6/5/2008 118658 RIGHTWAY GLASS INC. 194.75 WINDSHIELD REPAIR 00001120 186861 49474 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 194.75 310080 6/512008 122605 RIVER CITY GLASS INC. 358.74 DOOR REPAIR 186918 6151 5620.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EDINBOROUGH PARK 358.74 310081 6/5 /2008 122600 ROE, JOAN 136.00 SPRINKLER REPAIR 186862 052708 5932.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GENERAL STORM SEWER 136.00 310082 6/5/2008 101979 ROFIDAL, KEVIN 1,532.32 CONFERENCE EXPENSES 186919 052808 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,532.32 310083 6/512008 102040 RYGG, JAMES 368.77 UNIFORM PURCHASE 186718 052708 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 368.77 310084 6/5/2008 101682 S & S WORLDWIDE INC. 883.63 PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 00007032 186719 5941795 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND & THEATER 883.63 310085 6/5/7 101634 SAINT AGNES BAKING COMPANY R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY Or --,NA 6 13 /tvvd 14:54:47 Council Check Register Page - 23 6/5/2008 -615/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 111.67 BAKERY 186986 216675 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 111.67 310086 6/5/2008 101232 SALUD AMERICA INC. 512.75 186805 EMLYAS052308 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 512.75 310087 6/5/2008 100305 SARA LEE FOOD SERVICES 637.64 COFFEE 186987 81441889 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 637.64 310088 615/2008 122612 SAUK RAPIDS HERALD, THE 10.00 ARCHIVED NEWSPAPERS 187046 052708 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 10.00 310089 6/5/2008 101577 SCHMOLL, RUTH 155.54 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 187047 053008 1470.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 155.54 310090 6/5/2008 100349 SCOTT COUNTY 330.00 OUT OF COUNTY WARRANT 186720 052308 1000.2055 DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 330.00 310091 6/5/2008 100995 SEH 18,499.06 MANHOLE INSPECTIONS 186721 202191 5923.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 2,866.42 SOUTHDALE NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT 186863 203265 01338.1705.24 CONSULTING CONSTR MGMT BA -338 SOUTHDALE 1ST ADDITION 2,656.49 WOODHILL NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT 186864 203264 01337.1705.21 CONSULTING INSPECTION BA -337 WOODHILL NEIGHBORHOOD 24,021.97 310092 6/5/2008 103249 SHANNON, JIM 130.00 PERFORMANCE 6/8/08 187058 060108 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 130.00 310093 6/512008 116533 SHRM 160.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES 186722 00185356 -0 1120.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION 160.00 310094 6/512008 120292 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS 216.25 POOL UNIFORMS 00007023 186865 253182 5311.6201 LAUNDRY POOL OPERATION 168.00 POOL UNIFORMS 00007023 186866 253181 5320.6201 LAUNDRY POOL CONCESSIONS 338.00 POOL UNIFORMS 00007023 186866 253181 5311.6201 LAUNDRY POOL OPERATION 722.25 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 6/5/2008 --6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310095 6/5/2008 101000 SIR SPEEDY 143.24 ENERGY FAIR FLYERS 186920 57540 1122.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 143.24 310096 615/2008 102424 SPEEDY PRINT 1,001.10 SCORECARDS FOR RICHARDS GC 00006035 186988 64462 . 5410.6575 PRINTING 1,001.10 310097 6/5/2008 101016 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 4,188.74 NE EDINA TRAFFIC STUDY 186867 6071 -13 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,905.16 NE EDINA TRAFFIC STUDY 186868 6441 -1 1500.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 9,093.90 310098 6/5/2008 100650 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS INC 540.60 CORES & KEYS 00002313 187048 CH- 477081 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 540.60 310099 6/5/2008 101007 STAR TRIBUNE 4,576.00 WANT ADS 186723 043008 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL 4,576.00 310100 6/5/2008 101015 STREICHERS 99.99 BOOTS 186870 1520275 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 170.39 HARDCASE FOR ERT PHONES 186921 1520354 1460.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.52 ERT SUPPLIES 186922 1520802 1401.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 377.90 310101 615/2008 106417 STRUNK'S 1,916.65 FLOWERS 00006014 186989 927723 5422.6275 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION 751.89 FLOWERS 00006222 186990 927724 5422.6275 COURSE BEAUTIFICATION 2,668.54 310102 6/512008 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 22.23 CAP 00005805 186871 109743CVW 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 22.23 310103 6/5/2008 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 1,019.80 WANT AD 186724 1091767 1550.6121 ADVERTISING PERSONNEL 1,019.80 310104 615/7" 100794 SWANSON, HAROLD 6/312008 14:54:47 Page - 24 Business Unit ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMM GOLF ADMINISTRATION CONTINGENCIES CONTINGENCIES CENTENNIAL LAKES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL CIVILIAN DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF - -iNA Council Check Register 615/2008 --6/512008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 100.00 POLICE SERVICE 186817 060508 1419.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MATERIALS /SUPPLIES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD 6 /3 %cvvd 14:54:47 Page - 25 Business Unit RESERVE PROGRAM PHASE 1 ARDEN, BRUCE, CASCO GRILL GENERAL STORM SEWER ANIMAL CONTROL: EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN VERNON SELLING GRILL GRILL GRILL GRILL GRILL COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 100.00 PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONSULTING DESIGN BR -3 Browndale Avenue Bridge CONSULTING DESIGN LS37 LS REHAB @ WALNUT DRIVE CONSULTING DESIGN 310105 6/5/2008 LS38 LS REHAB @ FRANCE AVE 122601 SWINGFRAME MFG. 645.00 POSTER SWING CASE 186869 280815 01213.1705.31 645.00 310106 6/5/2008 111616 T.D. ANDERSON INC. 37.00 BEER LINE CLEANING 00006325 186991 813633 5421.6102 37.00 310107 6/5/2008 120325 TCC MATERIALS 582.06 MORTAR 00001157 186872 0000386763 5932.6406 582.06 310108 6/5/2008 117686 TECHNAGRAPHICS 144.67 DOG LICENSE APPLICATIONS 186923 7567011 1450.6406 144.67 310109 6/512008 101326 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO 215.31 CONNECTORS, TERMINALS 00005798 186725 87685 -00 1553.6530 215.31 310110 6/512008 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 110.90 186806 493976 5862.5515 545.20 186992 493119 5421.5510 282.00 186993 493974 5421.5514 837.00 186994 67670 5421.5514 426.00 186995 67747 5421.5514 224.00- 186996 67657 5421.5510 1,977.10 310111 6/5/2008 101474 TITLEIST 770.64 GOLF BALLS 186997 2634243 5440.5511 2,576.80 GOLF BALLS 186998 2662762 5440.5511 3,347.44 310112 6/5/2008 102742 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLAN 5,706.13 BROWNDALE BRIDGE REPAIRS 186726 000200801933 10091.1705.20 837.45 LIFT STATION MODIFICATIONS 186873 000200801942 10037.1705.20 2,923.14 WATERMAIN LINING PROJECT 186874 000200801950 05479.1705.20 2,141.09 LIFT STATION MODIFICATIONS 186875 000200801943 10038.1705.20 MATERIALS /SUPPLIES CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES REPAIR PARTS COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX COST OF GOODS SOLD COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD 6 /3 %cvvd 14:54:47 Page - 25 Business Unit RESERVE PROGRAM PHASE 1 ARDEN, BRUCE, CASCO GRILL GENERAL STORM SEWER ANIMAL CONTROL: EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN VERNON SELLING GRILL GRILL GRILL GRILL GRILL COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES CONSULTING DESIGN BR -3 Browndale Avenue Bridge CONSULTING DESIGN LS37 LS REHAB @ WALNUT DRIVE CONSULTING DESIGN WM-479 M'SIDE H20MAIN EXC /PREP CONSULTING DESIGN LS38 LS REHAB @ FRANCE AVE R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date ' Amount Supplier / Explanation CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 6/5/2008 -6/5/2008 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES INSURANCE FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES LAUNDRY ADVERTISING OTHER CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS PAPER SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Page- 26 Business Unit LIQUOR YORK GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PLAYGROUND & THEATER CENTENNIAL LAKES GOLF ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING GENERAL YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING RICHARDS GOLF C' -,E 11,607.81 310113 6/512008 117857 TOMKO, DAVE 151.50 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 187049 053008 5840.6107 151.50 310114 6/512008 101693 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS 1,045.73 GIFT CARDS 00006441 186999 22765 5410.6406 169.77 LABELS 00006050 187000 22693 5410.6513 1,215.50 310115 6/5/2008 116535 TRAVELERS 1,000.00 DEDUCTIBLE 186727 000288590 1550.6200 1,000.00 310116 615/2008 116302 TRI - ANIM HEALTH SERVICES INC 440.80 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003603 187050 MMH81221696 1470.6510 1,208.73 AMBULANCE SUPPLIES 00003602 187051 MMH81189748 1470.6510 1,649.53 310117 615/2008 101042 TRIARCO 19.56 CRAFT SUPPLIES 00007027 187001 386769 1624.6406 19.56 310118 615/2008 116411 TRINITY MEDICAL SOLUTIONS INC. 159.47 UNIFORM JACKETS 00002316 187052 10112 5630.6201 159.47 310119 6/5/2008 122412 TWIN CITIES TRAVELHOST 300.00 GROUP AD 00006043 187002 1047 5410.6122 300.00 310120 6/5/2008 101055 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 225.00 MPWA COURSE 186876 1065562 1260.6104 225.00 310121 6/5/2008 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 437.28 LIQUOR BAGS, TOWELS 00007512 186924 081952 -00 5842.6512 295.44 LIQUOR BAGS 186925 081951 -00 5822.6512 28.47 UTENSILS 186926 081954 -00 5862.6406 829.29 LIQUOR BAGS 186926 081954 -00 5862.6512 29.89 SOAP 00006347 187003 081092 -01 5430.6511 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES INSURANCE FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRST AID SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES LAUNDRY ADVERTISING OTHER CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS PAPER SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES PAPER SUPPLIES CLEANING SUPPLIES 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Page- 26 Business Unit LIQUOR YORK GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION GOLF ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL PLAYGROUND & THEATER CENTENNIAL LAKES GOLF ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING GENERAL YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING RICHARDS GOLF C' -,E R55CKREG LOG20000 576.00 CITY Oh —NA 23183 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING Council Check Register 576.00 615/2008 --6/5/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 966.05 CUPS, TISSUE, LINERS 00006347 187004 081092 -00 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,586.42 CLEANING SUPPLIES 187053 23225907 5311.6511 310122 6/512008 POOL OPERATION 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1,439.69 CONCESSION PRODUCT 187053 21.30 LIGHT BULB 00005950 186877 2724647 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.30 1,627.16 310123 6/512008 122514 VINO SOURCE, THE 310125 615/2008 6/3/2uu8 14:54:47 Page - 27 Business Unit GRILL BUILDING MAINTENANCE 469.00 310131 6/512008 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 112.00 186808 193870 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 576.00 186807 23183 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 576.00 310124 6/5/2008 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION 187.47 CLEANING SUPPLIES 187053 23225907 5311.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 1,439.69 CONCESSION PRODUCT 187053 23225907 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 1,627.16 310125 615/2008 102542 WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS INC 1,945.16 PARKING DEMAND PROJECT 186878 21349200002 1260.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERING GENERAL 1,945.16 310126 6/5/2008 101080 WALSH, WILLIAM 100.00 POLICE SERVICE 186816 060508 1419.6102 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RESERVE PROGRAM 100.00 310127 6/5/2008 119617 'WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION 102.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES 00001274 186927 051808 5923.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER COLLECTION SYSTEMS 102.00 310128 6/5/2008 101944 WATERSTREET, JOAN M 158.45 UNIFORM PURCHASE 186728 052708 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 158.45 310129 615/2008 103266 WELSH COMPANIES LLC 696.50 JUNE 2008 MAINTENANCE 186879 060108 5841.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES YORK OCCUPANCY 696.50 310130 6/5/2008 122606 WILLIAMS & FESENMAIER INC. 469.00 LASER 187005 052308 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL.SALES 469.00 310131 6/512008 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 112.00 186808 193870 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation 1,026.35 167.20 424.65 1.730.20 PO # Doc No 186809 186810 187093 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 615/2008 -- 6/5/2008 Inv No Account No 194080 -00 5862.5513 194074 -00 5822.5513 194079 -00 5842.5513 Subledger Account Description COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 6/3/2008 14:54:47 Page - 28 Business Unit VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING 310132 6/5/2008 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 304.48 186811 232225 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,448.75 187094 232593 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 461.16 187095 232591 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,621.04 187096 232592 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 3,835.43 310133 6/5 12008 101086 WORLD CLASS WINES INC 270.00 186812 212009 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 718.50 186813 212008 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 1,341.50 187097 212010 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,330.00 310134 6/5/2008 101726 XCEL ENERGY 70.60 51- 8526048 -8 186729 154587101 1322.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 8.52 51- 6050184 -2 186730 154532354 4086.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AQUATIC WEEDS 1,257.68 51- 6223269 -1 186731 154537024 5210.6185 LIGHT & POWER GOLF DOME PROGRAM 238.23 51- 5005454 -3 186732 154508895 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 32.15 51- 6892224 -5 186733 154551887 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS 293.25 51- 8324712 -5 186734 154579148 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 54.92 51- 6692497 -0 186735 154704842 1460.6185 LIGHT & POWER CIVILIAN DEFENSE 54.98 51- 4420190 -3 186736 154334593 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 9,607.28 51- 6644819 -9 186737 154545826 5620.6185 LIGHT & POWER EDINBOROUGH PARK 1,002.85 51- 5107681-4 186880 154512604 5111.6185 LIGHT & POWER ART CENTER BLD61MAINT 1,886.65 51- 5547446 -1 186881 154681734 1628.6185 LIGHT & POWER SENIOR CITIZENS. 43.45 51- 6541084 -2 186882 154700504 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,507.36 51- 6227619 -3 186883 153539556 5630.6185 LIGHT & POWER CENTENNIAL LAKES 1,807.47 51- 4159265 -8 187054 154333785 7411.6185 LIGHT & POWER PSTF OCCUPANCY 7,088.15 51- 6955679 -8 187066 154891813 1551.6185 LIGHT & POWER CITY HALL GENERAL 30,148.30 51- 4621797 -2 187067 154844889 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 55,101.84 310135 615/2008 103512 PETTY CASH 119.00 POLICE CHECKBOOK 187098 060208 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 130.00 POLICE CHECKBOOK 187098 060208 1400.6106 MEETING EXPENSE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 157.91 POLICE CHECKBOOK 187098 060208 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 518.75 POLICE CHECKBOOK 187098 060208 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GEP CITY G. NA 6/b. 14:54:47 R55CKREG LOG20000 Council Check Register Page - 29 6/5/2008 --6/5/2008 Check H Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO H Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 925.66 310136 6/512008 103512 PETTY CASH 19.30- POLICE PETTY CASH 187099 060308 1400.8060 CASH OVER AND UNDER POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 10.00 POLICE PETTY CASH 187099 060308 1400.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 11.76 POLICE PETTY CASH 187099 060308 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 35.95 POLICE PETTY CASH 187099 060308 1400.6106 MEETING EXPENSE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 61.79 POLICE PETTY CASH 187099 060308 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 514.80 POLICE PETTY CASH 187099 060308 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 615.00 457,680.31 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 457,680.31 Total Payments 457,680.31 R55CKSUM LOG20000 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 197,010.26 02100 CDBG FUND 83.00 02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND 4,681.89 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 9,189.34 04800 CONSTRUCTION FUND 5,706.13 05100 ART CENTER FUND 1,599.23 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 3,446.17 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 10,559.72 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 38,553.13 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 137.00 05600 EDINBOROUGH /CENT LAKES FUND 25,484.75 05800 LIQUOR FUND 92,130.44 05900 UTILITY FUND 60,273.90 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 1,746.96 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 7,078.39 Report Totals 457,680.31 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Summary 6/5/2008 - 615/2008 We confirm to the best of our knovftdge and belief, that these claims comply In all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing e procedures date 613/2008 14:56:09 Page - 1 R55CKREL. JG20000 108.04 GOLF CLUB 00006360 187486 CITY MINA COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 108.04 Council Check Register 310143 6112/2008 6/12/2008 -- 6112/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310137 6112/2008 122648 1800 - RADIATOR 587.78 250.00 RADIATOR REPAIR 00006243 187484 50471246 5422.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 250.00 1,086.90 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 187100 060208 1260.6104 310138 6112/2008 118536 A& B AUTO ELECTRIC INC. 137.00 BEARINGS, PULLEYS 00001369 187485 51772 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 137.00 457.16 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 187397 ALERTINV10267 2210.6406 310139 6112/2008 100612 A.M. LEONARD 457.16 391.96 RABBIT & DEER REPELLENT 00002340 187142 0238543900027 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 391.96 225.00 TRAINING 00001354 187164 16940 1281.6104 310140 6/1212008 102971 ACE ICE COMPANY 225.00 67.56 6112/2008 187273 494274 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 31.56 187274 494976 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 143.24 187275 493499 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 90.12 187276 0610637 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 52.60 187277 0720439 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 45.00 187278 0610631 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 430.08 310142 611212008 102872 ADAMS GOLF L 38 8:18:38 Page - 1 Business Unit MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN CENTENNIAL LAKES VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING 108.04 GOLF CLUB 00006360 187486 90993540 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 108.04 310143 6112/2008 102626 AGGREGATE INDUSTRIES 587.78 READY MIX 00005752 187209 4218791 1314.6520 CONCRETE STREET RENOVATION 587.78 310144 611212008 116726 ALLISON, SHARON 1,086.90 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 187100 060208 1260.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ENGINEERING GENERAL 1,086.90 310145 6112/2008 103357 ALPHA VIDEO & AUDIO INC. 457.16 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 187397 ALERTINV10267 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 457.16 310146 611212008 122617 AMERICAN CONCRETE PAVEMENT ASS 225.00 TRAINING 00001354 187164 16940 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS TRAINING 225.00 310147 6112/2008 100630 ANCHOR PAPER CO. INC. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 2 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 117.87 ABOOUT TOWN PAPER 00004104 187398 10160355 -01 2210.6123 MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 7,545.79 ABOOUT TOWN PAPER 00004104 187399 10160354 -00 2210.6123 MAGAZINE /NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 1,426.45 ABOOUT TOWN PAPER 00004104 187400 10160355 -02 2210.6123 MAGAZINE/NEWSLETTER EXPENSE COMMUNICATIONS 9,090.11 310148 6/12/2008 122673 ANDERSON, ELLEN 26.00 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187635 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 26.00 310149 6112/2008 101124 ANDY'S MARKETS DELI 3,542.94 VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION 187210 042208 1500.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CONTINGENCIES 3,542.94 310150 6/12/2008, 102172 APPERT'S FOODSERVICE 844.61 FOOD 187487 967504 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 844.61 310151 6/12/2008 100632 AQUA ENGINEERING 84.21 SPRINKLER REPAIR PARTS 00001256 187488 24955 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW S ICE REMOVAL 84.21 310152 6/12/2008 103680 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SRVCS 223.19 COFFEE 187402 409236 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 76.88 COFFEE 187489 409216 5430.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 300.07 310153 6/12/2008 114475 ARMOR SECURITY INC. 143.78 MONITORING SERVICE 00001230 187211 124154 1646.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 95.85 MONITORING SERVICE 00001230 187212 124155 1646.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 239.63 310154 6/12/2008 100634 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO. 614.27 EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 00001167 187490 10037549 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 614.27 310155 6112/2008 102774 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS 33.95 187213 060208 5821.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 40.27 187213 060208 5111.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL ART CENTER BLDG /MAINT 46.93 187213 060208 1470.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 54.63 187213 060208 5430.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 74.22 187213 060208 5861.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL VERNON OCCUPANCY 88.81 187213 060208 1628.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL SENIOR CITIZENS R55CRREL jG20000 Check # Date 310156 6112/2008 310157 6/1212008 310158 6112/2008 310159 6/12/2008 310160 6/1212008 310161 6112/2008 100661 SENN, BRADLEY SAND GRAVEL & ROCK TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS GENERAL SUPPLIES ART WORK SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES k J8 8:18:38 Page - 3 Business Unit YORK FIRE STATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS YORK OCCUPANCY CITY HALL GENERAL ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING CLUB HOUSE EDINBOROUGH PARK LITTER REMOVAL PSTF OCCUPANCY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CENTENNIAL LAKES EDINBOROUGH PARK ART CENTER REVENUES VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 100638 BACHMAN'S CITY ANA COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 223.65 CO -CO BEAN MULCH 00006235 Council Check Register 1226 5422.6517 79.20 6/12/2008 - 6/12/2008 10419443 Amount Supplier I Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 92.47 187213 060208 1481.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 191.37 187213 060208 5422.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 200.22 187213 060208 5841.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 215.01 187213 060208 1551.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 244.72 187213 060208 5511.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 254.07 187213 060208 1301.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 254.08 187213 060208 1552.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 407.07 187213 060208 5420.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 571.16 187213 060208 5620.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 604.91 187213 060208 1645.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 175.77 187491 1- 146354 -6/08 7411.6182 RUBBISH REMOVAL 310161 6112/2008 100661 SENN, BRADLEY SAND GRAVEL & ROCK TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS GENERAL SUPPLIES ART WORK SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES k J8 8:18:38 Page - 3 Business Unit YORK FIRE STATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS YORK OCCUPANCY CITY HALL GENERAL ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING CLUB HOUSE EDINBOROUGH PARK LITTER REMOVAL PSTF OCCUPANCY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CENTENNIAL LAKES EDINBOROUGH PARK ART CENTER REVENUES VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 100638 BACHMAN'S PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 223.65 CO -CO BEAN MULCH 00006235 187403 1226 5422.6517 79.20 PLANTS 00002305 187492 10419443 5630.6620 302.85 104345 BARCLAY AUDIO 894.60 MUSIC STANDS 187404 050208 5620.6406 894.60 121083 BARR, FRANK 149.50 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187636 060308 5101.4413 149.50 102195 BATTERIES PLUS 119.19 BATTERIES 00001254 187165 18- 208522 5860.6406 119.19 101355 BELLBOY CORPORATION 350.82 187279 44893100 5822.5513 24.00 187280 80842700 5862.6512 109.18 187280 80842700 5862.5515 365.81 187281 5663800 5862.5515 1,588.38 187282 44893200 5842.5513 194.92 187695 80865300 5842.5515 194.62 187696 80843000 5842.5515 335.70 187697 44972000 5862.5512 310161 6112/2008 100661 SENN, BRADLEY SAND GRAVEL & ROCK TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS GENERAL SUPPLIES ART WORK SOLD GENERAL SUPPLIES k J8 8:18:38 Page - 3 Business Unit YORK FIRE STATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS YORK OCCUPANCY CITY HALL GENERAL ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS GENERAL MAINTENANCE CENT SVC PW BUILDING CLUB HOUSE EDINBOROUGH PARK LITTER REMOVAL PSTF OCCUPANCY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CENTENNIAL LAKES EDINBOROUGH PARK ART CENTER REVENUES VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING PAPER SUPPLIES VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 4 6/12/2008 -- 6/1212008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 59.15 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187638 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 59.15 310162 6112/2008 115067 BENSON, RON PAUL 52.00 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187639 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 52.00 310163 6/12/2008 100648 BERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS 11.63 PENS 187101 WO- 509708 -1 1190.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ASSESSING 46.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES 187143 WO- 509471 -1 1600.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 185.40 OFFICE SUPPLIES 00009088 187214 OE- 152053 -1 5110.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 56.33- CREDIT 187215 CP -OE- 151200 -1 5110.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 77.26 OFFICE SUPPLIES 187405 OE- 160754 -1 1160.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FINANCE 264.23 310164 6/12/2008 122660 BIOGREEN MN LLC 1,094.29 GLUTEN, FERTILIZER 00002079 187493 10001 5630.6540 FERTILIZER CENTENNIAL LAKES 1,094.29 310165 6/12/2008 119679 BIXBY PORTABLE TOILET SERVICE 140.65 TOILET SERVICE 00001390 187406 10023 1642.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIELD MAINTENANCE 140.65 310166 6/12/2008 101176 BLEDSOE, SARA 51.87 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187637 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 51.87 310167 6112/2008 101010 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY 18.32 LEVEL 00001240 187407 97968742 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 203.20 FUSEHOLDERS, DUCT SEAL 00001240 187407 97968742 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 221.52 310168 6/12/2008 122674 BRADFORD, JESSE 104.90 IRRIGATION REPAIRS 187657 060608 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 104.90 310169 6/12/2008 103239 BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO. 205.00 DOOR REPAIR 187408 508168S 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 205.00 310170 6/1212008 101241 BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC.. 426.00 SIGNAL BUTTONS 00001184 187216 009160 1330.6530 REPAIR PARTS TRAFFIC SIGNALS 6. 8 8:18:38 Page- 5 Business Unit FIELD MAINTENANCE 208.00 EVENT REFUND CITY, NA R55CKREG _JG20000 5601.4593 GREEN FEES EXEC COURSE -EB/CL REVENUES 208.00 Council Check Register 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 426.00 310171 6/1212008 229.48 100669 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. 187218 947194 472.18 BALLFIELD AGLIME 00001209 187217 053108 1642.6542 INFIELD MIXTURE 472.18 310172 6/12/2008 122651 BUFFETS INC. 6. 8 8:18:38 Page- 5 Business Unit FIELD MAINTENANCE 208.00 EVENT REFUND 187495 060608 5601.4593 GREEN FEES EXEC COURSE -EB/CL REVENUES 208.00 310173 6/12/2008 100391 CALL ONE INC. 229.48 EARPHONES 00003148 187218 947194 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 229.48 310174 6/12/2008 102149 CALLAWAY GOLF 336.70 MERCHANDISE 187496 915020431 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 212.69 MERCHANDISE 187497 915036900 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 515.52 MERCHANDISE 187498 915063203 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 3,578.83 MERCHANDISE 187499 915005028 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 977.00 MERCHANDISE 187500 914952901 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 311.56 MERCHANDISE 187501 914917924 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 73.86 MERCHANDISE 187502 915197952 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 50.89 MERCHANDISE 187503 915107045 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 24.80 MERCHANDISE 187504 915159092 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 78.77 MERCHANDISE 187505 915215045 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 621.02 MERCHANDISE 187506 915120919 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 6,781.64 310175 6/12/2008 103110 CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. 114.00 LEASE FEE 187166 2000055098 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 114.00 310176 611212008 119455 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 103.45 187283 305192 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 7,032.10 187284 305193 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 14.65 187285 305189 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 680.70 187286 305191 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 7,830.90 310177 6/12/2008 121206 CARNEY, DONNA 78.00 LESSONS REFUND 187658 060908 1600.4390.02 TENNIS PROGRAM PARK ADMIN. GENERAL 78.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 00105263 - 0335037016 23.30 CITY OF EDINA 5430.6189 310179 6112/2008 Council Check Register 102372 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. 5430.6189 1.59 6/12/2008 6/12/2008 242.57 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310178 6/1212008 100681 CATCO 00004370 187103 KLC2642 59.46 23.30 PARTS KIT 00001358 187219 3 -52727 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 407.94 187409 349571 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 407.94- 310180 187410 349697 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 1260.6710 1260.6406 1160.6710 7413.6582 5511.6406 5842.5514 1629.6406 5915.6136 5915.6136 64.19 00105263 - 0335037016 23.30 0335037016 -5/08 5430.6189 310179 6112/2008 187148 102372 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. 5430.6189 1.59 00086676- 0330288022 242.57 DIGITAL CAMERA 00004370 187102 KKS2821 25.21 00086467 - 0306900191 223.08 ADOBE ACROBAT 00004370 187103 KLC2642 59.46 00078162- 0332300004 223.09 ADOBE ACROBAT 00004370 187103 KLC2642 435.52 688.74 310180 6/12/2008 112561 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 96.93 5590919 -6 187659 MAY192008 96.93 310181 6/1212008 117187 CHEM SYSTEMS LTD 2,783.57 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES 00008044 187220 514648 2,783.57 310182 6/12/2008 119725 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING CO 392.90 187287 366043 392.90 310183 6/12/2008 102691 CHRISTOFFER, KELLI 131.67 ART SUPPLIES 187660 060908 131.67 310184 6/12/2008 100684 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 10,940.02 LABORATORY SERVICES 00001277 187221 FEB 2008 6,883.66 LABORATORY SERVICES 00001276 187222 MAY 2008 17,823.68 310185 6112/2008 122084 CITY OF EDINA - UTILITIES 1260.6710 1260.6406 1160.6710 7413.6582 5511.6406 5842.5514 1629.6406 5915.6136 5915.6136 64.19 00105263 - 0335037016 187147 0335037016 -5/08 5430.6189 285.07 00090107- 0350012005 187148 0350012005 -5/08 5430.6189 1.59 00086676- 0330288022 187149 0330288022 -5/08 5310.6189 25.21 00086467 - 0306900191 187150 0306900191 -5108 1646.6189 59.46 00078162- 0332300004 187151 0332300004 -5/08 1646.6189 435.52 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Page - 6 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ENGINEERING GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES ENGINEERING GENERAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FINANCE FUEL OIL GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF FIRE TOWER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER WATER TREATMENT PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER WATER TREATMENT SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER SEWER & WATER RICHARDS GOLF COURSE RICHARDS GOLF COURSE POOL ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MAINTENANCE CITY WA E i8 8:18:38 R55CKREG -jG20000 Council Check Register Page- 7 6112/2008 6112/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310186 6/12/2008 100687 CITY OF RICHFIELD 1,587.34 SAFE & SOBER 187223 060408 1400.4205 FEDERAL AID POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,587.34 310187 6/1212008 105316 CLARK, PENNY 101.40 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187640 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 101.40 310188 6/1212008 103693 CLAY TIMES INC. 99.00 CLASS LISTING 00009346 187224 6006375 5110.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 99.00 310189 6/12/2008 120433 COMCAST 59.95 8772 15 614 0408237 187507 052308 1470.6160 DATA PROCESSING FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 59.00 8772 15 614 0433136 187661 052408 5422.6188 TELEPHONE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 74.95 8772 15 614 0388355 187662 MAY2308 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES RANGE 61.89 8772 15 614 0406553 187663 052508 5420.6188 TELEPHONE CLUB HOUSE 61.89 8772 15 614 0387019 187664 MAY2508 5430.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 317.68 310190 6/12/2008 121066 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. 769.92 ASPHALT 00005749 187508 053108 5913.6518 BLACKTOP DISTRIBUTION 769.92 310191 6/12/2008 101323 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS 319.03 SAFETY GLASSES 00001193 187167 03277105 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 147.49 GLOVES 00001194 187168 03277123 1646.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT BUILDING MAINTENANCE 22.02 GLOVES 00001176 187169 03277621 4091.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRANDVIEW REVOLVING 488.54 310192 6/1212008 106495 CONTROLS & METERS INC. 76.72 REGISTER REPAIRS 00005899 187225 14504 5911.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS PUMP & LIFT STATION OPER 76.72 310193 6112/2008 101704 COOK, BARBARA 115.74 SUPPLIES 187666 8 -1409 1629.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 472.86 SERVICES 187666 8 -1409 1629.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ADAPTIVE RECREATION 588.60 310194 6112/2008 119839 CORN EJO CONSULTING 1,900.00 COMP PLAN CONSULTING 187665 053108 1140.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PLANNING 1,900.00 R55CKREG LOG20000 187288 459631 CITY OF EDINA COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 40.80 187289 459632 Council Check Register COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 449.70 187290 459630 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 50TH ST SELLING Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310195 6/12/2008 103800 CORPORATE EXPRESS INC. 56.14 SPOUTS, HEX SET 00001182 187170 378.29 TONER CARTRIDGES 187411 87712052 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 00005812 187171 129000 378.29 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 7.52 WATER NOZZLE 00001352 187172 310196 6112/2008 REPAIR PARTS 100699 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER 165.64 GRINDER, TORX SET 00001050 187173 130669 1553.6556 43.24 114 - 09855685 -4 WATER 187509 996502 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1553.6556 TOOLS 43.24 255.53 310197 6/12/2008 310201 6/12/2008 100701 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. 53.03 247.02 UTILITY VEHICLE PARTS 00002334 187144 142898 5630.6530 REPAIR PARTS 55.41 DVDS 69.43 IGNITION SWITCH, FILTERS 00002342 187145 143007 5630.6530 REPAIR PARTS 11.42 GASKETS, FILTER 00001313 187412 143008 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 327.87 45.68 BAKERY 187510 274974 310198 6/12/2008 GRILL 121384 CVS SYSTEMS INC. BAKERY 187511 275037 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 1,041.00 FLAGS FOR PARADE 187104 100597644 1627.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GRILL 1,041.00 310199 6/12/2008 102478 DAY DISTRIBUTING 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Page - 8 Business Unit CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL PSTF OCCUPANCY CENTENNIAL LAKES CENTENNIAL LAKES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 2,950.40 187288 459631 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 40.80 187289 459632 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 449.70 187290 459630 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 3,440.90 310200 6/12/2008 100718 DELEGARD TOOL CO. 56.14 SPOUTS, HEX SET 00001182 187170 129264 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 62.37 DIE GRINDER 00005812 187171 129000 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 7.52 WATER NOZZLE 00001352 187172 127571 1553.6530 _ REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 165.64 GRINDER, TORX SET 00001050 187173 130669 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 56.14- CREDIT 187174 130761 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 255.53 310201 6/12/2008 122135 DENFELD, SCOTT 53.03 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 187413 060308 2210.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COMMUNICATIONS 55.41 DVDS 187413 060308 1120.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ADMINISTRATION 108.44 310202 6/12/2008 100720 DENNYS 5TH AVE. BAKERY 45.68 BAKERY 187510 274974 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 109.74 BAKERY 187511 275037 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 99.61 BAKERY 187512 275038 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 6 18 8:18:38 Page- 9 Business Unit GRILL GRILL INSPECTIONS ED ADMINISTRATION ADAPTIVE RECREATION SENIOR CITIZENS PARK ADMIN. GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS PAVEMENT MARKINGS PAVEMENT MARKINGS PAVEMENT MARKINGS PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL PROJECTS PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL PROJECTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 210.74 MERCHANDISE 187519 162084 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP - PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 210.74 310210 6112/2008 112663 DOLLARS & SENSE 716.66 DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING 187520 23323 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 716.66 DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING 187520 23323 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING CITY INA R55CKRE( oG20000 Council Check Register 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 38.30 BAKERY 187513 275161 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 48.06 BAKERY 187514 275313 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 73.07 BAKERY 187515 275394 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 414.46 310203 6/1212008 100899 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 6,359.50 MAY 2008 187667 4183053060 1495.4380 SURCHARGE 6,359.50 310204 6/12/2008 119222 DESIGNWRITE STUDIOS 13.46 PARK & REC INSIDER DESIGN 187146 5320 5610.6575 PRINTING 26.92 PARK & REC INSIDER DESIGN 187146 5320 1629.6575 PRINTING 33.65 PARK & REC INSIDER DESIGN 187146 5320 1628.6575 PRINTING 141.39 PARK & REC INSIDER DESIGN 187146 5320 1600.6575 PRINTING 625.00 PARK & REC INSIDER DESIGN 187146 5320 2210.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 840.42 310205 611212008 100571 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS 2,357.64 PAINT 00001017 187516 802102514 1335.6532 PAINT 789.59 PAINT 00005287 187517 802102666 1335.6532 PAINT 1,579.18 PAINT 00005287 187518 802102515 1335.6532 PAINT 4,726.41 310206 6/12/2008 119851 DIEKMAN, BETHANY 340.00 EDINA ART FAIR CLEAN UP 187175 060308 1346.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 340.00 310207 6/1212008 119850 DIEKMAN, MARLENE 380.00 EDINA ART FAIR CLEAN UP 187176 060308 1346.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 380.00 310208 6/12/2008 101766 DISPLAY SALES 202.35 US FLAGS 00001202 187226 INV0060602 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 202.35 310209 6/1212008 122661 DIVOTS SPORTSWEAR COMPANY INC. 6 18 8:18:38 Page- 9 Business Unit GRILL GRILL INSPECTIONS ED ADMINISTRATION ADAPTIVE RECREATION SENIOR CITIZENS PARK ADMIN. GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS PAVEMENT MARKINGS PAVEMENT MARKINGS PAVEMENT MARKINGS PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL PROJECTS PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL PROJECTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 210.74 MERCHANDISE 187519 162084 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP - PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 210.74 310210 6112/2008 112663 DOLLARS & SENSE 716.66 DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING 187520 23323 5822.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 50TH ST SELLING 716.66 DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING 187520 23323 5842.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 10 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 716.68 DIRECT MAIL ADVERTISING 187520 23323 5862.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER VERNON SELLING 2,150.00 310211 611212008 100731 DPC INDUSTRIES 470.44 CAUSTIC SODA 187105 82700795 -08 5311.6545 CHEMICALS POOL OPERATION 470.44 310212 6/1212008 100739 EAGLE WINE 4,239.85 187291 59129 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5,956.39 187292 63371 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 483.75 187293 61914 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 82.10 187294 63372 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 12.66- 187295 752491 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4,497.25 187698 63367 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 113.10 187699 61792 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 15,359.78 310213 611212008 100740 EARL F. ANDERSEN INC. 1,008.56 TRAFFIC CONES 00001365 187521 0082579 -IN 1335.6532 PAINT PAVEMENT MARKINGS 1,008.56 310214 611212008 119716 EASTERN PACIFIC APPAREL INC. 1,174.95 MERCHANDISE 187522 394429 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,174.95 310215 6/12/2008 122618 EDINA TIRE & AUTO 49.95 ALIGNMENT 00005735 187177 117370 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 89.95 ALIGNMENT 00005735 187178 117894 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 139.90 310216 6112/2008 103594 EDINALARM INC. 178.92 MONITORING SERVICE 187523 48691 5422.6250 ALARM SERVICE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 178.92 310217 6/12/2008 101234 EIDEM, KRIS 58.25 REFUND 187152 060308 1400.6010 SALARIES REGULAR EMPLOYEES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 58.25 310218 6112/2008 100747 ELSMORE AQUATIC 1,637.70 LIFEGUARD SUITS 187414 7702 5311.6201 LAUNDRY POOL OPERATION 1,637.70 CITY INA E J8 8:18:38 R55CKREL G20000 Council Check Register Page- 11 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier/ Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310219 611212008 102309 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC 2,277.00 SIREN MAINTENANCE FEE 187415 31913 1460.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT CIVILIAN DEFENSE 2,277.00 310220 6/12/2008 100752 ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC. 187.44 CHIMNEY PATCH & REPAIR 00005923 187227 LL1915 5923.6530 REPAIR PARTS COLLECTION SYSTEMS 187.44 310221 6112/2008 100018 EXPERT T BILLING 6,388.25 MAY TRANSPORTS 187416 060408 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 6,388.25 310222 6/12/2008 100146 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY 105.01 ROTORS 00001041 187417 1- 2853604 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 105.01 310223 6/12/2008 119849 FISCHER, BRENDA 345.00 EDINA ART FAIR CLEAN UP 187179 060308 1346.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC WORKS SPECIAL PROJECTS 345.00 310224 6/1212008 102267 FLAIR FOUNTAINS 10.69 FLOAT BALLS 00001207 187228 5437 1647:6530 REPAIR PARTS PATHS & HARD SURFACE 10.69 310225 611212008 102727 FORCE AMERICA 479.25 PUMP TESTER 00001355 187180 01301504 1552.6556 TOOLS CENT SVC PW BUILDING 479.25 310226 6/1212008 122414 FORKLIFTS OF MINNESOTA INC. 201.37 INSPECTION 00001264 187181 0150165280 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 201.37 310227 8/12/2008 122614 FRUCHI 348.00 SMOOTHIES 187153 1 -774 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 348.00 310228 611212008 122086 FULGENCY, E. 87.75 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187641 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 87.75 310229 6/12/2008 100764 G & K SERVICES 31.40 SHOP TOWELS 187668 1296004635 5422.6201 LAUNDRY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 12 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 31.71 SHOP TOWELS 187669 1296016314 5422.6201 LAUNDRY MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 63.11 310230 6112/2008 122314 GAGNON PIANO SERVICE 85.00 PIANO TUNING 187154 060208 5610.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ED ADMINISTRATION 85.00 310231 6/12/2008 108632 GALLES CORPORATION 122.41 DISINFECTANT CLEANER 00003667 187524 112919 1470.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 122.41 310232 611212008 102456 GALLS INC. 327.33 POLO SHIRTS 187106 5942362401018 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 327.33 310233 811212008 100775 GENERAL SPORTS CORPORATION , 270.00 STAFF UNIFORM HATS 187525 76567 1623.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES TENNIS INSTRUCTION 270.00 310234 6/1212008 103185 GERTENS 133.28 PLANTINGS 00001214 187229 146756 1644.6541 PLANTINGS & TREES TREES & MAINTENANCE 133.28 310235 611212008 101867 GETSINGER, DONNA 143.00 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187642 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 143.00 310236 6/12/2008 116190 GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY 134.85 TRASH CANS 00001161 187182 102623681 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 68.05 TRASH CAN 00001161 187183 102622810 1552.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SVC PW BUILDING 202.90 310237 6112/2008 119936 GLOBAL OAK 18.75 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 187418 522 5840.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LIQUOR YORK GENERAL 18.75 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 187418 522 5860.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 18.75 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 187418 522 5820.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50TH STREET GENERAL 225.00 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 187418 522 2210.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 WEBSITE MAINTENANCE 187418 522 5310.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL ADMINISTRATION 581.25 310238 6/1212008 118941 GLOBALSTAR USA 45.17 R -91 PHONE 187526 89 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAI. 6 A 8:18:36 Page - 13 Business Unit STREET NAME SIGNS 1,856.00 MAY 2008 SERVICE 00001278 187258 R55CKREG _jG20000 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CITY iNA 1,856.00 Council Check Register 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 45.17 310239 6/12/2008 155.10 101156 GOPHER SIGN CO. 00004373 187107 43631730 426.86 SIGNS 00001271 187184 75265 1325.6531 SIGNS & POSTS 426.86 310240 6/12/2008 100780 GOPHER STATE ONE -CALL INC. 6 A 8:18:36 Page - 13 Business Unit STREET NAME SIGNS 1,856.00 MAY 2008 SERVICE 00001278 187258 8050454 5913.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DISTRIBUTION 1,856.00 310241 6/12/2008 120929 GOVCONNECTION INC. 155.10 I.T. SUPPLIES 00004373 187107 43631730 1554.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENT SERV GEN - MIS 155.10 310242 6/1212008 100781 GRAFIX SHOPPE 690.00 VEHICLE LETTERING 00001366 187527 59076 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 690.00 310243 6/12/2008 101103 GRAINGER 29.82 FILTERS 00005989 187185 9643178610 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 379.38 DRAIN VALVE,CABLE TIES,FILTERS00001253 187230 9650923007 5915.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 12.26 DECK SCREWS 00001239 187231 9649699072 5923.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COLLECTION SYSTEMS 13.22 ROLLER COVERS 00001239 187232 9649699064 5923.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COLLECTION SYSTEMS 24.47 KNEE PADS 187528 9651525124 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 243.47 EARPLUGS, LAMPS 187529 9651849375 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 702.62 310244. 611212008 102613 GRANDVIEW TIRE & AUTO 54.95 ALIGNMENT 00005815 187186 411784 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 54.95 310245 6112/2008 102217 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 281.85 187296 100854 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 129.75 187297 96802 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 289.85 187700 101014 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 701.45 310246 611212008 101518 GRAUSAM, STEVE 79.60 INTERCOM SPEAKER 187419 060408 5841.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK OCCUPANCY 56.10 CELL PHONE CHARGES 187531 060608 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 135.70 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 14 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310247 6/12/2008 100783 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. INC. 57.46 LIGHTBULBS 00002167 187420 934322266. 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 8.72 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 00001248 187530 934353185 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 171.15 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 00001248 187530 934353185 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 277.31 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 00001248 187530 934353185 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 514.64 310249 6/1212008 100782 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. 1,324.47 187298 63373 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 206.87 187299 63375 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 94.65 187300 63374 5642.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 23,284.69 187301 63376 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 2,703.65 187302 60214 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 9,947.40 187303 63364 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 65.93 187304 63365 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 35.83 187305 63368 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 844.19 187306 63370 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,194.47 187307 59132 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,215.75 187308 58991 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,703.65 187309 56123 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,198.50 187310 60003 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 245.42 187311 54913 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 9;014.44 187312 59131 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,174.40 187313 58794 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 174.60- 187314 752288 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 80.92- 187315 751125 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 85.53- 187316 752145 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 8.66- 187317 752509 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 325.25 187701 62018 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,838.90 187702 61893 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 89.05- 187703 752950 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 56,979.70 310250 6/12/2008 100787 GRUBER'S POWER EQUIPMENT 349.48 TRIMMING TOOLS 00001221 187233 9077 1641.6556 TOOLS MOWING 57.48 TRIMMER PARTS 00001221 187234 56930 1641.6530 REPAIR PARTS MOWING 406.96 310251 6/12/2008 103884 HANCO CORPORATION 84.67 TIRE INFLATER 00001117 187187 429342 1553.6556 TOOLS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 84.67 i , i CITY INA t J8 8:18:38 R55CKREL _jG20000 Council Check Register Page- 15 6/12/2008 6112/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310252 6/1212008 100797 HAWKINS INC. 623.51 CHLORINE 187108 1190732 5311.6545 CHEMICALS POOL OPERATION 3,334.59 CHEMICALS 00005755 187188 1190731 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 2,390.85 TONKAZORB 00005755 187235 1190729 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 2,390.85 TONKAZORB 00005755 187236 1190730 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 3,062.80 CHEMICALS 00005755 187237 1187975 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 2,390.85 TONKAZORB 00005755 187238 1187575 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 2,390.85 TONKAZORB 00005755 187239 1191935 5915.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES WATER TREATMENT 274.71 CHLORINE 187421 1192945 5311.6545 CHEMICALS POOL OPERATION 5,026.75 CHEMICALS 00005755 187532 1192944 5913.6586 WATER TREATMENT SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 21,885.76 310253 6/12/2008 121601 HEARTLAND DISTRIBUTION LLC 365.30 TIRES 00005703 187422 006798 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 625.20 187423 006924 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 625.20- 187424 006925 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 311.02 TIRES 00001042 187425 008405 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 416.80 TIRES 00001042 187426 008406 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 1,093.12 310254 6/12/2008 101576 HEGGIES PIZZA 100.95 PIZZA 00006334 187533 1019245 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 100.95 310255 6/12/2008 101209 HEIMARK FOODS 205.44 MEAT PATTIES 187534 021105 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 205.44 310256 6/12/2008 115367 HENGEMUHLE, TIM 141.40 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 187240 053008 5860.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE VERNON LIQUOR GENERAL 141.40 310257 6/12/2008 105436 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION 1,441.14 RADIO ADMIN FEE 187535 28048015 1470.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 69.96 TRANSACTION PROCESSING 187670 28057062 1190.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ASSESSING 1,511.10 310258 6/12/2008 100802 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER 1,180.00 EMT COURSE 187427 19251 1400.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 1,180.00 310259 6/12/2008 106371 HENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/1112008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 16 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 2,403.00 MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERVICES 187155 OB5890 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 2,403.00 310260 6112/2008 116680 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY 468.60 PDA 00004372 187109 44289035 1260.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ENGINEERING GENERAL 17.80 SHIPPING 00004372 187110 44291685 1260.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT ENGINEERING GENERAL 486.40 310261 6112/2008 122619 HIGH VOLTAGE TESTING & SAFETY 23.68 HIGH VOLTAGE GLOVES 00005917 187189 S004167961.001 1301.6610 SAFETY EQUIPMENT GENERAL MAINTENANCE 23.68 310262 6/1212008 114130 HILLERICH AND BRADSBY CO. 295.44 GOLF GLOVES 00006404 187494 91695408 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 295.44 310263 6/12/2008 103753 HILLYARD INC - MINNEAPOLIS 36.38 DISINFECTANT 00002162 187428 2506398 5620.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 36.38 310264 6/12/2008 102483 HILTI INC. 150.36 ADHESIVE, ANCHOR RODS 00001185 187241 1604861922 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 150.36 310265 6/12/2008 104375 HOHENSTEINS INC. 84.00 187318 453552 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 351.90 187319 453551 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 743.75 187704 454234 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 405.00 187705 454261 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,584.65 310266 6112/2008 119998 HOVLAND, JAMES 570.50 BLUEPRINT FOR PROSPERITY 187671 060908 1100.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS CITY COUNCIL 570.50 310267 6/1212008 100810 HRAICITY OF EDINA 50,000.00 TO FUND HRA 187536 060908 1000.1303 DUE FROM HRA GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET 50,000.00 310268 6/12/2008 101714 IDENTISYS INC. 616.69 INSTALL SOFTWARE 187156 '40362 5310.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL ADMINISTRATION 616.69 I , R55CKREC. G20000 CITY INA Council Check Register 6/1212008 -- 6/1212008 Check # Dale Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310269 6/12/2008 102201 INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO INC 372.75 MOUND CLAY 00001210 187242 2060 1642.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK 372.75 310270 6/12/2008 100416 INDEPENDENT EMERGENCY SERVICES 6 i8 8:18:38 Page - 17 Business Unit FIELD MAINTENANCE 1 834.46 ELO 20" TOUCHSCREEN 00003133 187243 IESINV001981 1400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 150.00 PERFORMANCE 6/16/08 187651 060308 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 150.00 310276 6/1212008 102157 JEFF ELLIS & ASSOCIATES INC. 580.00 SAFETY AUDIT 187157 20036499 5310.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL ADMINISTRATION 580.00 310277 6112/2008 102136 JERRY'S TRANSMISSION SERVICE 34.28 SUCTION CANISTERS 00003537 187673 1,834.46 1470.6530 REPAIR PARTS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 34.28 310271 6112/2008 101732 INDUSTRIAL DOOR CO. INC. 310278 6/12/2008 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 234.44 OVERHEAD DOOR REPAIR 187537 0130041 -IN 1470.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 34.50 187321 234.44 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 898.81 187322 310272 6112/2008 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 122649 INFORMATION SYSTEMS ADVERTISIN 5,566.77 187323 1169442 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 188.00 AD FEE 187538 940466 5410.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 188.00 310273 6112/2008 119808 INTEGRA TELECOM 408.36 187672 3761499 1470.6188 TELEPHONE 408.36 310274 6112/2008 \ 118322 ITL PATCH COMPANY INC. 178.76 SHOULDER EMBLEMS 187111 29042 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 178.76 310275 6112/2008 102186 JAZZ ON THE PRAIRIE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL GOLF ADMINISTRATION FIRE DEPT. GENERAL POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 150.00 PERFORMANCE 6/16/08 187651 060308 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 150.00 310276 6/1212008 102157 JEFF ELLIS & ASSOCIATES INC. 580.00 SAFETY AUDIT 187157 20036499 5310.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POOL ADMINISTRATION 580.00 310277 6112/2008 102136 JERRY'S TRANSMISSION SERVICE 34.28 SUCTION CANISTERS 00003537 187673 0010299 1470.6530 REPAIR PARTS FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 34.28 310278 6/12/2008 100741 JJ TAYLOR DIST. OF MINN 2,264.71 187320 1169432 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 34.50 187321 1169480 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 898.81 187322 1169479 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 5,566.77 187323 1169442 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Page - 18 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 975.50 187324 1169434 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 7,471.60 187325 1169431 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 317.00 187539 906534 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 223.80 187540 906768 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 53.00 187706 1169484 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 9,614.17 187707 1169483 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 27,419.86 310281 6/12/2008 100835 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO. 5,060.74 187326 1447123 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1.12 187327 1447121 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 334.27 187328 1447116 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 559.09 187329 1447117 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 628.26 187330 1447118 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,347.04 187331 1447119 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 62.74 187332 1447120 5822.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 50TH ST SELLING 2,414.02 187333 1447126 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,930.44 187334 1447127 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 147.98 187335 1448609 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 798.82 187336 1448608 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4,766.01 187337 1451528 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 1,211.36 187338 1451527 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,445.52 187339 1451529 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 99.12 187340 1451524 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 71.22 187341 1444317 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 529.34 187342 1447603 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 46.62- 187343 379061 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 31.42- 187344 379060 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 8.67- 187345 379063 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 40.00 - 187346 379500 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4.66- 187347 379064 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 25.92- 187348 379065 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 10.00- 187349 379498 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 13.84- 187350 379499 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 4.82- 187351 379501 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 7.33- 187352 379502 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 24.78- 187353 379062 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 22.67- 187354 379067 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 7,552.61 187708 1451522 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1.12 187709 1451516 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 178.24 187710 1451518 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING CITY jNA 6 )8 8:18:38 R55CKRE(: G20000 Council Check Register Page - 19 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 354.36 187711 1451515 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 95.43 187712 1449736 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 2,051.33 187713 1451521 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 2,537.55 187714 1451523 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,12 187715 1451517 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 1,454.12 187716 1451519 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 183.10 187717 1451520 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 968.50 187718 1447827 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 316.48 187719 1451993 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 163.53 187720 1451510 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 1,027.02 187721 1451512 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 158.66 187722 1451511 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE . 50TH ST SELLING 1,019.14 187723 1451514 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 1,014.83 187724 1451513 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 25.92- 187725 379066 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 110.24- 187726 377186 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 30.07- 187727 377185 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 16.82- 187728 380726 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 19.03- 187729 380407 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 10.33- 187730 380499 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 43,231.09 310282 6/12/2008 121481 KAPLAN PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS 300.00 ALARM PROGRAM DATABASE 187541 8051914 1400.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 300.00 310283 6/12/2008 104369 KARKHOFF, NANCY 88.72 UNIFORM PURCHASE 187244 060408 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 88.72 310284 6/1212008 111018 KEEPRS INC. 33.02 UNIFORMS 187429 053108 1401.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM 434.97 UNIFORMS 187429 053108 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 467.99 310285 6/12/2008 105171 KEYS WELL DRILLING CO. 35,359.00 PARTIAL PAYMENT NO. 6 187542 061308 05471.1705.30 CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS WM -471 NEW WELL #20 35,359.00 310286 6/12/2008 117792 KIDDE FIRE TRAINERS INC. 40.52 FILTERS 00007402 187543 5020 7413.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE PSTF FIRE TOWER 40.52 R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 20 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310287 6/1212008 104979 KOCON, ED 169.93 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 187430 060308 5410.6107 MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE GOLF ADMINISTRATION 169.93 310288 6/12/2008 119947 KRAEMER MINING & MATERIALS INC 703.85 FA -2 CHIPS 00005745 187544 193966 1314.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK STREET RENOVATION 703.85 310289 611212008 100605 LANDS' END BUSINESS OUTFITTERS 50.38 LOGO CLOTHING 187431 06574303 1513.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS 184.52 LOGO CLOTHING 187432 06574019 2210.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COMMUNICATIONS 1,592.72 LOGO CLOTHING 187432 06574019 1513.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS 26.63 LOGO CLOTHING 187433 06578542 1513.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE EMPLOYEE PROGRAMS 1,854.25 310290 6/12/2008 100852 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC. 237.29 CORD REELS 00001168 187190 6862681 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 396.73 DRILL BITS, HEX NUTS 00001160 187191 6862680 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 212.42 WASHERS 00001190 187192 6886478 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 149.28 WASHERS, TY -RAP 00001189 187193 6886475 1553.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 148.65 DRILL BITS, HOSE CLAMP 00001188 187245 6886476 5923.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COLLECTION SYSTEMS 337.61 NUTS, BOLTS, RIVETS 00001190 187434 6886477 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 152.82 PAINT 00001238 187435 6896388 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 256.19 DRILL BITS, WASHERS 00001252 187545 6902697 1325.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET NAME SIGNS 152.82 PAINT - 00001251 187546 6902696 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 371.95 WASHERS, HOLESAWS 00001250 187547 6902695 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 2,415.76 310291 6/12/2008 100854 LEITNER COMPANY 1,073.11 TOPDRESSING SAND 187548 RICHARDS6 /08 5431.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE 1,572.75 TOPDRESSING SAND 187549 BRAEMAR6 /08 5422.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 2,645.86 310292 6/12/2008 112619 LES JONES ROOFING INC. 1,175.00 ROOF /GUTTER REPAIRS 00005824 187112 516738 1646.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,175.00 310293 6/12/2008 100225 LIFEGUARD STORE, THE 722.50 LIFE VEST STORAGE CART 187436 91767 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 722.50 L J8 8:18:38 Page - 21 Business Unit GOLF DOME PROGRAM ART CENTER REVENUES TRAINING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 50TH ST SELLING POOL CONCESSIONS PSTF ADMINISTRATION PSTF OCCUPANCY 2,796.15 1 329316 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 6,023.15 187356 R55CKREt. iG20000 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING CITY INA 332224 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,607.05 187732 Council Check Register 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 17,713.42 6/12/2008 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310294 6/1212008 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 122650 LION'S ALL STAR BASEBALL TOURN 40.00 MEMBERSHIP - JANE TIMM 187195 050208 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ADMINISTRATION 75.00 PROGRAM AD 187550 052308 5210.6122 ADVERTISING OTHER 75.00 310295 6112/2008 116882 LIPPERT, BARBARA 136.50 ART WORK SOLD AT EAC 187643 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 136.50 310296 6/1212068 100443 LUCHT, PETE 19.00 UPGRADE LICENSE 187674 060608 1281.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 19.00 310297 611212008 102382 LUTZ, MOLLY 298.00 UNIFORM PURCHASE 187401 060508 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 298.00 310298 6/12/2008 118608 M SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 18.00 WINE SPECTATOR 187437 843082 5822.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 18.00 310299 6112/2008 112577 M. AMUNDSON LLP 690.25 CANDY 187246 39183 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 690.25 310300 611212008 122188 MACMAGIC 15.00 WEB REMAPPING 187551 3838 7410.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15.00 310301 6112/2008 114699 MANAGED SERVICES INC. 470.73 JANITORAL SERVICE 187552 C002390 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 470.73 310302 611212008 100868 MARK VII SALES L J8 8:18:38 Page - 21 Business Unit GOLF DOME PROGRAM ART CENTER REVENUES TRAINING POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 50TH ST SELLING POOL CONCESSIONS PSTF ADMINISTRATION PSTF OCCUPANCY 2,796.15 187355 329316 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 6,023.15 187356 330251 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 6,287.07 187731 332224 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 2,607.05 187732 331945 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 17,713.42 310303 6/12/2008 102197 MCFOA 40.00 MEMBERSHIP - DEBRA MANGEN 187194 050108 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ADMINISTRATION 40.00 MEMBERSHIP - JANE TIMM 187195 050208 1120.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 22 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 80.00 310304 611212008 101483 MENARDS 16.10 ASPEN BOARD, WIRE FRAMES 00001246 187196 37144 5820.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 50TH STREET GENERAL 147.59 WATERING TOOLS 00001201 187247 36618 1643.6556 TOOLS GENERAL TURF CARE 56.65 PAINT SUPPLIES 00008050 187248 34807 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS . 173.12 GROUT, CLAMPS 00001249 187553 37357 1301.6556 TOOLS GENERAL MAINTENANCE 393.46 310305 6/1212008 101987 MENARDS 26.55 HOSE REEL CART 00001163 187197 90732 1322.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES STREET LIGHTING ORNAMENTAL 2.60 UNDERCOATING 00005416 187249 80001 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 32.96 SURGE PROTECTOR, BULBS 00005872 187250 82710 1643.6530 REPAIR PARTS GENERAL TURF CARE 23.32 SANDPAPER, ANT KILLER 00002170 187438 94435 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 34.73 SAWHORSES, BRUSHES 00002178 187439 96335 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 26.07 ADAPTER, CORD 00002087 187554 81360 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 188.92 CHAIN, LINKS, BOLTS 00002309 187555 86918 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 99.51 HOSE, GLOVES 00002082 187556 78506 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 127.54 BRACKETS, TOOLS 00002084 187557 78947 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 20.01 CLAMPS, WOODGLUE 00002085 187558 80026 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 143.52 LIGHT BULBS, TAPE 00002353 187559 81409 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 725.73 310306 611212008 100882 MERIT SUPPLY 411.36 DEGREASER, CLEANERS 00002336 187158 74110 5630.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 411.36 310307 6/12/2008 101891 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY 522.92 PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES 187159 108016 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PLAYGROUND & THEATER 795.87 FIELD PAINT 00001211 187251 108024 1642.6544 LINE MARKING POWDER FIELD MAINTENANCE 1,318.79 310308 6112/2008 100885 METRO SALES INC 1,049.00 COPIER MAINTENANCE CONTRACT 187560 289598 1470.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 1,049.00 310309 6112/2008 106042 METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSI 2,101.00 SAFE & SOBER 187252 060408 1400.4205 FEDERAL AID POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 2,101.00 310310 611212008 100886 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 3,613.50 MAY 2008 187253 060308 1495.4307 SAC CHARGES INSPECTIONS E A 8:18:38 Page - 23 Business Unit SEWER TREATMENT EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ENGINEERING GENERAL MEDIA STUDIO DISTRIBUTION VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING RANGE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE ART CENTER REVENUES DISTRIBUTION CITY INA R55CKREL G20000 Council Check Register 6112/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 3,613.50 310311 611212008 100887 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONME 311,064.51 SEWER SERVICE 187440 0000875305 5922.6302 SEWER SERVICE METRO 311,064.51 310312 6112/2008 102729 METROPOLITAN FORD OF EDEN PRAI 238.78 AUTO REPAIRS 00005863 187198 FOCS141982 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 81.93 VEHICLE REPAIRS 00001125 187561 FOCS142992 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 12.04- CREDIT ON ACCT 187562 CR 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 308.67 310313 611212008 104650 MICRO CENTER 13.82 DIGITAL CAMERA ACCESSORIES 00004371 187113 1783657 1260.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 5.58 LATE FEE CHARGE 187114 L01741864 5125.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 19.40 310314 6/1212008 100891 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. 6,102.75 ASPHALT 00005748 187254 92502MB 5913.6518 BLACKTOP 6,102.75 310315 611212008 100692 MIDWEST COCA -COLA BOTTLING CO. 647.20 187357 0198419912 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 264,40 187733 0158565826 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX 911.60 310316 6/1212008 103186 MIDWEST FUELS 890.88 FUEL 00006463 187563 47259 5424.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,009.20 FUEL 00006463 187564 47260 5422.6581 GASOLINE 435.85 DIESEL 00005252 187565 47261 5422.6581 GASOLINE 843.65 GAS 00006463 187566 47307 5422.6581 GASOLINE 878.48 DIESEL 00005252 187567 47308 5431.6581 GASOLINE 4,058.06 310317 6/12/2008 122473 MILLER, CHICHI 79.30 ART WORK SOLD DAT EAC 187644 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD 79.30 310318 6/12/2008 103216 MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPARTMENT 22,169.04 WATER PURCHASE 187441 060308 5913.6601 WATER PURCHASED 22,169.04 E A 8:18:38 Page - 23 Business Unit SEWER TREATMENT EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN ENGINEERING GENERAL MEDIA STUDIO DISTRIBUTION VERNON SELLING YORK SELLING RANGE MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE ART CENTER REVENUES DISTRIBUTION R55CKREG LOG20000 420.56 CITY OF EDINA 0223929 5932.6535 PIPE GENERAL STORM SEWER Councll Check Register 3,021.62 CURB BOX PARTS 00001281 187570 0223495 5915.6530 REPAIR PARTS 6/12/2008 — 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanetlon PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310319 6/1212008 102174 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 310323 6/12/2008 17.83 CARBON DIOXIDE 00006428 187568 R105080127 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.83 942.84 CRS -II 00005753 187117 57266 1301.6519 310320 6112/2008 101638 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 942.84 35.00 HOSPITALITY FEE #50265 187115 SHF UID1943 5310.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 35.00 HOSPITALITY FEE 450245 187116 SHF UID2031 4075.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PUMP AND MOTOR 00001220 187444 0076856 -IN 35.00 HOSPITALITY FEE #50011 00008057 187256 SHF UID1891 5510.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,370.69 35.00 HOSPITALITY FEE #50026 187569 SHF UID1914 5610.6105 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 6112/2008 140.00 310321 6/1212008 533.60 120301 MINNESOTA MULCH & SOIL 1978525 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,011.75 MULCH 187442 7085 5422.6517 SAND GRAVEL & ROCK 1,011.75 611212008 103246 MOIR, BILL 310322 6112/2008 101376 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT 156.72 COIN COUNTER 187675 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Page - 24 Business Unit GRILL POOL ADMINISTRATION VANVALKENBURG ARENA ADMINISTRATION ED ADMINISTRATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 420.56 PIPE 00001267 187443 0223929 5932.6535 PIPE GENERAL STORM SEWER 3,021.62 CURB BOX PARTS 00001281 187570 0223495 5915.6530 REPAIR PARTS WATER TREATMENT 3,342.45 1° METERS 00001280 187571 0221181 5914.5516 COST OF GOODS SOLD METERS TANKS TOWERS & RESERVOIR 6,784.63 310323 6/12/2008 112908 MINNESOTA ROADWAYS CO. 942.84 CRS -II 00005753 187117 57266 1301.6519 ROAD OIL GENERAL MAINTENANCE 942.84 310324 6/1212008 100908 MINNESOTA WANNER CO. 2,370.69 PUMP AND MOTOR 00001220 187444 0076856 -IN 1644.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TREES & MAINTENANCE 2,370.69 310325 6112/2008 102820 MIZUNO USA INC 533.60 GOLF CLUBS 00006018 187572 1978525 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 533.60 310326 611212008 103246 MOIR, BILL 156.72 COIN COUNTER 187675 060908 5310.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL ADMINISTRATION 156.72 310327 6/12/2008 121491 MORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP 330.13 PROCESSOR 00001056 187573 456231 F6W 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 330.13 310328 6/12/2008 108668 MORRIS, GRAYLYN R55CKREV jG20000 CITY INA Council Check Register 6112/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 175.00 PERFORMANCE 6/19/08 187655 060308 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER CONSULTING DESIGN t. j8 8:18:38 Page - 25 Business Unit ED ADMINISTRATION S100 HALIFAX AV - 51 ST TO 54TH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS 175.00 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 310329 6112/2008 IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT 101796 MPCA REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 400.00 PERMIT FEE CENTENNIAL LAKES 187758 060908 07100.1705.20 400.00 310330 611212008 102112 MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH & FAMILY S 55.00 LAB ANALYSIS 187255 2008516 1400.6103 55.00 310331 6/12/2008 100906 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC. 72.19 RADIATOR HOSE 00006239 187445 618956 -00 5422.6530 491.76 FAN CLUTCH, REGULATOR 00006236 187446 618407 -00 5422.6530 56.60 SWITCHES 00006230187447 616788 -00 5422.6530 300.00 SERVICE SCHOOL 00006175 187574 606598 -00 5410.6104 241.01 COMPRESSION COUPLINGS 00006245 187575 620334 -00 5422.6611 107.59 SOLENOID COIL 00006245 187576 620225 -00 5422.6530 21.63 V -BELT 00006241 187577 619461 -00 5422.6530 62.61 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES, RAKE 00002347 187578 620960 -00 5630.6406 368.26 IRRIGATION PARTS 00002330 187579 618568 -00 5630.6530 1,721.65 310332 6/12/2008 119993 MULCH MANUFACTURING INC. 2,391.84 MULCH 00002357 187580 382409 5630.6540 2,391.84 310333 6/12/2008 106662 NET LITIN DISTRIBUTORS 324.18 PLASTICWARE FOR RESALE 187448 31268 5620.5510 324.18 310334 6112/2008 100076 NEW FRANCE WINE CO. 549.00 187358 49742 5842.5513 549.00 310335 611212008 100712 NORTHERN WATERWORKS SUPPLY 5,858.27 HYDRANTS 00005678 187581 S01137486.001 5913.6530 5,858.27 310336 611212008 102138 NORTHERN WINDS CONCERT BAND 75.00 PERFORMANCE 6/22/08 187656 060308 5610.6136 75.00 CONSULTING DESIGN t. j8 8:18:38 Page - 25 Business Unit ED ADMINISTRATION S100 HALIFAX AV - 51 ST TO 54TH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS GOLF ADMINISTRATION IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES REPAIR PARTS CENTENNIAL LAKES FERTILIZER CENTENNIAL LAKES COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING REPAIR PARTS DISTRIBUTION PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 26 6/12/2008 -- 6/1212008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 310337 6/12/2008 117830 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTEMS 127.14 DIGITAL RECORDER MAINTENANCE 187118 79379 1400.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 127.14 310338 6112/2008 103578 OFFICE DEPOT 14.55 NOTEBOOK 00006187 187582 431814429 - 001 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 4.25 PAPER 00006034 187583 431423385- 001 5410.6513 OFFICE SUPPLIES GOLF ADMINISTRATION 18.80 310339 6/12/2008 100936 OLSEN COMPANIES 7.02 CLIPS 00001196 187257 503254 1646.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES BUILDING MAINTENANCE 134.09 HARDWARE 00008053 187449 503676 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 37.88 TWO CYCLE OIL 00006247 187584 504387 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 178.99 310340 6/1212008 102520 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY INC. 519.91 CRAFT SUPPLIES 00009335 187259 624095153 -01 51 10.6564 CRAFT SUPPLIES ART CENTER ADMINISTRATION 519.91 310341 6112/2008 101659 ORKIN PEST CONTROL 108.09 PEST CONTROL 187260 37703639 1551.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CITY HALL GENERAL 108.09 310342 611212008 100939 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC. 115.30 COOKIES 187119 5443882 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD POOL CONCESSIONS 210.75 COOKIES 187585 5380082 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 326.05 310343 611212008 103624 P & L AUTOMOTIVE INC. 150.00 CAR CLEAN UP 00001364 187586. 182600 1553.6238 CAR WASH EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 150.00 310344 6/12/2008 102440 PASS, GRACE 19.50 ART WORK SOLD DAT EAC 187645 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 19.50 310345 811212008 100347 PAUSTIS & SONS 1,837.01 187359 8186843 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 5,372.94 187360 8186032 -IN 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 485.00 187734 8186845 -IN 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 7,694.95 R55CKRE(- .G20000 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation 310346 6/1212008 100945 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 1,119.25 492.96 219.36 431.10 2,262.67 CITY iNA Council Check Register 6/12/2008 -- 6/1212008 PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 187120 04074215 187587 04345813 187588 03803732 187589 03803729 310347 6112/2008 100948 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS 975.00 INSTALL FLAG POLE 00001231 187261 053008 975.00 310349 611212008 100743 PHILLIPS WINE 8 SPIRITS 187.76 2,407.35 2,624.70 374.56 709.84 135.89 1,732.84 4.82 - 3.33- 2.49- 53.12- 4.00- 57.12- 81.12- 48.39- 247.61 31.12 754.39 580.49 311.20 69.62 242.32 689.08 176.56 81.12- 148.78- 10,791.04 310350 611212008 100119 PING 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 5430.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 5630.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 1642.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES E )8 8:18:38 Page - 27 Business Unit POOL CONCESSIONS GRILL RICHARDS GOLF COURSE CENTENNIAL LAKES FIELD MAINTENANCE 187361 2616069 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 187362 2612625 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187363 2612628 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187364 2612633 5862.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX VERNON SELLING 187365 2612623 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 187366 2612622 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 187367 2612621 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 187368 3385415 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 187369 3385673 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 187370 3385672 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 187371 3385671 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187372 3385674 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187373 3385416 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187374 3385417 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187375 3385016 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187735 261 F065 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 187736 2616066 5842.5515 COST OF GOODS SOLD MIX YORK SELLING 187737 2616064 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187738 2616067 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187739 2616442 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187740 2616443 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 187741 2616063 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 187742 2616061 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 187743 2616062 5822.5512 COST OF. GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 187744 3383955 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 187745 3386521 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/1112008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 28 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 154.75 JUNIOR CLUBS 187590 9266529 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP. PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 540.45 SET OF IRONS 187591 9276283 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 473.86 SET OF IRONS 187592 9279282 5440.5511 COST OF GOODS - PRO SHOP PRO SHOP RETAIL SALES 1,169.06 310351 611212008 102748 PIRTEK PLYMOUTH 208.30 HOSE REPAIR 00006233 187450 S1197226.001 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 208.30 310352 6/12/2008 100958 PLUNKETT'S PEST CONTROL 42.66 PEST CONTROL 187593 1151129 7411.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF OCCUPANCY 42.66 310353 611212008 111340 POLAR CHEVROLET 24,063.20 2008 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 00003081 187676 BZ250084 1400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 24,063.20 2008 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 00003081 187677 BZ256044 1400.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 48,126.40 310354 6/12/2008 119620 POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC. 109.22 TIRES 00005809 187451 865053 1553.6583 TIRES & TUBES EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 109.22 310355 611212008 100961 POSTMASTER - USPS 5,000.00 PERMIT #939 UTILITY BILLING 187121 060208 5910.6235 POSTAGE GENERAL (BILLING) 5,000.00 310356 6/12/2008 116396 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 87.25 CO2 CANISTER 187594 29756259 7413.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF FIRE TOWER 87.25 310357 611212008 100964 PRECISION TURF & CHEMICAL 1,971.95 FUNGICIDE 00006199 187452 30962 5431.6545 CHEMICALS RICHARDS GC MAINTENANCE 1,964.93 FUNGICIDE 00006228 187595 30991 5422.6545 CHEMICALS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 3,936.88 310358 6/1212008 100966 PRINTERS SERVICE INC 126.00 BLADE SHARPENING 00008058 187453 234901 5521.6215 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ARENA ICE MAINT 126.00 310359 6/1212008 100968 PRIOR WINE COMPANY 182.20 187376 63366 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 20.00- 187746 753024 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING R55CKREb jG20000 CITY MA Council Check Register 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No 162.20 310360 611212008 106322 PROSOURCE SUPPLY 1,308.34 SOAP, LINERS, ROLL TOWEL 00002148 187454 4210 5620.6511 634.87 LINERS, TISSUE, CLEANER 00002354 187596 4221 5630.6511 1,943.21 6, J8 8:18:38 Page - 29 Subledger Account Description Business Unit CLEANING SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK CLEANING SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 310361 6/12/2008 111600 PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER INC. 31.99 NIK TEST 187262 1453001IN 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 31.99 310362 6/12/2008 116481 PUTTING GREENS OF MINNESOTA 1,917.00 E Z TEE MATS 00006055 187597 2 5424.6590 RANGE BALLS RANGE 1,917.00 310363 611212008 100971 QUALITY WINE 1,487.00 187377 013124 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 4,549.00 187378 013123 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 1,946.43 187379 018467 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 149.60 187380 018670 -00 5862.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE VERNON SELLING 888.44 187381 017895 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 2,585.15 187382 018555 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 539.21 187383 018502 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 93.60 187384 018549 -00 5842.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 4,315.44 187385 018550 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 158.60 187386 018551 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 572.74 187387 018552 -00 5822.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR 50TH ST SELLING 51.60 187388 018468 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 5.71- 187389 013776 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 320.40- 187390 014285 -00 5862.5512 COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR VERNON SELLING 810.94 187747 017915 -00 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 97.00 187748 017896 -00 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 16.76- 187749 009854 -00 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 17,901.88 310364 6/12/2008 101965 QWEST 55.22 187141 052808 5911.6188 TELEPHONE PUMP & LIFT STATION OPER 57.90 187141 052808 1628.6188 TELEPHONE SENIOR CITIZENS 83.22 187141 052808 5861.6188 TELEPHONE VERNON OCCUPANCY 96.49 187141 052808 5821.6188 TELEPHONE 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 101.87 187141 052808 5841.6188 TELEPHONE YORK OCCUPANCY 115.08 187141 052808 1470.6188 TELEPHONE FIRE DEPT. GENERAL R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA Council Check Register 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 6/1112008 8:18:38 Page - 30 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 161.64 187141 052808 5610.6188 TELEPHONE ED ADMINISTRATION 164.00 187141 052808 1622.6188 TELEPHONE SKATING & HOCKEY 232.43 187141 052808 1646.6188 TELEPHONE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 257.26 187141 052808 5511.6188 TELEPHONE ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 263.91 187141 052808 5932.6188 TELEPHONE GENERAL STORM SEWER 2,101.84 187141 052808 1550.6188 TELEPHONE CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 3,690.86 310365 6/12/2008 100466 R & R PRODUCTS INC. 60.84 PRECUT LINE 00006248 187598 CD1102552 5422,6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 60.84 310366 6112/2008 100972 R &R SPECIALTIES OF WISCONSIN 1 1,075.65 ICE PAINT 00008056 187263 0040243 -IN 5521.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA ICE MAINT 10,801.93 ZAMBONI REPAIRS 00008045 187599 0040242 -IN 5500.1740 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT ICE ARENA BALANCE SHEET 11,877.58 310367 6/1212008 104643 RECREATION SUPPLY COMPANY 65.51 CLOCKS 00002166 187455 157811 5620.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES EDINBOROUGH PARK 65.51 310368 6/12/2008 101111 REED BUSINESS INFORMATION 386.10 AD FOR BID 187678 3890917 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 386.10 AD FOR BID 187679 3934586 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 393.12 AD FOR BID 187680 3931558 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 156.78 AD FOR BID 187681 3940636 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL ADMINISTRATION 1,322.10 310369 6/12/2008 102408 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED 19.14 7 -WAY PLUG 00001043 187456 1424375 -01 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 19.14 310370 6/12/2008 101561 ROBBINSDALE CITY BAND 50.00 PERFORMANCE 6/15/08 187650 060308 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 50.00 310371 6/12/2008 100980 ROBERT B. HILL CO. 445.71 SOFTENER SALT 00008047 187264 00207710 5511.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 36.12 SOFTENER SALT 00003648 187600 00207910 1470.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 481.83 310372 6/12/2008 100981 ROCHESTER MIDLAND , 5 CITY MA E i8 8:18:38 R56CKREL G20000 Council Check Register Page - 31 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 187.81 SANITIZER 00006344 187601 573916 5430.6230 SERVICE CONTRACTS EQUIPMENT RICHARDS GOLF COURSE 187.81 310373 6/1212008 121106 ROCHON CORPORATION 273,354.00 FIREHOUSE RENOVATION 187682 APPL 13 45008.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FIRE STATION #1 RENOVATION 273,354.00 310374 611212006 100985 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQ CO INC 160.91 SOLENOID 00005810 187199 C49690 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 160.91 310375 611212008 100988 SAFETY KLEEN 107.94 PARTS WASHER SERVICE 00001371 187602 MB02358543 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 107.94 310376 6/12/2008 101634 SAINT AGNES BAKING COMPANY 48.75 BAKERY 187603 217273 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 48.75 310377 611212008 105442 SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. 141.12 LUMBER 00001237 187604 40635083 1318.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES SNOW & ICE REMOVAL 6.20 FORMS 00001164 187605 40631377 7411.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF OCCUPANCY 585.10 NAILS, LUMBER 00001186 187683 40633944 5913.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 732.42 310378 6/12/2008 104689 SERIGRAPHICS SIGN SYSTEMS INC. 47.93 NAMEPLATE 187684 39764 1100.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CITY COUNCIL 47.93 310379 6112/2008 101862 SEVEN CORNERS HARDWARE INC. 73.75 CONCRETE TOOLS 00001165 187685 120199 5923.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES COLLECTION SYSTEMS 73.75 310380 6/12/2008 103249 SHANNON, JIM 130.00 PERFORMANCE 6/17108 187652 060308 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 130.00 310381 611212008 101380 SHAUGHNESSY, SANDRA 163.80 ART WORK SOLD DAT EAC 187646 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 163.80 310382 6/1212008 100998 SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO. R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/1112008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 32 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 174.49 PAINT 00008052 187457 2398 -9 5511.6532 PAINT ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 174.49 310383 611212008 100333 SIGNCRAFTERS 421.50 FLAGPOLE REPAIRS 00002345 187160 32532 5630.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS CENTENNIAL LAKES 421.50 310384 8112/2008 116501 SIMONSON, JUSTIN 79.99 ROPE 187265 060308 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 79.99 310385 6/1212008 101000 SIR SPEEDY 143.75 FLYERS /CARDS 187266 57564 1504.6218 EDUCATION PROGRAMS HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION 47.13 BUSINESS CARDS 187458 57579 1550.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 190.88 310386 6/12/2008 102935 SOUTH TOWN REFRIGERATION INC 401.78 ICE MAKER REPAIR 00006340 187606 67628 5421.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS GRILL 401.78 310387 6/1212008 110977 SOW, ADAMA 107.25 ART WORK SOLD DAT EAC 187647 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 107.25 310388 6/1212008 105193 SPAIN, MARK 2,475.00 TREE TRIMMING 187459 052908 5422.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 2,475.00 310389 6/12/2008 101021 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC 114.06 ACCT 041 9133 038 187460 052608 1301.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL MAINTENANCE 232.66 ACCT 041 9133 038 187460 052608 1553.6581 GASOLINE EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 346.72 310390 6/1212008 102424 SPEEDY PRINT 1,065.00 SCORECARDS 00006035 187607 64461 -A 5410.6575 PRINTING GOLF ADMINISTRATION 2,055.45 SCORECARDS 00006035 187608 64461 -B 5410.6575 PRINTING GOLF ADMINISTRATION 3,120.45 310391 611212008 101004 SPS COMPANIES 137.97 IRRIGATION PARTS 00005837 187267 S1845826.002 1642.6530 REPAIR PARTS FIELD MAINTENANCE 137.97 r R55CKREt. jG20000 CITY 4NA Council Check Register 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310392 6/12/2008 103277 ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT CO INC 25.46 PLUG 00005504 187200 IV95851 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 25.46 310393 6/12/2008 102170 STAR OF THE NORTH CONCERT BAND i ]8 8:18:38 Page - 33 Business Unit EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 100.00 PERFORMANCE 6/18/08 187654 060308 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION COMMUNICATIONS CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 150.00 PERFORMANCE 6/17/08 187653 060308 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 150.00 100.00 310394 6/12/2008 310398 6/1212008 121357 STARK, KRISTI 90.00 WEBSITE GRAPHIC 187461 KSEDINA010 2210.6124 WEB DEVELOPMENT 201.75 AUTO REPAIRS 90.00 CVCS537160 310395 6/1212008 292.93 105352 STEPHENSON, TED 00001126 187202 CTCS538156 106.49 30 GALLON SPRAYER 187161 060208 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 212.00 AUTO REPAIRS 106.49 CTCB538604 310396 611212008 4.24 101015 STREICHERS 00001048 187609 110566CVW 95.83 HOLSTERS 00003152 187122 1521564 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 113.16 MATS 95.83 111501CVW 310397 6/12/2008 824.08 102639 STROHMYER, TOM COMMUNICATIONS CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 150.00 PERFORMANCE 6/17/08 187653 060308 5610.6136 PROFESSIONAL SVC - OTHER ED ADMINISTRATION 150.00 310398 6/1212008 101017 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET 201.75 AUTO REPAIRS 00005894 187201 CVCS537160 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 292.93 AUTO REPAIRS 00001126 187202 CTCS538156 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 212.00 AUTO REPAIRS 00001127 187203 CTCB538604 1553.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 4.24 RETAINER, SCREW 00001048 187609 110566CVW 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 113.16 MATS 00001122 187610 111501CVW 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS 824.08 310399 6112/2008 100900 SUN NEWSPAPERS 188.00 AD FOR POLICE AUCTION 00014798 187462 1097570 1400.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 71.50 AD FOR BID 00014798 187686 1095469 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 85.80 AD FOR BID 00014798 187687 1095468 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 39.33 PUBLISH NOTICE 00014798 187688 1100088 1120.6120 ADVERTISING LEGAL 384.63 310400 6/12/2008 102925 SUPERIOR TECH PRODUCTS 820.05 LIQUID FERTILIZER 187463 376 - RGR -RM 5422.6540 FERTILIZER 340.80 FERTILIZER 187464 358 -RGR -G 5422.6540 FERTILIZER EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN POLICE DEPT. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 34 6/12/2008 — 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 1,160.85 310401 611212008 110674 SUPERIOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIO 58.71 BATTERY CHARGERS 00001367 187611 21351 5913.6188 TELEPHONE DISTRIBUTION 58.71 310402 611212008 120998 SURLY BREWING CO. 730.00 187391 549345 5842.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER YORK SELLING 438.00 187750 496600 5822.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER 50TH ST SELLING 1,168.00 310403 611212008 120124 TEWS, LORI 49.24 ART WORK SOLD DAT EAC 187648 060308 5101.4413 ART WORK SOLD ART CENTER REVENUES 49.24 310404 6/12/2008 105123 THEMESCAPES INC. 6,350.00 PLAY AREA & POOL AREA REPAIRS 187162 20852 -1 5311.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS POOL OPERATION 2,000.00 MULCH 187163 20851 -1 5311.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION 8,350.00 310405 6112/2008 118072 THOMPSON, PAUL 217.26 DOOR PRIZES FOR ENERGY FAIR 187268 060408 1122.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMM 217.26 310406 6112/2008 101035 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 3,743.25 187392 493975 5862.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER VERNON SELLING 319.60 187612 495022 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 189.00 187613 67834 5421.5514 COST OF GOODS SOLD BEER GRILL 4,251.85 310407 6/1212008 114354 TILSNER CARTON CO. 989.44 CARDBOARD BACKING 187614 442949 7412.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES PSTF RANGE 989.44 310408 6/12/2008 101037 TOIVONEN PAINTING 8,550.00 PAINTING AT AQUATIC CENTER 187465 060508 5311.6532 PAINT POOL OPERATION 1,697.91 BLEACH & STAIN FACIA 187466 JUN52008 5311.6532 PAINT POOL OPERATION 10,247.91 310409 611212008 101038 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 64.89 DEMURRAGE 00001282 187615 458283 5913.6580 WELDING SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTION 37.08 WELDING CYLINDER 187616 458282 5630.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES CENTENNIAL LAKES 1 ' 125.00 DEBRIS REMOVAL 187618 190128 7413.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES R55CkREV -jG20000 CITY iNA 310414 Councll Check Register 101360 TWIN CITY HARDWARE 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 4,573.93 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 4,573.93 101.97 310415 310410 6/12/2008 101051 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 101374 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE 31,100.00 FENCE INSTALLATION 00005975 187689 21163 -1 47061.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RESERVE PROGRAM 7,825.00 INSTALL CONCRETE STRIP 00005821 187690 21163 -2 47060.6710 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 38,925.00 3,621.27 310411 6/12/2008 101042 TRIARCO 6/12/2008 101908 US FOODSERVICE INC 237.60 ARTS & CRAFTS SUPPLIES 00007038 187617 401161 1624.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 187621 060108 237.60 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 754.68 310412 6/12/2008 060108 100682 TRUGREEN- CHEMLAWN CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 3,465.26 CUST 114300 195.00 WEED CONTROL 00001222 187123 586348 1643.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,857.19 984.43 WEED CONTROL 00001233 187467 VAR 1643.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 310417 6/12/2008 143.98 WEED CONTROL 00001229 187468 584277 1551.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 53.33 WEED CONTROL 00001227 187469 584290 1470.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 53.33 WEED CONTROL 00001228 187470 584295 1552.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,430.07 310413 611212008 122664 TUBS 6. 8 8:18:38 Page - 35 Business Unit PAMELA PK SOFTBALL FIELD FENCE PAMELA PK CONCRETE MAINT APRON PLAYGROUND & THEATER GENERAL TURF CARE GENERAL TURF CARE CITY HALL GENERAL FIRE DEPT. GENERAL CENT SVC PW BUILDING 125.00 DEBRIS REMOVAL 187618 190128 7413.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PSTF FIRE TOWER 125.00 310414 6112/2008 101360 TWIN CITY HARDWARE 4,573.93 FRONT DOORS & FRAMING 00005120 187619 292774 1646.6530 REPAIR PARTS BUILDING MAINTENANCE 4,573.93 310415 6/12/2008 101051 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 32.40 UNIFORMS 187620 053108 1419.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE RESERVE PROGRAM 3,588.87 UNIFORMS 187620 053108 1400.6203 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE POLICE DEPT. GENERAL 3,621.27 310416 6/12/2008 101908 US FOODSERVICE INC 637.25 CUST 114300 187621 060108 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES GRILL 754.68 CUST 114300 187621 060108 5421.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES GRILL 3,465.26 CUST 114300 187621 060108 5421.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD GRILL 4,857.19 310417 6/12/2008 122554 VALLEY NATIONAL GASES LLC 60.75 OXYGEN 00003649 187622 646981 1470.6510 FIRST AID SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT. GENERAL 60.75 R55CKREG LOG20000 146.68 5320.5510 CITY OF EDINA . 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 310419 6/12/2008 CLEANING SUPPLIES Council Check Register GENERAL SUPPLIES 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.25 6/1212008 -- 6/12/2008 00006237 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description 310418 6/12/2008 101058 VAN PAPER CO. 36232 39.73 172.53 LIDS 00006347 187623 081327 -00 5421.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.68- CREDIT 187624 083368CM 5822.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 19.17- CREDIT 187625 083365CM 5862.6512 PAPER SUPPLIES 5423.6530 5423.6530 5423.6530 5423.6530 5423.6530 7411.6406 1301.6556 1647.6578 1301.6610 5913.6610 5842.5512 REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS LAMPS & FIXTURES SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Page - 36 Business Unit GRILL 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING GOLF CARS GOLF CARS GOLF CARS GOLF CARS GOLF CARS PSTF OCCUPANCY GENERAL MAINTENANCE PATHS & HARD SURFACE GENERAL MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5311.6511 146.68 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 310419 6/12/2008 CLEANING SUPPLIES 101063 VERSATILE VEHICLES INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 42.25 FUEL PUMP 00006237 187471 36141 135.05 SOLENOID, BATTERY 00006239 187626 36232 39.73 FUEL PUMP 00006246 187627 36391 200.81 CHARGER CORDS 187628 36328 206.52 SPARK PLUGS 00006182 187629 35255 624.36 310420 6/1212008 101066 VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 45.27 LIGHT POSTS 00001187 187204 2787430 60.26 WRENCHES 00001187 187204 2787430 1,407.06 MOGUL BASE 00005950 187691 2798052 1,512.59 310421 6/12/2008 101067 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 613.41 SAFETY VESTS 00001175 187269 224452 613.41 SAFETY VESTS 00001175 187269 224452 1,226.82 310422 6/12/2008 122514 VINO SOURCE, THE 456.00 187393 23441 456.00 310423 6/12/2008 120627 VISTAR CORPORATION 37.50 CLEANING SUPPLIES 187630 23274090 354.38 CONCESSION PRODUCT 187630 23274090 235.00 CONCESSION PRODUCT 187631 23279482 317.15 CLEANING SUPPLIES 187631 23279482 944.03 310424 6112/2008 101069 VOSS LIGHTING 92.12 LIGHTING 00001245 187270 15104524 -00 117.79 LIGHTING 00001245 187270 15104524 -00 209.91 310425 6/12/2008 103410 W.W. GOETSCH ASSOCIATES INC. 5423.6530 5423.6530 5423.6530 5423.6530 5423.6530 7411.6406 1301.6556 1647.6578 1301.6610 5913.6610 5842.5512 REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES TOOLS LAMPS & FIXTURES SAFETY EQUIPMENT SAFETY EQUIPMENT 6/11/2008 8:18:38 Page - 36 Business Unit GRILL 50TH ST SELLING VERNON SELLING GOLF CARS GOLF CARS GOLF CARS GOLF CARS GOLF CARS PSTF OCCUPANCY GENERAL MAINTENANCE PATHS & HARD SURFACE GENERAL MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTION COST OF GOODS SOLD LIQUOR YORK SELLING 5311.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 5320.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD 5311.6511 CLEANING SUPPLIES 1551.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES POOL OPERATION POOL CONCESSIONS POOL CONCESSIONS POOL OPERATION CITY HALL GENERAL MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS R55CKREL JG20000 CITl Council 6/12/2008 Check # Date Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No 3,144.96 PUMP REPAIR 187477 M17360 -425 983.69 PUMP REPAIR 00001284 187632 B17344 -425 MINA ;heck Register -- 6/12/2008 Account No Subledger Account Description 5311.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS 5915.6180 CONTRACTED REPAIRS TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS ART WORK SOLD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIRS MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1 08 8:18:38 Page - 37 Business Unit POOL OPERATION WATER TREATMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK ART CENTER REVENUES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 50TH STREET RUBBISH CLUB HOUSE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING 4,128.65 310426 6112/2008 102886 WAGNERS 52.17 PLANTS 187472 110650 5620.6620 34.07 PLANTS 187473 110651 5620.6620 114.31 PLANTS 187474 110652 5620.6620 200.55 310427 6/1212008 122672 WARD, CRAIG 101.40 ART WORK SOLD DAT EAC 187649 060308 5101.4413 101.40 310428 6/1212008 103466 WASTE MANAGEMENT - SAVAGE MN 4,230.17 REFUSE 187475 458493122824 4095.6103 5,373.82 REFUSE 187476 457776822829 4095.6103 9,603.99 310429 6/12/2008 119730 WEB ELECTRIC 1,765.53 WELL HOUSE ELEC REPAIRS 187478 2133 5420.6180 1,765.53 310430 6/12/2008 101075 WEIGLE, SUE 234.83 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 187271 060408 1600.6107 234.83 310431 6/12/2008 101033 WINE COMPANY, THE 2,999.00 187751 194603 -00 5842.5513 546.40 187752 194599 -00 5822.5513 3,545.40 310432 6/12/2008 101312 WINE MERCHANTS 627.84 187394 232590 5822.5513 2,316.69 187753 233528 5842.5513 461.16 187754 233527 5842.5513 291.36 187755 232930 5842.5513 530.97 187756 233526 5822.5513 8.67- 187757 38085 5842.5513 4,219.35 310433 6/12/2008 117482 WINECONNECT INC. TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS TREES, FLOWERS, SHRUBS ART WORK SOLD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTED REPAIRS MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 1 08 8:18:38 Page - 37 Business Unit POOL OPERATION WATER TREATMENT EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK EDINBOROUGH PARK ART CENTER REVENUES 50TH STREET RUBBISH 50TH STREET RUBBISH CLUB HOUSE PARK ADMIN. GENERAL YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLING YORK SELLING R55CKREG LOG20000 CITY OF EDINA 6/11/2006 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 38 6/12/2008 -- 6/12/2008 Check # Data Amount Supplier /. Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 498.42 KIOSK - JUNE 2008 187633 68 5842.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES YORK SELLING 498.42 310434 6/1212008 112954 WISCONSIN TURF EQUIPMENT CORP. 57.97 SWITCH 00005811 187205 547744 -000 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 24.94 KEYSWITCH KIT 00005816 187206 547866 -000 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 186.47 CUTTERBARS 00001236 187207 547895 -000 1553.6530 REPAIR PARTS EQUIPMENT OPERATION GEN 623.13 MOTOR SPINDLE 00006238 187479 547835 -000 5422.6530 REPAIR PARTS MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 892.51 310435 6/12/2008 102314 WOMEN IN TRANSITION 5,000.00 2008 FUNDING 187272 060208 1504.6103 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES HUMAN RELATION COMMISSION 5,000.00 310436 6/1212008 101086 WORLD CLASS WINES INC 445.80 187395 212326 5822.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE 50TH ST SELLING 280.00 187396 212154 5842.5513 COST OF GOODS SOLD WINE YORK SELLING 725.80 310437 6/12/2008 120223 WORTHINGTON, HEATHER 650.00 ICMA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 187480 060208 1120.6104 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS ADMINISTRATION 650.00 310438 6/12/2008 122640 WRISTBAND CONNECTION 926.55 WRISTBANDS FOR RESALE 00002121 187481 13228 5620.5510 COST OF GOODS SOLD EDINBOROUGH PARK 926.55 310439 6/12/2008 101726 XCEL ENERGY 987.42 51- 6979948 -4 187124 155228232 5821.6185 LIGHT & POWER 50TH ST OCCUPANCY 1,175.84 51- 6979948 -4 187124 155228232 5861.6185 LIGHT & POWER VERNON OCCUPANCY 1,437.85 51- 6979948 -4 187124 155228232 5841.6185 LIGHT & POWER YORK OCCUPANCY 165.84 51- 5938955 -6 187125 155052794 4086.6185 LIGHT & POWER AQUATIC WEEDS 262.87 51- 4156445 -0 187126 155014590 5932.6185 LIGHT & POWER GENERAL STORM SEWER 464.17 51- 6046826 -0 187127 155053700 5422.6185 LIGHT & POWER MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 265.79 51- 5634814 -2 187128 155046194 5933.6185 LIGHT & POWER PONDS & LAKES 283.54 51- 4827232 -6 187129 154845428 5311.6185 LIGHT & POWER POOL OPERATION 34.00 51- 8102668 -0 187130 154916440 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 5,036.86 51- 4966303 -6 187131 155193649 1330.6185 LIGHT & POWER TRAFFIC SIGNALS 24.53 51- 4151897 -6 187134 155330298 1646.6185 LIGHT & POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 2,179.98 51- 6621207 -1 187135 155370815 5913.6185 LIGHT & POWER DISTRIBUTION 26.33 51- 7567037 -0 187136 155384498 1321.6185 LIGHT & POWER STREET LIGHTING REGULAR 383.87 51- 6137136 -8 187137 155363279 5430.6185 LIGHT & POWER RICHARDS GOLF (-"RSE R55CKRE JG20000 CIT`, ANA 08 8:18:38 Council Check Register Page - 39 6/12/2008 6/12/2008 Check 0 Dale Amount Supplier / Explanation PO # Doc No Inv No Account No Subledger Account Description Business Unit 732.13 51- 5847121 -5 187138 155367273 5914.6185 LIGHT & POWER TANKS TOWERS 8 RESERVOIR 141.58 51- 6229265 -9 187139 155365422 1481.6185 LIGHT & POWER YORK FIRE STATION 13,918.66 51- 4888627 -1 187140 155342525 5511.6185 LIGHT 8 POWER ARENA BLDG /GROUNDS 2,974.17 51- 6121102 -5 187634 155523766 1646.6185 LIGHT 8 POWER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 30,495.43 310440 611212008 100568 XEROX CORPORATION 137.85 MAY USAGE - PARK & REC 00004322 187132 033005387 1550.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 28.66 MAY USAGE - BLDG /ENG 00004322 187133 033005386 1550.6151 EQUIPMENT RENTAL CENTRAL SERVICES GENERAL 166.51 310441 611212008 122316 ZACK'S INC. 67.30 HAND CLEANER 00006232 187482 24012 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 67.30 310442 6/12/2008 101572 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC 2,028.83 GUTTER BROOMS 00001356 187208 117546 1310.6523 BROOMS STREET CLEANING 2,028.83 310443 6/12/2008 101089 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 168.75 FIRST AID SUPPLIES 00006242 187483 54063293 5422.6406 GENERAL SUPPLIES MAINT OF COURSE & GROUNDS 166.75 1,346,842.38 Grand Total Payment Instrument Totals Check Total 1,346,842.38 Total Payments 1,346,842.38 R55CI <SUM LOG20000 Company Amount 01000 GENERAL FUND 209,104.09 02200 COMMUNICATIONS FUND 10,724.82 04000 WORKING CAPITAL FUND 322,505.85 05100 ART CENTER FUND 2,121.49 05200 GOLF DOME FUND 75.00 05300 AQUATIC CENTER FUND 31,049.22 05400 GOLF COURSE FUND 48,065.19 05500 ICE ARENA FUND 30,053.73 05600 EDINBOROUGH/CENT LAKES FUND 13,128.46 05800 LIQUOR FUND 236.876.12 05900 UTILITY FUND 439,519.33 05930 STORM SEWER FUND 1,213.13 07400 PSTF AGENCY FUND 2,405.95 Report Totals 1,346,842.38 CITY OF EDINA Councll Check Summary 611212008 - 6/12/2008 We confirm to the best of our knowledge and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing p lici and procedures 6/11/2008 8:20:45 Page - 1 -f CITY OF EDINA CITY COUNCIL CREDIT CARD PAYMENT REGISTER 4/26/08 - 5/25/08 Card Holder Merchant Account Name Trans Date Amount Purchase Discription Merchant Name Merchant City State Code JOHN KEPRIOS JOHN KEPRIOS JOHN KEPRIOS DEB MANGEN DEB MANGEN DEB MANGEN DEB MANGEN MIKE SIITARI MIKE SIITARI MIKE SIITARI MIKE SIITARI MIKE SIITARI MIKE SIITARI MIKE SIITARI MIKE SIITARI MIKE SIITARI JOHN WALLIN JOHN WALLIN JOHN WALLIN JOHN WALLIN JOHN WALLIN JOHN WALLIN JOHN WALLIN 2008/04/22 2008/04/30 2008/05/07 2008/05/13 2008/05/17 2008/05/21 2008/05/23 2008/04/25 2008/04/28 2008/05/06 2008/05/06 2008/05/06 2008/05/13 2008/05/21 2008/05/21 2008/05/21 2008/04/30 2008/05/02 2008/05/02 2008/05/06 2008/05/12 2008/05/19 2008/05/20 $150.05 $45.50 $21.32 $443.22 $16.31 $22.89 $1,152.30 $190.46 $299.00 $68.85 $153.00 $1,329.00 $87.93 $181.50 $181.50 $181.50 $91.12 $56.35 $19.60 $147.64 $56.35 $2,587.60 $136.04 $7,619.03 SIGN HOLDER DEMCO INC 608- 2411201 ADAPTIVE REC PROGRAM WOOD LAKE NATURE CENT 612-861-9365 EQUIPMENT RENTAL PITNEY BOWES RENTAL 800 - 228 -1071 22 PORTFOLIOS DBC *BLICK ART MATERIAL 800 -447 -1892 CONFERENCE HRC- ATLANTA 10011096 ATLANTA CONFERENCE CONFERENCE LUNCHEON CONFERENCE AIR TRAVEL CONFERENCE AIR TRAVEL COMPUTER SUPPLIES HOTEL HOTEL HOTEL COMPUTER SUPPLIES HEALTH CONFERENCE HEALTH CONFERENCE WORKSHOP MEAL HEALTH CONFERENCE RETIREMENT WATCHES WORKSHOP MEAL AZIO DOWNTOWN ATLANTA HYATT HOTELS ATLANTA ATLANTA CHEESECAKE EDINA SKILLPATH SEMINARS TRAVELOCITY.COM DISNEY RSRVTNS/TKTS AIRTRANAIR 332004949 BEST BUY 00000059 EDINA 913- 3623900 800 - 256 -9089 4073630029 )32S ATLANTA EDINA WI MN CT IL GA GA GA MN KS TX FL GA MN FAIRFIELD INN -GRAND FOR GRAND FORKS ND FAIRFIELD INN -GRAND FOR GRAND FORKS ND FAIRFIELD INN -GRAND FOR GRAND FORKS ND GOOGLE *N2NETS LIMITED GOOGLE.COM /1 CRAGUNS LODGE AND GOL BRAINERD MN CRAGUNS LODGE AND GOL BRAINERD MN PANERA BREAD #1307 SAINT LOUIS P MN CRAGUNS LODGE AND GOL BRAINERD MN JCPENNEY STORE 1957 EDINA MN PANERA BREAD #1307 SAINT LOUIS P MN We confirm to the best of or kmwA fte and belief, that these claims comply in all material respects with the requirements of the City of Edina purchasing polk*.* wxI procedures ,.,,,..(; 5610.6406 1629.6406 5610.6235 1180.6406 1180.6104 1180.6104 1180.6104 1400.6406 1400.6104 1400.6160 1400.6160 1400.6160 1400.6160 1400.6104 1400.6104 1400.6104 1554.6160 1490.6104 1490.6104 1100.6106 1490.6104 1513.6103 1100.6106 Oolre REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council Agenda Item VII. From: Debra Mangen Consent ❑ City Clerk Information Only Date: June 17, 2008 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Subject: Correspondence Received Since Last Council Meeting Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Info /Background: Attached are copies of a -mails and letters received since the last Council meeting. All the communication regarding the Highlands project is on the top, followed by the Morningside project and the proposed medical building on West 65th Street. ,r- June 17, 2008 Mayor James Hovland - Councilwoman Joni Bennett Councilwoman Linda Masica Councilwoman Ann Swenson Councilman Scot Housch City of Edina 4801 W 5& St Edina MN 55424 Re: Edina Highlands Project Dear City Counsel: Gayle Gaumer 5209 Lochloy Drive Edina 952- 925 -9288 SCAI- JUN i 7 2009 RECEIVED As a resident of Edina Highlands, I respectfully request that the recommendations presented by Jack Sullivan, ccs to Wayne Houle, Heather Worthington and Gordon Hughes, be tabled until they present written explanation to the City Council and the residents of Edina Highlands of the following items: 1. Why the Highlands Neighborhood Project (Improvement No. BA -0342) bids to be considered by the City Council include the cost of a sidewalk on Doncaster Way. Doncaster Way is not a street in the Edina Highlands neighborhood. The City staff (Mr. Sullivan, et al.) should present the cost of the Edina Highlands Project alone. 2. Why proposed lighting assessments include almost a 50% mark -up from the actual cost for each option (see attached - the red print is the email from Mr. Sullivan - the blue print is the math). 3. Given that the li MngWoposals include an almost 50% markup from cost of the work Option 1: 6 cobra lights actual cost $422 per REU to be assessed $600 per REU; Option 2: 12 cobra lights actual cost $755 per REU to be assessed $1,050 per REU; and Option 3: 12 acom lights actual cost $1,548 REU to be assessed $2,150 per REU, have Mr. Sullivan, et al., included a 50% mark -up from actual cost for the street work to be performed? If the City Council does consider and vote upon lighting options this evening, either Option 1 (at actual cost of $422 per REU) or Option 2 (at actual cost of $755 per REU) is acceptable to this household. Option 3 is not acceptable. Acorn lights are of decorative value but do not light the road (pavement) to provide the safety value that is the purpose of lighting the public streets. They shine out, not down. Cobra shines down. I would prefer to see the child or escaped pet on the street after dark in time to prevent a tragedy. Thank you for your time and consideration. I recognize that the City Council itself relies upon information provided by Mr. Sullivan, et al., and cannot have noticed the proposed overcharges. '�� "a a er Windows Live Hotmail Page 1 of 1 From: Sack Sullivan Dsulllvan @ci.edlna.mn.us] Sant: Thursday, 3une 12, 2008 3:19 PM To: gklus @trinityme.com Cc: Wayne Houle; Heather Worthington; Gordon Hughes Subject: Highlands Bids - Request for Purchase This pray®ct is for street and utility improvements throughout the Hghhends Neighborhood and sidewafic along Doncaster Way. The Project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, rehabilitating the wetermain and sanitary sewers, upgrading the storm sewer systems, street fighting system and the sidewalk The Doncaster sidewalk was ordered by the Edina City Council on September 4, 2007. The highlands project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the April 1 A 2008, Public Hearing. During the Highlands public hearing the City Council requested a new street light survey be seat to the residents with aftemaftm options to be bid out for the sbeetfght system (see attached lighting Survey No 3, May 2, 2008). Staff met with Bob Tengdn, a member of the street light committee, an April 29, 2008 (see attached meeting summary). A sheet Fight survey was then sent out However, an influential resident from the neighborhood sent out an email to the neighborhood telling the neighbors to reject the survey The results of the survey are attached to this report Staff bid out the streetfights using the following three options: 1. Consbuct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra heed lighting at key locations along Ayrshire Boulevard. (6 fight locations) - $30,450, - SMIREU 30,450 divided by 600 = 50.75 (51) full assessments. $30,450 divided by 72 full assessments = $422.92/REU. 2 Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at ail existing fight locations within the neighbodxxd (12 fight locations) - $54,390, - $10501REU 54,390 divided by 1050 = 51.8 (52) full assessments. $54,390 divided by 72 full assessments = $755.421REU. 3. Construct new underground wiring and new decorative poles with acorn style fights at at/ existing light locations mthin the neighborhood. (12 fight lacabons) - $111,510, - S215aREU 111,510 divided by 2150 = 51.87 (52) full assessments. $111,510 divided by 72 full assessments = $1,548.75/REU. Certain residents within the neighborhood have not accepted that city policy holds residents financial responsible for funding of nftsbucture impnovernents for streetlights as with roadways. These same residents would like the repairs to the street fight system piecenteslee together. Staff does not feel that piecerneafing° a project is good public policy. Staff recommends that sheet fighting Option Three be awarded. The estimated total project assessment per residential equivalent unit is $12,600, which includ as the street lights. This project MY be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feembibty Study project estimate is $1,443,661.50 Staff recommends awarang the project to Northwest Asphalt Inc. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina http: //by 104w.hay 104.maf . live .con/maillReadMessageLight. aspx ?Aux-- 4 %7cO %7cgCA9... 6/17/2005 Jim and Liz Denn °� sE�� cs 5209 Duncraig Road JUN 17 2009 / Edina, MN 554.36 (R SEAL BY 952 -926 -9491 June 16th,2008 Mr. James Hovland, Mayor City of Edina 4801 West 50t" Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mayor Hovland and City Council Members, We would again like to formally express our support for the city staff's recommendation concerning the upcoming Highlands project. Although we were disappointed to see that the sidewalk portion of the project will not come to fruition, we nre still hopeful that the remaining pieces of the proposal will be implemented. We are in support of option three when it comes to our lighting choices. In our opinion, option three would replace the poles and fixtures throughout the neighborhood with a newer, updated style that is more appealing than the cobra fixtures and is most cost effective in the long run. We would also like to encourage the city, when making this decision, to revisit the outcome of our previous survey as well as the neighborhood petition. With respect to the petition, we question whether the way the petition was presented to the council accurately reflects the views of some of the neighbors who signed it. When approached about signing the petition, we were encouraged to sign if we agreed with any aspect of the petition and then were instructed to make a note off to the side to address those facets of the project that we did not agree with. We were concerned that it would be difficult to effectively present the neighbor's various perspectives in this way so we chose not to sign the petition. At the city council meeting when the petition was presented, we heard no mention of those families that had signed, but had noted an exception off to the side. Instead, homes were colored either blue or yellow on the neighborhood map simply depending on whether the petition was signed or not. Our concern is that this may have unintentionally resulted in an inaccurate representation. We hope that the voices of those who signed the petition, although they supported pieces of the project such as the sidewalks on Ayreshire or option 3 for the lighting, were heard. We echo the idea many other neighbors have mentioned in their letters to the council. Highlands neighborhood is a great spot to be and past residents have worked diligently to ensure this. We appreciate the effort the city has made to work together with the neighborhood to do what is best for the community as a whole.. Sincerely, Jim and Liz Denn Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel - efficient used cars. -� \rCETY June 16, 2008 SEAL JUN 1.6 ?Ong Mayor James Hovland FiECr -_IVE 7 City of Edina y® 4801 West 50t"' Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: Highlands Neighborhood Road Reconstruction, Improvement BA -342. Please find attached survey 3, survey 3 results, and an email from Mr. Sullivan for your reference. Dear Mr. Mayor: I am writing concerning the Highlands neighborhood street construction project. The lighting part will be presented to you at the 6/17 City Council meeting for a final approval. I have been very disappointed in the communication from city staff to our neighborhood. There seems to be a lack of communication, misrepresentation of facts, misinterpretation of data, and a disregard for Council advice from the Engineering department. The neighborhood met with the City Council on 4/15 and came away very happy with the results. We had presented a petition signed by over 80 % of the households and at the meeting it was clear that you understood our position that costs be kept down and that we favored a "like for like as needed" replacement of our lights. You mentioned frequently in the meeting that it was very obvious that cost should be a major consideration and the Council also asked city staff to work with Bob Tengdin, a neighborhood resident, to develop a P lighting survey and to provide more information on the lighting options, including locations where the different light styles could be checked out in operation. City staff ignored all of this. When survey #3, came out it did not include the "like for like as needed" option that Bob Tengdin requested on our behalf. It did not give locations where residents could check out the styles or give more information on the different style's height, rating for light pollution, the capability to be refit for future technologies(LED), length of life, etc. Nor did we receive a cost breakdown. (We are told that a large portion of the cost is for the expensive wire. Are we receiving a large recycling credit for the old wire ?) Furthermore, it was extremely weighted toward the decorative light option. It was very obvious the Engineering department wanted decorative lighting due to their marketing comments such as "that the city has a lead... that would save..." If it is the most expensive option then what is being saved? Leading comments like that do not belong in an honest survey. Despite the obviously weighted nature of the survey towards decorative lights (note the photo of the cobra head light shows above ground wiring which is definitely not found or favored in the neighborhood), the results speak volumes. Of the 42 respondents to the survey 17 outright rejected the survey for not listening to Bob Tengdin, 11 chose cobra options 1 or 2 as their top option, 13 chose decorative options 3 or 4 as their top option, and 1 rejected it and wrote in "LED Lights." Because Bob's recommendation was for cobra heads, it is safe to say that 67% favored cobra heads vs 31 % for decorative. It is also interesting that only 9(21 %) had the acorn lights as a first or second choice. SO WHY IS CITY STAFF PUSHING FOR ACORN LIGHTS WHICH ARE THE LEAST DESIRED AND MOST EXPENSIVE ? ?? We may have good engineers, but when they try to be marketers, decorative designers, and statisticians they fail miserably. In a recent email, after taking a cheap shot at neighborhood residents, Mr. Sullivan states that the city is recommending choosing acorn lights, the neighborhood's least favored option. The petition, 4/15 Council meeting resident comments, and even survey 3's results (if viewed properly) all show that the neighborhood wants the lights replaced in a "like for like as needed" (or close to) manner. Please direct city staff to enact an option as close as possible to our wishes. If Bob Tengdin's recommendation (a middle ground between options 1 &2)can't be done then I feel the next best option woud be to "Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) — $54,390, -- $10501REU.° Option 1 does not provide sufficient replacement of poor wiring and option 3 is much more expensive and offers the wrong look. Sincerely, Carl Schreiner 5264 Lochloy Drive p.s. The Doncaster sidewalk project is being bid with ours. Please make sure that the Doncaster sidewalk portion of the bid is fully removed from our neighborhood assessment. p.p.s. 2 of the 12 lights (Ayrshire and Glenbrae locations) are not on the right of way in front of resident property, but are on city property. Please remove their replacement expense from our neighborhood assessment. p.p.p.s. The email from Mr. Sullivan showed a total cost and per REU cost for each light option. Simple math works this out to only 51 -52 houses. The neighborhood is over 70 houses. This is not the first time that city numbers don't add up. I am really concerned over the fuzzy math being used on us. Ki Joni Bennett Gordon Hughes Scot Housh Wayne Houle Linda Masica Jack Sullivan Ann Swenson ANA �1 �. O May 2, 2008 4x�rav'•: n�:n Highlands Neighborhood Residents RE: Estimated Lighting Costs and Lighting Survey No. 3 Dear Resident, As discussed at the April 15, 2008 Public Improvement Hearing, the City will be updating the lighting in your neighborhood. The current system has surpassed its' useful life and is beyond salvageable. We have received a large amount of input from residents regarding the type and locations of lighting that would best be suited for the neighborhood. A few options that were presented in the feasibility report for council ranged from $500 to $3000 per REU. It is our understanding from the information provided by residents that all wiring should be underground and proposed lights should be placed in the same locations as today. City Council directed staff to resurvey the residents to help in determining a lighting layout that is cost effective and meets the aesthetic and light levels residents desire in the area. The following are three lighting options for the neighborhood (see attached map for location of lights): ■ Option No. 1 - Lighting only at key intersection along Ayrshire Boulevard. This will include installing new underground conduit wiring with new cobra head lights and wooden poles. ■ Option No. 2 - Install new underground conduit wiring with new cobra head lights and wooden poles at existing locations. ■ Option No. 3 — Install refurbished decorative traditional lantern lights with new underground conduit wiring at existing locations. ■ Option No. 4 — Install new decorative acorn lights with new underground conduit wiring at existing locations. All three lighting options would move the two light poles from the north side of Ayrshire to the south side of the roadway inside the islands at Lochloy Drive and Ayrshire Boulevard. City Staff has a lead on refurbished traditional lantern lights that would save approximately $1,000 per REU. It is anticipated that these lights would last 40 years. Using refurbished lights is unique to this project and is not typically done within Edina. All the lighting options have been reduced in price somewhat by changing the method of installing the underground conduit. The estimated assessment cost per Residential Equivalent Unit (REU) per option is: Option No. 1 - $1,100 per REU Option No. 2 - $1,900 per REU Option No. 3 - $2,000 per REU Option No. 4 - $2,300 per REU (estimated at $3,000 in previous survey) 5/2/2008 Wooden Pole with Refurbished Decorative Decorative Acorn Light Cobra Head, Light, Traditional Lantern — Option 4 Option 1 and 2 Option 3 . (Similar to current pole design) Please. tell us which, option you prefer by completing the enclosed survey. The surveys' must be returned by Friday, May 9, 2008. A self addressed stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Regards, Jack Sullivan 952 - 826 -0445 iullivan ci.edina -. mn.us 2of3 G:\Engineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DESIGN\FEASIB=IY\2008050I Lighting Costs and Survey 43.doc . 3 / 5701 ,05. 541 I� 55[ 5504, 5/2/2008 5201 # 5249 5253 5245. ._ 5257 _ 5201 ■ 5207 15241 `'• 'i 5237 5200 I E .._ .....? 5252 5261 5203 5209 1 52 1. 5256 ! RovDFJJtN 5240 -- 5205 ; F --- ; 1 5265 - - - -_.-- -- I 5213 5236 5260 :_--- --- - -- ;' ' _ _ 5233''. —� ?— -- _ 5209 I 5232 ------------ 5264 j5269f - - - - - -- 5217. • - _ _ - .5229 5268 -- 152121 ;^ - ± ? 5213 o 5228 _ ,`'- - - -_ _ '5221 5272 5225 5224 ?` -_ ? o 5273 115216 5217 s..... 0 -- - ^5220 5225 52D0 5276 _ �. 5277 r 5221 5260 5221 5229 -' _ 5281 11 5224 1 'c ;r 5225 � �`. :52171 ``r 5228 •, — — — i 5301! _ _ ------- 1 5232', i, ---- 5305 ''•, 5229 _ i ti 56D5 �. 5215. 5201 1 �- _ _' 1 5205 ,i �o • 5209 • ;+ 5300 ? 5301 •`� 5309 5405 •__._ �1 PROJECT LIMITS ' ..._ -_ 15304 5313 1 . -., ��y% e Option #1 Lighting '.�`' ',• w� Key Intersection , 11 r� 5300 5308 $1,100 REU aN 5317 Option #2 : -- - 1'1 p New Wooden Poles : 5312 m `., 5321 '_ 5304 with Cobra Heads $1,900 REU __ • r� ■ Lights Relocated to o Island Side of Ayshire Blvd 5316 _ r• 5325 NOTE: Option #3 and #4 Light Locations are the same as option #2 � 5320 `' •� 5210 52g� 5405 5504 Highland '� �. ,iP�� \5328 School ;� `��� o�� • 5501 5508 5509 5508 5509 �` Highlands Neighborhood J � Lighting System Options ' "+ Improvement No:' BA342 Eng� �o•w May.'.DDD 3 of 3 G:\Engineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELIM DES IGN\FEASIBILITIY\20080501 Lighting Costs and Survey #3.doc 5/2/2008 .:ti. o Liahtina Survey #3 '"�cttiitix:r,:o inHn Please rank all four Lighting Options in order from 1 to 4 on the lines provided below (1 being most desirable). Rank Uahtina Option #1 $1,100 /REU Option #2 $1,900 /REU Option #3 $2,000 /REU Option #4 $2,300 /REU Rank Lighting Most Desirable to Less Desirable 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 G:\Engineering \Contract Numbers\2008\ENG 08 -8 Highlands Neighborhood\BA342 Highlands Area\PRELINI DESIGNTEASIBILITM20080501 Lighting Costs and Survey #3.doc 1 of 1 CITY PROJECT 134-362 HIGHLANDS NEIGHSHORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT LIGHTING SURVEY NO.3 May 2.2D08 Nag: Lowem ran" smie Indicales the ymefrsd open . o.' ewne.e0wao 054 wwi Nebteonim0 t Dambr& -osr HpnermY WREIar DESK tI awwr 0 R - 6H32008346 PM Rank Lighting Options Most Desbmble to Less Desirable ADDRESS COMMENTS Option 7 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Returned Survey 31,1DWREU 91,90NREU L2ADOIREU =30D/REU 3 2 1 l4e m1 sea +or _ 6308 ANehbe 1 3 2 1 4 5100 Gewfiica_ . . 6225 Lochbv Or 1 1 2 4 3 _ ReOd floptcDILPA eacarm sea saebr the 32ardrlfta lyflh akcMeff!alie et.rampme6rmduaTfroldrnaBOaa. Sm G1ienhrm a i .wita4oam boar - thometrdd sit opwm. None of these D121bre ere e=Bpmft. Please Reps Of t 1s= to what ettiprtal ttc are ed BoD T m 5228 .. tp i111d17�IdLeibild aertltraar r �... ctirofswprwdw .v+i.w.�a�kaamd�oyeyar.wmop Moropv 7 4 3 2 t 627] Lodiby Or 1 1 4 4 4 Fcr/felaLemaa,nra4anlurr i0o006t>Iftftfbtld.76rmddap 5306 Avrehm 1 4 3 1 2 Atorrkle Please cruder InstafinB GBMa Ina can use mole anwgy.efnmm nethoWbpy. won es LED. Pee® MPIBm fah" m the ®re time 5281 Lachby, Dt 1 4 4 3 t the Ad= "done. Pleats W fn" wndB POW done belae wider. 4arltlemlhR3'fu0ra14apabil��+� ® ttea�largP. ADeth' 4ad14ehrnolmeenestlkh4airayiafa. uieaasmronkm slouea.dort q�e.satw>q�+t Et Or- a 4.' 2 4 4 Otaaabmarfdal"ace. 6301 Avrtnee 1 3 2 1 4 - p ! 4 7 2 3 - pa am op m. wan �the Coy Enpnoom heard vAW the mmme mewl oonan haw teen 1 wodenp on the LED. Searm Nei a huge nuh by the CRY Enpaeer em rat albwed then ofnm to tear whm 0110 me wort tB Dn N 52281D.ncmio 1 Edina. - Rq�d all opeau. 21t1e •uvay a6peia f obe sun the City - Enprrfa�7) epltepeaaalb '.lact'St�vitG>•1RerabUratp44 horn au6nhmd7l�dhV mneNW9LMmny6sd�arOlip eli. ., _ Ihiiambacaparrhe anaL Abo.eaMW!ttAlte!a . m to Lea u68 Lcenbv Dr 1 Reled all options. Letter mtemed. iFm - _ .f- 41 2 1 3 - R sec a8 optiom. Peel the my, mud mmvme and rewire W 12 - atig'slp.fBh" with no I Im to the 12019 W motes. This WOUId snt lhirtpt up for future dwV . pmslhly. LED f91dn; or a Incra S2131DOnmmrWev emmv etnmm . Thw* vat, for hearing art Input Rood sl opim. Wan mWeed tlmjmO&HMakvMarlOhlkhD 66nms. Si madrd "W 3 bwsawmmwddlaYO tbdrrt are 5312 A hIm 1 1 2 3 4 5321 A A 4 4 1 3. Need to tb fpmewed by Ne It7 WV mmmmw tebre butp sad u24 Lochby Dr 1 out. _ .. . -•. Norio of fiabo've. W45 _ _ _ f Re .atl Repo of opens. Only mvdm 121pms. Provide re6Ymrtp mbma 5281 Lochby Dr 1 cmdlt on all copper removed when rcwhing. Consider LED Iii:MIrm. miliAlaW - 1 4 3 2 1 M! s4 LocttDvor _ Loaftypr 1 + 2 , + 4 Ay.aeaaor®maeas . mn . mavnamandeaae' 6rtcoa. 5228 Duncrein 1 4 4 .4 - A - 5205 Duncrat - l» - Act agabud4®vm eciftpraa sm6awLa kel2dar aca110914&ft rAW d+siseaIn Cr - 'edam0YM9Y{tufor IIAUaAaaadforSWttibiima 6,gtper 4eo4�ro aaOL'yytd tb t11r yoeemy d l� 7b1e heatp ueedhade pf ied? Utoebmf lea anbsd apltonataiia>aNy. ;. � ! are auiM yrtasn MfI. R*d as epaae. A. ar0De w t y a racca lwav mothers and 4tewYa; 4apytlb+p ��� �9� ale 5272LOrh Or 1 eor4ddAlaWmmmefee. - gLIED: 5136 lk 1 ... d ..:4owWSbnWe: _ _.._ _ 5325 A nlre 7 3 f A 2. S27 are a 7 2 1 meaharrAq' and titd7>bdeOManonLvou mud Pi theft lardsaware ao¢ati. Youc!w>taitio, 5711 Dun 1 2 1 3 4 �. 5378 1 1 2 u4a Lwhby or 1 4 3 + 2 7 4 4 4 4 Ple tae tD our nbood f �tm re. the best bn. ase 521i. - Lr 7 f IDOLbn ! tmg6ratl Ro a0 bre. 5201 Dr 1 Todl Surveyed 74 1 41 fd 57 !A 65 5% Nag: Lowem ran" smie Indicales the ymefrsd open . o.' ewne.e0wao 054 wwi Nebteonim0 t Dambr& -osr HpnermY WREIar DESK tI awwr 0 R - 6H32008346 PM From: Jack Sullivan Usullivan @ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:19 PM To: gklus @trinityms.com Cc: Wayne Houle; Heather Worthington; Gordon Hughes Subject: Highlands Bids - Request for Purchase This project is for street and utility improvements throughout the Highlands Neighborhood and sidewalk along Doncaster Way. The project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, rehabilitating the watermain and sanitary sewers, upgrading the storm sewer systems, street lighting system and the sidewalk. The Doncaster sidewalk was ordered by the Edina City Council on September 4, 2007. The Highlands project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the April 15, 2008, Public Hearing. During the Highlands public hearing the City Council requested a new street light survey be sent to the residents with alternative options to be bid out for the streetlight system (see attached Lighting Survey No. 3, May 2, 2008). Staff met with Bob Tengdin, a member of the street light committee, on April 29, 2008 (see attached meeting summary). A street light survey was then sent out. However, an influential resident from the neighborhood sent out an email to the neighborhood telling the neighbors to reject the survey. The results of the survey are attached to this report. Staff bid out the streetlights using the following three options:. 1. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at key locations along Ayrshire Boulevard. (6 light locations) - $30,450, - $6001REU 2. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $54,390, - $1050 1REU 3. Construct new underground wiring and new decorative poles with acom style lights at all existing light. locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $111,510, -$2150 1REU Certain residents within the neighborhood have not accepted that city policy holds residents financial responsible for funding of infrastructure improvements for streetlights as with roadways. These same residents would like the repairs to the street light system "piecemealed" together. Staff does not feel that °piecemealing° a project is good public policy. Staff recommends that street lighting Option Three be awarded. The estimated total project assessment per residential equivalent unit is $12,600, which includes the street lights. This project will be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study project estimate is $1,443,661.50. Staff recommends awarding the project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Jack D: Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us Page 1 of 1 Susan Heiberg From: Lynette Biunno Ft; J`i"'r D Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:25 AM 5'Y --- Cc: Susan Heiberg Subject: FW: Edina Highlands Road Construction From: J Holbrook [mailto:jholbrook @usfamily.net] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 9:50 PM To: Lynette Biunno; Wayne Houle; Jack Sullivan Subject: Edina Highlands Road Construction We are concerned and disappointed to hear that the Engineering Department is proposing to the City Council that Lighting Option #3 be implemented as part of the Edina Highlands Road construction plan even though a large majority of the residents favor option #1. We would like Qption #1 implemented. If this is not possible then Option #2 is our choice. If the City Council strongly believes that Option #3 needs to be done, then a town hall meeting with the residents should be held before it is implemented. Jim and Joyce Holbrook. 5268 Lochloy Dr - -- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! - -- 6/17/2008 Susan Heibe From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:14 AM Cc: Susan Heiberg . Subject: FW: - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Robert Tengdin [ mailto :rctengdin@allisonwilliams.com) Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 3:38 PM To: jhovland@krauserollins.com Cc: edinamail@ci.edina.mn.us. Subject: Jim, SUN 11 7 %M Thanks for taking time out to visit with me over the phone and for your e-mail followup. I totally agree with youl This should not descend to a battle between staff and neighbors. May I assure you that most of us have every confidence in you and the Council. Unfortunately the feeling that "trust us, we know what's best for you" is the attitude that some staff people (not Jack) have seemed to project on the lighting matter. This has gotten under the skin of numerous people in the Highlands neighborhood. This attitude is on display by staff's overt promotion of Acorn lighting in the survey request and their recommendation of same (most expensive Option #3) over the wishes of a vast majority of the neighborhood. In addition, their math was bad (Option #2 -- 12 lights, $54,390 divided by 72 REU = $755.42, NOT $1,050). The same math error was also true for options #1 and #3 as well. That understandably does not give us a warm fuzzy feeling. After fielding numerous phone calls over the weekend (as chair of the lighting committee) and looking at a desk full of a -mails today, my feeling is that the overwhelming majority of Highland prefers Option #1 but can accept Option #2. Only about a half dozen, who did not sign the original petition (wherein we requested "like for like "), want a "quaint neighborhood" look with Acorn lights. We trust that you will approve action that incorporates our fervent desire! My thanks again to you and the Council for your diligent efforts on behalf of our community. It has been in the past, is now, and will continue top be, the best place to call home in the Twin Cities! Sincerely, Bob Tengdin Cc: Council Members: Joni Bennett Scot Housh Linda Masica Ann Swenson To All, My only words. The city responds to what they feel is benificial to their needs. Questions are answered to favor their desires. It is very simple. They are politicians that never were elected. As for the lights. I am not taking a side i could care less. BUT, the lights are very different from the streets. WE NEED NEW STREETS AND WE ALL NEED TO PAY FOR THEM. The lights are a luxury. This is an item that "WE AS A FAMILY CAN CONTROL ". I repect those who want acorns and respect those who want nothing. Remember, all of us pay the price. Not me, not you, but ALL OF US. WITH THAT SAID, WE ALL NEED TO, NOT ONLY RESPECT, BUT HONOR THOSE WHO DONT WANT /DESIRE /OR CARE TO SPEND ON A LUXURY ITEM. IF YOU WANT FANCY LIGHTS, CUT A CHECK AND PAY FOR THEM. WE ALL WILL HONOR AND PRAISE YOU. DONT FORCE YOUR DESIRES, WHICH YOU WILL PAY PENNY'S FOR, INTO OTHERS POCKET BOOKS. I am not taking a side, just want to let every one know the facts of their opinions and how they effect other people. Not everyone Is living- breathing - injoying the EDINA AMERICAN DREAM. Lets not force our wants, into the pocket books(or whats left of them), of others. REMEMBER, ITS FOR THE CHILDREN. IT ALWAYS IS. With lots of love, DA and only DA Enjoy 5 GB of free, password - protected online storage. Get Windows Live SkyDrive. ��GETY C�1 ®� SEA" W+ From: Daniel Azar [mailto:danazar @hotmail . com] By Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 10:43 PM,,� To: gklus @trinityms.com Cc: danazar @hotmail.com Subject: please forward To All, My only words. The city responds to what they feel is benificial to their needs. Questions are answered to favor their desires. It is very simple. They are politicians that never were elected. As for the lights. I am not taking a side i could care less. BUT, the lights are very different from the streets. WE NEED NEW STREETS AND WE ALL NEED TO PAY FOR THEM. The lights are a luxury. This is an item that "WE AS A FAMILY CAN CONTROL ". I repect those who want acorns and respect those who want nothing. Remember, all of us pay the price. Not me, not you, but ALL OF US. WITH THAT SAID, WE ALL NEED TO, NOT ONLY RESPECT, BUT HONOR THOSE WHO DONT WANT /DESIRE /OR CARE TO SPEND ON A LUXURY ITEM. IF YOU WANT FANCY LIGHTS, CUT A CHECK AND PAY FOR THEM. WE ALL WILL HONOR AND PRAISE YOU. DONT FORCE YOUR DESIRES, WHICH YOU WILL PAY PENNY'S FOR, INTO OTHERS POCKET BOOKS. I am not taking a side, just want to let every one know the facts of their opinions and how they effect other people. Not everyone Is living- breathing - injoying the EDINA AMERICAN DREAM. Lets not force our wants, into the pocket books(or whats left of them), of others. REMEMBER, ITS FOR THE CHILDREN. IT ALWAYS IS. With lots of love, DA and only DA Enjoy 5 GB of free, password - protected online storage. Get Windows Live SkyDrive. PLEASE FORWARD TO THE EDINA COUNCIL MEMBERS PRIOR TO /OR AT THE TUESDAY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JUNE 17, 2008, THANK YOU. Lisa Diehl Foreman From: ldiehlforemanl2@hotmail.com To: jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us Subject: Edina Highlands Street Reconstruction Project Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:15:42 -0500 ' SEAL JUN 1 7 70119 RECEIVED Jack, a lot of feathers have been ruffled around my neighborhood the last couple of days regarding the Edina Highlands neighborhood street improvement project. Per the discussion you and I had on Friday, I would like to make a formal request to job cost out and slightly modify the lighting for our neighborhood, which may provide a compromise for the city and the neighborhood and still meet your time deadlines, along with additional cost savings for the neighbors. The intersections at Duncraig /Ayrshire and Ayrshire /Lochloy(2) are very dark right now. "Street lights" are proposed at these intersections. Although the "street lights" would cast a 360 degree directional lighting, the lighting would still cast insufficient lighting into the streets. My husband and I on one of these intersections and have watched several close calls with pedestrians and vehicles. Through the neighborhood correspondence I've seen, it appears the cost for the lighting still remains the hot button with the owner, not cost of the street repair project. Minor details with the accounting of the 2 street lights and the sidewalk on Doncaster will get resolved. I believe there is a compromise that can be reached with the City Staff /Council and neighbors, as well as staying on the time schedule. I would appreciate you and your department evaluating the replacement of the wooden light poles to metal (in keeping with city standard), keeping the cobras /replacing as needed) at the intersections, and the remainder of the lighting is switched to "street lights ". There will be a price savings. I'm happy to make compromises and my neighbors should as well. I'm proud to live in this community and appreciate what you and your staff, along with the Council Member, do and the hours all of you have spent on this project. Thank you for your time and consideration. Lisa Diehl Foreman 5301 Ayrshire Boulevard Edina, MN 55436 Instantly invite friends from Facebook and other social networks to join you on Windows Live T11 Messenger. Invite friends now! SE_A JUN t 7 7ml Subject: Re: Edina Highlands Road Construction Project VECy—" EIVED - T o all: First of all, thank you George and to all others who have worked with or contacted the Council concerning our road project - those efforts have truly been appreciated. My wife and I have not been ones to be particularly public or vocal in these type of matters. But that belies some strong sentiments and, after living here for 27 years and seeing lots of issues come and go, I just have to speak my mind on this matter. Tonight I basically left the following message for the Mayor and each Council member: 1. At no time have we ever not been in favor of necessary improvements and I take great exception to the implications of such comments as "an influential resident from the neighborhood ", "Certain residents within the neighborhood" and the phrase "piecemealed" that I see in Mr. Sullivan's e-mail to George below. I feel the neighborhood has only acted in good faith and in an appropriate, respectful manner. Those comments do not reflect the same. 2. I respectfully requested that the Council consider unresolved issues in George's e-mail, i.e. a. Lack of clear, concise and timely information about the dollars involved with lighting. b. The question of over assessment. c. The final # of lights we are being assessed for. d. The Doncaster sidewalk issue - in our assessment or not? What is so hard about answering straightforward questions? Conflict with original plans, budgets or vendors? 3. To me now, dealing with the Engineering Department has turned out to be: a. Often confusing and misleading - to a point of sensing a "bait and switch" mentality. b. Very condescending, going back to the first project meeting I attended. c. Short sighted in terms, of alternative energy solutions that appear reasonable to consider, d. At times very unprofessional in terms of communications to we public. f. In short, very insulting to me as a long term resident of the neighborhood. 4. My hope is that as the final stages of the approval process come to a close, and the recommendations of "staff" take precedent over the desire of the majority of the neighborhood, that the Council seriously reflect back on the manner in which they allowed the Engineering Department to function and supposedly work closely with those who volunteered on our Lighting Committee. 5. Finally, while I sincerely do appreciate those compromises that the Council has considered in our behalf, I now have more than a little trepidation that they will all be followed through as anticipated. As I write this last comment I am looking again at a subsequent lighting survey that our Lighting Committee expected the opportunity to review first (and the picture of the cobra light with overhead wires attached), the "there is nothing you can do" (except file a petition against our plan) comment I heard from Mr. Houle at the first project meeting I attended and the nature of Mr. Sullivan's comments in the e-mail attached below. We do love our neighborhood and are quite aware of what impacts long term property values. We do respect the opinions of others and their property. But this time we do not feel that all of the good faith efforts and desires of the majority of the neighborhood have been appreciated and heard. Ed Kennedy 5272 Lochloy Drive kswish68LOaol.com In a message dated 6/15/2008 9:48:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, gklus@trinityms.com writes: I am writing this letter of concern regarding the Edina Highlands Neighborhood road construction project. This whole process has been a very difficult one in working with the City. The Highland Neighborhood has been very good in working on the process to see that the road construction project is done this summer as fiscally responsible as possible. The council was responsive to our neighborhood petition and we feel some good compromises were reached at the council meeting. I am concerned that when the council instructed the Engineering Department to work with our neighborhood on lighting, that the situation was handled very poorly. I have never had a more difficult time getting a department to answer questions and work with the neighbors. Please see the attached e- mail I received from Mr. Sullivan. It is full of inaccurate statements. The tone of the e- mail statements made referring to residents in this neighborhood are reflections of Mr. Sullivan, and I believe Mr. Houle as well. This tells me that they are not listening to and respecting the suggestions of the residents they are serving. Their judgments and interpretations on situations are incorrect. Many of us in the Highland Neighborhood question the motives and way the Engineering Department has worked with us. It is as though they never listened to any of our suggestions and never gave 'us the full respect we deserve and desire. The feeling we had from the Mr. Houle was that this is what I am going to do and if you do not like it, take it to the City Council. It is my hope when this process is over that the City and the Engineering Department will take a look at how they work with the residents of Edina and make changes that will help make the assessment process better in the future. I know that other residents and I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk about what went right and wrong with these discussions and supposed negotiations. As I write to you tonight, the only people in the last few days , who have expressed an interest in the decorative lighting are those residents who are the ones that did not sign our neighborhood petition. That still leaves approximately 68 households that disapprove decorative lights from the original neighborhood petition. Because of this lack of communication there are still many unresolved issues which I would like the council to discuss before their vote on Tuesday night. It is my understanding from Mayor Hovland that no one from the neighborhood will be allowed to speak on the lighting issue before your awarding of the contract. I would like to ask the council to approve the road reconstruction, but to defer the lighting decision until each resident in the neighborhood can be accurately informed on the lights and make the right decision. Here are what I believe to still be the issues: 1. At no time has there been accurate and /or complete information given on the lights. The first survey distributed to the residents made residents believe that the upcharge decorative lighting was only $200.00, when now we find out it is $1100 per household. Also, the information given on lighting has not been good. Cobra lights direct light down into the street. The acorn light is a 360 degree light. It lights up both the street and the resident yard. I believe residents are not aware . of how the lights work or the cost thereof. The City did not do a good job in either providing accurate pictures of the lighting options or their costs. 2. I have a problem with the amount of the assessment on lights per household. In talking with Mr. Sullivan, we agreed we could divide the cost by 72 households. If I take that number and divide it by the lighting cost given in the memo listed below, the neighborhood is being over assessed no matter which option is taken. This over assessment is anywhere from $200 -600 per household. The neighborhood needs accurate information to make decisions. 3. In Jack's memo to me dated 6/12, it states the Doncaster sidewalk cost was approved in the construction bid. I think that is fine, but nowhere in his memo does he state what that amount is and if it was taken out of our assessment. Please provide information and clarification regarding this issue. 4. In talks I have had with Mayor Hovland, he has agreed with me that two of the 12 lights included in our project should be City responsibility. In asking this question to the Engineering Department, they have never answered this concern and continue to keep the lights in our assessment. Please remove the two lights located on city property. One light is on Glenbrae Circle and other is at the exit to the neighborhood on Ayrshire Blvd. Again I encourage the Council to approve the road construction part of the project and defer the lighting issue until the neighborhood can adequately be'surveyed. This is the first time the neighborhood has seen accurate costs of lights. I cannot believe if this is done properly, that it could not be done in two weeks which would not slow down the project. Mayor Hovland stated to me last Friday that it would be important for the Council to hear from the neighbors before Tuesday night's meeting. In other words, he would like to see the neighbors give the council another vote on the lights without the residents getting all the correct information. This cannot be done before the council meeting. Right now some of us in the neighborhood are tired of fighting the City and trying to make sure their voices are heard. Please remember as you discuss the lighting issue that our petition had a majority of the residents who only wanted to replace lights that needed replacement and leave the others alone. In the petition, we also told the council we wanted the same lights. The staff has rejected all of our lighting suggestions. I do not know-how the City Council can move forward on lighting knowing the staff has not worked well with its residents. Several of the neighborhood residents will be at the Council meeting Tuesday to hear your discussion and hope you will allow them to speak regarding the lighting issue. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. George W. Klus 5233 Lochloy Drive Edina, MN 55436 952 - 922 -6925 (0) From: Jack Sullivan [jsullivan @ci.edina.rnn.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:19 PM To: gklus@trinityms.com Cc: Wayne Houle; Heather Worthington; Gordon Hughes Subject: Highlands Bids - Request for Purchase This project is for street and utility improvements throughout the Highlands Neighborhood and sidewalk along Doncaster Way. The project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, rehabilitating the watermain and sanitary sewers, upgrading the storm sewer systems, street lighting system and the sidewalk. The Doncaster sidewalk was ordered by the Edina City Council on September 4, 2007. The Highlands project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the April 15, 2008, Public Hearing. During the Highlands public hearing the City Council requested a new street light survey be sent to the residents with alternative options to be bid out for the streetlight system (see attached Lighting Survey No. 3, May 2, 2008). Staff met with Bob Tengdin, a member of the street light committee, on April 29, 2008 (see attached meeting summary). A street light survey was then sent out. However, an influential resident from the neighborhood sent out an email to the neighborhood telling the neighbors to reject the survey. The results of the survey are attached to this report. Staff bid out the streetlights using the following three options: 1. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at key locations along Ayrshire Boulevard. (6 light locations) - $30,450, —$600 /REU 2. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $54,390, $1050 /REU 3. Construct new underground wiring and new decorative poles with acorn style lights at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $111,510, $2150 /REV Certain residents within the neighborhood have not accepted that city policy holds residents financial responsible for funding of infrastructure improvements for streetlights as with roadways. These same residents would like the repairs to the street light system "piecemealed" together. Staff does not feel that "piecemealing" a project is good public policy. Staff recommends that street lighting Option Three be awarded. The estimated total project assessment per residential equivalent unit is $12,600, which includes the street lights. This project will be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study project estimate is $1,443,661.50. Staff recommends awarding the project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us <http-.//kswish68@aol.com/> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel- efficient used cars <http ://autos. aol.com/ used ?ncid= aolaut00050000000007> . G!T Y CC JUN 1b ?MQ RECEIVED e BY� .- I 0 J ,g � 4t,i ��Fl �vlark 04 �I 7� stn In�t, I,0i�' G4S � Cj�'b.�- rm�4. sww il� c�Y � �„c�,�s s�BAwn➢k me� �' � 6v.� a�c�m�,�• C)�c m whid s;hb�l�cmd. C,& Cfi6i�ewpv� aans, t� fn Q) T�� ' 7023 Noruhland Drive •Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 • (763) 336 -8300 • FAX (763) 333 -660; vnA-xv.northlan dinn. com BENCH- 'NLkRK q)' HOSPITALM" I N T E R N A T I O N A L bi - ; h �36 5��1__ E JUN 1 6 ,I109 Dear Mayor Hovland, Council Members and City Administrators, Rv �EI�fED Over the past several months you have seen our neighborhood engage in public dialogue and wrestle with ari"5'ssue in a way that should be embraced by the entire city. Not all residents agree on the direction of the Edina Highlands project, either in part or in whole. However, (hopefully) all have felt free to express their opinions in an open forum. It is this type of dialogue that will move Edina forward. My wife and I, for instance, did not sign the neighborhood petition, in large part due to the exclusion of the sidewalk. The lighting situation is similar, in that updated lighting could provide a small enhancement to the aesthetics of the neighborhood, thus creating the potential for increased return on our collective property values. Unfortunately, the acorn lights may not be most appropriate for our neighborhood. Aesthetically, they're very nice to look at. However, I was made aware last week that the city of Minneapolis installed similar lighting and is now going through the added cost of evaluating their impact on citizens and police, due to glare: police are apparently reporting difficulty identifying suspects /perpetrators due to the glare. I don't add this to be alarmist, as I feel quite safe in Edina and Edina Highlands. The example is meant only to be illustrative of potential concerns. I am in favor of updating the lighting in a manner that would enhance the operations of existing lights, while also making the poles more aesthetically pleasing, by replacing those that need repair /replacement throughout the neighborhood, excluding those on city property. I believe this is consistent with option #2, as presented by Jack Sullivan, Assistant City Engineer. I promote this option somewhat tentatively, as I hope to be a resident in this neighborhood for a good portion of the next 20 years. Therefore, I'd like to see improvements that will be lasting and foward - thinking, as I assume is the city's goal as well. I don't know that wood poles are the best option for a long-term strategy, but do believe this is the collective desire of the neighborhood, and I can support that. On a couple other notes... First, as I understand the 8 -inch road bed; this was presented by the engineering department as the new standard for city streets (unsure of residential v. commercial). If that is the case, then it is my belief that the city should plan for such a standard by making this part of their budget and plan for future replacement. I do not believe it is with the citizens in mind that standards are accepted and then assessments go out to cover "improvements ". Any new standard applied should be considered part of maintenance when replacement and upgrading is needed. Philosophical debates aside, what may be considered standard, may also be considered average, and not an improvement that will positively impact my property value. That said, it seems to me that a road is a commodity in any urban/suburban neighborhood. When residents go to evaluate the impact of this project on values to property, I find it hard to believe that an 8 -inch road bed is going to help sell more homes for a $10,000 premium. All I'd see is new pavement. Second, I see that there is a 22.5% administrative fee attached to the cost of this project, which is part of the city's 20 -year comprehensive plan. Again, this should come out of the city's operating budget as a cost of doing business. I believe our taxes pay for engineering salaries and administrative services, and I'd like to see such a material cost re- appropriated. If I am mistaken in my logic on this issue, I welcome education on the matter. Lastly, I thank you for the city's work on behalf of it's citizens. You all have a very difficult job to do, both on the council and in the engineering department. As elected officials and employees of the city, your first responsibility is to advocate in our best interest. This does not mean accommodating every individual, that would be impossible. What it does mean, however, is to use your professional and educated judgements on matters that directly impact your constituency, and at the very least, taking into consideration those constituents' wishes. When those wishes differ from the direction of the city's officials, then at the very least, detail is needed for us to understand the rationale ... so far, it seems that has not been well communicated. Thank you for your time and consideration of the views of the residents of Edina Highlands. I hope for nothing more than a long and thoughtful deliberation on this issue and any others that impact our city. Kindest Regards, Steve Christianson 5224 Duncraig Road Edina Highlands Road Construction Project Page 1 of 1 Heather Worthington G _SA l� JU a nr�o From: Russ Lemker [riemker @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 8:23 AMA' To: gklus @trinityms.com; Gordon Hughes; 'James Hovland'; Heather Worthington; Ways Jack Sullivan; Lynette Biunno; 'Andy /Brigid Laske'; 'Ann Compton'; 'Anne Klus'; 'Annie /Nick Cronin'; 'Beth /Mike Gibbs'; 'Bill /Judy Crandall'; 'Bob /Emilee Markman'; 'Bob /Fern Tengdin'; 'Bruce /Lisa, Foreman /Diehl'; 'CaVLucille Smith'; 'Carl /Aundria Schreiner'; 'Carol Conley'; 'Charlotte Abrahamson'; 'Chip /MaryKay Fuhrmann'; 'Chris /Gailen Krug'; 'Christianson Family'; 'Christine Ruppert'; 'Cory Larsen /Peter deCler'; 'Curt/Gretchen Schaefer'; 'Dan Azar'; 'Dan /Jean McLeod'; 'Dave /Marcia Carlson'; 'David /Carolyn Larson'; 'Debra Page'; 'Dick/Gayle Severson'; 'Don /Helen Duncan'; 'Doug /Sara Nessan'; 'Ed /Anne Stych'; 'Ed /Sydney Berris'; 'Ed/Vicki Kennedy'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Eric /Cyndi Swanlund'; 'Galye Wilson'; 'Gary/Carol "Brahms'; 'George /Sue Punch /Hess'; 'Greg Page'; 'lain /Jane Boyle'; 'Idell and Ahmud Longman /Hatamopur'; 'Jack Stoddard'; 'Jack/Lori Mertes'; 'Jacqueline Andrews'; 'Jeff /Gretchen Doom'; 'Jeff /Jodi Upin'; 'Jim Jones'; 'Jim /Cora Jane Blanchard'; 'Jim /Joyce Holbrook'; 'Jim /Liz Denn'; 'Jim /Sherre Roberts'; 'John /Amy Haben'; 'John /Carla Schwappach'; 'John /Patti Mazzara'; 'Kathryn Bradbury'; 'Kevin Mollet'; 'Kevin /Maria Staunton'; 'Kristen Christianson'; 'Kristi Mollet'; 'Lee Azar'; 'Mark/Sue Teien'; 'Matt/Monique Jepson'; 'Norm /Helen Groth'; 'Pat Forrest; 'Paul Nelson'; 'Paul /Allison Manley'; 'Paul /Julie Walthour; 'Robert McKlveen '; 'Roberto /Susan Ballarni'; 'Ros Ultan'; 'Rosemary/Tim Mason'; 'Russ /Gena, Lemker /Bossert'; 'Sal/Tom Hussian'; 'Sharon LaBine'; 'Shu -Ho /Ming -Fung, Yung'; 'Steve Christianson'; 'Susan Walker'; 'Ted /Ellen Dryden'; 'Ted /Rebecca Canova'; 'Terry/Cindy Anderson'; 'Tom Murphy'; 'Tom /Kelly White /Klein' Subject: RE: Edina Highlands Road Construction Project Hello, We, too, wish the city engineers were more attentive to the residents. If limited to the list of options they supplied (without acknowledging the neighborhood lighting committee or the significant questions they raised) we would choose option 2. But, once again, it is disappointing to see such apathy and poor communication from our city. Sincerely, The Lemkers 5236 Lochloy Drive Notice: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited. 6/16/2008 p-CiTY� S =AL `S JUN 7 6 IN From: Dave & Marcia Carlson [mailto:davemarcia @comcast.net] f- - =uEIVED Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 5:19 AM To: 'edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us.' Subject: Highlands Lighting Matter- -Mayor and Council Members -City of Edina Dear Mayor and Council Members, We found Jack Sullivan's explanation to George Klus persuasive —that a piecemeal approach to our lighting is likely to create greater maintenance and repair costs in the future (Option #1). We believe in doing it right the first time (as do most of our neighbors, I believe, when they do projects on their own property.) Option #3 is the preferred way to go, it seems. Thank you again for your attention to badly needed upgrading of streets and other services in our neighborhood. We look forward to getting started and hope continued delays from a few of our neighbors won't jeopardize or postpone the much needed project. Dave and Marcia Carlson 5225 Lochloy Drive Edina Edina Highlands Road Construction Project Page 1 of,4 �GITy- �t� SEAL t�` Heather Worthington JUA+` From: Ann Compton [anncompton @comcast. net] ; �� E Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:47 AM To: Ann Compton; gkius @trini yms.com; Gordon Hughes; 'James Hovland'; Heather Worthington; Wayne Houle; Jack Sullivan; Lynette Biunno; 'Andy /Brigid Laske'; 'Anne Klus'; 'Annie /Nick Cronin'; 'Beth /Mike Gibbs'; 'Bill /Judy Crandall'; 'Bob /Emilee Markman'; 'Bob /Fern Tengdin'; 'Bruce /Lisa, Foreman /Diehl'; 'Cal /Lucille Smith'; 'Carl /Aundria Schreiner'; 'Carol Conley'; 'Charlotte Abrahamson'; 'Chip /MaryKay Fuhrmann'; 'Chris /Gaiien Krug'; 'Christianson Family'; 'Christine Ruppert'; 'Cory Larsen /Peter deCler'; 'Curt/Gretchen Schaefer'; 'Dan Azar'; 'Dan /Jean McLeod'; 'Dave /Marcia Carlson'; 'David /Carolyn Larson'; 'Debra Page'; 'Dick/Gayle Severson'; 'Don /Helen Duncan'; 'Doug /Sara Nessan'; 'Ed /Anne Stych'; 'Ed /Sydney Berris'; 'Ed/Vicki Kennedy'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Eric /Cyndi Swanlund'; 'Galye Wilson'; 'Gary/Carol Brahms'; 'George /Sue Punch /Hess'; 'Greg Page'; 'lain /Jane Boyle'; 'Idell and Ahmud Long man /Hatamopur'; 'Jack Stoddard'; 'Jack/Lori Mertes'; 'Jacqueline Andrews'; 'Jeff /Gretchen Doom'; 'Jeff /Jodi Upin'; 'Jim Jones'; 'Jim /Cora Jane Blanchard'; 'Jim /Joyce Holbrook'; 'Jim /Liz Denn'; 'Jim /Sherre Roberts'; 'John /Amy Haben'; 'John /Carla Schwappach'; 'John /Patti Mazzara'; 'Kathryn Bradbury'; 'Kevin Mollet'; 'Kevin /Maria Staunton'; 'Kristen Christianson'; 'Kristi Mollet'; 'Lee Azar'; 'Mark/Sue Teien'; 'Matt/Monique Jepson'; 'Norm /Helen Groth'; 'Pat Forrest'; 'Paul Nelson'; 'Paul /Allison Manley'; 'Paul /Julie Walthour'; 'Robert McKlveen '; 'Roberto /Susan Ballarni'; 'Ros Ultan'; 'Rosemary/Tim Mason'; 'Russ /Gena, Lemker /Bossert'; 'Sal/Tom Hussian'; 'Sharon LaBine'; 'Shu -Ho /Ming -Fung, Yung'; 'Steve Christianson'; 'Susan Walker'; 'Ted /Ellen Dryden'; 'Ted /Rebecca Canova'; 'Terry/Cindy Anderson 'Tom Murphy'; 'Tom /Kelly White /Klein' Subject: Re: Edina Highlands Road Construction Project Another reason to view the actual bid numbers is that we could see exactly how they dealt with the Doncaster sidewalk. It is the only way to see proof that we aren't paying in part (or whole) for the Doncaster sidewalk. Ann Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:03 PM Subject: Re: Edina Highlands Road Construction Project Dear Neighbors, Under the Freedom of Information Act, we are entitled to see every document generated from this project. Since the Engineering Dept. has been less than forthcoming with us, I believe it would be in our best interst if a resident would request this information from City Hall and go through it with a fine toothed comb, especially the specifics on the bid. Is there someone with this type of expertise who would volunteer to do this? Ann Compton Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:39 PM Subject: Edina Highlands Road Construction Project I am writing this letter of concern regarding the Edina Highlands Neighborhood road construction project. This whole process has been a very difficult one in working with the City. The Highland Neighborhood has been very good in working on the process to see that the road construction project is done this summer as fiscally responsible as possible. The council was responsive to our neighborhood petition and we feel some good compromises were reached at the council meeting. I am concerned that when the council instructed the Engineering Department to work with our neighborhood on lighting, that the situation was 6/16/2008 Edina Highlands Road Construction Project Page 2 of 4 handled very poorly. I have never had a more difficult time getting a department to answer questions and work with the neighbors. Please see the attached e-mail I received from Mr. Sullivan. It is full of inaccurate statements. The tone of the e-mail statements made referring to residents in this neighborhood are reflections of Mr. Sullivan, and I believe Mr. Houle as well. This tells me that they are not listening to and respecting the suggestions of the residents they are serving. Their judgments and interpretations on situations are incorrect. Many of us in the Highland Neighborhood question the motives and way the Engineering Department has worked with us. It is as though they. never listened to any of our suggestions and never gave us the full respect we deserve and desire. The feeling we had from the Mr.Houle was that this is what I am going to do and if you do not like it, take it to the City Council. It is my hope when this process is over that the City and the Engineering Department will take a look at how they work with the residents of Edina and make changes that will help make the assessment process better in the future. I know that other residents and I would welcome the opportunity to sit down and talk about what went right and wrong with these discussions and supposed negotiations. As I write to you tonight, the only people in the last few days who have expressed an interest in the decorative lighting are those residents who are the ones that did not sign our neighborhood petition. That still leaves approximately 68 households that disapprove decorative lights from the original neighborhood petition. Because of this lack of communication there are still many unresolved issues which I would like the council to discuss before their vote on Tuesday night. It is my understanding from Mayor Hovland that no one from the neighborhood will be allowed to speak on the lighting issue before your awarding of the contract. I would like to ask the council to approve the road reconstruction, but to defer the lighting decision until each resident in the neighborhood can be accurately informed on the lights and make the right decision. Here are what I believe to still be the issues: 1. At no time has there been accurate and /or complete information given on the lights. The first survey distributed to the residents made residents believe that the upcharge decorative lighting was only $200.00, when now we find out it is $1100 per household. Also, the information given on lighting has not been good. Cobra lights direct light down into the street. The acorn light is a 360 degree light. It lights up both the street and the resident yard. I believe residents are not aware of how the lights work or the cost thereof. The City did not do a good job in either providing accurate pictures of the lighting options or their costs. 2. 1 have a problem with the amount of the assessment on lights per household. In talking with Mr. Sullivan, we agreed we could divide the cost by 72 households. If I take that number and divide it by the lighting cost given in the memo listed below, the neighborhood is being over assessed no matter which option is taken. This over assessment is anywhere from $200 -600 per household. The neighborhood needs accurate information to make decisions. 3. In J.ack's memo to me dated 6/12, it states the Doncaster sidewalk cost was approved in the construction bid. I think that is fine, but nowhere in his memo does he state what that amount-is and if it was taken out of our assessment. Please provide information and clarification regarding this issue. 4. In talks I have had with Mayor Hovland, he has agreed with me that two of the 12 lights included in our project should be City responsibility. In asking this question to the Engineering Department, they have never answered this concern and continue to keep the . 6/16/2008 Edina Highlands Road Construction Project Page 3 of 4 lights in our assessment. Please remove the two lights located on city property. One light is on Glenbrae Circle and other is at the exit to the neighborhood on Ayrshire Blvd. Again I encourage the Council to approve the road construction part of the project and defer the lighting issue until the neighborhood can adequately be surveyed. This is the first time the neighborhood has seen accurate costs of lights. I cannot believe if this is done properly, that it could not be done in two weeks which would not slow down the project. Mayor Hovland stated to me last Friday that it would be important for the Council to hear from the neighbors before Tuesday night's meeting. In other words, he would like to see the neighbors give the council another vote on the lights without the residents getting all the correct information. This cannot be done before the council meeting. Right now some of us in the neighborhood are tired of fighting the City and trying to make sure their voices are heard. Please remember as you discuss the lighting issue that our petition had a majority of the residents who only wanted to replace lights that needed replacement and leave the others alone. In the petition, we also told the council we wanted the same lights. The staff has rejected all of our lighting suggestions. I do not know how the City Council can move forward on lighting knowing the staff has not worked well with its residents. Several of the neighborhood residents will be at the Council meeting Tuesday to hear your discussion and hope you will allow them to speak regarding the lighting issue. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. George W. Klus 5233 Lochloy Drive Edina, MN 55436 952- 922 -6925 (0) From: Jack Sullivan Usullivan @ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:19 PM To: kg lus@trinityms.com Cc: Wayne Houle; Heather Worthington; Gordon Hughes Subject: Highlands Bids - Request for Purchase This project is for street and utility improvements throughout the Highlands Neighborhood and sidewalk along Doncaster Way. The project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, rehabilitating the watermain and sanitary sewers, upgrading the storm sewer systems, street lighting system and the sidewalk. The Doncaster sidewalk was ordered by the Edina City Council on September 4, 2007. The Highlands project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the April 15, 2008, Public Hearing. During the Highlands public hearing the City Council requested a new street light survey be sent to the residents with altemative options to be bid out for the streetlight system (see attached Lighting Survey No. 3, May 2, 2008). Staff met with Bob Tengdin, a member of the street light committee, on April 29, 2008 (see attached meeting summary). A street light survey was then sent out. However, an influential resident from the 6/16/2008 Edina Highlands Road Construction Project Page 4 of 4 neighborhood sent out an email to the neighborhood telling the neighbors to reject the survey. The results of the survey are attached to this report. Staff bid out the streetlights using.the following three options: 1. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at key locations along Ayrshire Boulevard. (6 light locations) - $30,450, - $6001REU 2. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $54,390, --$1050 1REU 3. Construct new underground wiring and new decorative poles with acom style lights at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $111,510, - $21501REU Certain residents within the neighborhood have not accepted that city policy holds residents financial responsible for funding of infrastructure improvements for streetlights as with roadways. These same residents would like the repairs to the street light system piecemealed" together. Staff does not feel that "piecemealing" a project is good public policy. Staff recommends that street lighting Option Three be awarded. The estimated total project assessment per residential equivalent unit is $12,600, which includes the street lights. This project will be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study project estimate is $1,443,661.50. Staff recommends awarding the project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us 6/16/2008 Heather Worthington From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:48 AM To: Heather Worthington Subject: FW: Proposed Highlands lighting costs SEAL `< UN 16 ?969 P, p^, i vso Page 1 of 5 From: Susan Walker [mailto:swalker3 @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 7:57 PM To: Lynette Biunno; Wayne Houle; Jack Sullivan Cc: 'Andy /Brigid Laske'; 'Ann Compton'; 'Anne Klus'; 'Annie /Nick Cronin'; 'Beth /Mike Gibbs'; 'Bill /Judy Crandall'; 'Bob /Emilee Markman'; 'Bob /Fern Tengdin'; 'Bruce /Lisa, Foreman /Diehl'; 'Cal /Lucille Smith'; 'Carl /Aundria Schreiner'; 'Carol Conley'; 'Charlotte Abrahamson'; 'Chip /MaryKay Fuhrmann'; 'Chris /Gailen Krug'; 'Christianson . Family'; 'Christine Ruppert'; 'Curt/Gretchen Schaefer'; 'Dan Azar'; 'Dan /Jean McLeod'; 'Dave /Marcia Carlson'; 'David /Carolyn Larson'; 'Debra Page'; 'Dick/Gayle Severson'; 'Don /Helen Duncan'; 'Doug /Sara Nessan'; 'Ed /Anne Stych'; 'Ed /Sydney Berris'; 'Ed /Vicki Kennedy'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Eric /Cyndi Swanlund'; 'Galye Wilson'; 'Gary/Carol Brahms'; 'George Klus'; 'George /Sue Punch /Hess'; 'Greg Page'; 'Gretchen Anderson'; 'Iain /Jane Boyle'; 'Idell and Ahmud Longman /Hatamopur'; 'Jack Stoddard'; 'Jack/Lori Mertes'; 'Jacqueline Andrews'; 'Jeff /Gretchen Doom'; 'Jeff /Jodi Upin'; 'Jim Jones'; 'Jim /Cora Jane Blanchard'; 'Jim /Joyce Holbrook'; 'Jim /Liz Denn'; 'Jim /Sherre Roberts'; 'John /Amy Haben'; 'John /Carla Schwappach'; 'John /Patti Mazzara'; 'Kathryn Bradbury'; 'Kevin Mollet'; 'Kevin /Maria Staunton'; 'Kristen Christianson'; 'Kristi Mollef; 'Lee Azar'; 'Mark/Sue Teien'; 'Matt/Monique Jepson'; 'Norm /Helen Groth'; 'Pat Forrest; 'Paul Nelson'; 'Paul /Allison Manley'; 'Paul /Julie Walthour'; 'Robert McKlveen '; 'Roberto /Susan Ballarni'; 'Ros Ultan'; 'Rosemary/Tim Mason'; 'Russ /Gena, Lemker /Bossert'; 'Sal/Tom Hussian'; 'Sharon LaBine'; 'Shu -Ho /Ming -Fung, Yung'; 'Steve Christianson'; Ted /Ellen Dryden'; 'Ted /Rebecca Canova'; Terry/Cindy Anderson'; Tom Murphy; Tom /Kelly White /Klein'; 'Susan Walker' Subject: Proposed Highlands lighting costs If the number of households in line for full assessments is 72 +/- , taking into account those households that will have partial assessments, Jack Sullivan's numbers of June 12 do not make sense. See below in blue. The Highlands neighborhood is owed an explanation for this. Victor and Susan Walker 5256 Lochloy Drive - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Susan Walker [mailto:swalker3 @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 12:42 AM To: edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us; whoule @ci.edina.mn.us; jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us Cc: 'Andy /Brigid Laske'; 'Ann Compton'; 'Anne Klus'; 'Annie /Nick Cronin'; 'Beth /Mike Gibbs'; 'Bill /Judy Crandall'; 'Bob /Emilee Markman'; 'Bob /Fern Tengdin'; 'Bruce /Lisa, Foreman /Diehl'; 'Cal /Lucille Smith'; 'Carl /Aundria Schreiner'; 'Carol Conley'; 'Charlotte Abrahamson'; 'Chip /MaryKay Fuhrmann'; 'Chris /Gailen Krug'; 'Christianson Family'; 'Christine Ruppet; 'Curt/Gretchen Schaefer'; 'Dan Azar'; 'Dan /Jean McLeod'; 'Dave /Marcia Carlson'; 'David /Carolyn Larson'; 'Debra Page'; 'Dick /Gayle Severson'; 'Don /Helen Duncan'; 'Doug /Sara Nessan'; 'Ed /Anne Stych'; 'Ed /Sydney Berris'; 'Ed/Vicki Kennedy'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Eric /Cyndi Swanlund'; 'Galye Wilson'; 'Gary/Carol Brahms'; 'George Klus'; 'George /Sue Punch /Hess'; 'Greg Page'; 'Gretchen Anderson'; 'Iain /Jane Boyle'; 'Idell and Ahmud Longman /Hatamopur'; 'Jack Stoddard'; 'Jack/Lori Mertes'; 'Jacqueline Andrews'; 'Jeff /Gretchen Doom'; 'Jeff /Jodi Upin'; 'Jim Jones'; 'Jim /Cora Jane Blanchard'; 'Jim /Joyce Holbrook'; 'Jim /Liz Denn'; 'Jim /Sherre Roberts'; 'John /Amy Haben'; 'John /Carla Schwappach'; 'John /Patti Mazzara'; 'Kathryn Bradbury'; 'Kevin Mollet'; 'Kevin /Maria Staunton'; 6/16/2008 Page 2 of 5 'Kristen Christianson'; 'Kristi Moliet'; 'Lee Azar'; 'Mark /Sue Teien'; 'Matt/Monique Jepson'; 'Norm /Helen Groth'; 'Pat Forrest; 'Paul Nelson'; 'Paul /Allison Manley'; 'Paul /Julie Walthour'; 'Robert McKlveen '; 'Roberto /Susan Ballarni'; 'Ros Ultan'; 'Rosemary/Tim Mason'; 'Russ /Gena, Lemker /Bosset; 'Sal/Tom Hussian'; 'Sharon LaBine'; 'Shu -Ho /Ming -Tung, Yung'; 'Steve Christianson'; 'Susan Walker'; Ted /Ellen Dryden'; Ted /Rebecca Canova'; Terry/Cindy Anderson'; Tom Murphy'; Tom /Kelly White /Klein' Subject: Proposed Highlands lighting We are appalled at the lack of straightforward communication from the City of Edina's representatives to the Highlands neighborhood in the handling of this project thus far. See below in red. The 3 lighting surveys mailed out by the City have in no way presented enough facts for the neighbors to make a sound decision from. In fact, we believe the first survey where the majority chose the decorative fixture, mislead people into thinking the upcharge for the decorative style over the cobra was $200 per fixture, when the actual assessed cost difference is currently an upcharge of $1,100 per household. The City of Edina's Engineering office is not exhibiting effective leadership on the lighting issue. Throughout Edina, there continues to be a hodge -podge of street lighting styles. Our neighborhood has been offered yesterday's lighting solutions at a time when there is a nationwide movement by professional architects, engineers and environmentalists to conserve energy and eliminate wasted light (commonly referred to as light pollution) caused by upward lighting. Of the two styles currently proposed, it is the cobra fixture that casts light down onto the street where it is needed. Still, with all the publicity on energy - efficiency, it is astounding that more forward- thinking solutions were not thoroughly investigated and proposed by the engineers. Beyond the issues of cost and lack of vision for the future, from a visual master planning standpoint, the proposed decorative Victorian acorn is less than ideal with our 1950's suburban ramblers. On another note, the City has stated that the cost of the Doncaster sidewalk was included in the project's bids. This neighborhood is owed documentation reflecting those costs being subtracted from our assessments. Victor and Susan Walker 5256 Lochloy Drive From: Jack Sullivan Usullivan@)ci.ed.ina.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:19 PM To: gklus @trinityms.com Cc: Wayne Houle; Heather Worthington; Gordon Hughes Subject: Highlands Bids - Request for Purchase This project is for street and utility improvements throughout the Highlands Neighborhood and sidewalk along Doncaster Way. The project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, rehabilitating the watermain and sanitary sewers, upgrading the storm sewer systems, street lighting system and the sidewalk. The Doncaster sidewalk was ordered by the Edina City Council on September 4, 2007. The Highlands project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the April 15, 2008, Public Hearing. During the Highlands public hearing the City Council requested a new street light survey be sent to the residents with alternative options to be bid out for the streetlight system (see attached Lighting Survey No. 3, May 2, 2008). Staff met with Bob Tengdin, a member of the street light committee. on April 29. 2008 (see attached meeting summary). A street light survey was then sent out. However, an influential resident from the neighborhood sent out an email to the neighborhood telling the neighbors to reject the survey. The results of the survey are attached to this report. Staff bid out the streetlights using the following three options. 1. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at key locations along Ayrshire Boulevard. (6 light locations) - $30,450, - $600 1REU 30,450 divided by 600 = 50.75 (51) 6/16/2008 Page 3 of 5 full assessments. $30,450 divided by 72 full assessments = $422.92/REU. 2. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) — $54.390, — $10501REU 54,390 divided by 1050 = 51.8 (52) full assessments. $54,390 divided by 72 full assessments = $755.421REU. 3. Construct new underground wiring and new decorative poles with acom style lights at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $111,510, --$2150 1REU 111,510 divided by 2150 = 51.87 (52) full assessments. $111,510 divided by 72 full assessments = $1,548.75/REU. Certain residents within the neighborhood have not accepted that city policy holds residents financial responsible for funding of infrastructure improvements for streetlights as with roadways. These same residents would like the repairs to the street light system piecemealed" together. Staff does not feel that "piecemealing" a project is good public policy. Staff recommends that street lighting Option Three be awarded. The estimated total project assessment per residential equivalent unit is $12,600, which includes the street lights. This project will be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study project estimate is $1,443,661.50. Staff recommends awarding the project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Susan Walker [mailto:swalker3 @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:20 PM To: 'jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us' Cc: 'edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us'; 'whoule @ci.edina.mn.us' Subject: FW: Lighting Clarifications for Highlands neighborhood Importance: High Jack, you continue to put out surveys without any educational details on the most effective downward light levels, energy efficiency and low maintenance of these various options. That is critical for appropriate decision - making by citizens than simply what style people like. I am wondering why that message to you keeps being ignored. At the public hearing, a council member told you that more valuable information was needed for people to make a decision from. After the 3rd survey, you provide a pricing breakdown to one person in the neighborhood below. This is outrageous! Susan Walker 5256 Lochloy Drive - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lisa Diehl Foreman [mailto:ldiehlforemanl2 @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:41 PM Subject: Lighting Clarifications 6/16/2008 Page 4 of 5 Bob Tengdin and I spoke this evening regarding the telephone conversation I had today with Jack Sullivan at the city. Jack was made aware there is a light pole near us which continues to be mis- placed on the street map. Also, I inquired about the difference in the pricing of the four options and the following email response details the breakdown in more detail than the letter of May 2, 2008. Lisa Diehl Foreman 5301 Ayrshire Boulevard Subject: Lighting Clarifications Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 11:00:51 -0500 From: jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us To: Idiehlforemanl2 @hotmail.com Lisa, Here is the particular information on the lighting you were asking about this morning. I understood from the Lighting Committee and residents of the neighborhood that there are two items that should to be part of the lighting plan: 1. Underground wiring, no overhead span wiring 2. Keep the same number and similar locations of lights as today. With those two requirements I created the latest survey form and cost estimates. I should have been more detailed in my survey letter as to the costs for the wiring verses the light poles. As I stated in the survey the wiring and poles must be replaced due to its poor condition. So here is the breakdown for the four options Option #1: $1,100 per REU. $950 for wiring $150 for wood pole and cobra head O_ ption #2: $1,900 per REU $1625 for wiring $275 for wood poles and cobra head Option #3: $2,000 per REU, $1625 for wiring $375 for refurbished poles Option #4: $2,300 per REU $1625 for wiring $675 for decorative acom lights As you can see the cost of the lighting is governed by the underground wiring. I hope this clarifies the issues for you. Regards, jds Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us 6/16/2008 Heather Worthington From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:47 AM To: Heather Worthington Subject: FW: Proposed Highlands lighting CITY SEAL RECEIVED Page 1 of 4 From: Susan Walker [mailto:swalker3 @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 12:42 AM To: Lynette Biunno; Wayne Houle; Jack Sullivan Cc: 'Andy /Brigid Laske'; 'Ann Compton'; 'Anne Klus'; 'Annie /Nick Cronin'; 'Beth /Mike Gibbs'; 'Bill /Judy Crandall'; 'Bob /Emilee Markman'; 'Bob /Fem Tengdin'; 'Bruce /Lisa, Foreman /Diehl'; 'Cal /Lucille Smith'; 'Carl /Aundria Schreiner'; 'Carol Conley'; 'Charlotte Abrahamson'; 'Chip /MaryKay Fuhrmann'; 'Chris /Gailen Krug'; 'Christianson Family'; 'Christine Ruppert'; 'Curt/Gretchen Schaefer; 'Dan Azar'; 'Dan /Jean McLeod'; 'Dave /Marcia Carlson'; 'David /Carolyn Larson'; 'Debra Page'; 'Dick/Gayle Severson'; 'Don /Helen Duncan'; 'Doug /Sara Nessan'; 'Ed /Anne Stych'; 'Ed /Sydney Berris'; 'Ed /Vicki Kennedy'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Eric /Cyndi Swanlund'; 'Galye Wilson'; 'Gary/Carol Brahms'; 'George Klus'; 'George /Sue Punch /Hess'; 'Greg Page'; 'Gretchen Anderson'; 'Iain /Jane Boyle'; 'Idell and ' Ahmud Longman /Hatamopur'; 'Jack Stoddard'; 'Jack/Lori Mertes'; 'Jacqueline Andrews'; 'Jeff /Gretchen Doom'; 'Jeff /Jodi Upin'; 'Jim Jones'; 'Jim /Cora Jane Blanchard'; 'Jim /Joyce Holbrook'; 'Jim /Liz Denn'; 'Jim /Sherre Roberts'; 'John /Amy Haben'; 'John /Carla Schwappach'; 'John /Patti Mazzara'; 'Kathryn Bradbuy; 'Kevin Mollet'; 'Kevin /Maria Staunton'; 'Kristen Christianson'; 'Kristi Mollet'; 'Lee Azar'; 'Mark/Sue Teien'; 'Matt/Monique Jepson'; 'Norm /Helen Groth'; 'Pat Forrest'; 'Paul Nelson'; 'Paul /Allison Manley'; 'Paul /Julie Walthour'; 'Robert McKiveen '; 'Roberto /Susan Ballarni'; 'Ros Ultan'; 'Rosemary/Tim Mason'; 'Russ /Gena, Lemker /Bosset; 'Sal/Tom Hussian'; 'Sharon LaBine'; 'Shu -Ho /Ming -Fung, Yung'; 'Steve Christianson'; 'Susan Walker'; 'Ted /Ellen Dryden'; Ted /Rebecca Canova'; Terry/Cindy Anderson'; Tom Murphy'; Tom /Kelly White /Klein' Subject: Proposed Highlands lighting We are appalled at the lack of straightforward communication from the City of Edina's representatives to the Highlands neighborhood in the handling of this project thus far. See below in red. The 3 lighting surveys mailed out by the City have in no way presented enough facts for the neighbors to make a sound decision from. In fact, we believe the first survey where the majority chose the decorative fixture, mislead people into thinking the upcharge for the decorative style over the cobra was $200 per fixture, when the actual assessed cost difference is currently an upcharge of $1,100 per household. The City of Edina's Engineering office is not exhibiting effective leadership on the lighting issue. Throughout Edina, there continues to be a hodge -podge of street lighting styles. Our neighborhood has been offered yesterday's lighting solutions at a time when there is a nationwide movement by professional architects, engineers and environmentalists to conserve energy and eliminate wasted light (commonly referred to as light pollution) caused by upward lighting. Of the two styles currently proposed, it is the cobra fixture that casts light down onto the street where it is needed. Still, with all the publicity on energy - efficiency, it is astounding that more forward - thinking solutions were not thoroughly investigated and proposed by the engineers. Beyond the issues of cost and lack of vision for the future, from a visual master planning standpoint, the proposed decorative Victorian acorn is less than ideal with our 1950's suburban ramblers. On another note, the City has stated that the cost of the Doncaster sidewalk was included in the project's bids. This neighborhood is owed documentation reflecting those costs being subtracted from our assessments. Victor and Susan Walker 5256 Lochloy Drive 6/16/2008 Page 2 of 4 From: Jack Sullivan Usullivan-&i.edina.mn _ us] Sent: Thursday; June 12; 2008 3:19 PM To: gklusC),trinityms.com Cc: Wayne Houle: Heather Worthington; Gordon Hughes Subject: Highlands Bids - Request for Purchase This project is for street and utility improvements throughout the Highlands Neighborhood and sidewalk along Doncaster Way. The project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, rehabilitating the watermain and sanitary sewers. upgrading the storm sewer systems, street lighting system and the sidewalk. The Doncaster sidewalk was ordered by the Edina City Council on September 4, 2007. The Highlands project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the April 15, 2008, Public Hearing. During the Highlands public hearing the City Council requested a new street light survey be sent to the residents with alternative options to be bid out for the streetlight system (see attached Lighting Survey No. 3, May 2, 2008). Staff met with Bob Tengdin, a member of the street light committee, on April 29, 2008 (see attached meeting summary). A street light survey was then sent out. However, an influential resident from the neighborhood sent out an email to the neighborhood telling the neighbors to reject the survey. The results of the survey are attached to this report. Staff bid out the streetlights using the following three options: 1. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at key locations along Ayrshire Boulevard. (6 light locations) - $30,450, - $6001REU 2. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $54,390, -$1050 1REU 3. Construct new underground wiring and new decorative poles with acorn style lights at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $111,510, -$2150 1REU Certain residents within the neighborhood have not accepted that city policy holds residents financial responsible for funding of infrastructure improvements for streetlights as with roadways. These same residents would like the repairs to the street light system piecemealed" together. Staff does not feel that "piecemealing" a project is good public policy. Staff recommends that street lighting Option Three be awarded. The estimated total project assessment per residential equivalent unit is $12,600, which includes the street lights. This project will be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study project estimate is $1,443,661.50. Staff recommends awarding the project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Susan Walker [mailto:swalker3 @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:20 PM To: 'jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us' Cc: 'edinamail @ci.edina.mn.us'; 'whoule @ci.edina.mn.us' Subject: FW: Lighting Clarifications for Highlands neighborhood 6/16/2008 Page 3 of 4 Importance: High Jack, you continue to put out surveys without any educational details on the most effective downward light levels, energy efficiency and low maintenance of these various options. That is critical for appropriate decision - making by citizens than simply what style people like. I am wondering why that message to you keeps being ignored. At the public hearing, a council member told you that more valuable information was needed for people to make a decision from. After the 3rd survey, you provide a pricing breakdown to one person in the neighborhood below. This is outrageous! Susan Walker 5256 Lochloy Drive - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Lisa Diehl Foreman [mailto :ldiehlforemanl2 @hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:41 PM Subject: Lighting Clarifications Bob Tengdin and I spoke this evening regarding the telephone conversation I had today with Jack Sullivan at the city. Jack was made aware there is a light pole near us which continues to be mis- placed on the street map. Also, I inquired about the difference in the pricing of the four options and the following email response details the breakdown in more detail than the letter of May 2, 2008. Lisa Diehl Foreman 5301 Ayrshire Boulevard Subject: Lighting Clarifications Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 11:00:51 -0500 From: jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us To: ldiehlforemanl2 @hotmail.com Lisa, Here is the particular information on the lighting you were asking about this morning. I understood from the Lighting Committee and residents of the neighborhood that there are two items that should to be part of the lighting plan: 1. Underground wiring, no overhead span wiring 2. Keep the same number and similar locations of bights as today. With those two requirements I created the latest survey form and cost estimates. I should have been more detailed in my survey letter as to the costs for the wiring verses the light poles. As I stated in the survey the wiring and poles must be replaced due to its poor condition. So here is the breakdown for the four options. Option #1: $1,100 per REU. $950 for wiring $150 for wood pole and cobra head Option #2: $1,900 per REU $1625 for wiring $275 for wood poles and cobra head Option #3: $2,000 per REU $1625 for wiring $375 for refurbished poles 6/16/2008 Page 4 of 4 Option #4: $2,300 per REU $1625 for wiring $675 for decorative acorn lights As you can see the cost of the lighting is governed by the underground wiring. I hope this clarifies the issues for you. Regards, jds Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan @ci.edina.mn.us 6/16/2008 FW: Edina Highlands Road Construction Update Heather Worthington From: Sent: To: gklus @trinityms.com Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:37 PM Page 1 of 3 Gordon Hughes; Heather Worthington; 'James Hovland'; Lynette Biunno Subject: FW: FW: Edina Highlands Road Construction Update From: Carl Schreiner [mailto:carl_aundria@yahoo.com]- Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 9:34 PM To: gklus @trinityms.com; 'Andy /Brigid Laske'; 'Ann Compton'; 'Anne Klus'; 'Annie /Nick Cronin'; 'Beth /Mike Gibbs'; 'Bill /Judy Crandall'; 'Bob /Emilee Markman'; 'Bob /Fern Tengdin'; 'Bruce /Lisa, Foreman /Diehl'; 'Cal /Lucille Smith'; 'Carol Conley'; 'Charlotte Abrahamson'; 'Chip /MaryKay Fuhrmann'; 'Chris /Gailen Krug'; 'Christianson Family'; 'Christine Ruppert'; 'Curt/Gretchen Schaefer'; 'Dan Azar'; 'Dan /Jean McLeod'; 'Dave /Marcia Carlson'; 'David /Carolyn Larson'; 'Debra Page'; 'Dick/Gayle Severson'; 'Don /Helen Duncan'; 'Doug /Sara Nessan'; 'Ed /Anne Stych'; 'Ed /Sydney Berris'; 'Ed /Vicki Kennedy'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Eric /Cyndi Swanlund'; 'Galye Wilson'; 'Gary/Carol Brahms'; 'George /Sue Punch /Hess'; 'Greg Page'; 'Gretchen Anderson'; 'Iain /Jane Boyle'; 'Idell and Ahmud Longman /Hatamopur'; 'Jack Stoddard'; 'Jack/Lori Mertes'; 'Jacqueline Andrews'; 'Jeff /Gretchen Doom'; 'Jeff /Jodi Upin'; 'Jim Jones'; 'Jim /Cora Jane Blanchard'; 'Jim /Joyce Holbrook'; 'Jim /Liz Denn'; 'Jim /Sherre Roberts'; 'John /Amy Haben'; 'John /Carla Schwappach'; 'John /Patti Mazzara'; 'Kathryn Bradbury'; 'Kevin Mollet; 'Kevin /Maria Staunton'; 'Kristen Christianson'; 'Kristi Mollef; 'Lee Azar'; 'Mark/Sue Teien'; 'Matt/Monique Jepson'; 'Norm /Helen Groth'; 'Pat Forrest'; 'Paul Nelson'; 'Paul /Allison Manley'; 'Paul /Julie Walthour'; 'Robert McKiveen '; 'Roberto /Susan Ballarni'; 'Ros Ultan'; 'Rosemary/Tim Mason'; 'Russ /Gena, Lemker /Bossert; 'Sal/Tom Hussian'; 'Sharon LaBine'; 'Shu -Ho /Ming -Fung, Yung'; 'Steve Christianson'; 'Susan Walker'; Ted /Ellen Dryden'; 'Ted /Rebecca Canova'; Terry/Cindy Anderson'; Tom Murphy'; 'Tom /Kelly White /Klein' Subject: Re: FW: Edina Highlands Road Construction Update Hello neighbors, While we have been disappointed by city staffs handling of our neighborhood's road/light project (leading surveys, failure to follow directions from the city council, lack of information, and misinformation), we are grateful that we live in a neighborhood that has handled the frustrations civilly and have enjoyed your respect and tolerance towards each other's vision for the neighborhood. It is evident that we all want our neighborhood to be safe and attractive. We would have liked to have been offered the choice that Bob Tengdin presented to the city that our lights be a "like for like as needed replacement." Because that is not available, we support option 2. More is needed than option I offers. We feel the acorn lights of option 3 fit a more urban style than our country- suburban neighborhood. They also direct more light up and out. The cobra style is less noticeable to us and the light is directed down on the street where it should be. Thank you for being wonderful neighbors, Carl & Aundria Schreiner 5264 Lochloy gklus@trinityms.com wrote: I am attaching a e -mail I received from the Engineering Department at the City. For some of you it will be good news. For a majority of you I believe it is not the news we expected from the City. There are blatant mis- statements of facts contained therein. 6/16/2008 FW: Edina Highlands Road Construction Update Page 2 of 3 When the bids were open this week, it was good to see that our assessment without lighting was approximately $10,200 per household. Much less than we anticipated. Yesterday the Engineering Department choose lighting option #3 which now increases our assessment per household to $12,600. Next Tuesday, June 17th the Engineering Department will present to the City Council for there approval their recommendation. If the Council approves it, the road construction will begin sometime soon and finish by November 20th. The current recommendation does not agree with any recommendation that the neighborhood proposed to the City. We need to now show up in strength at the council meeting next Tuesday night to protest this action and recommendation by the Engineering Department. Let City Council know option #3 was not the neighborhoods recommendation in either the petition or from the lighting committee. Explain to the Council that the Highlands recommendation was to replace like for like where it was needed and leave the rest of the lighting as is. Also, there are still two lights in the project that we consider City responsibility to replace and they still have not taken those off our project. If the Council accepts option #3 they are ignoring the results of the neighborhood survey and are now approving the highest price option; acorn lights, which is an assessment of over $2100 per household. Based upon the neighborhoods recommendation, the option that should be chosen is option #1 as it meets closest to what the neighborhood recommended. I would encourage you to use the "Reply to All" on your e-mail and share your comments on this issue. Whatever your position is on the road construction and lights it would be good to voice your opinion to the neighborhood. As neighbors we need to accept everyone's position and not be judgmental. What is happening in our neighborhood this summer and fall will affect all of us. It is now the time for us to have a good policy discussion on what we think, so in the end, none of us feel our thoughts and ideas were not considered. We all live together so lets all work together on this issue Again, please plan on attending the City Council meeting next Tuesday, June 17th. We need to be there in force. I would also suggest you contact any of our council members to your feelings about the project. Let them hear how unhappy you are with the staff recommendation. For more color on the matter call either me at 952 - 926 -0180 or Bob Tengdin at 952 - 929 -2018. See you Tuesday at 7:00 p.m.! George W. Klus 952 - 922 -6925 (0) )From: Jack Sullivan bsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 3:19 PM To: gklus @trinityms.com Cc: Wayne Houle; Heather Worthington; Gordon Hughes Subject: Highlands Bids - Request for Purchase This project is for street and utility improvements throughout the Highlands Neighborhood and sidewalk along Doncaster Way. The project includes reconstructing the existing roadways, rehabilitating the 6/16/2008 FW: Edina Highlands Road Construction Update Page 3 of 3 watermain and sanitary sewers, upgrading the storm sewer systems, street lighting system and the sidewalk. The Doncaster sidewalk was ordered by the Edina City Council on September 4, 2007. The Highlands project was ordered by the Edina City Council at the April 15, 2008, Public Hearing. During the Highlands public hearing the City Council requested a new street light survey be sent to the residents with alternative options to be bid out for the. streetlight system (see attached Lighting Survey No. 3, May 2, 2008). Staff met with Bob Tengdin, a member of the street light committee, on April 29, 2008 (see attached meeting summary). A street light survey was then'sent out. However, an influential resident from the neighborhood sent out an email to the neighborhood telling the neighbors to reject the survey. The results of the survey are attached to this report. Staff bid out the streetlights using the following three options: 1. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at key locations along Ayrshire Boulevard. (6 light locations) - $30,450, - $6001REU 2. Construct new underground wiring and new wood poles with cobra head lighting at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $54,390, -- $10501REU 3. Construct new underground wiring and new decorative poles with acorn style lights at all existing light locations within the neighborhood. (12 light locations) - $111,510, -- $21501REU Certain residents within the neighborhood have not accepted that city policy holds residents financial responsible for funding of infrastructure improvements for streetlights as with roadways. These same residents would like the repairs to the street light system piecemealed" together. Staff does not feel that piecemealing" a project is good public policy. Staff recommends that street lighting Option Three be awarded. The estimated total project assessment per residential equivalent unit is $12,600, which includes the street lights. This project will be funded by special assessments and respective utility funds. The Feasibility Study project estimate is $1,443,661.50. Staff recommends awarding the project to Northwest Asphalt, Inc. Jack D. Sullivan, PE Assistant City Engineer City of Edina Direct: 952.826.0445 fax: 952.826.0389 jsullivan@ci.edina.mn.us 6/16/2008 Edina Highlands Project- Susan Heiberg From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 1:02 PM Cc: Susan Heiberg Subject: FW: Edina Highlands Project- From: Paul Manley [ mai Ito: pmanley @northlandsecurities.com] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:48 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Edina Highlands Project- Mayor Hovland and Edina City Council Members- " SEAL embers- SEAL -< JUN 1 6 711114 y Page 1 of 1 We are in favor of the #3 lighting option for the Edina Highlands Project that the engineers proposed. We would like to see the best available lights and not just put in a cheap looking alternative. Thank you- Paul and Allison Manley 5305 Ayrshire Blvd 952.926.2459 Please do not transmit orders, instructions or identifying information regarding your Northland Securities, Inc. account(s) by e -mail. Action oriented messages, transaction orders, fund transfer instructions or check stop payments should not be transmitted by e -mail to Northland Securities, Inc. employees. Northland Securities, Inc. cannot be held responsible for carrying out such orders and/or instructions. Your Northland Securities, Inc. confirmation and monthly account statement are the official records of the firm and should be the documents that you exclusively rely upon. This is not an offer to purchase or sell securities. Information transmitted is believed to be reliable, but is not warranted by Northland Securities, Inc. Northland Securities, Inc. does not provide tax advice. If you do not wish to receive emails from our company, you have the following options:call the Branch Manager at 612- 851 -5992; fax the Branch Manager at 612 - 851 -5955, or email lknutson o.northl andsecuriti es. com E -mail sent through the Internet is not secure and could be intercepted by a third party. Northland Securities, Inc. and its affiliates reserve the right to monitor all e-mail. Northland Securities is a Member FINRA/SIPC 6/16/2008 June 13, 2008 i - SEMI._ JUN 16 1009 RECEIVED TO: Mayor James Hovland Council Members, Joni Bennett, Scot Housh, Linda Masica, Ann Swenson RE: EDINA HIGHLANDS ROAD/LIGHTING PROJECT On May 4, 2008 I e- mailed my response to a Survey sent out by Jack Sullivan. I mentioned my disappointment that Mr. Sullivan appeared to be acting independently and not in collaboration with the Neighborhood Lighting Committee which I thought was the agreement at the April 15th Council Meeting. To date, I have not received a reply from the Mayor or any council member. It is my understanding that the engineering department will recommend option #3 — the most costly. The residents clearly had favored the copra lights and now it appears the engineering department is trying to force the acorn lights on the neighborhood. I personally can live with either option 41 or #2. It is not necessary to spend the maximum. Please try to be responsive to the residents. Sincerely, Jacqueline Andrews 5232 Duncriag Road 952- 925 -1043 p SEAL June 13, 2008 JUN I 3 2D09 �EDEBVED TO: !Mayor James Hovland Council Members, Joni Bennett, Scot Housh, Linda Masica, Ann Swenson RE: EDINA HIGHLANDS ROAD/LIGHTING PROJECT On May 4, 2008 I e -mailed my response to a Survey sent out by Jack Sullivan. I mentioned my disappointment that Mr. Sullivan appeared to be acting independently and not in collaboration with the Neighborhood Lighting Committee which I thought was the agreement at the April 15th Council Meeting. To date, I have not received a reply from the Mayor or any council member. It is my understanding that the engineering department will recommend option 43 - the most costly. The residents clearly had favored the copra lights and now it appears the engineering department is trying to force the acorn lights on the neighborhood. I personally can live with either option #1 or #2. It is not necessary to spend the maximum. Please try to be responsive to the residents. 7-0 - -'' au-elsle- Jacqueline Andrews 5232 Duncriag Road 952 - 925 -1043 Susan Heiberg From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:35 AM Cc: Susan Heiberg Subject: FW: No water issue at my home. From: Jilene Framke [ mailto :angeltoesinc @comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 3:19 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: No water issue at my home. GET JUN 1 G 2009 RECEIVED Page I of 1 Hello Council Members, I just wanted to chime in and say, that my Mpls Water is FABULOUS. It is clear, it doesn't have an odor or a color. I hope that you don't include those of us who have no water issues in the "switchover" or assessment. I realize there may be some that have water issues- but hope that you fix there water without messing with the majority of morningside that has no issues. Thank you Jilene Framke 4105 Morningside Road Minneapolis MN 55416 PH 952- 920 -3604 FX 952- 848 -7777 6/16/2008 �GtTY pSEAL To: Edina City Council JUN l 6 2009 DECEIVED From: Debra and Greg Page - 5309 Ayrshire Blvd note that we support Option #3 for lighting in the Highlands Neighborhood road /lighting project. I set out below an email from Bob McKlveen, which we endorse. We have shared that endorsement with our neighborhood. I hope you have received word of other endorsements as of this writing: from the Habens, Stauntons and Cronin. Thanks for all your work on this project. We look forward to a better functioning neighborhood and a better looking neighborhood. -- Debra and Greg Page Bob's email: Dear Neighbors, I support the Engineering Department's recommendations regarding neighborhood reconstruction and lighting, including their recommendation for "Option 3" for lighting replacement. Here's why: Option 1 does nothing to repair the current lights in the neighborhood, except those on Ayrshire. For example, currently, the light on my property corner only works intermittently, the one by Larry Woods' house doesn't work at all, and the one at the intersection of Croyden and Lochloy is on a rotting pole. Other lights also need work, as well. I feel that, if we're tearing up the neighborhood, we should also take care of the lighting at the same time, rather than doing it piecemeal. Option 1 does not accomplish this goal. Option 2 does replace the wiring, poles, and fixtures, but does so with wood poles and cobra head lights. Going back to the initial neighborhood survey, to which a majority of you responded, the cobra head light was the preferred option of less than 30% of respondents. The "acorn" light was the preferred choice of those who did not want the cobra head. Details of this survey are posted on the City website. Also, if you look around nearby suburbs, you'll find that cobra head lights are not being installed in "nicer" neighborhoods anymore, as they have a "dated" look to them compared to other fixtures available. Option 3 replaces the wiring, poles, and fixtures throughout the neighborhood, and does so with more attractive fixtures than the existing units. I'm very pleased that the final bid, including option 3, has come in for $2400 less than the initally publicized estimate of $15,000 per household. I encourage you to support the staff's recommendation for the neighborhood project, including lighting option 3, and to contact Council to express your support. Sincerely, Bob McKlveen 5261 Lochloy Dr. Edina, MN Susan Heiberg From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:54 AM CSEAL Cc: Susan Heiberg Subject: FW: THE EDINA HIGHLANDS LIGHTS UP RECEIVED - - - -- Original Message---- - From: ultan [mailto:ulton00I@umn.edu] Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 12:33 AM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: THE EDINA HIGHLANDS LIGHTS UP MAYOR'S OFICE; It is most troubling that with the intent to light -up the highlands with modern street lights and passage ways that the people in the neighborhood are not told the whole story- -these lights are causing more of a dark shadow then solving a problem. Besides the choices there is the cost per household that seems unfair, unwarranted and inappropriate at a time when incomes are challenged by a faltering economy. Where is the judgement here in pushing such change that is questioned by just about everyone concerned? I would like further discussion and. evidence that this move is necessary at this time and the cost per household is beyond some of us to meet. Roslye Ultan 5249 Lochloy Dr. 1 Susan Heiberg From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:52 AM Cc: Susan Heiberg Subject: FW: Highlands Lighting From: Ann Compton [mailto:anncompton @comcast,net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:19 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Highlands Lighting SF At- -" �EEt`JEID Page 1 of 1 Dear Mayor Hovland and Council Members Bennett, Maseca, Swenson, Housh. I am sure you must be very disappointed with Mr. Houle and Mr. Sullivan of Engineering Department who have failed to respect your request at the April 15 Council Meeting to work with the Highlands residents on the lighting issue. As a neighborhood, we have found them to be extremely arrogant and difficult. They are certainly not good representatives for our City. I am requesting that the Council either delay this decision on lighting or that Option 1 is chosen. Thank You. Ann and Kendall Compton 5201 Lochloy Drive 6/16/2008 June 12, 2008 A;W- SEAS. Edina City Council JUN I 3 1009 Edina Engineering Department RECEIVED Edina City Hall By 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Council and Staff, I am writing to express my support for the Engineering staff ?s recommendation for the Highlands Neighborhood project. Their recommendation, that the contract be let for street, sewer and water, curb reconstruction, and lighting, reflects both the needs and desires of our neighborhood. The recommended bid is significantly below both the initial and revised estimates, and at $12,600 per household represents a very good value for this much - needed project. You can expect to receive some negative comments from other residents regarding the lighting recommendation. City staff have recommended that the project include a more decorative style of light fixture and poles, but some of my neighbors have requested that the. City install cobra -head style fixtures on wood poles. I believe that such a preference for the cobra -head lights does not reflect the broad desires of my neighbors, who, I believe, prefer more decorative, up to date lighting. The City ?s own data reflect broad support for nicer lighting. The initial project survey performed by City staff had a good response rate (60% of surveys returned) and showed that fewer than 30% of respondents (17% of residents) want to stay with the cobra head on a wood pole design. Seventy percent of respondents expressed a preference for another design. Of the other designs offered, the ?acorn? style recommended by staff was the preferred style, according to that survey. City staff may have additional data from other surveys, further supporting this information. In recent months, I have been paying attention to the infrastructure as I ?ve driven around other suburbs. It appears to me that no other ?nicer? neighborhoods in other suburbs are installing the cobra head light anymore. The overall appearance of our neighborhoods is not keeping up with other comparable communities, and the choice of lighting is just one of the factors that makes other areas look better than our ?mature? neighborhoods, such as Highlands. In summary, I urge you to support the staff recommended project, including decorative lighting. It is a necessary, reasonably priced, and overdue reinvestment in our community. Sincerely, Robert E. McKlveen 5261 Lochloy Dr. Edina, MN 55436 Tara Doyle Bizily, M.D. N SEAL 4005 Lynn Avenue June 11, 2008 Edina, MN 55416 JUN '12 2009 RECEIVED BY Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members: Thank you for your attention to the Momingside water issue. I appreciated the thoughtful discussion spearheaded by Mr. Houle at the June 3 council meeting. Several citizens have raised health concerns regarding Thermopipe, and I would like to share some of the information I have obtained. As Mr. Houle stated, his focus has been on the engineering aspects of this project and he has relied upon the Minnesota Department of Health for an assessment of the health related components. It is my understanding that an HDPE product is likely to be used for the pipes, whether pipe relining or full replacement occurs. HDPE is a generic term for a type of plastic resin. Individual HDPE recipes have a slight variation in the ingredients and the ratios of each ingredient. HDPE is currently widely used in food products, including milk cartons. Generally, it is considered to be a very stable product. The amount of leaching from plastics can increase over time and this may be significant considering the useful life span of a water main is much greater than that of a milk carton. In addition, there is often an epoxy coating on the pipes. Thermopipe has a polyester component in addition to the HDPE. The Minnesota Department of Health approved Thermopipe for use in drinking water systems after a request for evaluation by the City of Edina. The approval was based on NSF certification. NSF uses a pass /fail method of certification; therefore, the Minnesota Department of Health does not know the actual amounts of chemicals leaching from each product. Test result values are considered the property of the manufacturer. As standards change, a product that formerly passed may become noncompliant, as has occurred with lead products over the last several decades. NSF determines its total allowable concentration (TAC) levels based on multiple factors. For any government regulated contaminant, NSF standards are 1 /10 of the strictest EPA or Health Canada regulations. In reality, most contaminants are not regulated by the EPA until they have been proven to cause harm. Therefore, NSF sets standards for other known contaminants with potential health risks. These levels are set by a panel of public health experts that compile information and set forth their recommended standards. For example, bisphenol A leaches from the epoxy that lines many plastic pipes. In April of 2008 the National Institutes of Health released the following statement "experiments on rats found precancerous tumors, urinary tract problems and early puberty when the animals were fed or injected with low doses of the plastics chemical bisphenol A." According to the NSF criteria that I received from the Minnesota Department of Health, bisphenol A standards were last reviewed 10/03/2002. Clearly, this may be a case where regulation has not yet caught up with research. There is no question NSF and governmental certification is important; however, the City of Edina should be aware of emerging trends in regulation and act proactively to determine if a product installed today may cause future health hazards and need to be replaced sooner than expected. To avoid this predicament, the city should require manufacturers to release complete health safety test data as a condition of bidding for public works projects. In addition to the health concerns, I am concerned about the cost - effectiveness of the proposed Thermopipe relining. Based on Mr. Houle's council presentation, Thermopipe would cost 22.6% more than open replacement methods ($1,238,974 vs. $1,010,000) and 77% more than cement relining ($700,000). Even if you add the opportunity cost of $24,000 to the open replacement for a one year delay, the cost difference is still 19.8 %. At the presentation, Thermopipe was stated to have a lifespan of 80 to 100 years; however, on Insituform's own website the lifespan is listed as 50 or less, depending on water pressure (see attached PDF from Insituform website). According to Mr. Houle, open replacement would last 80 to 100 years. This means that open replacement could provide twice the lifespan and cost 20% less. Although city staff has expressed concern about the longevity of cement relining, at the City Council meeting of November 5, 2007, Chris Catlin spoke of his experiences with cement relining in the City of Minneapolis, which presumably has very similar soil conditions. He stated that after approximately 10 years the cement relined pipes were still in "very good condition." There is no question that current water quality in some areas of Momingside is very poor; however, the city and residents need to work together to come up with the safest, most prudent and cost effective solution in the most expeditious manner possible. Thank you for your continued thoughtful consideration of this matter. I would appreciate the opportunity to meet with council and staff to further review my concerns regarding this important issue prior to the next council meeting. Sincerely, Tara Doyle Bizily, M.D. Dear Mayor Hovland and Council members, As you consider the bid for the Morningside water main lining project, please weigh the following: Fees The Comprehensive Plan draft chapter on Water Resources shows areas in Edina that receive water from Bloomington, Eden Prairie, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis (Morningside and an approximately three -block area at Beard and 54th St.). A decision on the Morningside water main project, if in any way tied to an assumption that the City will raise water rates for Minneapolis users in response, opens the question of whether rates for Bloomington, Eden Prairie and St. Louis Park users should also be raised. Morningside residents pay $2.86/100 cubic feet of water, with all but $0.02 going to the City of Minneapolis. Morningside residents pay to Edina the same fixed fee /meter charge that Edina water users pay. We have been told in the past this goes toward the water infrastructure (pipes, water towers, wells). In this way, Morningside residents have been subsidizing portions of the water system we do not use. Morningside residents pay to Edina the same storm water /sewer fees as Edina water users. Bloomington, Eden Prairie and St. Louis Park water users are billed differently from Minneapolis water users. According to an email from John Wallin (11/02/07), each pays for water used, plus c fixed fee /meter charge that goes to the municipality that provides the water. Does Edina collect additional fees from these users to help pay for the pipes used to deliver the water? If not, these users are paying even less into the system than Minneapolis water users are. The point of this is that any discussion of a fee increase based in part or in anyway on the assertion that Minneapolis water users have not been funding the water infrastructure and that a fee increase is needed to fund these projects in the future opens up a far larger discussion. All Edina users of water from other municipalities need -to be treated fairly and equitably. The staff report for the June 17 Council meeting says: "However, the financial department has ran a basic analysis and feels that a potential rate increase of $0.60 to $0.90 per 100 cubic feet of water would fund future capital improvement projects to this water system." This is a 211/6 -321/6 increase —and an increase nearly equal to the total amount that Edina water users pay per 100 cubic feet ($0.99). SEAL I�ECEe`�E® Staff has stated that approximately 67% of the $0.99/100 cubic feet Edina water users pay goes toward water operations and approximately 33% goes toward water infrastructure (pipes, wells, water towers). Simply broken down, about $0.33 of each dollar Edina water users pay goes toward infrastructure. Minneapolis water users only use one part of the Edina water infrastructure— pipes. Considering that Edina water users pay only $0.33 for the entire water infrastructure, should Minneapolis water users be charge nearly two to three times more than that to pay for only a portion ($0.60 to $0.90 is two to three times $0.33)? This is unreasonable. Switching to Edina Water If such a fee increase is imposed, Minneapolis water users will be paying nearly four times what Edina water users pay. This may make it politically easier to switch Morningside to Edina water, a capability the City is gaining with the Country Club utility project and stated as a likely possibility in the draft Comprehensive Plan: "The City of Edina provides service to the majority of its residents with a small portion of its customers being served by Eden Prairie, Bloomington or Minneapolis based on various geographical boundaries as shown on Figure 1. These areas have been analyzed for future service by Edina but will likely remain as is with the exception of the Morningside area which could be served in the future by Edina." If a switch is intended, a well- noticed public discussion needs to begin. Pipe Material The Thermopipe (Insituform) website says the life span of the product is 50 years or less, depending on water pressure. This conflicts with staff statements that the life span of the product is 80 -120 years. Is Thermopipe the most prudent option when you weigh the expense with the fact that the product has no track record in Minnesota, that (according to staff statements) the City would have just a one -year warranty on the product, and that the product's life span is significantly shorter than presented? Other options include the cement liner (as used in Minneapolis) and pipe replacement (open cut or trenchless). These less expensive options should be explored, with an eye toward how any decision on this project will influence how other projects are done. As with the fee increase, the pipe material choice should be part of a larger discussion. It's doubtful that Edina residents understand that when their water mains are replaced they are now replaced with HOPE. As Dr. Tara Bizily has explained in her correspondence with the Council, all HOPE is not the same and standards for determining harmful levels of exposure to these chemicals is evolving. What has been considered safe may not be considered safe a year from now. A little research into HDPE pipes also shows that these pipes are made by a number of different manufacturers in a number of countries. When a project is bid, is it known from which manufacturer the pipe will come, what the particular ingredients of that plastic are, and the detailed . results of NSF testing? Because the safety of long term use of and exposure to-plastic is questionable, the City should require as part of the bid process that bidders disclose the source of their plastic pipes, the particular ingredients of that plastic, and the detailed NSF testing results. This information can be weighed against current scientific data to make a determination on whether to choose that pipe and used in the future if data someday shows the pipes that were chosen cause harm. Need for Public Hearing It is important to note that while the water quality issue is pressing in some parts of Morningside, the extent of the problem has never been measured. All Morningside residents should have been surveyed to determine the number of homes that experience discolored water, and the degree and frequency of discoloration. This information may have helped shape a solution different and possibly better than the one proposed. It is not too late to survey. It is also not too late to hold a public hearing to hear from Morningside residents and allow them the opportunity to have their questions addressed. While the clock is ticking on accepting this bid and /or getting other work scheduled this summer, there is still time to hear from the public. A hearing is particularly important because of the implications of this decision. Lastly, as a property -owner whose drinking water comes from the pipes proposed to be lined (and who does not have a red water problem) I ask you to not accept the Insituform bid and instead to direct staff to consider a combination of cement lining and complete replacement with ductile iron pipes (which come cement lined and can be encased in plastic in areas where there is corrosive soil). I believe this would be the most cost - effective, longest lasting and safest choice and one that should be explored. Thank you. Jennifer Janovy 4016 Inglewood Ave. Susan Heiberg From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 7:47 AM Cc: Susan Heiberg Subject: FW: Morningside water pipe relining From: Tom & Judy Plant [mailto:jplantl @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 4:58 PM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Morningside water pipe relining Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members, C4 JUN 16- 2009 RECEivED Page 1 of.1 I am writing to express my concern about the proposed project to reline Morningside's water mains with plastic. The newness of Thermopipe, the product that city, staff seems to favor, and the fact that its manufacturer has not released full health safety data, is alarming. Thermopipe may meet all federal safety standards today, but where is the long term safety record? I understand that city staff is also proposing a substantial water rate increase for Morningside to cover the cost of the relining project and future improvements. Cement relining is cheaper and Minneapolis is using that method. I understand that even open replacement of the pipes is cheaper, but takes more time. However, installing an expensive, unproven product in order to achieve a hasty "fix" doesn't seem the best course of action. Perhaps hastening the time of street reconstruction in the affected areas and cleaning /flushing the water mains until that time would be a better solution. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Judy Plant 4350 Morningside Road 0plantl Opcomcast. net 952- 922 -0354 6/16/2008 Susan Heiberg From: Lynette Biunno Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:47 AM To: Wayne Houle; Jack Sullivan; Roger Glanzer Cc: Susan Heiberg Subject: FW: Morningside Water From: Karen Heine [mailto:kheine @straticom.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:11 AM To: Lynette Biunno Subject: Morningside Water 4SEAL Q Fr !. JUN I r ?.. , RECEIVED Page 1 of 1 I am very concerned about the changes being made to the Morningside water pipes and billing. I still feel the plastic linings need more research. It seems illogical to spend so much money without the assurance that the plastic is safe. I am also very concerned that the water billing in Edina is not equitable. My estimations show our water will increase by 21 -32 %. In Morningside we currently pay $2.86/100 cubic feet. Edina water users pay .99/100 cubic feet. We only use part of the Edina water infrastructure, so our increase should be less than .33/100 cubic feet. Please think this through thoroughly. Karen Heine kheine .straticom.us 952 - 922 -5780 6/17/2008 Dear Mayor Hovland and Council members, • g7Y t: The Morningside Neighborhood Association steering committee surveyed O� SQL Morningside residents to ask their views on the water quality issue and JUN 17 2009 proposed solution. The purpose of the survey was "to provide the City with information to help them make the best decision on how to address RECEIVED BY the discolored water issue in Morningside." A link to the survey was emailed to residents on June 14 and 41 residents had responded by early Tuesday afternoon, when the attached survey report was compiled. In brief, 65% of respondents do not have discolored water, 25% sometimes have discolored water, and 10% regularly have discolored water. Understanding more information is needed, 52.9% of respondents believe complete pipe replacement with ductile iron pipes is the best way to address the water issue, 41.2% favor cement lining, 5.9% favor complete replacement with HDPE pipes, and 5.9% favor the proposed polyethylene liner. 80% are concerned about the potential for plastic pipes and liners to leach chemicals into drinking water over time and 20% are not concerned. When asked which statement best reflected respondents' views about a potential water rate increase, 30.3% said "I want the problem fixed, but don't think a fee increase is justified," 21.2% said "If water rates go up, the City should look at switching Morningside to Edina water because it costs less," 21.2% said "I don't think the problem is bad enough to be fixed if fixing it will lead to the City increasing our water rates," 15.2% said "We already pay enough for water - -we can't afford to pay more," and 12.1% said "I'd rather pay more for water than continue to have discolored water- -the fix is worth the increase." When asked if they would like to be switched to Edina water, 75.7% of respondents said no and 24.3% said yes. Residents were asked how well they feel the City has communicated with residents about the issue and potential solutions. Using a five -point scale, with 1 being "I've felt very well informed" and 5 being "I don't recall any information from the City on the issue," 10.5% said 1, 7.9% said 2, 23.7% said 3, 34.2% said 4, and 23.7% said 5. Most questions included fields for residents to add additional comments. These comments are included in the report. If you have any questions, or have trouble viewing the attachment, please let me know. Thank you. Jennifer Janovy, for the Morningside Neighborhood Association steering committee �; Response Summary Page: Defining the Problem Total Started Survey: 41 Total Completed Surrey: 39 (95.1 %) IShow this page Only 1. Your address (required, for tracidng location of water quality concerns): Response Count view 41 answw-ed quest 41 sk4*wd quesdon 4 N Comment Text Response Date 1. 4200 Branson St. Mon, 6116/08 2:55 PM 2. 4133 west 45th street Mon, 6/16/08 1:39 PM 3. 4324 Grimes Ave. S. Mon, 6/16108 12:24 PM 4. 4315 Oakdale Avenue South Mon, 6116108 10:49 AM 5. 4188 W. 44th St Mon, 6/16/08 10:19 AM 6. 4201 W 42nd Street, Edina Mon, 6/16108 8:34 AM 7. 4230 Grimes Ave. S. Mon, 6/16/08 8:25 AM 8. 4356 oakdale av Mon, 6116108 7:59 AM 9. 4003 West 42nd Street Mon, 6116/08 7:43 AM 10. 4012 Inglewood Ave S Mon, 6116108 6:12 AM 11. 3913 Momingside Road Mon, 6/16/08 5:00 AM 12. 4215 lynn ave Sung 6115/08 9:25 PM 13. 4330 Oakdale Avenue S Sun, 6/15108 8:09 PM 14. 4005 Lynn Sun, 6115/08 7:38 PM 15. 4228 Oakdale Ave South Sun, 6115108 6:43 PM 16. 3915 MQmingside Road Edina MN 55416 Sun, 6/15/08 6.05 PM 17. 4201 OAKDALE AVE Sun, 6115/08 5:42 PM 18. 4305 Oakdale Av S Sat, 6114108 3:51 PM 19. 4209 Scott Terrace Sat, 6/14108 2:54 PM 20. 4004 Inglewood Avenue Sat, 6114108 1:44 PM 21. 4105 Moringside Sat, 6/14108 1:11 PM 22. 4412 Grimes Av So Sat, 6114/08 12:52 PM 23. 4243 Grimes Ave Sat, 6/14108 12:48 PM 24. 4247 Grimes Avenue Sat, 6114/08 11:57 AM 25. 4311 Grimes Avenue S Sat, 6/14108 11:18 AM 26. 4409 Branson Street Sat, 6114108 9:20 AM 27. 4204 Alden Drive Sat, 6114/08 8:49 AM N '8. 4005 W. 42nd st. Sat, 6114108 8:23 AM 29. 4012 Kipiing Ave Sat, 6114108 8:22 AM 30. 4205 west 42nd s# Sat, 6114108 8:15 AM 31. 4016 Inglewood ave. Sat, 6114108 8:15 AM 32. 4004 Inglewood Ave. Sat, 6/14108 7:32 AM 33. Monterey Ave. Sat, 6114108 7:28 AM 34. 4228 Lynn Ave Sat, 6/14108 7:27 AM 35. 4220 scott terrace Sat, 6114108 6:42 AM 36. 4309 momingside Sat, 6114108 6:24 AM 37. 4210 Alden Drive Sat, 6114108 6:19 AM 38. 4220 scott terrace Sat, 6114108 6:02 AM 39. 4239 Grimes Ave. S. Sat, 6114108 5:54 AM 40. 4212 w 42 st Sat, 6114108 5:41 AM 41. 4350 Momingside Road Fri, 6/13/08 2:43 PM 2. Is your water discolored? Yes No Sometimes Response Response Percent Court 10.0% 4 65.0% 26 25.0% 10 answered question 40 s7opvpcwquesaon t 3 3. Which' of the follovAng do you or have you experienced as a result of diiscolored water? (Check all that apply.) Other (please specify) 9 answerer► t umfian 39 skipped question 2 2 Yes Yes (not No Response (significantly) significantly) Count Discolored clothing or other fabrics 7.9%(3) 13-2%(5) 81.6°!0 (31) 38 Discolored fixtures or grout 10.5%(4) 132-/.(5) 76.3%(29) 38 One or more household member 25.6%(10) 5.1%(2) 69.21/6 (27) 39 avoids drinking the water One or more household member avoids bathing in the water 2.7%(1) 2.7%(1) 94.6%(35) 37 One or more household member avoids using water for washing 2.6%(1) 2.8%(1) 94.49/6(34) 36 (clothes, dishes, etc.) Replaced plumbing and or water heater in attempt to fix tfiscoioration 5.6%(2) 2.8%(1) 91.7%(33) 36 problem Other (please specify) 9 answerer► t umfian 39 skipped question 2 2 Comment Text 1. Pink Algae collects on everything 2. THIS SURVAY DOES NOT WORK ON MY COMPUTERI 3. we have thought about . it 4. Our water is fine, no smell, color or bad taste. 5. WE CHOOSE TO ALWAYS FILTER OUR POTABLE WATER 6. Added a water filter to the Hot Water 7. disgusting brown film on dishes washed in dishwasher 8. new water heater filters turn dark brick red in short period of time 9. it smells like algae when it rains Response Date Mon, 6116!08 2:55 PM Mon, 6/16108 1:39 PM Mon, 6116108 6:12 AM Mon, 6116108 5:00 AM Sun, 6115/08 5:42 PM Sat, 6114108 1:44 PM Sat, 6114108 8:22 AM Sat, 6114108 7:32 AM Sat, 6114108 6:24 AM 4. If yes or sometimes, for how long have you experienced this problem? Please provide details. Response Count ,. view 15 answered question 15 skped question 26 5 Comment Text Response Date 1. For the past 5 or more years we have had pink algae on to0ets, sinks, Mon, 6116/08 2:55 PM pet bowls, swimming pool, etc. What causes it? 2. sporadically for years Mon, 6116108 10:19 AM 3. for a few weeks we experience the problem Mon, 6116/08 6:12 AM 4. Over the last 7 years we have had discolored water but on a seasonal Sun, 6115108 9:26 PM basis or when there has been some disturbance in the area. 5. 2 112 years Sun, 6/15/08 7:38 PM 6. MANY YEARS...RARELY IN THE WINTER.. HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE Sun, 6/15/08 5:42 PM THE WATER TAINTING DURING SCHEDULED SEASONAL WORK WHEN HYDRANT WATER HAS BEEN AGITATED. 7. Two plus years Sat, 6/14/08 1:44 PM 8. Ive seen it discolored only once in the past 9 years. It was recent— but Sat, 6114/08 1:11 PM obviously rare. 9. Since 2001 (When we moved in) but it is a spotty problem. Not Sat, 6/14/08 9:20 AM consistent enough to avoid using/drinking the water. 10. Over the past several years there have been a number of times when Sat, 6/14108 8:22 AM water appears brown - I use a Britta filter on all water used for drinking /cooking. 11. Probably for as long as we've lived in the house —about 10 years. Only Sat, 6/14/08 8:15 AM notice tt because it discolors the shower curtain; sometimes when I fill up the bathtub. 12. 1 do not recall the exact year.that the problem began - my guess would be about 5 to 7 years ago. We stopped drinking the water (or using it for most cooking) because of the problem. I need to run the water for a period of time before doing laundry - because the water is very red at the beginning. The staining of enamel is most prominent in the laundry facilities - becaase the water is not run as fequently. I do not use bleach in the iaundrey - and I believe that the white laundrey is adversly affected by the red (then yellow tinged water). The interior enema] surface of the toilets are stained by the water. So far - the staining of the toilets has not been permanent - but it is continuous. We purchased a new water heater since the problem began - and with the rapid brick red ftcotloration of those water heater filters - I expect that the function of the new water heater is being affected. This is a BIG problem at our home. I originally attributed the problem to the poisoning of the trees (with some sort of herbicide) across from my home - thinking that my water pipes from the Minneapolis water system came through that wooded area. That thinking may be tottally incorrect Sat, 6114/08 7:32 AM N 13. To the best of my recollection, I first noticed discoloration and turbidity Sat, 6114108 7:27 AM last May or June. It lasted about 3 -5 days. In July( ?) I went to the Dr. because I had spent far too long (about 2 months ?) controlling diarrhea. At the time, I did not think about the possibility of the two being connected. Now I wonder. 14. 16 years. Not a big deal although a minor annoyance. Sat, 6114108 6:24 AM 15. For the past two summers, the water has been discolored (slightly Fri, 6113108 2:43 PM yellow) intermittently. This occurs primarily in late summer. 5. Have you contacted the City (staff or City Council) about this problem? If yes, please provide details. Response Response Percent count Yes —] 20.6% 7 No . 79.49'0 27 If yes, please provide details -' view 5 answered question 34 skipped question 7. 7 Comment Text + Response Date 1. simply called the city (public works) Mon, 6116108 6:12 AM 2. OUR LAST FYI CALL WAS SPRING '07. CLARITY UNPREDICTABLE LAST Sun, 6115108 5:42 PM SUMMER +FALL ... THE WATER HAS ACTUALLY BEEN QUITE GOOD SINCE THE NEW YEAR THUS FAR. 3. I once phoned to inquire what was happening to the water and to Sat, 6114108 8:22 AM complain about quality. Asked why can't we be hooked to Edina water instead of Mpls. 4. Not to complain about a problem, but to comment on the issue. Sat, 6114108 8:15 AM 5. When I noticed the discoloration and turbidity I immediately called the Sat, 6114108 7:27 AM City. I was told by a female that it was harmless and not unusual (although I had not experienced it in the 41 years I'd lived here). I. Page: Weigtring the Solutions 1. Understanding more information is needed, what do you believe is the best solution to the discolored wester problem? Proposed polyethylene liner T—] Cement liner Complete pipe replacement with ductile iron pipes Complete pipe replacement with HDPE (high - density polyetPy8ene ri pipes) Response Response Percent Count 5.9% 1 41.2% 7 52.9% 9 5.9% Comments :r view �It51r �tic5lJ6oli 1 21 17 24 9 Comment Teed Response date 1. We need to trust the experts. Don't debate so much, just trust and Mon, 6116108 3:01 PM forge ahead. 2. No idea Mbn, 6116108 10:22 AM 3. The city's information ranges from useless to conflicting. No basis for Mon, 6116/08 8:34 AM as opinion on a long tern project. 4. 1 have not read up on it so I would leave it up to staff Mon, 6116/08 6:14 AM 5. Perhaps additional study should be undertaken on this type of piping to Mon, 6/16/08 5:20 AM avoid making a bad decision. 6. 1 do not know enough about any of the options but I do have concerns Sun, 6115/08 9:32 PM about plastics and chemicals that could possibbly leach into our water. 7. I'm not sure which replacement method Is the safest.for drinking water Sun, 6115/08 8:12 PM pipes, but ductile iron seems a reasonable choice. B. I'm not sure about the exact solution but I'm not interested in any type Sun, 6/15/08 6:08 PM of plastic in the pipes. Also, I'd like to stay on Minneapolis water; don't change a good thing! 9. Cheaper, safer, longer - lasting Sat, 6114/08 3:55 PM 10. 1 dont see a problem— but if you do replce something —I'd want to be Sat, 6114108 1:14 PM assured of safety. 11. 1 don't know, haven't followed it very closely. Sat, 6114108 12:56 PM 12. don't know Sat, 6114108 12:49 PM 13. Too much rs!k with the polyetheylene. Why take the risk at greater Sat, 6114108 9:23 AM cost? 14. Anything but plastic Sat, 6114/08 8:52 AM 15. if the cost of iron pipes was too much, I would choose the cement liner Sat, 6114/08 8:31 AM option. 16. 1 don't believe in either cheap or temporary solutions. Do it right.the Sat, 6114108 8:28 AM first time AND get us connected to Edina water source instead of Mpls. 17. Combination of complete replacement with ductile iron where needed Sat, 6114108 8:16 AM and cement liner in places where pipes are in good condition. 18. 1 have not studied this subject. However, I AM VERY CONCERNED Sat, 6114/08 8:03 AM ABOUT THE SAFETY OF MY DRINKING WATER (but due to health problems - have not had the energy to pursue this). I am uncomfotable about the use of plastics for water transport and storage. My uninformed impression would be that iron pipes would provide the best satety. I am tired of being afraid of the safety of my drinking water. I 10 also have an allery to some unidentified types of adhesive. 19. Plastic is threatening to me as there has been so much waming about the effects of off- gassing. I would feel safer about replacing what is already there. 24. 1 have no idea what the right answer is. I am not experiencing the rust water issue. 21. Not sure there is a problem Sat, 6114108 7:44 AM Sat, 6114108 6:27 AM Sat, 6114108 6:04 AM 2. Residents have raised concerns about the potential for plastic pipes and liners to leach chemicals into drinking water over time. Do you share these concerns? Yes No Response Response Percent Count 80.0% 28 20.0% 7 Reasons view 12 arrswoer� question 36 s")ped questbn 6 11 Comment Text 1. Before it was iron and lead, now it's something else. What next. Nothing Man, 6/16108 3:01 PM is perfect, get on with it and do it faster than the last time they replaced all. the pipes around here. 2. Council is remiss in its failure to address and resolve taxpayers Mon, 6116108 8:34 AM concerns. 3. If the studies on this type of piping indicate that the potential exists for Mon, 6116108 5:20 AM harmful chemicals to be released into the water supply, then a different alternative .should be considered. 4. Insituform has apparently refused to divulge any testing data, which immediately leads me to not trust their product. 5. see above comments 6. YEs— 1'd be concerned. Dont like plastic -- but I realty dont think we have a problem. I hope this wont effect all .of Momingside -- just because of a few. 7, same 8. We have been fine for 100 years -- using the same, but upgraded iron pipes seems the best route to take. Sun, 6/15/08 8:12 PM Sun, 6115/08 6:08 PM Sat, 6114108 1:14 PM Sat, 6114108 12:56 P. Sat, 6114108 11:59 AM 9. Keep hearing news about how plastic is leaching into various Sat, 6114108 8:52 AM products... plastic baby bottles and cups, water bottles, etc. Would be fearful of the same thing happening with tap water. 10. 1 think the rise in the past 20 years of autism, diabetes, hormonal Sat, 6114108 8:28 AM changes, etc., in our children makes a statement about our increased dependency on chemicals including petrochemicals. 11. There is literature to support that many plastics are not safe for the Sat, 6114108 8:03 AM storage of consumable food and beverages. An article about this was recently published a a local newspaper. 12. See above Sat, 6114108 7:40 AM 12 k To help defray the cost of this project, City staff plans to have consultants analyze water rates fior all Minneapolis water users in Mlomingside and potentially raise the rate beginning in 2009. Which of the following statements best describes your thoughts about a water rate increase? Response Response Percent Count I'd rather pay more for water than T� 4 12.9b continue to have discolored 'I water -the fix is woM a 'Pee increase. I don't think the problem is bad enough to fix if fixing it will lead to 21.2°! 7 the City increasing our water rates. We already pay enough for 5 water-we e can't afford to pay more. 15 -2 °,� . If water rates go up, the City should look at sMching Morningside to 21.2% 7 Edina water because it costs less. I want the problem fixed, but don't 30.3% 10 think a fee increase is justified. Other (please specify) view 13 answered guesVon 33 13 6. 1 don't mind a fee to fix something. Our problem is not that serious Sun, 6115/08 9:32 PM however, if this is something that will continually get worse I would rather get it fixed now than later. Also, I would prefer a solution that kept Momingside with Minneapolis water. I dislike the taste of Edina water! 7. Comment Text Response Date 1. What has Edina been doing with the surplus rates they have been Mon, 6/16108.3:01 PM .. collecting from Momingside all these years? Use that money to fix anything that needs improvement You must have m711ons, or would if 8. you had banked it. Sat, 6/14108 1:14 PM 2. Do NOT want to switch Momingside to Edina water. Mon, 6116108 10:52 AM 3. Momingside pipes are an Edina issue, Momingside should be wholly Mon, 6116108 10:22 AM 10. responsible to fund a city solution Sat, 6/14108 8:28 AM 4. feeble attempts by "staff' (don't these people work for the taxpayer'?) Mon, 6116/08 8:34 AM 11. to justify rate hikes are unprofessional. Sat, 6/14108 8:03 AM 5. For drinking, I prefer the Mpls water to Edina water, but the long term Mon, 6/16108 5:20 AM fix is probabty to switch Momingside over to Edina water. Mpls can continue to raise the water rates to outside communities and I would prefer not to pay the premiuim for their current monopoly when the alternative of Edina water is at hand. 6. 1 don't mind a fee to fix something. Our problem is not that serious Sun, 6115/08 9:32 PM however, if this is something that will continually get worse I would rather get it fixed now than later. Also, I would prefer a solution that kept Momingside with Minneapolis water. I dislike the taste of Edina water! 7. I'm fine with our current water situation. I understand some people a Sun, 6115/08 6 :08 PM few streets down have issues. If we need to pay that's fine but I'd rather do it Tigrn' (i.e. nothing that will cause potential risks like plastics) the first time. 8. 1 will be very upset if my water bill goes up -- and dont want to be Sat, 6/14108 1:14 PM saddled with other's bills. 9. We prefer Minneapolis water Sat, 611410$ 9:23 AM 10. The City should switch us to Edina water simply because it tastes Sat, 6/14108 8:28 AM better (I've lived both places) regardless of whether It costs less. 11. 1 don't know which of the above to check. I think the problem is very Sat, 6/14108 8:03 AM big - and needs to be fixed. I would rather pay more for water than continue to have discollored water. But if the solution still leaves me feeling unsafe about drinking the water - I surely do not want to pay for it. Buying water for drinking and cooking has been an expense. I'm not sure that an increased fee to Momingside residents alone is justified (and if the problem has any connection to the poisoning of the woods belonging to Calvin Christian School - I think they should be brougnt Into the equasion). 11 1 would like to do what is best in the long nm and I would not like to Sat, 6114/08 7:40 AM pay more than other Edina residents pay. 14 13. 1 have no issue with drinking water from the misissippi through Sat, 6114/08 6:27 AM minneapolis. 4. The City will soon have the capability to connect Momingside to Perna water. Would you lake to switch from Minneapolis water to Edina water? (Pipe replacementfrehabilitation w[il still be necessary because water quality issue sterns from the pipes and not from the water source.) Yes Response Response Pent Count 24.3% 9 NO 1 76.7% 28 Reasons view 22 answered question 37 slappealquesdon a 15 Comment Text Response Date 1. It should be cheaper. If it isn't why not? Mon, 6116108 3:01 PM 2. Too many hard water problems with Edina water Mon, 6116108 1226 PM 3. Edina water doesn't taste as good; we would need a water softener, Mon, 6116108 10:52 AM which we don't with Mpts water; the hardness of the water Is hard on appliances 4. DEFINE THE PROBLEM BEFORE JUMPING TO A HALF -BAKED Mon, 6116108 8:34 AM CONCLUSION!! 5. Edina water is known to taste bad compared to Minneapolis water. Mon, 6116108 7:46 AM 6, The costs for Mpts water are already considerably higher than Edina Mon, 6116108 5:20 AM water. Let's make the switch to Edina water and become self - reliant on our water supply and not continue to be a pain in the cities... over minor issues. individually, Mominside residents can install filitration systems to Improve the drinking water quality. 7. PLEASE NO! Minneapolis water taste so much better and does not Sun, 6115108 9:32 PM need a water softener. 8. Significantly lower cost per 1D00 galons. Sun, 6/15108 6:44 PM 9. Our water is great. I used to live in SLP and it was awful. I see no Sun, 6/15108 6:08 PM reason to change. 10. THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER WATER DELIVERED TO OUR AREA IS A Sun, 6115108 6:06 PM QUALITY PRODUCT. UNLIKE AN UNDERGROUND AQUIFER, WHICH REQUIRES THE HOMEOWNER TO PROVIDE HARDWARE TO SOFTEN THE WATER, THE RIVER SOURCE IS NATURALLY SOFT AND UNDERGROUND AQUIFER FRIENDLY. 11. Mpts. water tastes much better than Edina water' Sat, 6/14/08 3:55 PM 12. We love our Minneapolis water!!!! Sat, 6/14/06 2:57 PM 13. I'm just fine with the status quo. We have GREAT water- I'd actually Sat, 6/14108 1:14 PM prefer Mpls over Edina. 14. 1 don't know. Does Edina water cost considerably less than Mpls. Sat, 6/14108 12:56 PM water? 15. Minneapolis water is cleaner, sober and taste better. Sat, 6114108 11 :59 AM 16. Minneapolis tastes better than Edina water. Sat, 6/14/08 9:23 AM 17. Yes! Yes! When we first moved to Momingside way back in 1977, 1 Sat, 6/14/068,:28 AM phoned the City and asked what was wrong with the water, and discovered it was no longer Edina water — I swear if I'd tasted the water before I bought this house 1 wouldn't have bought this house, it's that 16 different. 18. 1 have no reason to prefer Edina water. I have heard that residents with Sat, 6/14/08 8:03 AM Edina water need to have a water water softener. That would be an issue for us because we do not have a basement. Our tiny utilities closet has no extra room for a water softener - and , of course, this would also add more expense. 19. It seems more efficient to deal with fewer people (governmental Sat, 6114108 7:44 AM entities). 20. Have heard many complaints about taste of Edina water Sat, 6114108 7:34 AM 21. 1 see no need to change. Sat, 6114/08 6:04 AM 22. Edina water is very hard. A water softener would be necessary for Fri, 6/13108 2:46 PM everyone, thus negating any cost savings. 17 Page: Additional Comments 1. How well has the City communicated with residents about this issue and the proposed solution? Very I don't Rating Response recall any well—I've information felt very from tine Average informed City an this issue 10.5% 7.9% 23.7% 34.2% The City has communicated. (4) (3) (9) (13) 23-7%(9) 3.53 comments answered ques#on sNppedquesdan I •__ IL 38 14 38 Comment Text Response Date 1. We have not received sufficient notice that the city is considering Mon., 6116108 10:56 AM switching Momingside to Edina water. This is a very important issue to us. 2. Info has been misleading, incomplete, and difficult. Traceability is Mon, 6116108 8:34 AM almost impossible. 3. Like anything else, their needs to be a certain level of awareness and Mon, 6116108 5 :23 AM an individual interest for a resident to get up to speed on these types of issues. Between the Cities great media communications and the Momingside Assn's messages and 'involvement, their is no reason for any Morningside resident to can't claim they didn't know about an issue. 4. Virtually nothing has been divulged by the City about the product that Sun, 6115108 8:13 PM Staff is recommending for use In our drinking water pipes, including no actual fee increase estimates or safety information. 5. REALIZING IT IS DIFFICULT TO BE ALWAYS TRANSPARENT AND Sun, 6115108 6:15 PM EFFICIENT, THE MNA HAS COMPLEMENTED,, SUPPLEMENTED THE CITY'S EFFORTS IN IMPORTANT WAYS. 6. _ I've only seen info on this from the Momingside Association. Sun, 6115108 6:09 PM 7. 1 hope you aliw a vote. Sat, 6114108 1:15 PM 8. Only recall info from the city when we got the notice that they were Sat, 6114108 9:24 AM replacing Country Club pipes. We have gotten better info from our Morningside representatives. 9. Regular emails have been helpful. Sat, 6114108 8:32 AM 10. 1 have not heard about the meetings in time to make arrangements to Sat, 6114/08 8:06 AM attend. I often work in the evenings - and would need at least one months notice in order to change my work schedule. I usually hear about the meeting a few days before it happens. I think 1 can attend next Tuesdays meeting - but that has been the first one I have been free to attned. 11. 1 have not attended council meetings Sat, 6114108 7:42 AM 12. Wait until scheduled street repairs for replacing pipes since water Sat, 6114108 7:35 AM quality is fine. A few more years won't change anything. 13. Seems like another case of the moningside neighborhood association Sat, 6114/08 6:28 AM jumping to conclusions and raising non - issues again. 14. The Morningside Neighborhood Association has done a great job of Sat, 6114/08 5:58 AM keeping us informed. The city? Not so much. 19 r,tTY JUN June 16, 2008 I��LC��EI ry — To: Mayor Hovland, Edina City Council Members From: Arlene Forrest, 4400 W. 50' Street, Edina Re: 4010 West 65t' Street, Preliminary Development Plan Because I was unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on May 25 and vote on the above matter, I want to state my support for approval of the variance and rezoning requests for the proposed medical building at 4010 West 65h Street. Residents and business owners should be able to rely on the City to stand behind and enforce our planning ordinances and guidelines, so it is imperative that the Council be very discriminating when considering variance approvals, rezoning and other exceptions. I believe this project merits such exceptions. The project is in line with the City's goals for the area, as reflected in the draft Comprehensive Plan. This is an ideal location to allow greater density and to expand the concept of a medical "campus." The site's location adjacent to the freeway will help buffer and minimize any negative impact of the building on nearby neighborhoods. The plan for the West 65'�' Street fagade appears to emphasize human scale. Yes, it is a large building, but this is one site where it is logical to accommodate the size, especially to provide a facility that will continue to address the space requirements of the proponents for a number of years. The unique location provides optimal freeway access, with two access points to Highway 62 very near the property. This would minimize the effect of resulting additional traffic load in the busy Southdale area, and allow staff and clientele to better utilize public transit. The traffic load /hours of peak trip generation will likely differ from that generated by retail businesses and restaurants. The proponent medical group may be providing emergency services to Fairview Southdale Hospital; the staff could easily cross to the hospital as required, benefiting patient safety. The proximity would also be an advantage should any of the medical group's patients require hospitalization. The proponents specialize in orthopedic medicine, a specialty field that will increasingly be in demand by our local (and national) aging population. The services would - directly benefit our residents. The centralized Edina location would help the practice draw clientele from around the Twin Cities. I expect Edina would likewise benefit from the public perception of the city as a premier location for consolidated medical services. I respectfully urge your approval of the Preliminary Development Plan. Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel - efficient used cars. Date: June 10,2008 To: Officer Carlson Edina Police Department Re: Arrow Financial — harassing phone calls a GIT c! SEAL R� JUN 1 3 1009 RECEIVED 04__1;4«V' a. ( 'risom Officer Carlson — I wanted to thank you again for your diligence in handling this matter with Arrow Financial. I believe that your involvement made the difference in how I was handled by their company. After you called this afternoon, I did-call them back and spoke with Latoia Owens — at least that was the name that she gave me. She looked up my information and found out that there was no Pamela Bornemann on file — only a P. Bornemann. This;person listed was being called at the number 909- 823 -3937. She also gave me an address of 17667 Granada Ave in Fontana, CA, as well as the last four digits of this person's Social Security Number. Obviously, this organization is not very well run. ` When I questioned why I was being called when the number was a different number, she did a search on our department number. She came up with the name of Pamela Bowman. I kept mentioning that I was working with you on this matter and she told me that she would take my number out of their database and apologized several times. I cannot thank you enough for your involvement in this situation. I realize that your job does not always give you positive reinforcement — but please believe me when I say, you have made a positive change in my day. It was getting to the point that I would not even want to answer the phone any more at work since I did not know who would be on the other end. I appreciate it so much. God Bless You! Pam Bornemann Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B -2 Roseville MN 55113 -3174 May 29, 2008 Mayor Gene Winstead 1800 W. Old Shakopee Rd. Bloomington, MN 55431 -3071 Dear Mayors: SEAL JUN 11 2009 RECEIVED Mayor Phil Young Mayor James Hovland 8080 Mitchell Rd. 4801 W. 50' Street Eden Prairie, MN 59344 Edina, MN 55424 -1330 I am writing in response to your letter of April 23 concerning the TH 169/1 -494 interchange project. Thank -you for taking the time to write, I appreciate this opportunity to respond. I have been briefed on the April 14 meeting and am familiar with the project. I applaud the spirit of partnership that your three cities bring to a project that impacts all of us. Your letters describe well the situation we find ourselves in. I appreciate your willingness to work with us to identify a lower- priced-approach that will fix a substantial number of the problems at that interchange. . As you note, Mn/DOT is working to understand the programming implications of the recently passed transportation funding legislation W2800). We expect to have a better idea of our ten year program later this summer. This funding legislation advanced a number of bridge projects that were in various stages of development. Even with intense effort over the spring and summer, we will not have estimates for those bridge replacements that we can have total confidence in. When the variability in our revenue streams, along with the variability in construction costs, is considered, the need for continuing flexibility and adjustment to our programs can be clearly understood. House File 2800 provided significant additional funding for transportation, but also included specific requirements as to how those funds must be spent as well. The most notable of these is the mandate to MnDOT to replace or repair a significant number of bridges statewide over the next ten years. In addition, the recent Legislative Audit report provided findings and recommendations that MnDOT must make increased investments in pavement and bridge preservation, as well as other aging infrastructure. After preservation is adquately funded, MnDOT will work to fund a balanced program of low - cost safety and mobility improvements to address congestion issues. In the context of these funding priorities, the TH 169/1494 project is a safety and mobility improvement and we recognize the value such a project would have in the southwest Metro area. Please be assured that we are continuing to identify funding revenues, Mayors Winstead, Young and Hovland May 30, 2008 Page 2 project costs and a good method to fund important regional projects such as the TH 169/1494 interchange. We will continue to work on an earlier timeframe for this project as revenues and funds permit. It is important to us, and we recognize your continued support. Please continue to work with Tom O'Keefe, Metro District West Area Manager and his staff in the development of this project and our joint efforts to deliver this much needed improvement. Sm, ely, Susan M. Mulvihil , P.E. Acting Metro District Engineer cc: Thomas K. Sorel = Commissioner of Transportation Eden Prairie City Council Bloomington City Council Edina City Council Edina City Manager — Gordon Hughes Edina Public Works Director _ Wayne Houle Bloomington City Manager — Mark Bernhardson Bloomington Public Works Director — Charles Honchell Eden Prairie City Manager — Scott Neal Eden Prairie Public Works Director — Gene Dietz Representative Ann Lenczewski — 509 State Office Building Rep. Ron Erhardt — 245 State Office Building Rep. Erick Paulsen — 309 State Office Building GIT CZ� �u�v v�R vNSY� SERI. 9� JUN 11 1Q09 U v e ? OD $ RECEIVED Ch «f SI;Aa , _Z - /rep )©.Y k- o�Vo &— e)?7eP-?G-hGy ex� /a hr �,l fha7` m l�E cr��io Leas A! S a h d Z L,vas fin g--kle Ae Y V/v c� We ZWv %1- /;Osj7`7eO Q i7 d Se .; /-e of Lit S- "/? /�j raY' SCvo 7`"e ►''� �5'h� has yjoul NeCvvc--YG j. LUG f--e -a f /c� a�� v�G a fn_ you y /��de•y -�' 1>l� are -_7fia� v b foss /o!� a%s Gf`ficer- 66AP r S"1;70, 0, -e 1y y yso ,.�- Sedu�ri /� arty 5difra /y1y �sq�s 6217 Belmore Lane SEAL Edina, MN 55343 JUN 0 9 2009 June 9, 2008 RECEIVED BY_ Edina City Council Members James Hovland, Mayor Members: Joni Bennett, Scot Housh, Linda Masica, &Ann Swenson 4801 W. 50t' St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear City Council Members: On behalf of the neighbors on Belmore Lane, Spruce Road and John St. (streets adjacent to proposed Interlachen construction project), I want to thank you for providing the opportunity on June P to inform you about the impact the construction plans at Interlachen County Club may have on our small, quaint neighborhood. We informed George Carroll, Interlachen GM, in advance of the meeting and were pleased that he too was able to attend. Our major concerns are: • Changing our neighborhood from one that is family friendly, quaint and quiet into a thoroughfare for large truck and maintenance employee traffic on Belmore Lane. Due to the anticipated heavy traffic on Belmore, the neighborhood prefers that the road access be through the golf course rather than Belmore. • Our neighborhood would no longer be a "single dwelling unit district" since it would include a maintenance building, garage, employee. parking lot, and large supplies of fertilizer, herbicides, etc. • The possible loss of a major wooded area surrounding a pond and two single family lots (now owned by Interlachen). Our neighborhood wants to continue to have its current ambiance. Changes currently proposed seem to imply rezoning of the single family lots now owned by Interlachen. We ask that the City Council include our neighborhood in any rezoning, construction and permit discussions. We continue to ask Interlachen management to involve us in discussions in advance of finalizing their construction plans. Sincerely, Joan M. Wierzba 952 - 931 -0855 Werzba(a-comcast. net c: George Carroll, Interlachen GM /COO Cary Teague, Edina Planning Director CITY OF BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA April 23, 2008 Acting Transportation Commissioner Robert McFarl, 395 John Ireland Boulevard Mail" 120 St Paul, MN 55155 -1899 RE: T.H. 169/1 -494 Interchange Reconstruction Project Dear Acting Commissioner McFarlin: April 10 to discuss the potential Thank you for the time you and your staff spent with �cti Project As we discussed at the acceleration of the T.H. 169/1 -494 Interchange regional proj ect that has been delayed on several meeting; this is the last segment of an important occasions due to cost overruns on other projects and an overall lack of transportation funding. possibility of finally implementing this pro as a result of new We are heartened by the p bill. revenues from the recently passed transportation funding At our meeting, you presented a number of concepts to provide much of the functionality of the approved project layout but at a significantly lower cost. It is hoped that by reducing the overall project cost the project can be programmed for construction in the relatively near future. The issues of most importance to us are safety, congestion and local access. Based on our review of the options prepared by your staff, we are optimistic that an option can be developed that meets the functional needs of both MnDOT and the adjoining communities that is in scale with the options previously presented. Please continue to work with our staffs to complete a revised layout for each city council's consideration. We understand that the current approved project is shown in MnDOT's Work Plan starting in 2016 but that funding for the project has not been secured. You also indicated that the current project ($120 Million construction cost) may be too large to secure funding in the future — even as far out as 2016. With this understanding, we are interested in pursuing a smaller scope project only if the smaller scope allows the project to be constructed significantly earlier than the full project. We are interested in the outcome of your upcoming programming analysis to see when a lower cost project could be built. 2 Your efforts and willingness to consider ways to complete the conversion of County Road 18 to a much needed regional freeway is yery much appreciated. We look forward to worldng with you and your ox�stcuct this project as soon as possible. ell Sincerely, m Phil Young, Mayor James Hovland, Mayor Gene Winstead, Mayor I/ City of Eden Prairie City of Edina City of Bloomiiigto y CC: City Councils City Managers City Public Works Directors Tom Sorel, MnDOT Commissioner (April 28"i) Aani Sahebjam, Metro District Engineer City Legislative Delegations' Minutes of the Edina Park Board April 8, 2008 Edina City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Hulbert, Rob Presthus, Randy Meyer, Howard Merriam, George Klus, Mike Damman, Dan Peterson, Jeff Sorem, Ray O'Connell, Todd Fronek MEMBERS ABSENT: Carolyn Nelson STAFF PRESENT: John Keprios, Janet Canton I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS John Keprios opened up the floor for nominations for Chair of the Park Board. Jeff Sorem MOVED TO NOMINATE TODD FRONEK. Howard Merriam MOVED TO NOMINATE MIKE DAMMAN. Ray O'Connell MOVED TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. George Klus SECONDED THE MOTION. A secret ballot was done to which Mr. Keprios tallied the count. Mr. Keprios stated that Todd Fronek has been voted as Chair of the Park Board. John Keprios opened the floor for Vice Chair of the Park Board Howard Merriam MOVED TO NOMINATE MIKE DAMMAN. Ray O'Connell MOVED TO CLOSE NOMINATIONS. George Klus SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Keprios stated that Mike Damman has been voted as the Vice -Chair of the Park Board. Mr. Keprios congratulated and thanked Mr. Fronek and Mr. Damman. II. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 12, 2008 PARK BOARD MINUTES Ray O'Connell MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 12, 2008 PARK BOARD MINUTES. Howard Merriam SECONDED THE MOTION. MINUTES APPROVED. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Countryside Park Master Plan - Mr. Keprios gave a brief overview of the project and showed the Park Board two concept drawings that were done by architects for Countryside Park. Mr. Keprios handed out the current capital improvement plan and pointed out the projects that are in line for the next several years. He stated that the plan is pertinent to their discussion tonight as to the funding because he sees in the not too distant future they probably will have an opportunity to fund this project through the capital improvement plan. He noted that is one option that can be discussed at a different meeting. Mr. Keprios pointed out that the architect took input from the Park Board meeting and the committee when coming up with the two different concepts. He noted that in both concepts there is no outdoor skating. However, everything is subject to change based on the process and input from the neighborhood. Mr. Keprios stated that last time he was of the opinion that we ought to wait until we have the money in hand before we start to look at improving the park. However, he now has a different view and is of the opinion that we don't know how much money to ask for if we don't know what the plan is. Therefore, what he is proposing that the Park Board support the concept and process of sending out notices to all of those that live within 1,000 feet of the park. He indicated there would be an informal off camera setting where the architect would show the two concepts and get input. He stated that once the neighborhood and Park Board have given their input, the architect would come back with a consensus plan. Mr. Keprios stated that once he receives the blessing he will start to put dollars to it and they can start to decide whether they want to put it into their capital plan or look at other funding alternatives. Mr. Fronek stated the motion is on the floor to give our blessing to have Mr. Keprios meet with the neighbors of Countryside Park as well as the consultant in order to further develop these concepts. George Klus SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Meyer asked if 1,000 feet would be a wide enough area and suggested that other forms of public notification be used whether it's a sign in the park or a notice in the Sun newspaper. He stated that he thinks we want to make sure that we get to the people who are using the space versus just the neighbors that happen to live within 1,000 feet because he is sure that people from all over use Countryside Park. Mr. Merriam informed the Park Board that today he spent a little bit of time at Countryside Park and noted that by being there in person it really gave him a whole different view of the park. He noted that perhaps the new Chair could facilitate a visit to the park. He stated that it's just an idea to get a view of everything by actually being at the park. 2 Mr. Klus stated that he knows the Fire Department uses the tennis courts and basketball court quite a bit and suggested that they may want to get their input as well. Mr. Damman commented that he agrees with Mr. Meyer in that they should use other forms of public notification in addition to a mailing to the neighborhood because there are a lot of people who travel to come and use Countryside Park. He stated that they need to give everyone a chance that uses Countryside Park to give their input. Mr. Peterson stated that he would like to see Colonial Church involved with this as well. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he did have a face to face meeting with Colonial Church's Business Director to which he laid out all of the plans and asked for them to provide him some written input. He indicated to Mr. Peterson that if he thinks there are some other amenities that would benefit the church that currently are not in plan he would love to hear them. He added that he suggested to their Business Director to consider a cooperative adventure with the parking lot renovation but has not received any commitment from Colonial Church at this point. Mr. Sorem stated that he thinks these are some great concepts and is excited for the discussions with the neighbors to see what some of their ideas are for the park. However, the most interesting idea he wants to hear from the neighbors is about the need for a walking path especially with Bredesen Park being close by. He noted that the big thing is getting the neighborhood's input and finalizing the plan. Mr. O'Connell commented that regarding the Bredesen Park walking path maybe they could promote a good interconnect by expanding around Countryside Park. Mr. O'Connell pointed out that anything they can do to maximize the parking will help sell the package because that's a big issue on Olinger. He noted that the tennis court at Countryside Park does get used a lot. Mr. Klus asked Mr. Keprios to look into the potential private development next door because it could have some type of athletic potential in it. He commented that he thinks it's important for the neighbors to know about it even though it's not controlled by the city and is a private development. Mr. Keprios replied that he will keep a close watch on it and report back at the next Park Board meeting. Mr. Fronek commented that he thinks they have some great concepts moving forward and it's a great starting point to talk to the neighbors. Todd Fronek entertained a motion to close discussion. George Klus MOVED. Howard Merriam SECONDED. Todd Fronek stated that the motion on the table is TO DIRECT MR. KEPRIOS TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS BUT ALSO TO HAVE SOME FORM OF PUBLIC NOTIFICATION THROUGH THE NEIGHBORS, COLONIAL CHURCH AND THE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hulbert asked Mr. Keprios if he would consider sending out notices to the people who live further than 1,000 feet to the north because to the south are the fire department and the Crosstown Highway and to the west is the church. He also asked if a sign could be placed on the fence of the little league field letting people know there might be a meeting to talk about the park. Mr. Keprios replied he would be happy to look at 1,500 feet and see where the lines seem to make the most sense. He commented that they will be liberal when picking a radius that makes sense. Mr. Keprios stated that he thinks it's appropriate to post some signs at the park as well as well as inform the athletic associations and put a notice in the newspaper. B. Community Education Services Board — Mr. Keprios stated that he is very pleased to announce that Ray O'Connell has volunteered to serve on the Community Education Services Board. Mr. Keprios thanked Mr. O'Connell. IV. UPDATES FROM STAFF A. Fireworks Display Selection Committee - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that he is looking for a volunteer who would be willing to serve on the fireworks display selection committee. He explained that it is a one time meeting only committee where vendors would show their fireworks display both in writing and on a DVD. He noted there may be a representative from Fairview Southdale Hospital as well as a couple of staff members and hopefully the fire marshal. He added that Fairview Southdale Hospital is donating $15,000 for the fireworks display; therefore, they don't want to leave any money on the table and want to select the best vendor with the best proposal. Mr. Keprios asked that any Park Board members who may be interested in being on this committee can talk to him after the meeting. B. Murals on the City Gym Walls - Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that the Edina Public Art Committee did a super job with the murals that are now on the walls of the two city gyms on the Edina Community Center campus. Mr. Keprios showed a few pictures of what some of the murals look like. Mr. Keprios informed the Park Board that they had enough funding from their interest earnings from the development of the gyms that they were able to pay for these. V. PARK BOARD COMMENTS A. Walking Path at Braemar - Mr. O'Connell commented that he has had a couple of conversations with Mr. Valliere regarding the walking trail that goes along the north side of the golf course and stops just south of the maintenance shed. He noted .that it looks like they can tie that trail into the old trail that is above the gun range and goes across the west side of the golf course and down on the south side and then comes up over the hills and on to Gleason. Mr. O'Connell indicated that they would like to somehow find a way to get around that corridor because it's a very dangerous corner. Mr. Keprios replied that's a great idea and he will make it a point to talk to Wayne Houle, City Engineer. He indicated that he knows there are some wetland challenges in that corner and he doesn't know just how much they can widen the trail if at all. F11 B. Vandalism in the Parks - Mr. Peterson commented that he recently read an article in the "About Town" on park vandalism and cameras. He asked Mr. Keprios if they caught the people and asked what happens when they are caught. Mr. Keprios replied he doesn't know that it does an effective job of catching the people as much as it does to deter the vandalism. He noted that they have caught one person and they've identified the face of another. He stated that if the camera keeps the kids from vandalizing the parks then their mission has been accomplished and it seems to be working. 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA HERITAGE PRESERVATION BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008, AT 7:00 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL — COMMUNITY ROOM 4801 WEST 50T" STREET MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Rofidal, Bob Kojetin, Lou Blemaster, Jean Rehkamp Larson, Connie Fukuda, Arlene Forrest, and Sara Rubin MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Ferrara and Laura Benson STAFF PRESENT: Joyce Repya, Associate Planner Wayne Houle, City Engineer OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Vogel, Heritage Preservation Consultant Tom Mason, 4622 Drexel Avenue Don Nygaard, 4513 Browndale Avenue Cheryl Dulas, 4609 Bruce Avenue Kitty O'Dea, 4610 Bruce Avenue BOARD MEMBER RECOGNITION: Sara Rubin — Chairman Rofidal presented Member Rubin with a Certificate of Appreciation for her service on the Board as a student member. This was Ms. Rubin's last meeting, as she has a summer job out of state and will be attending college in the fall. All Board members thanked Sara for her contributions and wished her well. Nancy Scherer — Chairman Rofidal announced that Member Scherer's tenure on the HPB as a representative from the Planning Commission has come to an end. Board members signed a Certificate of Appreciation that will be delivered to Ms. Scherer. Arlene Forrest — Chairman Rofidal welcomed Member Forrest as the newest member of the HPB, representing the Planning Commission. Ms. Forrest served as a regular member of the HPB prior to her appointment to the Planning Commission. I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: April 8, 2008 Member Kojetin moved approval of the minutes from the April 8, 2008 meeting. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board II. COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT A. Certificate of Appropriateness H -08 -3 4622 Drexel Avenue — New Construction Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the west side of the 4600 block of Drexel Avenue. The original home, constructed in 1941 is identified as a Neo- Colonial. A two stall, front loading garage is located on the north side of the house. On October 26, 2006, the Heritage Preservation Board approved a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the existing home and build a new home. Since that time, the project was abandoned, the property was sold, and a new plan for the home was approved on February 12, 2008, #H -08 -1. The subject request again addresses new construction which includes removing the existing attached garage and replacing it with a new attached, front - loading, 2 stall garage; recessed 8.33 feet from the front building wall. This is unchanged from the plan approved in - February. As provided in the previous plan, an 850 square foot, 2 -story addition is proposed for the rear of the home set back 3.96 feet from the south building wall of the existing home, and 14.46-feet from the southerly lot line; 43 feet from the rear (westerly) lot line; and 14 feet from the north lot line. The significant changes demonstrated in the proposed plan are evidenced in the architectural style proposed, thus affecting the rooflines, windows and building materials. The new construction demonstrates the use of stone veneer and wood siding; double hung windows, and asphalt shingles. An important element when reviewing home construction in the Country Club District, in addition to the architectural style, is to determine how the home will compare in size and massing to the adjacent homes. The height and setbacks of the new construction remain unchanged from the previous plan approved for the home, which had been deemed appropriate. Preservation Consultant, Robert Vogel reviewed the proposed plan and indicated that because the proposed new construction does not involve_ rehabilitation of a heritage preservation resource, design review only needs to consider the visual impact of the proposed new construction on the historical integrity of the district. The proposed roof shape and height meet current preservation standards. Recycling the existing attached garage is contextual and therefore appropriate: the district contains several homes built before 1945 with "tuck- under" front - loading garages. (Recycling architectural components of houses can mean significant savings in energy, time, materials, and money and is entirely 4 Minutes – May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board consistent with preservation goals.) The stone veneer finish, dentils, six - over -six sash windows, ornamental shutters, dormers, end -wall chimney, and classical entry entablature are features commonly seen on historic facades throughout the district —note that the plan of treatment requires new homes to have facades that are "architecturally similar to existing historic homes" with features that "relate to the pattern of existing adjacent historic homes and respect the rhythm and continuity of similar features along the street ". Vogel added that from a streetscape perspective, the new house appears to be architecturally compatible in scale, massing, color, and materials with nearby older homes and the historic character of the district. Mr. Vogel concluded that he recommended approval of the COA, subject to the plans presented for the following reasons: • The existing house at 4622 Drexel Avenue should not be considered a heritage preservation resource because it is not an example of an important heritage resource type; • The home does not contribute to the historical significance of the district; • The proposed new construction is architecturally compatible with historic homes in the district and meets the requirements for new home design that are set forth in the district plan of treatment. Mr. Vogel recommended that in the interest of historical accuracy, the plaque recording the date of construction should indicate that the subject property was originally built in 1941 and rebuilt in 2008 —Built 194112008 would be appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Planner Repya also recommended approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request supported by the following findings: • The proposed new construction is architecturally compatible in scale, building materials, and texture with the nearby historic homes and the streetscape. • The historic integrity of nearby historic facades will not be impaired. • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club Plan of Treatment Ms. Repya concurred that the approval should be subject to the plans presented, and the condition that a year built (2008) plaque or sign is placed on the structure. 3 Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Member Fukuda asked why the owner was proposing the change to the exterior design. Owner, Tom Mason explained that a potential buyer who currently lives on the street would prefer the proposed design. Member Forrest observed that'the double hung windows appear larger than those on neighboring historic houses. Member Rehkamp Larson pointed out that for egress purposes, current building codes require larger windows than those installed when the district was developed. Member Blemaster expressed concern that the stone on the front and side of the home is not shown on the rear side. Member Rehkamp Larson suggested that perhaps the stone could be continued on the base of the rear elevation, which would help in breaking up the long stretch of blank wall on the side /north elevation. Consultant Vogel explained that it is not uncommon to see detailing such as stone on the front and not the rear of homes built in the district. He added that the home, as proposed is compatible with the district and compatible with the surrounding homes. He added that through the Certificate of Appropriateness review, the board should not look for the home to mimic the historic homes, rather to compliment them. MOTION & Vote: Following a brief discussion, Member Kojetin moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness request subject, to the plans presented and the conditions recommended by Staff. Member Forrest seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. H -08-4 4600 Edina Boulevard — New Detached Garage Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the southwest corner of Edina Boulevard and Bridge Street. The existing home is an English Tudor style constructed in 1929. A 2 -car attached garage is located on the west side of the home, accessed by a driveway running along the north property line. The subject request involves converting the existing 2 -stall attached garage into a single stall garage /workshop, and building a. new, 476 square foot detached garage in the southwest corner of the rear yard. The plan illustrates the new structure will maintain 3 foot setback from the rear (west) lot line and 4 foot setback from the side (south) lot line. A new curb cut will not be required since the existing driveway will provide access to the proposed garage. The new 2 -stall detached garage is proposed to measure 20'x 23'8" or 476 square feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the 4 Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board architectural style of the home. Attention to detail is demonstrated on all four elevations. Stucco siding with trim boards applied in a similar style found on the front of the home is proposed for the walls, and asphalt shingles are proposed for the roof to match the house. In keeping with the most recent change to the Plan of Treatment regarding how the appropriate height of a new detached garage should be calculated, the proponent considered the heights of the detached garages for the following properties when determining the height for the proposed garage: 4601 Moorland Avenue 20.25 feet + @10% = 22.27 feet 4603 Moorland Avenue 18.1 feet (hip roof) + @10% = 19.91 feet 4607 Moorland Avenue 20.67 feet (hip roof) + @10% = 22.7 feet Average Maximum Height = 21.6 feet Proposed Garage Height = 20.9 feet The height proposed at the midpoint of the gable is shown to be 14 feet, and a height of 7 feet is provided at the eave line. The ridge line is shown to be 25.5 feet in length. The maximum lot coverage allowed for the property is 25 %. Prior to the construction of the proposed garage, the lot coverage on the property measures 20.5 %. Construction of the proposed 476 sq. ft. garage will create a maximized lot coverage of 25 %. Preservation Consultant, Robert Vogel reviewed the subject plans and opined that the proposed new garage meets the basic criteria for appropriateness set forth in the Country Club Plan of Treatment. The design of the new garage matches the Tudor style of the historic home, is subordinate to the house, and is compatible in size, scale and materials with other historic homes in the district. The garage will not disturb or alter the defining characteristics of the property or the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Planner Repya concluded that staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request supported by the following findings: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The information provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club Plan of Treatment Ms. Repya further recommended approval subject to the plans presented, and the condition that a year built (2008) plaque or sign is placed on the structure. 5 Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board HOMEOWNER COMMENTS: Mr. Dan Ilten explained that he has lived in the home since 1983, and is hoping that with the construction of the proposed detached garage, he will have more storage, as well as a more efficient use of space. Mr. Ilten, an architect, designed the proposed garage with the intent of complimenting the house by matching the pitch of the roof as closely as possible. He added that the 20' 9" height proposed is six inches shorter than the maximum allowed with the new provision provided in the Plan of Treatment. However, it would be his desire to add another one foot of height, creating a 21' 9" height/ 6 inches higher than the Plan of Treatment would recommend. Mr. Ilten added that he shared the plans for the garage with the neighbors who all expressed their support to him. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Member Rehkamp Larson observed that the garage plan presented provides a 7 foot eave — an 8 foot eave is much more standard, would be preferable and could be accommodated with the one foot height addition Mr. Ilten has requested. Member Blemaster stated that Mr. Ilten presented an excellent design for the garage, and agreed that the addition of an additional foot would not be detrimental to the project. Members Forrest and Kojetin expressed concern that the Board has a responsibility to uphold the guidelines provided in the Plan of Treatment. Both questioned whether it would be appropriate to deviate from the guidelines. Consultant Vogel pointed out that the guidelines in the Plan of Treatment are prescriptive, not regulatory — if a slight deviation from the guidelines provides a benefit to the architectural style of a structure, that should be viewed as a positive. Members Rehkamp Larson, Fukuda and Blemaster agreed that the additional six inches in height to the average height proposed would enhance the project and not have a detrimental effect on neighboring properties. MOTION & VOTE: Member Fukuda moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request subject to the plans presented, with the exception of the height which may be increased by one foot to 21' 9 "; and subject to the conditions outlined by staff. Member Rehkamp Larson seconded the motion. Members Blemaster, Rehkamp Larson, Fukuda, Forrest and Rofidal voted aye. Member Kojetin voted nay, stating that while the concept of adding to the height appears appropriate, he did n Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board not believe it was the place of the HPB to redesign a project for an applicant. Motion carried. H -08 -5 4513 Moorland Avenue — New Detached Garage Planner Repya explained that the subject property is located on the east side of the 4500 block of Moorland Avenue. The existing home is an English Tudor style constructed in 1929. A 2 -car attached garage is located on the rear elevation of the home, accessed by a driveway running along the south property line. The subject request involves building a new, 572 square foot detached garage in the southeast corner of the rear yard, and eventually converting the existing 2- stall garage into living space. The plan illustrates the new structure will maintain 7.3 foot setback from the rear (east) lot line and 9 foot setback from thig side (south) lot line. A new curb cut is not required since the existing driveway will provide access to the proposed garage. The new 2 -stall detached garage is proposed to measure 22'x 26' or 572 square feet in area. The design of the structure is proposed to compliment the architectural style of the home with stucco clad walls and wood trim consistent. with the Tudor architectural style. Attention to detail is demonstrated on the west and north elevations. The east and south elevations demonstrate wood trim and timber detailing on the upper gable end of the elevations, however from the eave line to the foundation, no detailing is provided. Cedar shingles are proposed for the roof. The height of the proposed garage is shown to be 19" at the highest peak. The homeowner considered the new height requirement set out in the revised Plan of Treatment (no taller than 10% of the average height of existing detached garages on adjacent lots),and clearly demonstrated that at 19' the height meets the new requirement. The height at the mid -point of the gable is shown to be 14 feet, and a height of 9 feet is provided at the eave line. The ridge line is shown to be 26'5" in length. The maximum lot coverage allowed for the property is 25 %. Construction of the proposed 572 sq. ft. garage will create a lot coverage of 21.9 %. Consultant Vogel reviewed the plans and opined that the proposed garage is quite a handsome building. He particularly liked the dormers with clipped "jerkin - head" gables. Vogel pointed out that the south and east elevations have undecorated walls from the eave line to the foundation. The Plan of Treatment guidelines recommend avoiding large expanses of undecorated walls. Perhaps the view from adjacent properties will be screened by a privacy fence or landscaping, however if that is not the case, more attention to detail on those elevations should be considered. 7 Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board STAFF RECOMMENDATION & FINDINGS: Planner Repya concluded that staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request supported by the following findings: • The plans provided with subject request clearly illustrate the scale and scope of the project. • The information. provided supporting the subject Certificate of Appropriateness meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Country Club District Plan of Treatment, however details of the south and east elevations should be clarified. Ms. Repya added that she recommended approval subject to the plans as approved, and a condition that a year built (2008) plaque or sign is placed on the structure. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: Member Forrest questioned why the walls of the south and east sides of the proposed garage were blank. Property owner Don Nygaard explained that the south wall abuts the neighbor's single story attached garage, while the east wall abuts the unadorned wall of the detached garage to the rear. Mr. Nygaard pointed out that the plan focused detailing on the elevations that are visually impacted. He then clarified the views from neighboring properties and indicated that the intent is to also provide landscaping. Member Rehkamp Larson observed that due to the siting of the structure in relation to the adjacent properties, the blank walls did not pose a problem for her. Member Forrest commented about the considerable amount of impervious surface on the property with the construction of.the proposed detached garage. She added that she would like some assurance that if the proposed garage were approved, that the impervious surface serving the current attached garage be removed. Mr. Nygaard stated that he would be agreeable to such a condition. MOTION & VOTE: Member Rehkamp Larson moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness request subject to: 1. The plans presented, 2. Staffs recommended conditions, and 3. The removal of the impervious surface serving the attached garage when the detached garage is constructed. Member Blemaster seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board H -08 -6 Country Club District — Revised Traffic Plan STAFF REPORT: City Engineer Wayne Houle explained that some residents from the Country Club neighborhood approached the City Council about deleting the traffic calming portion of the district's street improvement project which the HPB addressed and issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for in November, 2007. On April 21, 2008, the City Council held a special public hearing to address the concerns of the neighborhood group. At that time, the Council approved deleting all of the traffic calming measures previously approved for the project with the exception of the pedestrian safety improvements relating to the brick/raised crosswalks. Planner Repya explained that although the City Council has already acted on this revised plan, a new Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) is required for the changes, as set out in the district's Plan of Treatment. BOARD MEMBER DISCUSSION: Board members discussed the changes to the street improvement project and the ramifications the changes will have on the neighborhood. Concern was expressed about the loss of signs that identified the neighborhood as an historic district. Engineer Houle explained that moving forward, no changes can be made to the project without getting City Council approval. However, built into the plan is the replacement of the street signs. He added that he and Planner Repya have been working on a small logo, or monogram that could be adhered to each street sign, at no additional cost, to identify the historic district. Mr. Houle added that if the neighborhood wanted to add a monument pillar, much like what was proposed on the south end of Wooddale Avenue, they would need to petition the City Council. He commented that September or October, 2008 would be the optimal time for such a request to be received. MOTION & VOTE; Following a brief discussion, Member Kojetin moved approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Country Club District street improvement project. Member Fukuda seconded the motion. Members Rehkamp Larson, Forrest, Rofidal, Kojetin, Rubin, and Fukuda voted aye. Member Blemaster abstained. The motion carried. 9 Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board Kitty O'Dea — 4610 Bruce Avenue — Identifying the landmark designation of the neighborhood Ms. O'Dea explained that she feels it is very important that the landmark designation of the Country Club District be clearly labeled, particularly for new residents whose realtor may not have included that information during the purchase of the home. Dovetailing on Engineer Houle's explanation of the Country Club District revised street improvement project, Ms. O'Dea stated that she is concerned that with the revised plan, the entry signs identifying the historic neighborhood, which were part of the original plan, have been lost. She appreciated Mr. Houle's plan to include the historic recognition on the street signs; and advised the Board that she is interested in pursuing additional signs at the main entrance to the district along Sunnyside to the north and West 50t Street to the south which will identify the neighborhood as being a Heritage Landmark District. Consultant Vogel pointed out that branding neighborhoods is a good thing, In addition to the educational benefit, signage also adds to the aesthetics of the area. In providing a unified plan for the Country Club District, the HPB could establish a design to replicate for other landmark properties in the city. Planner Repya reported that she has been working with Communications Director, Jennifer Bennerotte on creating a logo to be used to identify landmark properties. She added that at the June meeting she would have several choices of the logo for the Board to consider. MOTION & VOTE: Following a brief discussion in which the Board agreed that they should take a stance on encouraging signage for heritage landmark designations, Member Forrest moved that: The Heritage Preservation Board recommends neighborhood entrance signage for the historic Country Club District because the City has designated the neighborhood as a Heritage Landmark District; The City fund and maintain the signs identifying the district as a Heritage Landmark, and The City concentrates on continued public education of the Heritage Landmark designation. Member Kojetin seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Board members thanked Ms. O'Dea for her interest in educating not only the general public, but future residents of the Country Club District about the heritage landmark designation. All agreed that they look forward to continued work on the education piece of the designation. 10 Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board B. Revised Plan of Treatment Planner Repya explained that the City Council adopted the revised Plan of Treatment for the Country Club District at their meeting on April 15, 2008. Board members discussed details surrounding implementation of the revised plan. All agreed that a copy of the approved Plan of Treatment should be mailed to the Country Club District residents with a cover letter emphasizing the importance of familiarizing themselves with the plan. Planner Repya explained that a copy of the plan has been sent to the printer and will be mailed to the residents with a cover letter from the City Manager at the end of the week. III. PUBLIC EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES: Consultant Vogel explained that one of the best ways the city can enhance the public's understanding and awareness of good heritage preservation practices is through the development of education projects aimed at property owners, contractors, realtors, developers, and others who may become directly involved in preservation undertakings. Heritage preservation education projects generally fall into one of two categories: active (classes, seminars, demonstrations, hands -on workshops, etc.) and passive (dissemination of information through publications, the Internet, and other media). To date, the HPB has emphasized passive education projects, consisting primarily of press releases, web pages, brochures, tours, and events aimed at a general audience. The recently completed process involving the revised Country Club District Plan of Treatment has led the Board to consider ways in which it might actively communicate preservation concerns and property management practices to individuals and organizations directly responsible for maintaining and preserving privately owned heritage preservation resources. Mr. Vogel recommended considering the following public education project concepts which would convey a wide range of specific information about the preservation, protection, and use of heritage buildings: Publish an informational brochure about the Country Club Heritage Landmark District with a brief description of the district's history and the revised plan of treatment, with a concise explanation of design review process and a list of sources of additional information. This could simply be a revised version of the existing Country Club District brochure. A downloadable version could also be posted on the city web site. 2. Produce a "handbook" for owners of historic and older homes in all parts of the city that will provide them with basic information about how to deal with preservation, repair, and maintenance issues in a logical and historically sensitive manner. This kind of publication would require a significant 11 Minutes – May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board investment in staff time and /or consultant services— recent examples cost $5,000 to $10,000, depending on the amount of graphic material that needs to be produced. As with the Country Club brochure, this publication could also be made available free of charge on the city's web site, thereby saving the cost of printing. 3. Assemble a "preservation library" of printed materials for public use at the Edina Public Library. Ideally, this collection would include duplicate sets of materials to allow copies of each publication to circulate while maintaining a comprehensive set of reference (use in library) materials. The types of materials useful to historic homeowners, contractors, etc. would include: the illustrated Secretary of the Interior guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings, the National Park Service technical guidance publications (Preservation Briefs, Technical Reports, Tech Notes), and various "how to" publications. A comprehensive collection of technical and informational materials should also be placed at City Hall for the use of city staff. 4. Sponsor a series of free, informal workshops focused on "best practices" for historic preservation, aimed at local realtors, developers, contractors, and others who deal with heritage preservation resources in the city, facilitated by members of the HPB and city staff, using preservation professionals from the private sector or staff from the State Historic Preservation Office, local colleges and universities, the Minnesota chapter of the Institute for American Architects, the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, and other organizations as presenters. Workshop topics could include topics such as painting, landscaping, repair and maintenance of windows, buying and selling historic properties, building architecturally appropriate additions, and the design of garages in historic districts. While some presenters may be willing to volunteer their time, most will need to be compensated; therefore, it may be necessary to find a non- governmental partner or sponsor to provide financial support. 5. Partner with a preservation agency, college or university, professional organization, or knowledgeable individuals to offer "hands -on" classes in historic building restoration techniques through Edina Public Schools Community Education. In some cases, the classes could be offered on- site, i.e., the class would meet at a historic property and participate in an ongoing rehabilitation project. The usefulness of these adult enrichment classes will depend in large part on how they are marketed by the school district (and promoted by the city). Mr. Vogel explained that organizing, financing, and administering these projects will require resourcefulness, imagination, and persistence. The members of the HPB, as individuals and as a group, should expect to be actively engaged in all phases of project development and implementation. 12 Minutes — May 13, 2008 Edina Heritage Preservation Board General discussion ensued regarding utilizing Edina's Community Education program to offer classes focusing on the "care and feeding of older homes ". All agreed that would be an important step in fulfilling a major responsibility of the Heritage Preservation Board as set out in the city codes by "Encouraging the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of significant heritage resources through public education." Consultant Vogel observed that the community education program would be the most effective way to get the preservation message out to the public. Member Rofidal observed that contractors and realtors would be an important audience to address. Brainstorming then ensued regarding the goals and objectives of such a program. All agreed they would come to the June meeting with suggestions of speakers and topics to consider. MOTION & VOTE: Member Kojetin made a motion that City Staff and the Board focus on providing public education options as a means of enhancing Edina's cultural resource management. Member Fukuda seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. 2008 HERITAGE AWARD: Chairman Rofidal announced that the 2008 Heritage Award will be awarded to Edina Morningside Community Church, 4201 Morningside Road, at the May 20th Council meeting. Rofidal encouraged members of the Board to attend the meeting in support of the plaque presentation by the Mayor to the church. V. OTHER BUSINESS: None VI. CORRESPONDENCE: None VII. NEXT MEETING DATE: June 10, 2008 VIII. ADJOURNMENT 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Repya 13 -f kp, aAa ch e,4 pe-h- m C i rcul-eztzL by (oy) cc4-fu —rhiS CA- �r.+h[Lc -, .9 -Foy QLi re�►� Nl � n ► � -� �, d,� ���ardt r-�' - f�t,er �v��� V1�af�r�� �e 2.�►nr �e�c4,e�� de�e�rv�e. -� lilct,v� �'Y1e� ►� � �� Co�1 � -r�vls c -Fe n cve a + r .� j �s cci ► a.. RL61 t c. r �.d die ►� 'Th't S -p4e t=4) 6-,, is t rc a fUl av n r 51 N I �v �s A-:�;so 6a tl) m ) b 14 by Cm ca'v►2. G \I C\ —rv&,Ytkyox . oPS�At �' �uN 112008; p � REC�NE� n Y) v � �� � YI qs, giZq 4.6 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: AMW SG,�/2✓, �*<4* Address: it /-Y, b /J4 f� �`�11. Signature: __ ___���. I This petition is supported by: AT.. A AArpcQ Ri¢nabire •.. SFq , �FcF,��ao8. �v Date r / M11 i 4 111 WA Wwmml PMW ' i ' ►��1...I,L �1 FnE- � � / _ / 11 W.AL14 wol'Al ' y onl PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: /Ui 5m Address: D D Yn' EA J -1-'I 'stn/ s5 V/ Signature: This petition is supported by: r L T___ A aa�000 4 I.Riannihire, i y"- S, q' i eRpe�?008 ' Date -g M6 I Wi _ i -- _ PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to acceptina bid. Y This petition is circulated by: Name: QUr e l wS �� p ddress- A p Signature :� �8 This petition is supported by: A ,7.1 «--- Rianst11re Date J u ' �r r 11 v� it M J PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. 6��� This petition is circulated by Name:1�c < <'�' Address: 40 01 Signature: This petition is supported by: XT---- _ A AA,-o�� Ri anaturre Date L V auum, 1 let /(;,s -re / �2!z �4z t'f CA Ks ZLI �! 2 (��/ l �GV a i f /U W rC� 3 (q Q1 c- 4 QJ yDL 6 De'6 GY1 S S 17 If 8 446-1 ' \iv 4J -- 9 A L< ' 10 I,p AAAA.L aa�s 11 r r. P't"I � A A , 12 %� , 1 - PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: J UL LI rc ut� Address: 0 0 �, Signatur0 This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date 1 Lliler Dm kdoeT Lr,- Edf'nA 2 l�L� ►C VI �2P� � �- h n AVM vl / 3 0 �T W ve 4 U � LUMA kz ca l(o 4 I► Q�°I Mvv 5 v. N3 p� e-11 T � k 7 t'ck� e 000 L-Vnri to 6 Mo 8 r L ,v A,) RVZ C--Plrvg 9 �n L M AV(2- vic� 10 11 kr) 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: JU I e Bd n &�r' Address: 000G ZAj n n Iry Signature: This petition is supported by: d* w aa_ Q ..icmnfi -. /* Date 1 Moll/W%--- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. 1 CIA This petition is circulated by: Name: Truro- B tizo i Address: ��bp5 /, fh� �- Signature:This petition is supported by: ,. T___ _ e AfirPCC Signature Date N acne `� °,t - 1 2 3 L 4 A666 L " RO 6 kJn `+ &vv-- �2c:c.+.` I� � - � I /At S . J 4 —16 -08 R o V Sq2', :1weasaW yol o IV —/6 -0 8 , 5 '- Ave 9 c� l—�� ��1 __ `FGZ`F �i.��l,hr A ✓a S cl.nr ML K2- / l� L� 17�i 10 2, (0 14h nq Acv a M'N �. 11 -4'-'QJ J 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Momingside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to acce ��NA � ' g:a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: Address Signature• J This petition is supported by: PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting_A bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: ari S Johns' n � Address: 47 0 U a.kdta , S Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address 10eZaDr Date Y • 5 WAIVA It 01710 40— 04 FU Iffifl%'o 0.10-000, �A�1 MA2 / / / 11111,11001 EMIR IFUL 1 MON!, M�M 1y I ww'- � r I / WI N �I Y • 5 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: Address: 4-330 ©ctk," Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date FA rM 1.— AI//AA 0, 2 R I 1 At / l vo �1►i Mv I rM MM Er "m Tlv� CA 1� ME - r1v PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. _._ This petition is circulated by: Name: 'o �►15 Address: 43 3 c- A S 1 Signature: ov —.eO This petition is supported by: N Address Si a Date ame 1 arlS go 4-330 OQAUA Av� . 9 2 3 5 6 4 -5 7 41 9 10, < 1 16-16-08 11 � 16-01 12 tA� a __r- PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. 2a .L. ,",-g P )1' This petition is circulated by: Name: � � ay o� Address: ". Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date 1 'go 2 .4 L ° d� a �: a.. V dl e I`LL c� ew-c vut IA- -t < . 3 vE-FF �u�1 e-5T&4A 0 L12-2-4 C::VLt,&x S 5 4 5 L Wo Vw �eelk- 8 c 12 r ✓�. � �A d-' � - /I � /0' U PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. ��p This petition is circulated by: Name: C.�f'�,�1 S 0k'5 <; } Address: 4330, c Signature: This petition is supported by: - - Name Address Signature Date 1 a� \�o on L 2 Co rn( Johns 330 OakdaLA� c& - 7 -Q 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 II 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name:�Q- Address: o Signature: F;F This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date u 5 r t c-A �� s R-� �v - ��Q azte-64'1. < 7 ll 2 /7 3 low (ol 17 6 9 4 Erin W r 422 s � Z� st_ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to accepting a bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: Address: Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature U 1� J Date W61W 2 - © J an 2.A Ll'e - 4 w s 0 0 W s o? 6 %(-"Z,4� 4AJWTYA �4 X109 �- so 8 IOIJF EN R!\1 0l 6,Rlblt s 9 Ll . , � ._ qol'! 10 11 12 PETITION TO THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL- June 15, 2008 Type of Action Requested: Public Hearing Due to community concerns regarding the safety of pipe material and the cost of the Morningside water main project, we the residents of the City of Edina, request the City Council notify residents of the proposed bid and hold a public hearing on this project prior to acceptin bid. This petition is circulated by: Name: A&t eK -/ �r ' Address: +z4& G rk �" es f 1VZ Sa , Signature: This petition is supported by: Name Address Signature Date 1 n - _ C LM I f y tz4-\- `7 A A.�-6Y1-vRa4 A'J So 2 l rr i and 1'C '-f 2- 2- Ga s 4vei So -/G .0 t= - 6 7 8 9 10 11 12