HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-03-03_COUNCIL MEETINGAGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 3, 1986
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
MINUTES OF HRA Meeting of February 245 1986, approved as submitted or corrected by
motion of seconded by
ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
I. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by City Manager or Engineer. Public comment heard. If Council
wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass
if improvement has been petitioned for; 4/5 vote required if no petition.
A. Permanent Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb and Gutter
1. Improvement No. P -BA -269 - York Avenue - W. 76th Street to W. 78th St
* 2. Improvement No. P -BA -270 - W. 76th Street - Xerxes Av to Edinborough Way
* 3. Improvement No. P -BA -271 - Edinborough Way - W. 76th St to York Av
B. Ornamental Street Lighting
* 1. Improvement No. P -L -27 - 6100 Block Chowen Avenue
* 2. Improvement No. P -L -28 - 4800 Block West Sunnyslope Road
II. PUBLIC HEARING AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Planning Department. Public comment heard. Zoning Ordinance:
First and Second Reading requires four -fifth (4/5) favorable rollcall vote of
all members of the Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Four -fifth (4/5)
favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to pass. Lot
Divisions, Plats, Appeals: Favorable rollcall vote of majority of quorum requires
to pass. Final Plat Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: Three -fifth
(3/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to pass.
A. Zoning Change
1. Second'Reading
* a. R -1 District to R -2 District - Robert Anderson - 425 Washington Av So
B. Preliminary Plat Approval
* 1. Edina Oaks - Lot 15, Prospect Hills - Generally located south of Dublin
Road and west of Antrim Court
C. Final Plat Approval
* 1. South Harriet Park Steiner Addition - Steiner and Gislason - Generally
located east of Minnehaha Blvd and south of West 52nd Street
III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
IV. AWARD OF BIDS
* A. Park Improvements - Van Valkenburg Park
* B. Restroom Tile - Braemar Club House
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. State Budget Cuts
* B. Management Audit Committee
C. Appointment to H.O.M.E. Board
D. Wine Licensing Procedure - Set Review Date (4/28/86 - 7 p.m.)
E. Accessory Uses /Nuisance Ordinance - Set Hearing Date (5/5/86)
F. Annual All- Volunteer Awards Reception - April 22 at 5 p.m.
G. Seniors Transportation
* H. Pilot Recycling Project
I• Special Concerns of Mayor and Council .
J. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
VI. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Petition for Wetland Easement Vacation- Lot 3, Block 1, The Habitat -
Set Hearing Date (4/14/86)
VII. RESOLUTIONS. Favorable rollcall vote by majority of quorum to pass.
A.
Prohibiting
Parking
- York Avenue from W. 76th Street to W.
78th Street
B.
Prohibiting
Parking
- West 76th Street from Xerxes Avenue to
Edinborough Way
C.
Prohibiting
Parking
- Edinborough Way from W. 76th Street to
York Avenue
Agenda
Edina City Council
March 3, 1986
Page Two
VIII. ORDINANCES. First Reading: Requires only offering of Ordinance. Second Reading:
Three- fifths (3/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council required
to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Four - fifths (4/5) favorable rollcall vote
of all member of Council required to pass.
A. Ordinance No. 1111 -A9 - To Establish a Tax Lien for Delinquent Accounts
B. Ordinance No. 1101 -A10 - To Preserve Remedies in Addition to Certification
for Recovery of Unpaid Charges
C. Ordinance.No. 171 -A23 - To Change the Amounts of Certain Fees
IX. FINANCE.
A. Claims Paid. Motion of , seconded by for payment of the
following claims as per Pre -List dated 3/3/86: General Fund $138,790.20,
Art Center $506.82, Golf Course Fund $122,959.44, Recreation Center Fund
$1,710.53, Gun Range Fund $51.59, Utility Fund $196,351.84, Liquor
Dispensary Fund $2,204.30, Construction Fund $5,883.08, Total $468,458.16
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS
Mon Mar 10 Special Council Meeting - Survey Format
Sat Mar 15 Council Workshop
Mon
Mar
17
Regular Council Meeting
Mon
Apr
14
Regular Council Meeting
Mon
Apr
21
Regular Council Meeting
Tues
Apr
22
Annual All- Volunteers Awards Reception
Mon
Apr
28
Wine Licensing Procedure Review
7:00 p.m. Conference Rm
8:00 a.m. Council Room
7:00 p.m. Council Room
7:00 p.m. Council Room
7:00 p.m. Council Room
5:00 p.m. Interlachen
7:00.p.m. Council -Room
bi
AGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 3, 1986
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
MINUTES OF HRA Meeting of February 24, 1986, approved as submitted or corrected by
motion of seconded by -
ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
I PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by City Manager or Engineer. Public comment heard. If Council
wishes to proceed, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass
if improvement has been petitioned for; 4/5 vote required if no petition.
A. Permanent Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb and Gutter
1. Improvement No. P -BA -269 - York Avenue - W. 76th Street to W. 78th St
2. Improvement No. P -BA -270 - W. 76th Street - Xerxes Av to Edinborough Way
3. Improvement No. P -BA -271 - Edinborough Way - W. 76th St to York Av
B. _Ornamental Street Lighting
1. Improvement No. P -L -27 - 6100 Block Chowen Avenue
2. Improvement No. P -L -28 - 4800 Block West Sunnyslope Road
II. PUBLIC HEARING AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Planning Department. Public comment heard. Zoning Ordinance:
First and Second Reading requires four -fifth (4/5) favorable rollcall vote of
all members of the Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Four -fifth (4/5)
favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to pass. Lot
Divisions, Plats, Appeals: Favorable rollcall vote of majority of quorum requires
to pass. Final Plat Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: Three -fifth
(3/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of the Council required to pass.
A. Zoning Change
1. Second Reading
a. R -1 District to R -2 District - Robert Anderson -.425 Washington Av So
B. Preliminary Plat Approval
1. Edina Oaks - Lot 15, Prospect Hills - Generally located south of Dublin
Road and west of Antrim Court
C. Final Plat Approval
1. South Harriet Park Steiner Addition - Steiner and Gislason - Generally
located east of Minnehaha Blvd and south of West 52nd Street
III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
IV. AWARD OF BIDS
A. Park Improvements - Van Valkenburg Park
B. Restroom Tile - Braemar Club House
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. State Budget Cuts
B. Management Audit Committee
C. Appointment to H.O.M.E. Board
D. Wine Licensing Procedure.- Set Review Date (4/28/86 - 7 p.m.)
E. Accessory Uses /Nuisance Ordinance - Set Hearing Date (5/5/86)
F. Annual All- Volunteer Awards Reception - April 22 at 5 p.m.
G. Seniors Transportation
H. Pilot Recycling Project
I. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council
J. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
VI. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Petition for Wetland Easement Vacation - Lot 3, Block 1, The Habitat -
Set Hearing Date (4/14/86)
VII. RESOLUTIONS. Favorable rollcall vote by majority of quorum to pass.
A.
Prohibiting
Parking
- York Avenue from W. 76th Street to W.
78th Street
B.
Prohibiting
Parking
- West 76th Street from Xerxes Avenue to
Edinborough Way
C.
Prohibiting
Parking
- Edinborough Way from W. 76th Street to
York Avenue
Agenda
Edina City Council
March 3, 1986
Page Two
VIII. ORDINANCES. First Reading: Requires only offering of Ordinance. Second Reading:
Three - fifths (3/5) favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council required
to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: Four - fifths (4/5) favorable rollcall vote
of all member of Council required to pass.
A. Ordinance No. 1111 -A9 - To Establish a Tax Lien for Delinquent Accounts
B. Ordinance No. 1101 -AlO - To Preserve Remedies in Addition to Certification
for Recovery of Unpaid Charges
C. Ordinance No. 171 -A23 - To Change the Amounts of Certain Fees
IX. FINANCE.
A. Claims Paid. Motion of , seconded by for payment of the
following claims as per Pre -List dated 3/3/86: General Fund $138,790.20,
Art Center $506.82, Golf Course Fund $122,959.44, Recreation Center Fund
$1,710.53, Gun Range Fund $51.59, Utility Fund $196,351.84, Liquor
Dispensary Fund $2,204.30, Construction Fund $5,883.08, Total $468,458.16
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS
Mon Mar 10 Special Council Meeting - Survey Format 7:OO p.m. Conference Rm
Sat.
Mar
15
Council Workshop
Mon
Mar
17
Regular Council Meeting
Mon
Apr
14
Regular Council Meeting
Mon
Apr
21
Regular Council Meeting
Tues
Apr
22
Annual All- Volunteers Awards Reception
Mon
Apr
28
Wine Licensing Procedure Review
8:00 a.m. Council Room
7:00 p.m. Council Room
7:00 p.m. Council Room
7:00 p.m. Council Room
5:00 p.m. Interlachen
7:00 p.m. Council Room
. MINUTES
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
FEBRUARY 24, 1986
Answering rollcall were Commissioners Kelly, Richards, Turner and Courtney.
MINUTES of February 3, 1986, were approved-as submitted by motion of Commissioner
Turner, seconded by Commissioner Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
GRANDVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS CONSIDERED. Executive Director Gordon Hughes
recalled that on February 3, 1986, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
reviewed land use alternatives for the Grandview area as presented by Peter
Jarvis of BRW. Following the presentation, staff recommended that the HRA pursue
as public redevelopment projects: 1) a parking facility /Public Works garage east
of Jerry's Foods, 2) an upgraded Link Road and 3) a redevelopment of the Lewis
Engineering /Kunz Oil /railroad property south of Eden Avenue. The Commissioners
at that meeting indicated the need for additional information as to public parti-
cipation and other background material. Mr. Hughes then identified the following
major elements of the Grandview Redevelopment Project: 1) the parking /Public
Works facility east of Jerry's, 2) the Link Road project and related roadway
improvements, 3) Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil /railroad redevelopment, and 4) the
Bowling Alley /Cedrics /Bell Realty redevelopment (i.e. Regis property). These
elements of the Project were then summarized by Mr. Hughes as follows:
Parking /Public Works Facility - Staff has viewed this as a public /private joint
venture whereby the City could save approximately $150,000 on the cost of a new
Public Works storage building by taking advantage of the supports and deck of
the parking facility. The proposed facility would contain about 270 parking spaces
and would cost approximately $1,600,000. This ramp can be financed through the
tax increment process, but it may be reasonable to assess a portion of the cost
to the adjoining shopping center. If the same policy were followed here as at
the 50th and France ramp, 20% of the costs or $320,000 would be assessed. Other
assessment policies to consider would be to: a) assess the shopping center an
amount equal to the cost of constructing conventional surface parking if property
were available or about $1,000 /staff plus the value of air rights over the City
property, b) pledge only those tax increments received from the expansion of the
shopping center to finance the ramp with the remaining costs to be assessed to
the shopping center. Other obvious alternatives are either to finance the ramp
totally with tax increments or to provide no public financing.
Link Road — Present difficulties with the Eden /Vernon /Sherwood /West 53rd Street
intersection(s) prompted the formation of the Tax Increment District and the
initial traffic studies by BRW. The recommended solution is the closure of this
intersection and the reconstruction of Link Road with signalization of the Link/
Vernon intersection. This upgrading would require substantial right of way
acquisition - probably a total taking of the Superamerica Station and the sub-
sequent redevelopment of the residual property. In staff's opinion the Link Road
upgrading is somewhat dependent on other redevelopment at Grandview. Only five
reportable accidents have been documented at the intersection and if no other
redevelopment activities occur in Grandview, it is questionable if the Link Road
improvement is warranted, given its high costs of construction and right of way
acquisition. If other redevelopment does occur staff believes that the additional
traffic demands would warrant the upgrading of Link Road. If the improvement is
undertaken it deserves the best possible design and staff agrees with BRW that
such a design probably necessitates a total taking or at least a total reconstruct-
ion of Superamerica in that all access from Link Road would have to be removed.
Minutes
Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority
February 24, 1986
Page Two
As an interim measure, Link Road could be reconstructed and signalized without
taking Superamerica although some changes to its access would be required. This
improvement could then be evaluated and upgraded in the future if warranted due
to additional development in the area.
Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil /Railroad Redevelopment - This site presents one of the
more traditional situations where tax increment financing has been used, i.e. the
removal of blighted or underutilized improvements and reconstruction with more
intense land uses. BRW has recommended that this property should be redeveloped
for multi - family dwellings. These properties would probably not be significantly
redeveloped without public participation and alternatives to the HRA's involve-
ment in acquiring this property and reselling it for redevelopment are: a) to
offer Housing Revenue Bonds or Industrial Development Bonds (i.e. tax exempt
financing) as an incentive for private redevelopment, b) offer low interest loans
or grants for substantially rehabilitating the existing uses on the property, and
c) condemn the railroad property for resale to adjoining properties to facilitate
an expansion and upgrading of existing uses.
Bowling Alley /Cedrics /Bell Realty (Regis) - This site possesses high potential
for redevelopment and staff has not recommended public participation. Even though
these properties are somewhat "under- utilized" from a land use standpoint, staff
did not document the presence of blight and therefore questioned the need for
public participation at this time. The HRA could certainly be involved by promot-
ing this redevelopment through the provision of public parking or other incentives.
Other Projects - BRW's land use analysis highlighted other properties which may be
suitable for redevelopment, e.g. the School bus garage and the Minnesota Wanner
property, south of Eden Avenue and east of the railroad tracks. The school bus
situation has been discussed with Dr. Hamann of the School District who advised
that the District will likely continue its busing program for the forseeable
future. -He also noted that the presbnt bus garage site is very small for their
use alone and probably would not be conducive to a joint use with the City. The
same problem seems to exist if a joint use were attempted on City property, e.g.
the existing Public Works site. It may be possible to locate a joint bus garage
and City Public Works facility on the Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil site. Short-
comings of this alternative are: 1) a "municipal building" could not be financed
with tax increments, and 2) more property would be exempt from taxation which
would impact the feasibility of the tax increment district.
Mr. Hughes reiterated that staff is looking for concept approval of one of the
alternatives and to then call a public hearing. Staff's first priority would be
the parking /Public Works facility; the Link Road project and the Lewis Engineering/
Kunz Oil redevelopment require more work and would be brought to the HRA when ready.
Commissioner Turner asked how the tax reform act would impact the HRA's ability
to sell bonds to do any of these projects. Mr. Hughes responded that the Link
Road project would probably be defined as a governmental project that could be
bonded for; that the parking /Public Works facility becomes less likely to be
non - governmental that would be hurt by the pending legislation and that the least
likely to bond would be the Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil redevelopment in that it
would involve a non - governmental use of bond proceeds. He stated that the City's
part of the parking /Public Works facility would be paid by funds programmed in the
Capital Improvement Plan. Leon Schmieg of Typhoon Car Wash said that the proposed
road alignment for the Link Road improvement would be very detrimental to his
business. Charles Malin, Manager of Superamerica, asked what alternatives would
allow them to remain at that location. Mr. Hughes responded if the interim measure
for Link Road were to be constructed it would require some right of way with the
Minutes
Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority
February 24, 1986
Page Three
the flow through Superamerica having to be reversed and the existing frontage
road would be eliminated, but that staff would work with Superamerica on that
roadway realignment. Dick Weigel, 5421 Woodcrest Drive, said he was a stock-
holder in Typhoon Car Wash and expressed his concern regarding the economic
effect of the proposed median that would not allow traffic to turn in from both
directions as now is possible. Commissioner Kelly raised questions regarding
the Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil site redevelopment in that it would remove the
property from the tax rolls and would change it to public assisted housing. She
further questioned the need for additional housing of that type in the Grandview
area. Mr. Hughes explained that the project principally would be to facilitate
putting together the land package to make a development possible. It would
likely be developed with market rate rental units but that the HRA could anticipate
a developer coming forward to ask for housing revenue bonds or a development
similar to what was done at the Biltmore site, with 20% of the units affordable
to moderate income people. Commissioner Turner commented that she would prioritize
the projects as 1) Link Road intersection with the interim configuration, 2) the
parking /Public Works facility, 3) the northeast quadrant to develop independent
of government involvement, and 4) the area south of Eden. She pointed out the
need for discussion of the City's additional goals in the housing area. Com-
missioner Kelly identified the parking /Public Works facility as her first priority
and that she was not convinced of a problem at the Link Road intersection.
Commissioner Richards stated he opted to do nothing at the present time.
Commissioner Courtney indicated that the parking /Public Works facility would be
his first priority with Link Road as the second. After further discussion,
Commissioner Turner made a motion to conduct a concept approval public hearing
on the Link Road improvement and the parking /Public Works facility on March 17,
1986. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Kelly. Upon discussion of the motion,
Commissioner Kelly offered an amendment to the motion that the total concept of
Alternative C for the Grandview area be considered at the hearing. Commissioner
Turner stated her consent to the amendment. Chairman Courtney then called the
motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Turner, Courtney
Nays: Richards
Motion carried.
The HRA meeting was then adjourned by motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by
Commissioner Turner and carried unanimously.
Executive Director
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
�A-
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING
WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
AND SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -269, BA -270, BA -271
The Edina City Council will meet on Monday, March 3, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. at the
Edina City Hall, to consider the following proposed improvements to be constructed
under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The approximate
cost of said improvements are estimated by the city as set forth below:
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND
SIDEWALK
York Ave. - From 76th St. to W. 78th St.
Improvement No. P -BA -269
ESTIMATED COST
$617,199.59
West 76th St. - From Xerxes Ave. $158,425.75
Improvement No. P -BA -270
Edinborough Way - From W. 76th to York Ave. $208,103.52
Improvement No. P -BA -271
The proposed work includes curb and gutter and permanent street surfacing on York
Avenue from W. 76th St. to W. 78th St.; on W. 76th St. from Edinborough Way to
Xerxes Ave.; and Edinborough Way from W. 76th St. to York Ave. Additionally,
the project will include sidewalk on all streets abutting the Edinborough project,
and sidewalk along the south side of W. 76th St. to serve the office properties
on the east side of York Ave.
The project will be funded by tax - increment financing, municipal state aid funds,
and special assessments. The special assessment rate for the York Ave. and W.
76th St. project portions is to be $20.00 per assessable foot for single family
property; $30.00 per assessable foot for multiple residential property; and $40.00
per assessable foot for office and commercial property. Edinborough Way project
cost will be assessed against all property in the Edinborough project on a square
foot basis of lot per developers agreement.
The properties along the north side of W. 76th St. will each receive a $10.00 per
assessable foot rate reduction for previous assessment on work done in 1979 on York
Ave. and W. 76th St.
The area proposed to be assessed for a portion or all of the proposed costs of the
improvements includes: under IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -269; Lot 1, Block 1, Al. Johnson
Add'n; Lot 1, Block 1, Paul Klodt First Add'n; Lots .1 thru 11, Block 1, Edinborough
Add'n; under IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -270; Lots 1 thru 11, Edinborough Add'n; Lot 1,
Block 1, Al Johnson Add'n; Lot 1, Block 1, Paul Klodt First Add'n; Lot 1, Block 1,
Meadow Lane II Add'n; Lot 5, Block 1, Lyndale Builders Add'n; Lot 1; Block 1, Yorkdale
Townhomes of Edina; and Lot 1, Block 1, Ebenezer Society 1st Add'n; under IMPROVEMENT
NO. P -BA -271; Lots 1 thru 11, Edinborough Add'n.
Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is listed
to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited by the improve-
ment.
ti
page 2
This project, if approved, is proposed to be constructed in 1986 and the assessments
would be levied in 1987. The assessment is proposed to be spread over a ten year
period. The present condition of the Municipal Bond market makes it difficult to
determine the annual rate of interest that will be charged on the unpaid balance,
but it will not exceed the maximum allowed by law.
Any inquires, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement
may be forwarded ;to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the hearing
or presented at the hearing itself. If you desire additional information, please
call me at 927 -8861 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 a.m., Monday through Friday.
Thank you.
Francis . Ho man, P.E.
Director of Public Works
and City Engineer
FJH:rr
February 21, 1986
reuruary 14, 1986
ESTIMATE OF COST
CITY.OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE
CURB & GUTTER, SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -269
S.A.P. 120 - 020 -17
LOCATION: York Ave. from W. 76th Street to I -494 Bridge
HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986
ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $617,199.59
(Includes Engineering, Clerical & Interest
NO. OF ASSESSABLE FEET: Commerical - 1,610.48
Multi Residence - 637.86
ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE FOOT: Commerical - $40.00 ($64,419:20)
Multi Residence - $30.00 (19,135.80)
TOTAL:($83,555.00)
ESTIMATED COST TO BE PAID BY STATE AID: $533,644.59
AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED: $83,555.00
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LOT
BLOCK
ADDITION
PINS NUMBER
FOOTAGE
1
1
Al Johnson
32- 028 -24 -34 -0021
(1/3) 99.00
1
1
Paul Klodt First Add'n
32- 028 -24 -34 -0023
(full) 777.02
Part
of 1 1
Edinborough Addition
32- 028 =24 -34 -0025
Total footage
Part
of 1 1
05- 027 -24 -21 -0004
for all Edin-
borough lots
Part
of 2 1
05- 027 -24 -21 -0005
is 734.46' at
Commerical rate
Part
of 2 1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0026
and 637.86' at
multi- family
3
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0027
rate
4
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0028
5
1
If
32- 028 -24 -34 -0029
6
1
If If
32- 028 -24 -34 -0030
7
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0031
8
1
If 11
32- 028 -24 -34 -0032
9
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0033
10
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0034
..11
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0035
--Page 2 of 3 Pages
Estimate of Cost
Permanent Street Surfacing with Concrete
Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk
City of Edina
Improvement No. P -BA -269
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
1.0
L /S,
Mobilization
@ $23,694.00
$23,694.00
1,600
L /F,
Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter
@ $
0.75
_$ 1,200.00
11,287
S /F,
Remove Bituminous Pavement
@ $
0.25
$ 2,821.75
3
Each,
Remove Catch Basins
@ $
250.00
$ 750.00
10,260
C /Y,
Common Excavation (L.V.)
@ $
4.50
$46,170.00
1,260
C /Y,
Select Topsoil Borrow (L.V)
@ $
7.50
$ 9,450.00
5,696
Ton,
Aggregate Base, Class 2
@ $
7.00
$39,872.00
329
Ton,
Bituminous Material for Mixture
@ $
220.00
$72,380.00
4,393
Ton,
Binder Course Mixture (3") 4,8%
@ $
15.00
$65,895.00
2,928
Ton,
Base Course Mixture (2 ")
@ $
15.00
$43,920.00
161
Ton,
Bituminous Material for Mixture 6.2%
@ $
220.00
$35,420.00
2,935
Ton,
Wearing Course Mixture
@ $
16.50
$48,427.50
1,597
Gal.,
Bituminous Material for Tack coat
@ $
1.10
$ 19756.70
(SS -1)
41
L /F,
12" Pipe Culvert R.C.
@ $
15.00
$ 615.00
1
Each,
12" R.C. Pipe apron
@ $
125.00
$ 125.00
7
Each,
Construct Catch Basins, Design "C" Edina
@ $
800.00
$ 5,600.00
8
Each,
Casting Assemblies Neenah R1728
@ $
135.00
$ 1,080.00
2
Each,
Casting Assemblies Neenah R2572
@ $
130.00
$ 266.00
17
Each,
Install Castings
@ $
100.00
$ 1,700.00
21
Each,
Adjust Frame and Ring Castings
@.$
150.00
$ 3,150.00
11
Each,
Salvage Frame & Castings Catchbasins
@ $
75.00
$ 825.00
225
L /F, Sawing Bituminous Pavement
@ $
3.50
$ 787..50
14,325
S /F, 4" Concrete walk
@ $
1.35
$19,33,8.75
2,925
L /F, Concrete Curb and Gutter Design B6 -18
@ $
7.10
$20,767.50
3,230
L /F, Concrete Curb and Gutter Design B6 -24
@ $
8.20
$26,486.00
389
L /F, 3" Rigid Steel Conduit
@ $
6.50
$ 2,528.50
PREPARED BY:d
CHECKED BY:
SUB- TOTAL: $497.581.10
ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL: 59,709.73
557,290.83
ADD 10.75% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: 59,908.76
ESTIMATED ^TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $617,199.59
Francis J. H fman P. .
Director of ublic Works
and City Engineer
rage 3 oT i Pages
' Estimate of Cost
Permanent Street Surfacing with
Concrete
Curb & Gutter, Sidewalk
City of Edina
Improvement No. P -BA -269
QUANTITY MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
4 Tree, Transplant
Trees 3 -6" Maple & Linden
@
$
190.00
$ 760.00
12 Shrub, Transplant
Shrubs 4 -6' High
@
$
90.00
$ 1,080.00
11,152 S /Y, Sodding
@
$
1.70
$18,958.40
575 Pound, Commerical
Fertilizer, Analysis
@
$
1.50
$ 862.50
12 -12 -12 (F & I
250 lbs. /acre)
10 Each, Adjust Gate
Valves
@
$
90.00
$ 900.00
PREPARED BY:d
CHECKED BY:
SUB- TOTAL: $497.581.10
ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL: 59,709.73
557,290.83
ADD 10.75% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: 59,908.76
ESTIMATED ^TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $617,199.59
Francis J. H fman P. .
Director of ublic Works
and City Engineer
tt ESTIMATE OF COST
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
STREET SURFACING, CURB & GUTTER & SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -270
S.A.P. 120 - 136 -04
LOCATION: W. 76th Street from Xerxes Ave. to Edinborough Way
HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986
ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $153,425.75
(Includes Engineering, Clerical & Interest
NO. OF ASSESSABLE FEET (SINGLE FAMILY): 76.5
NO. OF ASSESSABLE FEET (MULTI FAMILY): 560.56
NO. OF ASSESSABLE FEET (COMMERCIAL): 419.61
ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE FOOT: Single Family - $20.00
Multi Family - $30.00
Commercial - $40.00
AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED: $53,944.80
AMOUNT TO BE PAID BY STATE AID $104,408.95
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LOT
BLOCK
Part
of
1 1
Part
of
1 1
Part
of
2 1
Part
of
2 1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
1
10
1
11
1
ADDITION
Edinborough Addition
It It
It 11
32- 028 -24 -34 -0025
05- 027 -24 -21 -0004
05- 027 -24 -21 -0005
32- 028 -24 -34 -0026
32- 028 -24 -34 -0027
32- 028 -24 -34 -0028
32- 028 -24 -34 -0029
32- 028 -24 -34 -0030
32- 028 -24 -34 -0031
32- 028 -24 -34 -0032
32- 028 -24 -34 -0033
32- 028 -24 -34 -0034
32- 028 -24 -34 -0035
February 14,19•
FOOTAGE
Total footage
for all Edin-
borough lots
is 560.56
Page 2 of 3
Pages
., Estimate of
Cost
Street Surfacing,
Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk
City of Edina
Improvement
No. P-.-BA-270
LOT
BLOCK ADDITION
PINS NUMBER
FOOTAGE
1
1
Al Johnson
32- 028 -24 -34 -0021
225:73
1
1
Paul Klodt 1st
32- 028 -24 -34 -0024
:193:88
1
1
Meadow Lane II
32- 028- 24 =34- 0019(1/3)
44.00
5
1
Lyndale Builders
32- 028- 24 -31- 0013(1/3)
32.50
1
1
Yorktown Town Homes
32- 028 -24 -31 -0027
434.34
1
1
Ebenezer Society 1st
32- 028 -24 -31 -0007
522.59
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
6,785
S /Y,
Remove Bituminous Pavement
@ $ 0.25
$ 1,696.25
2,844
C /Y,
Common Excavation E.V.
@ 4.50
12,798.00
117
C /Y,
Select Topsoil Borrow L.U.
@ 7.50
877.50
1,295
Ton,
Aggregate Base Class 2 C"
@ 7.00
9,065.00
92.7
Ton,
Bituminous Material for Mixture
@ 220.00
20,394.00
(4,8%)
1,236
Ton,
Binder Course Mixture 3"
@ 15.00
18,540.00
824
Ton,
Base Course Mixture 2"
@ 15.00
12,360.00
45.3
Ton,
Bituminous Material for Mixture
@ 220.00
9,966.00
(6.2%)
824
Ton,
Rearing Course Mixture- 2"
@ 16.50
13,596.00
15
Ton,
Bituminous Mixture for Driveways @ 100.00
1,500.00
618
Gal.,
Bituminous Material for Seal
@ 1.10
679.80
Coat
31
Ton,
Seal Coat Material
@ 85.00
29'635.00
(FA 3 Traprock)
247
Gal.,
Bituminous Material for Tack @ 1.10
271.70
Coat
16
Each,
Adjust Frame and Ring Castings @ 150.00
2,400.00
2,875
S /F,
4" Concrete walk
@ 1.35
3,881.25
1,280
L /F,
Concrete Curb and Gutter,
@ 7.10
9.088.00
Design
B 6 -18
1,055
S /Y,
Sodding
@ 1.70
1,793.50
Page 3 of 3 Pages
Estimate of Cost
Street Surfacing, Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk
City of Edina
Improvement No. P -BA -270
UNIT TOTAL
QUANTITY MATERIAL PRICE PRICE
55 Pound, Commercial Fertilizer, Analysis @ $ 1.50 $ 82.50
12 -12 -12 (250 lbs. /Acre)
2 Each, Adjust Gate Valves
PREPARED BY
CHECKED
@ 90.00 180.00
SUB - TOTAL: $121,804.50
ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL: 14,616.54
136,421.04
ADD 16.13% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: 22,004.71
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $158,425.75
Francis J. Hof ma E.
Director of Public Works
and City Engineer
February 19, 1986
ESTIMATE OF COST
CITY OF EDINA, MI14NESOTA
STREET SURFACING, CURB & GUTTER & SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -271
LOCATION: Edinborough Way
HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986
ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $290,112.13
(Includes Engineering, Clerical & Interest
NO. OF ASSESSABLE SQUARE FEET: 1,028,973
ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE SQUARE FOOT: $00.282
AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED: $290,112.13
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LOT BLOCK ADDITION PINS NUMBER SQUARE FOOTAGE
Part of 1
1
Edinborough
Addition
32- 028 -24 -34 -0025
Part of 1
it
05- 027 -24 -21 -0004
155,953
Part of 2
1
05- 027 -24 -21 -0005
Part of 2
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0026
79,693
3
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0027
182,667
4
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0028
136,456
5
1
"
32- 028 -24 -34 -0029
61,757
6
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0030
75,178
7
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0031
88,860
8
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0032
72,874
9
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0033
51,228
10
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0034
73,534
11
1
32- 028 -24 -34 -0035
50,776
^Eftimate of Cost
Street Surfacing, Curb
& Gutter & Sidewalk
City of Edina
Improvement No. P -BA -271
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE
TOTAL
PRICE
30.3
Rd.
Sta., Subgrade Preparation
@
$150.00
$
4,545.00
1,128
C /Y,
Topsoil from Stockpile (CV)
@
$ 3.00
$
3,384.00
5,747
Ton,
Class 5 Agg. Base (100 % crushed)
@
$ 6.55
$
37,642.85
88
Ton,
Bituminouse Material for Mixture
@
$205.00
$
18,040.00
1,532
Ton,
2" Bit. Wear Course (2341)
@
$ 12.00
$
18,384.00
147
Ton,
Bituminous Material for Mixture
@
$205.00
$
30,135.00
2,936
Ton,
4" Bit. Binder Course (2331)
@
$ 11.00
$
32,296.00
638
Gal.,
Bit. Material for Tack Coat
@
$ 1.25
$
797.50
192
Ton.
FA -3 Trap Rock Seal Coat
@
$ 45.00
$
8,640.00
3,840
Gal.,
Bituminous Material for Seal Coat
@
$ 1.30
$
4,992.00
4,880
L /F,
B618 Conc. C & G
@
$ 5.00
$
24,400.00
12,425
S /F,
4" Conc. Sidewalk w /4" Base
@
$ '1.75
$
21,743.75
200
L /F,
4" PVC Sleeve
@
$ 6.00
$
1,200.00
113
L /F,
4" RMC Sleeve
@
$ 12.00
$
1,356.00
91981
S /Y,
Sodding
@
$ 1.05
$
10,480.05
1,400
Lbs., Fertilizer 12 -12 -12
@
$ .20
$
280.00
6.6
Ton,
Mulch, Type 1
@
$300.00
$
1,980.00
3.3.
Ac.,
Seeding
@
$400.00
$
1,320.00
116
Lb.,
Seed Mixture, No. 5
@
$ 3.00
$
348.00
250
Gal.
M, Water
@
$ 15.00
$
3,750.00
77.5
S /F,
Signing, Type C
@
$ 20.00
$
1,550.00
2,752
L /F,
Striping 4" Dbl. Yellow Barrier
@
$ .40
$
1,100.80
5,000
L /F,
Striping 4" Solid White Edge
@
$ .20
$
1,000.00
480
L /F,
Striping 4" Broken Solid White Lane
@
$ .20
$
96.00
3
Ea.,
Salvage Permanent Barricades
@
$ 75.00
$
225.00
Page 3 of 3 Pages
Estimate of Cost
Street Surfacing, Curb &
Gutter & Sidewalk
City of Edina
Improvement No. P -BA -271
QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT TOTAL
PRICE
9 Ea., Adjust Water Valve Box @ $100.00 $ 900.00
22 Ea., Adjust Frame & Ring Castings
PREPARED BY:f�"GU
CHECKED BY: �v
@ $150.00 $ 3,300.00
SUB - TOTAL:
ADD 10% ENGINEERING & 2% CLERICAL:
ADD 10.75% CAPITALIZED INTEREST:
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION:
-Francis J. Hof man .
Director of Public Works
and City Engineer
FA
$233,885.95
28,066.37
261,952.26
28,159.87
$290,112.13
. L
1
lt.
JY4
.14
YU'1
PUBLIC HEARING
BA -269 - YORK AVE.
BA -270 - 76TH ST.
BA -271 - EDINBOROUGH WAY
PEWAIENT STREET SURFACING, CONCRETE CURB Aft GUTTER, SIDEWALK
FUNDING:
$72,168.80 - ASSESSED TO OTHERS
EAST OF YORK
NORTH OF 76TH
$211,125.13 - ASSESSED TO PARK & HOUSING
$144,318.00 - OFFICE & ELDERLY
OFFICE - PHASE I - $63,020.12
OFFICE - PHASE II- $53,803.79
ELDERLY - $27,494.09
$638,053.54 - STATE AID
GRADING IN RDW FOR EDINBOROUGH
WILL BE ADDED TO ASSESSMENT
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
10 YEAR ASSESSMENT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
r
d01 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
612- 927 -8861
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT P -L -27
ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING
LOCATED BETWEEN 6116 AND 6120 CHOWEN AVENUE
The Edina City Council will on Monday, March 3, 1986, at 7:00 P.M., at
the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, hold a Public Hearing on the
necessity and feasibility of constructing ornamental street lighting on
the street listed above. Your receipt of this notice is an indication
that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties
which are considered to be benefited.
The estimated cost of this improvement is $799.53. It is proposed that
this improvement be assessed on a per lot basis at an estimated cost of
$199.88 per assessable lot.
The fixture proposed to be installed at the location shown on the sketch.
It is proposed to be 100 watt high pressure sodium luminaire mounted on
15 foot high pole with a lantern fixture.
This project is being proposed as a result of a petition by adjacent property
owners. The City will pay the monthly electric charge after installation
and Northern States Power will maintain the system.
Construction of this improvement, if approved, will be accomplished in
1986. Assessments would be levied in 1986 with the initial installment
due in 1987. The improvement is proposed to be assessed over a one year
period. The present condition of the "Municipal Bond Market makes it difficult
to determine the annual. rate of interest that will be charges on the unpaid
balance, but it will not exceed the maximum allowed by law.
The area proposed to be assessed includes Lot 17, 18, Block 2; Lot 5, 6, Block 3,
Edina Bel -Air 5th Division.
Any inquiries, comments, and /or suggestions you may have regarding this
improvement may be forwarded to the City Council or Engineering Department
prior to the Hearing or presented at the Hearing itself.
If you desire additional information, please call me or Bob Obermeyer at
927 -8861 between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday.
Thank you,
Francis J. Hoffmnan, P.E.
Director of Public Works and City Engineer
FJH:rr
A �
110
a
M
wg •-
0, 1G.
2' O
1;
rr—a ;m '0$ J."
N � �
- = N OC
_ _ d
Fled SM /50 w,
A
O
ZS�SO) �- -iii
RDA,
.-
Of
� m l
0
rJ1
Mo
erg°
--H(
1s
" �
LT
I
'"
DD.:
�'"•
'°
15�r1^
A
o�
_ H
,.
LT .
2
�d°
DD _
�
T.
_ E
15
co
INA
111.15 °
-
�16°
o ,
-TOE
V'iti615
.
75
111.35
0
A
O
ZS�SO) �- -iii
RDA,
.-
Of
� m l
0
rJ1
Mo
erg°
--H(
1s
" �
LT
I
'"
DD.:
�'"•
'°
15�r1^
A
o�
_ H
,.
LT .
2
�d°
DD _
�
T.
_ E
15
co
INA
111.15 °
-
�16°
o ,
-TOE
V'iti615
.
75
111.35
0
,
.X TH
M
y G o 15 - 75 �75 is 1 41 e ^ { 94.1 0 $ o ,+P N : i .'•
J
— N � m i- ' � — oo N frJ ' � . ''•.1
.� - � - N r'• p C �
E IN M EL AI Mo
100 09 ti° o b� 179 X1.1
- - a, a O
6o 75 75 90.9L 1 " N �� \~ m O &tr
S;
O
47 �O V ti4fP N 0 ° Im O. oo IZ.L
M
ry 75 - 15 41.041
E I INA _ BE L A RAN
� 5 5 °rr
CD
N -
�; ' •'�' %.- S u " \ 9'001 �
40 c
N v
o '9♦ � o s — � M
p:
N �=
Qy� 8 8'�t•'
�V
�Q
M
BI TC7t _ " 0.99 �A
rA
ry 5 5 75 7 5E5�3 s- ::n Kf In
In IT
" E IN 'm BE -Al - a
�� _ m °°cam "
_ _ o r W
75 75 11.1 N '3 35 la 100 p
85 0 105 167.5 o, I
N 0 11 95 75 y. 0
" IS_T- °- DIV.�m �►�' EDINA� °M -� p,0 NN_ rill
Ol _ ° _ r rr 6o p tio�— . o "'1 a d°If.3C
14 �• ^ b los 89•�� : x lo. c ° c
• . .R
SOUTH o Nor +h
427.2
r
Go jj. o 0 0 o 71.43 11.43 11.83 165 65 gG a 1 9 31
'oEDI AM M 8 L-A R - 8 L- IK TH.- IV. M A; a M, N"
8o 11. 80 0 o M 80 _ 1.4 '6 =.� 11.43 11.43 s
Z JIGS _ 8z.5 ...M R $
loo loo g7 5,ah 87 88.31 s f v, ,' _F
a
15,(.1 N AO�
M 4T m ° Div. W V ° N 2- N ° - F ►R
— N
loo 0o h 81 Gl 5 0
ww� �r Ij5 4,A
�.r 2 Herilt fG5 Mme '
9p�o�s.
Z63L07 Res.•' °'
• qe�
nnnrn-r I. nituum
11 •
40 1
•
.� C
CC`
CC
o�
o ,
.X TH
M
y G o 15 - 75 �75 is 1 41 e ^ { 94.1 0 $ o ,+P N : i .'•
J
— N � m i- ' � — oo N frJ ' � . ''•.1
.� - � - N r'• p C �
E IN M EL AI Mo
100 09 ti° o b� 179 X1.1
- - a, a O
6o 75 75 90.9L 1 " N �� \~ m O &tr
S;
O
47 �O V ti4fP N 0 ° Im O. oo IZ.L
M
ry 75 - 15 41.041
E I INA _ BE L A RAN
� 5 5 °rr
CD
N -
�; ' •'�' %.- S u " \ 9'001 �
40 c
N v
o '9♦ � o s — � M
p:
N �=
Qy� 8 8'�t•'
�V
�Q
M
BI TC7t _ " 0.99 �A
rA
ry 5 5 75 7 5E5�3 s- ::n Kf In
In IT
" E IN 'm BE -Al - a
�� _ m °°cam "
_ _ o r W
75 75 11.1 N '3 35 la 100 p
85 0 105 167.5 o, I
N 0 11 95 75 y. 0
" IS_T- °- DIV.�m �►�' EDINA� °M -� p,0 NN_ rill
Ol _ ° _ r rr 6o p tio�— . o "'1 a d°If.3C
14 �• ^ b los 89•�� : x lo. c ° c
• . .R
SOUTH o Nor +h
427.2
r
Go jj. o 0 0 o 71.43 11.43 11.83 165 65 gG a 1 9 31
'oEDI AM M 8 L-A R - 8 L- IK TH.- IV. M A; a M, N"
8o 11. 80 0 o M 80 _ 1.4 '6 =.� 11.43 11.43 s
Z JIGS _ 8z.5 ...M R $
loo loo g7 5,ah 87 88.31 s f v, ,' _F
a
15,(.1 N AO�
M 4T m ° Div. W V ° N 2- N ° - F ►R
— N
loo 0o h 81 Gl 5 0
ww� �r Ij5 4,A
�.r 2 Herilt fG5 Mme '
9p�o�s.
Z63L07 Res.•' °'
• qe�
nnnrn-r I. nituum
CD
N -
�; ' •'�' %.- S u " \ 9'001 �
40 c
N v
o '9♦ � o s — � M
p:
N �=
Qy� 8 8'�t•'
�V
�Q
M
BI TC7t _ " 0.99 �A
rA
ry 5 5 75 7 5E5�3 s- ::n Kf In
In IT
" E IN 'm BE -Al - a
�� _ m °°cam "
_ _ o r W
75 75 11.1 N '3 35 la 100 p
85 0 105 167.5 o, I
N 0 11 95 75 y. 0
" IS_T- °- DIV.�m �►�' EDINA� °M -� p,0 NN_ rill
Ol _ ° _ r rr 6o p tio�— . o "'1 a d°If.3C
14 �• ^ b los 89•�� : x lo. c ° c
• . .R
SOUTH o Nor +h
427.2
r
Go jj. o 0 0 o 71.43 11.43 11.83 165 65 gG a 1 9 31
'oEDI AM M 8 L-A R - 8 L- IK TH.- IV. M A; a M, N"
8o 11. 80 0 o M 80 _ 1.4 '6 =.� 11.43 11.43 s
Z JIGS _ 8z.5 ...M R $
loo loo g7 5,ah 87 88.31 s f v, ,' _F
a
15,(.1 N AO�
M 4T m ° Div. W V ° N 2- N ° - F ►R
— N
loo 0o h 81 Gl 5 0
ww� �r Ij5 4,A
�.r 2 Herilt fG5 Mme '
9p�o�s.
Z63L07 Res.•' °'
• qe�
nnnrn-r I. nituum
�V
�Q
M
BI TC7t _ " 0.99 �A
rA
ry 5 5 75 7 5E5�3 s- ::n Kf In
In IT
" E IN 'm BE -Al - a
�� _ m °°cam "
_ _ o r W
75 75 11.1 N '3 35 la 100 p
85 0 105 167.5 o, I
N 0 11 95 75 y. 0
" IS_T- °- DIV.�m �►�' EDINA� °M -� p,0 NN_ rill
Ol _ ° _ r rr 6o p tio�— . o "'1 a d°If.3C
14 �• ^ b los 89•�� : x lo. c ° c
• . .R
SOUTH o Nor +h
427.2
r
Go jj. o 0 0 o 71.43 11.43 11.83 165 65 gG a 1 9 31
'oEDI AM M 8 L-A R - 8 L- IK TH.- IV. M A; a M, N"
8o 11. 80 0 o M 80 _ 1.4 '6 =.� 11.43 11.43 s
Z JIGS _ 8z.5 ...M R $
loo loo g7 5,ah 87 88.31 s f v, ,' _F
a
15,(.1 N AO�
M 4T m ° Div. W V ° N 2- N ° - F ►R
— N
loo 0o h 81 Gl 5 0
ww� �r Ij5 4,A
�.r 2 Herilt fG5 Mme '
9p�o�s.
Z63L07 Res.•' °'
• qe�
nnnrn-r I. nituum
1
February 13, 1986
ESTIMATE OF COST
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHT
IMPROVEMENT NO. P -L -27
LOCATION:. Located between 6116 and 6120 Chowen Ave.
HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986
ESTIMATED COST, OF CONSTRUCTION: $799.53
(Includes Engineering, Clerical and Interest
NUMBER OF ASSESSABLE LOTS: 4
ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE LOT: $199.88
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LOT
BLOCK
ADDITION
PINS NUMBERS
17
2
Edina
Bel -Air
5th Division
20- 028 -24 -33 -0067
18
2
Edina
Bel -Air
5th Division
20- 028 -24 -33 -0068
5
3
Edina
Bel -Air
5th Division
20- 028 -24 -33 -0078
6
3
Edina
Bel -Air
5th Division
20- 028 -24 -33 -0079
QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL
NSP CONSTRUCTION $450.00 $450.00
79 S /F, Sod on 4" Black Dirt @ $ 2.50 $197.50
SUB- TOTAL: $647.50
ADD 10% ENGINEERING AND.2% CLERICAL: 77.70
725.20
ADD 10.25% CAPITALIZED INTEREST : 74.33
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION $799.53
PREPARED BY:'
CHECKED BY:
Francis J. HWman '/,Iy jr
Director of Public GWbrks
and City Engineer
EDINA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
612 - 927 -8861
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROJECT P -L -28
ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING
LOCATED BETWEEN 4817 & 4821 WEST SUNNYSLOPE ROAD
The Edina City Council will on Monday, March 3, 1986, at 7:00 P.M., at
the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, hold a Public Hearing on the
necessity and feasibility of constructing ornamental street lightinq on
the street listed above. Your receipt of this notice is an indication
that property whose ownership is listed to you is among those properties
which are considered to be benefited.
The estimated cost of this improvement is $777.92. It is proposed that
this improvement b-e assessed on a per lot basis at an estimated cost of
$194.48 per assessable lot.
The fixture proposed to be installed at the location shown on the sketch.
It is proposed to be 100 watt high pressure sodium luminaire mounted on
15 foot high pole with a lantern fixture.
This project is being proposed as a result of a petition by adjacent
property owners. The City will pay the monthly electric charge after
installation and Northern States Power will maintain the system.
Construction of this improvement, if approved, will be accomplished in 1986.
Assessments would be levied in 1986 with the initial installment due in 1987.
The improvement is proposed to be assessed over a one year period. The present
condition of the Municipal Bond Market makes it difficult to determine the
annual rate of interest that will be charged of the unpaid balance, but it
will not exceed the maximum allowed by law.
The area proposed to be assessed includes Lots 9, 10, Block 1, Lots 10, 11;
Block 6, Sunnyslope-Section Country Club District.
Any inquiries, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this
improvement may be forwarded to the City Council or Engineering Department
prior to the Hearing or presented at the Hearing itself.
If you desire additional information, please call me or Bob Obermeyer at
927 -8861 between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday.
Thank you,
FrancHUff n/, . E.
Director of Public Works and City Engineer
FJH:rr
■
CY
4c
%C
4
40
5
1 ' 6r -RL
4 1 � MP-A
it? -1950
o4RDEN
'.7o4
45
7755 ..t 4
B
45
10
R
O's
77r.
N
4D 10 A
C6
C)
,n
L,4
24
552 4
14 'rn—
11
14
n
r
0,
Ol
12
!4Q
13
IC
fa o
�;30
jr.a,
IS
140A
li�l �
Ol
Mlt29
1 11
J f�liar.
golf. p C2 1
4
40
5
1 ' 6r -RL
4 1 � MP-A
it? -1950
o4RDEN
'.7o4
7755 ..t 4
77r.
LO
oj
f 70*
12,
1;2 3 4 2: "�- 10
?0 Y
4-
R10 4.8
0 u N
14
7.9
05 35!
o zo
ce V
M
go
41
\e ass 77
C2
10
cr-
d%.
Z5
10
JL
i3 0
cl)
k9
OWOODHILL
-5.
14 c.
z
14
.a-
15 -9
r-n -
14
ESTIMATE OF COST
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHT
IMPROVEMENT NO. P -L -28
LOCATION: Between 4817 & 4821 West Sunnyslope Road
HEARING DATE: March 3, 1986
ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $777.92
(Includes Engineering, Clerical and Capitalized Interest
NUMBER OF ASSESSABLE LOTS: 4
ESTIMATED COST PER ASSESSABLE LOT: $194.48
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
LOT BLOCK
9 1
10 1
11 6
10 6
ADDITION
February 13, 1986
PINS NUMBERS
Sunnyslope Section Country Club District 18- 028- 24 -23- 0008
Sunnyslope Section Country Club District 18- 028 -24 -23 -0009
Sunnyslope Section Country Club District 18- 028 -24 -23 -0044
Sunnyslope Section Country Club District 18- 028 -24 -23 -0043
QUANTITY MATERIAL UNIT PRICE - TOTAL PRICE
NSP Wiring $300.00 $300.00
132 S /F, Sodding @ $2.50 $330.00
SUB - TOTAL: $630.00
ADD 10% ENGINEERING AND 2% CLERICAL: 75.60
705.60
ADD 10.25% CAPITALIZED INTEREST: 72.32
PREPARED BY:
CHECKED BY:
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION: $777.92
rancis J. Hoff an, P.
Director of Public Wbrks
and City Engineer
uv iLil r 1KST READING- R -1 to R -2 ZONING FOR ROBERT
(425 WASHINGTON�AVENUE). Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, aANDoRSON 11
and ordered placed on file. Planner Larsen stated that the subject property ved �t
J property is
G Cj• located at the corner of Washington Avenue and Maloney Avenue.
1r5��y located to the immediate west of the site and Grandview Cemetery County Road lg is to the south. 18 i
The property is a vacant lot measuring 70 feet in width, approximately 125 feet
in depth and contains 8,898 square feet of lot area. Robert Anderson, proponent,
is requesting rezoning of the site from R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to R -2
Double Dwelling Unit District to allow the construction of a two -unit dwelling.
This request was heard at the May 20, 1985 Council Meeting at which time the motion
for rezoning failed. At its meeting of June 3, 1985, the Council took action to
re -hear the request. Mr. Larsen pointed out that on the two -block stret -cn -o�
Washington Avenue there exists a variety of R -1 lots and R -2 lots. Currently,
there are six R -2 lots ranging in width from 76 feet to 124 feet with most being
76 to 79 feet in width. There are eleven existing R -7 lots ranging between
45 and 78 feet in width. Lots fronting on Washington Avenue are shown by the
Comprehensive Plan as suitable for conversion to this type of use.. Since the
last Council Meeting the proponent has presented a- petition from several neighbors
in the area in support of his petition for the rezoning. The Community Develop-
ment and Planning Commission and staff recommend approval. Mr. Larsen noted that,
if the Council were to approve rezoning, the request would still have to petition
the Board of Appeals and Adjustments for variances for lot width and lot size.
Robert Anderson, the proponent, referred to the photograph he had submitted to
the Council and said the proposed dwelling would be similar and that he understood
that the plans would have to be approved by the Board of Appeals. He added that
he had talked to his neighbors and no one objected to the double unit dwelling.
No further comments being heard, Member Bredesen introduced Ordinance No. 825 -A7
for First Reading as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A7
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825)
BY ADDING TO THE DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT (R -2)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding
O the following thereto:
"The extent of the Double Dwelling Unit District (Sub- District R -2) is
co enlarged by the addition of the following property:
0 Lot 14 and the south 24.00 feet of Lot 15, Block 9, "West Minneapolis
m Heights ", except that part of said Lot 14 lying southwesterly of a
Q line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 14 distant 5.00
feet north from the southwest corner of said Lot 14 to a point on the
south line of said Lot 14 distant 5.00 feet east from the southwest
corner of said Lot 14."
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage
and publication.
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Turner who commented
that she supported the proposal for the reasons that it is a transitional area, it
is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as low density attached residential and
that the proposed dwelling is appropriate for this site because of the busy highway
and other doubles in the area and that, even thought variences are required, it
would not set a precedence. Mayor Courtney said he agreed with Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVED FOR CREEK VALLEY BAPTIST CHURCH (6400 TRACY AVE, ,.)
Planner Larsen presented the request of the Creek Valley Baptist Church, located
at 6400 Tracy Avenue, for a Conditional Use Permit. Creek Valley Baptist Church
is proposing construction of additional classroom space, restrooms and general
storage. The addition would contain a total of 3,780 square feet, 2,680 square
feet of which would be on the main floor, and would be to the south of the existing
structure. All classroom activities are currently held in the basement. No other.
�.:.
f,•. P R
ERA :ti
LU G BROOK p
H ST. PATRIC _
a CATHOLIC SC a " a 69 TH ST
N- DIRE
.OU BLIND
ilp. 1C1 CL '
sco _
�TU PA
C I R
CiR
4 I
Lt 01
rc
LLIF
TENNIS `'r;'��i!1i• < ?P ]c::
COURTS
KEM H Q
*r a N
SUEDIeeosa0� NUMBER S-86-1
L 0 C A T10 N South of Dublin Road and west of Antrim Court
REQUEST Five (S) Lot Subdivision
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY,
FEBRUARY 26, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson,
Helen McClelland, Phil Sked, John
Bailey, Virginia Shaw, Jane Paulus,
John Palmer, John Skagerberg and
David Runyan.
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Lewis
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the January 29,
1986 Community Development and Planning Commission Minutes.
Mrs. McClelland requested a revision in the minutes. The
revision reads:
Mrs. Helen McClelland stated that after conferring
with the Engineering Department, she agreed that
the sewer line should connect to the invert on Antrim
Court to provide proper gravity drop. Mrs. McClelland
expressed her opinion that the revised
plat for 6 homes is too dense and still caused
extensive alteration to the site's topography. She
pointed out that if Mr. Trones wishes to promote
country living in Edina the prospective homeowners
would expect certain amenities, such as a back
yard for homes priced at $500,000. In the present
plat, lots 2 and 3 have retaining walls and no yards;
lots 1 and 4 have extremely limited yards. Such home
owners could quickly become unhappy with the City
and the Commission. Mrs. McClelland concluded that
she could support a plat for 5 homes around the
cul de sac if _the topography were respected.
Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The motion carried.
Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the January 2,
1986 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting Minutes. Mr.
John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Lot 15, Prospect Hills.
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that a
proposal for a six lot subdivision of the subject property
was denied by the Commission at its January 29, 1986
meeting. Mr. Trones has resubmitted with a request for a
five lot subdivision of this 4.05 acre parcel.
Mr. Larsen added the Commission should be advised that
the proponent has appealed the Commissions January 29, 1986
decision. The City Council has set a March, 3, 1986 hearing
date on the 6 lot preliminary plat. However, the Council
will be informed of any action taken by the Commission at
the February 26th meeting.
Mr. Larsen explained the revised preliminary plat
illustrates 5 lots ranging from 23,000 sq. ft. to 46,800 sq.
ft. in area. The average lot size has been increased from
27,800 square feet to 32,800 square feet. Lot 1 would
access on Dublin Road at approximately the same point as the
existing driveway. The remaining four lots would be served
by a new cul de sac off of Antrim Court.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the curb cut off Antrim and the
alignment of the cul de sac remain similar to previous
plans. However, the newest proposal reduces the length of
the road by approximately 20 feet. This results in
increased rear yards on lots 2 and 3.
The revised preliminary plat proposes a 30 foot
conservation easement along the westerly and southerly
property lines. No structures or land alteration would be
allowed in the easement area.
Mr. Larsen concluded that any recommendation for
preliminary plat approval should be conditioned on the
following:
1. Developers' Agreement
2. Subdivision Ded- ication
3. An erosion control plan during the construction period
4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court
Mr. Larsen suggested the Commission consider increasing
the conservation easement from 30 feet to 50 feet.
The proponent Mr. Trones, Randy Stern and Robert Hoff
were present. Interested neighbors were also in attendance.
Mr. Trones submitted to the Commission a signed
petition from members of the neighborhood supporting the 5
lot subdivision. Mr. Trones clarified for the Commission
his reasons for going before the City Council on March 3,
-1986 and before the Planning Commission this evening.
He told the Commission he met with interested neighbors the
week of February 3, 1986. At that meeting Mr. Trones
suggested a third proposal. This proposal was for a 5 lot
subdivision, 1 lot less than the 6 lot subdivision he
appealed to the Council. There were 8 - 10 neighbors in
attendance at that meeting. During the discussion Mr.
Trones made changes in the plat. Lot 1 was changed from a
walk -out lot. This change would keep the terrain at its
natural elevation, and two 5 foot retaining walls
constructed of boulders would be put in at this point. Mr.
Trones said he told the neighbors he was willing to go
before the Planning Commission with the new 5 lot
subdivision proposal if he had neighborhood support. Mr.
Trones said at that meeting all but 1 person supported the 5
lot subdivision. Mr. Trones felt the 6 lot proposal was
adequate but will abide by the 5 lot subdivision if.
approved.
Mr. Trones pointed out to the Commission the majority
of names on his petition abut the property and are most
affected by this proposal. Mr. Trones said the subject
property is similar in topography with the existing
neighborhood. Mr. Trones said he tried very carefully to
consider the feelings of the neighbors but understands
not all needs will be met. He added that he had initiated 3
neighborhood meetings and made an honest effort to find
what the neighbors want. Mr. Trones stated he finds no
problem with the increase in the conservation easement
requested by staff, and stressed again he wants to maintain
the integrity and environment of this neighborhood. Mr.
Trones indicated homes build on the proposed lots would have
a square footage of around 2,500 sq. ft. on the main floor.
This would vary with the individual buyer, but in speaking
with prospective buyers there is an indication to build
approximately this size.
Mrs. Bland spokesperson for the Prospect Hills
Homeowners Association presented to the Commission a signed
petition by neighbors opposing the 5 lot subdivision and an
aerial photo of the area for their viewing.
Mrs. Bland began her presentation by informing the
Commission that 52 names appear on the petition, which is an
increase from the previous submitted petitions. Continuing
Mrs. Bland stated they are at'a point where the lot sizes as
defined in square feet are immaterial. Mrs. Bland quoted
Edina's Comprehensive Land Use Plan " Topography and
vegetation characteristics are to be utilized as a basis for
determining suitable lot sizes ". Mrs. Bland added the
location and grade of the new cul -de -sac road to serve the
proposed subdivision requires a substantial cut into the
existing hill. The woods, slopes and gullies of the land in
question provide severe developmental limitations. Mrs.
Bland told the Commission at this poi -nt the neighborhood has
been developed without greatly altering the natural terrain.
It is felt the proposed 5 lot subdivision will not be
sensitive to the topography.
Mrs. Bland stated there was some confusion regarding
lot #1 on the proposed plat. She indicated she was led to
believe lot #1 would be a walk -out lot which would require a
16 foot cut. She questioned why the staff report was silent
on this issue and the issue of the increased height of the
retaining walls on lot #2. Mrs. Bland commented she
mentioned these emissions to Mr. Larsen, who responded he
felt these issues would be discussed at the Planning
Commission meeting. It was clarified for Mrs. Bland that
lot #1 would be a partial walk -out. Mrs. Bland told the
Commission the proposed cul -de -sac has some changes The
elevation at the west end is 955 feet and slopes to 948 feet
where it enters Antrim Court. This change will benefit the
new homeowners but in Mrs. Blands opinion could cause
hardship for the homeowners in Danens Meadows. The most
affected property owners at 7101 and 7105 Antrim Court have
already experienced water damage and soil slippage, if this
proposal is approved there is bound to be problems. Mrs.
Bland suggested that Mr. Trones pay for any adjustment
needed in landscaping to prevent this from occurring. Mrs.
Bland expressed her concern regarding the traffic safety
issue. She said the access of lot #1 unto Dublin Road has
the potential to become a safety hazard. The topography of
lot #1, the fact there is a road on three sides and because
there is no easy place for the driveway to go make this lot
a forced lot. This road access should be eliminated. Mrs.
Bland thanked Mr. Trones for the addition of the
conservation easement but added she felt a 30 foot easement
was too small. Mrs. Bland said she would like to see a 50
foot easement on the south and a 60 foot easement on the
west. Mrs. Bland took issue with the fact that Mr. Trones
appealed the decision of the Commission's denial of the 6
lot subdivision to the Council and this evening was before
the Commission with-a 5 lot proposal. She felt this did not
ring true. This was not what the policy writers intended.
Mr. Larsen responded to some of the issues brought up
by Mrs. Bland:
1. Mr. Larsen commented that Mrs. Bland quoted
Edina's Comprehensive Plan many times. He said he realized
that policies were open to varying interpretations. He
continued by stating that policies must be applied in a
reasonable manner. Mr. Larsen said the reason he has not
used the Plan thus far is because in his judgement he felt
Mr. Trones proposal was not in conflict with the Plan.
2. Mr. Larsen said the reason he did not mention the
retaining walls in his February 26, 1986 Staff Report is
because retaining walls have been a part of each plat
ranging from 4 feet to 12 feet high. The omission was
intentional.
3. Mr. Larsen added he remembers speaking to Mrs. Bland
regarding lot #1 and told her he felt lot #1 would not be a
walk -out. Mr. Larsen then spoke to Mr. Trones who informed
him as a result of the neighborhood meeting the decision was
to leave the hill and the terrain as is, which would
eliminate a walk -out on lot #1.
Mrs. Bland played a video tape of the area. The tape
was made by Dr. Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road, who spoke
in opposition to the proposal.
Mr. Trones reminded Mrs. Bland she was present at the
neighborhood meeting where it was decided lot #1 would not
be a walk -out. Mr. Trones told the Commission he felt the
video portrayed a biased and distorted look at the area. He
said there can be no comparison made between the proposed
subdivision and the subdivision he completed in Danens
Meadows. Danens Meadows is what the name suggests, a
meadow. The Danens Meadows site did not have of many trees
and where trees were found they were preserved as much as
possible. Mr. Trones stressed that he does not rape the
land. He added he is concerned about the trees, and does
not intend to go into this project and level trees. Mr.
Trones reminded the Commission of the work he did at Braemar
Oaks where many trees were saved. He pointed out how they
worked to save trees on Antrim Court with the construction
of retaining walls. Mr. Trones referred to his slide
presentation whichs show that many homes in the area are set
into the hill and have numerous retaining walls. Mr. Trones
said he felt the issue has become an emotional issue,
adding he tried very hard to present this proposal in an
intelligent, reasonable and respectable way.
Mr. Robert Hoff and Mr. Trones delivered a slide
presentation illustrating homes and the general area.
Mr. Runyan commented that in a sense he felt Mr. Trones
hurt his case by presenting too much information. All Mr.
Trones was required to do was to plat the sites and show how
the street would work . Mr. Runyan said that a great deal
of time was spent talking about if a home is a walk -out, is
it a rambler, does it have a retaining wall. This is all
speculation because the proposed homes will have to fit the
site. Mr. Runyan said this plan is quite an improvement
over the last presented plan, adding many of the issues that
troubled him have been cleaned up with this plat. Much
confusion has resulted because of the home footprints placed
on this plat. Mr. Runyan took measurements of the homes
footprints and found that lot coverage ranged from a 70 lot
coverage to a 100 lot coverage. Mr. Runyan said he does
not understand why at the previous meetings the neighbors
mentioned lot size as a very important issue and at this
meeting it was suggested by Mrs. Bland that lot size was now
immaterial. Mr. Runyan concluded that the plan presented
this evening is a vast improvement over the two previous
plans. He said the retaining wall issue cannot be
addressed until it is decided where to place the home and
what style it will be. He said believes the rolling terrain
and ample vegetation will make the whole project much less
visible than it would be on a flat parcel of land.
He pointed out it is obvious when you build on a hill that
some of the site will be disturbed and it is unreasonable to
think it would not be. The terrain and vegetation will help
the visual appearance of the site. Mr. Runyan noted that
Mr. Trones is a reputable builder and he feels this project
is a much better project.
Mr. John Palmer seconded the thoughts of Mr. Runyan and
said in terms of the Comprehensive Plan mentioned here the
Comprehensive Plan sets standards and principals that are
very important to Edina, such as topography as a measure of
lot size, desirable spacing, intelligent development ,
sensitivity to the environment. These issues are all true
but in a particular case they come down to a matter of
judgement. Mr. Palmer stated that in his judgement this
plan is at a state where it is much improved and fits those
concerns addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. He added this
proposal does not do violence to the environment or to this
very special part of Edina.
Mr. Palmer moved to approve the preliminary plat
subject to staff conditions in the staff report and subject
to the further condition that the conversation easements
shown on the south and west side of the plat be increased
from 30 feet to 50 feet. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the
motion.
Mr. Gordon Johnson opened the floor for discussion.
Mr. Skagerberg commented he felt the 30 foot
conservation easement was adequate, but will accept the 50
foot easement.
Mrs. McClelland stated she felt this proposal was a
improvement. She added from the beginning she was able to
see 5 lots on this site. Mrs. McClelland said she still had
three items that bothered her and would like the Commission
to consider them.
1. The entrance unto Dublin is a concern but,
one she can live with.
2. The retaining wall that appears on lot #2 is
a problem. She would like to see that
retaining wall eliminated.
3. Mrs. McClelland said she would like to see a
change in the motion regarding the conservation
easement. She proposed 50 feet on the southside
and because of the severe slope found
on the west side she would like a
85 foot easement. She indicated she would
also like to see 35 feet on the north and
east sides.
A discussion ensued between Mrs. McClelland and Mr.
Trones on the placement of homes on the lots.
Mr. Skagerberg commented the reason he would not agree
with the easements Mrs. McClelland proposed is because he
feels the future homeowner should have some control of what
they do on their own yard.
Mr. Runyan reminded the Commission they are loosing
site of their task. The location of the homes on the site
and the location of retaining walls is not their job. He
added the Commission is to look at a piece of property, how
it is to be divided and whether the traffic enters and
exits appropriately. The design of the homes should not
enter into it. He feels they are off- base if they try to
tell a developer where to put a retaining wall etc. Mrs.
McClelland said she is only concerned with erosion and the
topography of the area, this is why she does not agree with
the retaining wall and would like to eliminate the retaining
wall on this site.
Mrs. McClelland withdrew her request for a change in
the conservation easement.
Concerned neighbors expressed their views of the
proposed subdivision:
Mr. Langer of 7101 Antrim Court said he is worried
about possible water damage to his property and concerned
with the traffic issue. Mr. Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive
commented he felt the site was to dense and questioned if
the proposed homes would have adequate spacing. Mr. Elliot
of 5904 Lee Valley road said he has lived in the
neighborhood for a number of years and has seen neighbors
subdivide off part of their property. He would like this to
stop, he feels the neighborhood is too dense. Dr. Van Beek
of 7115 Antrim Court commended Mr. Trones as a builder but
added he would like to see the site developed with 4 lots.
Mrs. Jungels of 7108 Antrim Court expressed concern over the
possibility of inadequate water pressure, and the traffic
safety issue and suggested the possibility of water damage
to her property as a result of this proposal. She concluded
that she would like to see the site developed with 3 lots.
Mr. Robert Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Circle echoed the
concerns of his neighbors and recommended the site to be
developed with 3 lots. Mr. Ralph Linvill of 7005 Antrim
Road commended Mr. Trones on the 5 lot subdivision but
expressed worry about the icy conditions that occur in the
winter. He wondered if it was a possibility to re- locate
the driveway. Mrs. Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Road said she
would like to see the site developed with 4 lots.
No further comment being heard, Mr. Johnson reminded
the Commission that a motion had been made and seconded.
Mrs. Paulus asked to make a comment. She told
the residents she is torn and understands their needs. She
appreciates all the work the members of the neighborhood
have gone to. She added the land in this area has already
been divided and you cannot go back in time. She feels this
plat has come along way and Mr. Trones has worked with the
neighbors to try to fill their needs.
Mr. Palmer asked the Commission to vote for amend the
motion.
Mr. Johnson called for a roll call vote:
Jane Paulus Aye
John Palmer Aye
John Skagerberg Aye
David Runyan Aye
Gordon Johnson Abstain
Del Johnson Aye
Helen McClelland Abstains for the reasons of
Dublin Road access and would like too see a larger
conservation easement. Mrs. McClelland agrees with
lots.
Phil Sked _ Aye
John Bailey Aye
Virginia Shaw Aye
The motion carried.
III. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
the
5
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 26, 1986
5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Lot 15, Prospect Hills
south of Dublin Road and
west of Antrim Court
Refer to: Attached revised preliminary plat,
area map, and previously proposed
plat.
The Commission will recall that a proposal for a six
lot subdivision of. the subject property was denied by the
Commisison at its January 29, 1986 meeting. Mr. Trones has
resubmitted with a request for a five lot subdivision of
this 4.05 acre parcel.
The Commission should be advised that the proponent has
appealed the Commissions January 29, 1986 decision. The
City Council has set a March 3, 1986 hearing date on the 6
lot preliminary plat. However, the Council will be informed
of any action taken by the Commission at its February 26th
meeting.
The revised preliminary plat illustrates 5 lots ranging
from 23,000 sq. ft. to 46,800 sq. ft. in area. The average
lot size has been increased from 27,800 square feet to
32,800 square feet. Lot 1 would access on Dublin Road at
approximately the same point as the existing driveway. The
remaining four lots would be served by a new cul de sac off
of Antrim Court.
The curb cut off Antrim and the alignment of the cul de
sac remain similar-to previous plans. However, the newest
proposal reduces the length of the road by approximately 20
feet. This results in increased rear yards on lots 2 and 3.
The revised preliminary plat proposes a 30 foot
conservation easement along the westerly and southerly
property lines. No structures or land alteration would be
allowed in the easement area.
Any recommendation for preliminary plat approval should
be conditioned on the following:
1. Developerrs' Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication
3. An erosion control plan during the construction period
4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court
P9 / 71 ON
I
0
PETITION
We, the undersign, do hereby approve the
five (5) lot subdivision proposed for the
property located at 7012 Dublin Rd.
Joe Hayes
7013 Dublin Rd.G
gilt C.L' �G' 1z ^�C
%017 /%C
�lG ✓ � �',l/�,L°' 102 ��` -
G;�
PETITION
We, the undersign, do hereby approve the
five (5) lot subdivision proposed for the
property located at 7012 Dublin Rd.
/e If NA /,- e::�PZSSoq/ 1
o0a,
. 7/o
j°,,�;-,,a' %l v a
`drvc�/nyl CUB
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
W`
LAZ�� A)212altz----
/7?, et-�e�
ADDRESS
�7�05 S�vRon�
7 X.E-
7m
p ,� A?. 0 4
7j�'-al
Z
S90t/ LCF_�VA -LLt y IZ-D.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
OIL
A/
46
ADDRESS
% U 2
70/6
-7(oo r-
S O �� sY1Gk N n on J r�
'
|
�
^
{ '
' WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT lS, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
- zel-�
/
/
/
`
`
/
'
/
ADDRESS
�
Va4O M
,
.
~�
�umu
'
//
-
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
r
�P Z zx
ADDRESS
Tao 9 .
6- yvc) U
Tao
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAPE
ADDRESS
Mr. John Pais mnv
ced seconded t
e
II. OLD BUSINESS:
S -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Lot 15, Prospect Hills
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that an eight
lot subdivision of the subject property was considered on
— January 8, 1986, and rejected. The proponent, Rudy Trones,
has submitted a new preliminary plat illustrating six lots.
1 He added the revised plat increases the average lot
size from 20,800 square feet to 27,800 square feet. In the
.original plat lots ranged from 16,650 square feet to 27,750
square feet in area. The range in the revised plat is from
22,125 square feet to 33,480 square feet in area.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the location and grade of the
proposed cul de sac remain the same as in the previous plan.
However, the grading plan adjacent to the road has changed
significantly. Building elevations for lot 1 and 5 have
been raised which reduces the cut into the hill adjacent to
the road. The maximum height of retaining walls along the
road has been reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. Except for
grading and filling necessary to prepare individual building
pads most earth work is confined to the interior portions of
the plat adjacent to the road.
Mr. Larsen said the revised preliminary illustrates the
location of existing trees, and indicates which will be
saved and which will be removed. According to the surveyor
trees with a diameter of 8 inches or greater are shown. The
plan does not illustrate all of the existing trees on the
western portions of lots 2, 3, and 4. Of 267 trees
inventoried, 44 would_ be removed due to construction of the
road and preparation of individual building sites.
The revised site p
Dublin Road for access.
cul de sac as an access
from the cul de sac for
does not have access to
must use Dublin Road.
lan illustrates lot 1 and 2 using
The house on lot 1 could use the
point. Staff believes that access
lot 1 is more appropriate. Lot 2
the cul de sac. Consequently, it
Mr. Larsen concluded staff continues to recommend the
following conditions for a plat approval.
1. Developers Agreement
r
2, -.,�- sSubdiv.ision,D,edication.
�.J IN
oS yr- •, �.,...- t.. .w.. r °.� .+z u .rrurx 4'.r3 *Fn i
3. An approved erosion control plan durin
the construction period.
4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim
Court.
The proponent Mr. Trones was present, with Mr. Krueger
of Krueger & Associates and Attorney Donald Smith,of
Thomsen, Nybeck, Johnson, Bonquet and Van Valkenburg, P.A.,
Residents of the area were also present.
Mr. Donald Smith pointed out to the Commission issues
that were discussed at the meeting of January 8, 1986 and
changes in the plat as a result of that meeting:
1. Density. Mr. Trones decreased the density
of the original plat by trimming the number of
lot sites to 6. The original plat depicts
8 lot sites.
2. Topography. The lots that require a significant
amount of grading and soil movement are lots
2 and 3. The remaining 4 lots require minimal
alteration. With the revised plat the impact of
tree loss will be minimal. Calculations indicate
that 90% - 95% of the total amount of trees on the
site will remain untouched.
3. Safety. The revised plat has two sites that will
access Dublin. However, Mr. Trones will abide by
the staff request that lot #1 access Antrim Court.
The future homeowner of Lot #2 will have sufficient
space to turn around and will enter Dublin front
first.
Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Trones tried very hard to
respond to the concerns of the Planning Commission, staff
and area residents.. The number of lots has decreased,
resulting in an increase in individual lot size, the rolling
hills and vegetation of the area will be retained where
possible, Dublin will serve as assess to one lot instead of
the proposed two, and the revised plat complies with all
Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Smith submitted to the Planning
Commission a print -out of subdivisions in the general area
that were developed over the past several years.
Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Krueger the height of the
retaining walls on lots 2 and 3. Mr. Krueger said the
retaining walls will be six feet high.
Mr. Krueger informed the Commission a crew of workers
was at the site for 1 1/2 days tallying the amount of trees
over 8 inches that would be lost as a result of constructing
building pads for each lot. Their calculations found that
with careful planning the tree loss would be minimal. The
proposed location of the cul -de -sac would require the
removal of 7 trees.
Mr. Trones told the Commission he met with homeowners
of the area and discussed the issues that were brought to
his attention at the January 8, 1986 meeting. The
homeowners expressed concern about the alteration of the
natural environment of the area as a result 'of this
subdivision. Mr. Trones referred to his Braemar development
as an example of maintaining the natural beauty of the land.
Mr. Trones pointed out the new lot size averages 27,800
square feet. This increase in lot square footage makes
the proposed lot sizes larger than many of the lots in the
area. Mr. Trones assured the Commission it is important for
him to maintain the integrity of the area.
Mrs. Rhonda Bland, 7000 Kerry Road submitted a signed
petition to the Commission opposing the development of a 6
lot subdivision at 7012 Dublin Road.
Mrs. Bland asked the Commission to recall her
presentation of the January 8, 1986 Planning Commission,
Meeting. Mrs. Bland stated her presentation this evening
would address the failings of the revised proposal:
Topography:
Mrs. Bland told the Commission that members of the
neighborhood do not feel the increased square footage of the
lots satisfy the standards setforth in Edina's Comprehensive
Plan. "It is the policy to utilize topography and
vegetation characteristics as a basis for determining
suitable lot sizes." Continuing Mrs. Bland stated this
subdivision is not a logical development of the land.
The wildlife would loose their natural habitat and the tree
loss would be greater than what Mr. Trones has indicated.
Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Tree Ordinance #823 " A tree has
a diameter of greater than 6 ".when measured at a point of
four feet above ground level. The City Council hereby finds
it is necessary to maintain and protect the existing urban
forest in order to preserve wind break protection, abate
soil erosion and enhance the natural beauty of the City."
The elimination of trees, especially the many oaks in the
area is a high cost to pay for development. Mrs. Bland said
that no matter how well intentioned Mr. Trones is the.
topography will be severely altered and its natural
environmental beauty lost forever. The removal of
vegetation and the alteration of the elevations on all six
lots present a potential for further erosion and soil
slippage. The development could aggravate an existing water
drainage problem.
2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing
neighborhood.
Mrs. Bland indicated the development of 6 lots does not
blend with the character and symmerty of the neighborhood.
In general the area of Prospect Hills is comprised of small
homes on large lots. This ratio results with land being the
dominant element. It is felt that Mr. Trones will build
large homes on the proposed sites, resulting in unbalance.
The residents of Prospect Hills feel the proposed plat is
part of Prospect Hills and redevelopment of this area must
considered with that in mind. The character of the
neighborhood must be maintained.
3. Traffic Safety Factor
Mrs. Bland said the 2 proposed home sites that will
access Dublin Road could result in a grave safety problem.
Several mishaps have already occurred in this area. It is
felt that for safety reasons no home sites should access
Dublin Road.
Mrs. Bland added if the density is reduced to three or
four homes sites many of the concerns of the residents
will vanish. Less need for excavation and fill will reduce
the extent of damage to the topography and the overall
development will be more compatible with Prospect Hills. If
all the home sites have access unto Antrim Terrace the
traffic safety factor is less of a concern. Mrs. Bland
offered an alternative to this subdivision. She contacted
each homeowner with land adjacent to the proposed site, all
homeowners stated they would be interested in listening to a
proposal which would enable them to purchase part of the
land that is Lot 15. In addition, the subdivision
dedication could be in the form of land rather then cash.
The presence of unaltered plant communities and natural
wildlife habitats is a very limited resource in Edina.
Several residents have expressed their support for an
assessment that could offset the ongoing maintenance costs
of the City for maintaining this land. Mrs. Bland asked the
Planning Commission to maintain the integrity of Prospect
Hills. She recommended that Mr. Trones further amend the
plat so the neighborhood concerns are addressed.
Darrell Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive voiced his concern
regarding the density and lot size of the proposal. Mr.
Trones reminded him that the proposed lot sizes are larger
than many of the developed lots in the area. Allen VanBeek
of 7115 Antrim Road asked Mr. Trones if there is any form of
control which can be exercised to regulate what the new
homeowners place in their yards (ex. pools, tennis courts,
etc.). Mrs. Trones said the topography limits what could be
placed in yards. He anticipates that most yards would have
deck structures. Lot 6 and lot 1 are the only lots on
which he would anticipate the new homeowners putting in a
swimming pool or tennis court. Henry Langer of 7101 Antrim
Court expressed concern over possible water drainage
problems and traffic safety.
Mr. Smith said he understood the natural apprehension
of the neighbors regarding the change caused by this
proposed development, but cutting the number of lots to 3 or
4 is unfair. Mr. Smith stated the neighbors are demanding
substantially more square footage in lot size from Mr.
Trones than they themselves have on their own lots. Mr.
Smith told the Commission that Mr. Trones has a history of
fine developments in Edina. There is a risk that another
developer could develop the property with less care than Mr.
Trones would take. There is no question that this
development will alter the terrain, but the development of 3
or 4 homes will alter the terrain. Mr. Smith pointed out
that the homes Mr. Trones builds are quality homes and it is
very important to Mr. Trones to develop these lots with
minimal alteration. Mr. Smith added that Mr. Trones will
comply with the staff request that only 1 home access Dublin
which will lessen neighborhood traffic concerns. Mr. Smith
feels Mr. Trones has done everything he could to eliminate
the general concerns of the residents. By asking him to
increase lot size to 1 1/4 acres you are asking him to have
a far greater lot size then what the local community meets.
Mrs. Eckberg of 7020 Kerry Road commented that she has
been approached to subdivide her lot but has refused. The
uniqueness of the area is special to her and that is the
reason she moved inta this area. She understands change
comes but would like change to be subtle, once change is
made is cannot be undone. Mr.Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road
submitted to the Commission an ariel photo of Prospect
Hills. Mr. Elasky is opposed to the revised plat. Mrs.
Langer of 7101 Antrim Court pointed out an acre of land is
viewed differently if it is flat then if it is rolling. Mr.
Robert Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Road is against the
density of the proposal. He feels his view will be changed
due to the fact that he is 40 feet below the proposed homes.
Mr. Runyan introduced himself as acting chairman in the
absence of Mr. Gordon Johnson.
Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission had
control of home placement on new lots. Mr. Larsen informed
Mr. Palmer the Commission has never exercised control of
where a home is placed on the lot. Controls are exercised
where a water body is involved placing a conservation
restriction 100 ft. along the shore line. Mr. Trones
proposed placing a conservation restriction along the west
and south side of the property. This would protect the
natural vegetation of the environment .
Mrs. Helen McClelland stated that after conferring with
the Engineering Department, she agreed that the sewer line
should connect to the invert on Antrim Court to provide
proper gravity drop. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion
that the revised plat for 6 homes is too dense and still
caused extensive alteration to the site's topography. She
pointed out that if Mr. Trones wishes to promote country
living in Edina the prospective homeowners would expect
certain amenities, such as a back /side yards, for homes
priced at $500,000. In the present plat, lots 2 and 3 have
retaining walls and no yards; Lots 1 and 4 have extremely
limited yards. Such homeowners could quickly become unhappy
with the City and the Commission. Mrs. McClelland concluded
that she could support a plat for 5 homes around the cul -de-
sac if the topography were respected. Mr. Paulus stated
she felt the present homeowners would suffer a great loss as
a result of this subdivision. She further added that in her
opinion the development of 3 or 4 lots would be a reasonable
approach to this property. Understandably the homeowners
are concerned about the integrity of their neighborhood and
they do not want to see a development mistake made.
Mr. Palmer said he is inclined to think this project is
to dense. Mr. Skagerberg added he is not unhappy with the
revised 6 lot subdivision, but his concern is placement of
the proposed homes. He would like to see the homes blend
into the environment. Mr. Skagerberg commented it is
asking much of the developer to reduce the number of lots
too 3 or 4. Mr. Del Johnson said he leans toward a 5 lot
subdivision.
Mr. Smith said he felt the objectivity has been lost on
this matter. Mr. Smith said the Commission works under
rules. Mr. Smith pointed out that a 5 lot subdivision
increases the square lot footage to an average of 33,360.
The lots that abutt this area average in the 201s. Mrs.
McClelland said the rules she based her decision on are of
density and maintaining the integrity of the area. Mr.
Smith asked in the decision making process the Commission to
look for objective criteria. It was felt by Mr. Trones that
the 27,750 average square footage is reasonably consistent
for the area.
Mr. Trones asked for some direction ffom the Commission
in the development of this property.
Mr. Runyan said he would like to see this site
developed creatively. He added the site is very rolling
which will enable the profile of the homes to appear lower
and fit into the terrain without appearing as large as they
would on a flat surface. Mr. Runyan added he finds a problem
with site #2. He can envision the development of lots
1,3,4,5, and 6 but indicated he has a hard time with lot 2.
Mr. Trones agreed with Mr. Runyan that lot #2 is a difficult
lot to develop.
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for denial of the
preliminary plat on the basis of density. Mrs. Jane Paulus
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion
carried.
III. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
1 ILI
W
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 29, 1986
5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Lot 15,.Prospect Hills
General Location: South of Dublin Road and West of
Antrim Court
Refer to: Revised preliminary plat, staff report
and preliminary plat from January 8,1986
meeting
The Commission will recall that an eight lot
subdivision of the subject property was considered on
January 8, 1986, and rejected. The proponent, Rudy Trones,
has submitted a new preliminary plat illustrating six lots.
The revised plat increases the average lot size from
20,800 square feet to 27,800 square feet. In the original
plat lots ranged from 16,650 square feet to 27,750 square
feet in area. The range in the revised plat is from 22,125
square feet to 33,480 square feet in area.
The location and grade of the proposed cul de sac
remain the same as in the previous plan. However, the
grading plan adjacent to the road has changed significantly.
Building elevations for lot 1 and 5 have been raised which
reduces the cut into the hill adjacent to the road. The
maximum height of retaining walls along the road has been
reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. Except for grading and
filling necessary to prepare individual building pads most
earth work is confined to the interior portions of the plat
adjacent to the road.
The revised preliminary illustrates the location of
existing trees, and indicates which will be saved and which
will be removed. According to the surveyor trees with a
diameter of 8 inches or greater are shown. The plan does
not illustrate all of the existing trees on the western
portions of lots 2, 3, and 4. Of 267 trees inventoried, 44
would be removed due to construction of the road and
preparation of individual building sites.
The revised site plan illustrates lot 1 and 2 using
Dublin Road for access. The house on lot l could use the
cul de sac as an access point. Staff believes that access
from the cul de sac for lot 1 is more appropriate. Lot 2
t �
does not have access to the cul de sac. Consequently, it
must use Dublin Road.
Staff continues to recommend the following conditions
for a plat approval.
1. Developers Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication.
3. An approved erosion control plan during
the construction period.
4. vacation of excess right of way along Antrim
Court.
l � z9 -86
Got Rs2wxm
r.4
31
S s
6 2
In Antrim
Terrace R.O.Y. 7
LL
t o! 267 Total
Trees to be
Removed 16.51 Q
OXIfir NW 33 O�
/NV 91%r. 46
EX /5T. Hi/4 �1
• .0 / / TR - 949. 97 / 4 /
G@ NV- 939. A-7
�/ + � • " rR- 949. Bo
• /NV- 934. /8 EAl'!S 3trreL Mrs �B
/ l /A1V 927 XT
rwv
Jr
• o • - \ 77t- 1y5..?2
m. % � • . \t3990 ���
WA S I • • \� _1 -4
6 • • ty �
z
rXr - 7s
/NV- 938 - DB
EX/3T. MN A
2 ?7 O . �T. xy� � \ \` 7R - 946.07
sx/fIr HYPO.
EXAM M N.
d ffff` / /// � X1'1•
p •` •
— ! �\ \ ��� j/� �►r� \ \ 1 I -
\ IM/- 937948. 6
\ � \� � � .oc
I
PtC - % N LL / S / Z NO ADO / j /ON I
pf70 3
�1 1
NoTB - TYP14At- GA3EMEN76 50 ir. oN LOT c /NAS
AHO /O.O Fr ON ON A.O.W. L //VCS L /
• -/NOIc A-rES TREE TO RCMIi IN \�
o - 1NO1c A-ra 5 rQEE TO BE ROMCvfO
- /NO /GATES
/ Z9- W'n
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
I /
ADDRESS
Ycr
mZ
"-1 I �S Try �c�. Li-•
poi,'
r7los_
7d C0 A,5, f W/ 0, Y, �,0
700D bcc-g el-d)-
7 0 0 d /---) OA�2
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
all�
0 17
IJ
-7
ADDRESS
LA
f'
I ti
J
ivy Kill �iiiii
- /co/
ti
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
ADDRESS
.sq ! b
U
Sq
7
iw
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY JANUARY 8, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY.HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, Del Johnson, Helen
McClelland, Virginia Shaw, John Bailey,
Jane Paulus, John .Palmer, John Skagerberg
and David Runyan
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. John Palmer moved for
1985 Community Development and
Minutes. Mr. John Skagerberg
in favor. The motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
approval of the December 4,
Planning Commission Meeting
seconded the motion. All were
5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property
measures approximately 4 acres in size, and is zoned R -1,
Single Dwelling District. The property is developed with a
single dwelling-located slightly northeast of center.
Mr. Larsen explained that the proponent has submitted a
request for an 8 lot subdivision of the property. The
existing dwelling would be removed. The proposed lots range
in size from 17,170 to 27,750 square feet with an average
size of 20,800 square feet. Two of the lots would front on
Dublin, two on Antrim with the remaining four served by a
new cul -de -sac off Antrim Court.
Mr. Larsen added the subject property is part of the
Prospect Hills area which contains some of the largest lots
in the City. Over the years a number of subdivisions of
these large lots have occurred. The most notable being'
Danens Meadows, directly east of the subject property, for
which,a 10 lot subdivision was approved in-1980. Also
developed by Mr. Trones, lots in Danens Meadows average
approximately 20,600 square feet in area.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed plat illustrates
the vacation of excess right of way along the west-side of
Antrim Court. This excess right of way is a result of a
or . 1, '
realignment of Antrim Court which occurred as a result of
the Danens Meadow Plat.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission construction of the
cul -de -sac that will serve the proposed subdivision will
require a substantial cut into the existing hill. Retaining
walls up to 12 feet tall will be required along sections of
the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will require considerable
fill to provide adequate building pads at and an elevation
high enough to be served by existing sanitary sewers.
During the period of construction there will be the
potential for considerable soil erosion if adequate erosion
control steps are not taken.
Mr. Larsen summarized staffs findings: - - - - -- - -
1. Lots in the proposed subdivision are very similar to
the lots in Danens Meadows. The use of Antrim Court as the
access point to the subdivision is preferable to using
Dublin'Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing
to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly
the loss of fewer trees.
2. The 20,800 square foot average of the proposed lots is
nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens
Meadows.
The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess
and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7
should be only partially vacated in order to maintain an
adequate boulevard.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends Preliminary Plat
approval with the following conditions.
1. Developers Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication
3. An erosion. - control plan to insure against
undue erosion during the construction
period.
4. Vacation of excess right of way along
Antrim Court.
The proponent Mr. Rudy Trones, Ron Krueger and Peter
Knable of Krueger and Associates and interested neighbors
were present.
Mr. Trones addressed the Commission informing them he
proposes to build homes that are comparable to the homes
previously built in Danens Meadow. All the proposed homes
would be architecturally compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Trones stated he understands the concerns of the
neighbors regarding the amount of ground to be moved,
elevations of the terrain and the amount of vegetation that
may be disturbed as a result of this proposal. Mr. Trones
assured the Commission and neighbors that where possible the
terrain would remain in its natural state.
Mr. Skagerberg asked Mr. Trones if he had an erosion
control plan that would address the erosion issue after the
proposed homes were completed. Mr. Trones said that all
sites would be sodded which would help control erosion. He
also added he felt the drainage problem would lessen due to
grading, in addition, he would encourage buyers to maintain
their yards in the natural condition.
Mrs. Rhonda Bland spokesperson for concerned neighbors
of the area submitted to the Commission a signed petition
opposing the proposed subdivision and development at 7012
Dublin Road.
Mrs. Bland addressed the Commission explaining the
concerns and reasons for neighborhood opposition to the
proposed development. She stated three main reasons for
opposing the proposed development: 1) topography 2)
relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing
neighborhood and 3) traffic safety factor.
1) Topography:
Mrs. Bland told the Commission the neighborhood is
comprised of a rolling topography, steep slopes, and
woodlands (many of the woodlands are oak). This area offers
a rich habitat for wildlife. Mrs. Bland noted that because
of the fully developed status of Edina the presence of
unaltered plant communities and natural wildlife habitats
are very limited. She explained that to date the development
and subdivision in the area has been compatible with the
overall topography of the neighborhood and has not greatly
changed the characfer'of the land. Mrs. Bland told the
Commission that according to Edina's Comprehensive Plan; "It
is the policy to utilize topography and vegetation
characteristics as a basis for determining suitable lot
size." She added that it is the firm belief of many members
of the neighborhood that this policy was disregarded in the
proposed subdivision. It is felt that according to the
submitted plat, natural high elevations would be reduced and
lowlands would be raised, this would severely alter or
eliminate the present topography of the area. She
indicated that the neighbors understand the pressures to
subdivide and develop lots in Edina. They believe the goals
of the land use element are to provide for the orderly and
logical development and re- development of lands and maintain
an attractive living environment while preserving the high
quality residential character of Edina. Mrs. Bland asked
Mr. Trones to amend his proposal so that the natural
topography of the area remains unaltered.
2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the
existing neighborhood.
Continuing, Mrs. Bland stated it is understood that
the policy of Edina is to allow further subdivision for the
purpose of developing single family lots only if
neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. It is
felt that the proposed subdivision would detract from the
character of the Prospect Hills neighborhood. Mrs. Bland
said the proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows (a
transitional area between the smaller lots bordered - -on the
east by Shannon Drive and the very large lots to the west of
Prospect Hills) and not to Prospect Hills which have a large
average lot size. Mrs. Bland quoted an October 31, 1979
staff report which read: "The Danens Meadow project
provided a logical transition between these two diverse
areas." Mrs. Bland further added the provision of adequate
transitions between dissimilarly platted lands is one of the
most historic objectives of land use planning. Because the
proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows it does not make
them acceptable to the neighborhood of Prospect Hills. Mrs.
Bland told the Commission that she was aware that the lot
measurements of the proposed subdivision fall within the
stipulations of the Edina Zoning ordinance, but the proposed
subdivision is not sympathetic to prevailing neighborhood
standards. Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Comprehensive Land
Use Plan: "Currently, Edina's Zoning Ordinance contains a
single set of standards for each residential district that
applies throughout the City. Existing standards work well
in the City's's newer neighborhoods, but they present
problems in older neighborhoods which were developed under
less restrictive standards. In order to assure that
recevelopment will occur in a manner sympathetic to'
prevailing neighborhood standards, uniform guidelines for
redevelopment should be developed for sub -areas of the
City." The character and stability of the City's
neighborhoods depend on the standards imposed for each
individual area.
3. Traffic Safety Factor.
Mrs. Bland pointed out to the Commission that Prospect
Hills has only two points of access into the area, 70th and
Antrim Road in the north and Shannon Road in the south.
This roadway serves not only those who live in the
neighborhood but also those to the east on the newer part of
Shannon and those in the south in the Dewey Hills area.
The road curves and winds and has a steep grade. In the
summer road conditions are at their best,.but are still a
safety hazard, in the winter these conditions are
compounded. Since there are no sidewalks all pedestrian
traffic is on the street. Mrs. Bland said from a traffic
safety point of view the proposed subdivision would result
in an increase of traffic flow. This fact would be
compounded with 2 of the proposed homes accessing on
Dublin. This in Mrs. Blands opinion would increase the
possibility for potential accidents. Mrs. Bland recommended
that Mr. Trones amend his proposal in view of the above
mentioned concerns.
Mr. Daryl Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive asked the
Commission to examine the proposed subdivision in relation
to the large lots of Prospect Hills and not the smaller lots
of Danens Meadows.
Mr. Ron Krueger explained to the Commission that Mr.
Trones completed a development with similar topography on
St. Albans Addition. At that time an extensive amount of
time and care with minimal altering of the natural
environment was taken in the placement of each home. Mr.
Trones has the same intentions for the proposed development.
All areas with natural contours will stay the same. Each
proposed home will be designed to fit in the lot with
minimal lot alteration. `
Mr. Roy.Olson of 5920 Lee Valley Road stated he is not
opposed to this development, but expressed surprise on the
number of proposed homes. Mr. Olsons concern is a possible
drainage problem that could have a detrimental effect to his
property. He expressed that he would like some assurance
that the proposed subdivision would not add a drainage
problem for him. -Mr. Olson added that traffic is a problem.
Mr. Peter Knable clarified the problem of drainage,
adding that by his calculations the post development rates
of runoff would be less than what occur, at the present time.
He said they do not expect any additional downstream
problems from storm--runoffs.
Mr. David Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road submitted to
the Commission snapshots of the area in question. Mr.
Elasky expressed his opposition to the proposed development.
Mrs. Helen McClelland stated her displeasure with the
proposed subdivision. She felt the development of 8 lots
would result in an absolute mutilitation of the topography.
She pointed out very few trees would be left if this
proposal was approved, which could result in numerous
erosion problems. Mrs. McClelland added the grading and
fill this proposal would need would severely alter the
environmental beauty of this area. She stressed traffic
considerations are a grave concern, pointing out that the 2
proposed homes accessing Dublin could be a real safety
problem. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that 5 homes
would be a realistic amount to develop. A development of 5
homes would respect the areas topography. Mrs. McClelland
stated she would not consider the development of 8 homes on
this location.
Mr. Palmer stated he opposes the development of this
property for the reasons Mrs. Bland previously mentioned.
He added that he views this open area as a transition point
between the large lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller
lots of Danens Meadows. Mr. Palmer felt the rolling hills
and woodlands added a uniqueness to Edina and is a special
resource. Mr. Palmer concluded that he would like to see the
area developed with special care.
Mr. John Bailey agreed with the feelings of Mr. Palmer
and asked Mr. Trones if he had looked into the possibility
of developing this site with fewer lots.
Responding to Mr. Baileys question Mr. Trones stated at
the present time only 8 lots were looked at for development
at this site. In reference to Mrs. McClellands comments Mr.
Trones stressed he did not feel the site would be mutilated
by this development adding the existing terrain would remain
generally the same. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
commented that he believes Mr. Trones can preserve the
natural integrity of this site .
Mr. John Palmer moved -for denial of the
subdivision based on the density of the proposal, taking
into consideration the special topography of the area and
viewing this area as a transitional point between the larger
lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller lots of Danens
Meadows. Mrs. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All
were in favor. The motion carried.
P -86 -1 Hoyt Development
5555 West 78th Street
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the subject property
measures approximately 5 acres in size and is zoned Planned
Industrial District, PID. Until recently the property was
developed with a small industrial building. The Commission
may recall that a redevelopment of the property for office -
warehouse use was approved in July and by the City Council
in August, 1985. The previously approved plan has been
abandoned and a new design has been submitted.
Mr. Larsen pointed out that the new proposal calls for
a office - warehouse building containing 73,557 square feet of
gross floor area, which is slightly greater than the 72,390
square feet in the old plan. A building set back variance
was granted for the previous plan. The new plan would
require no building set back variance. The new plan also
complies with Ordinance requirements for Floor Area, and
building coverage.
Mr. Larsen added the new plan provides parking for 208
cars compared to 209 spaces in the previous plan. Both
plans comply with Ordinance parking quantity requirements.
However, both plans require parking setback variances. The
location and magnitude of the requested variances for the
new plan are similar to those granted to the earlier plan.
Parking is set back less than the required 20 feet along
most of the northerly property line. The required 10 foot
building to parking /drive aisle set back is not provided
along the westerly portion of the south building wall.
The landscaping plan illustrates the retention of
existing landscaping along the northerly property line.
Retention of this existing material will be difficult due to
the extensive grading proposed in this area.
The primary exterior materials will be brick with clay
tile used as an accent. The rear of the building will be
decorative concrete block. All materials comply with the
Ordinance.
Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed plan conforms much
more closely to Ordinance requirements than did the
previously approved plan. The requested parking set back
variances will have little or no visual impact due to the
large grade change near the property line. Staff recommends
approval of the Final Development Plan subject to the
following condition:
1. Staff approval of a revised landscaping
plan and - schedule.
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the Final
Development Plan. Mr. John Palmer seconded the motion. All
were in favor. the motion carried.
S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT.
JANUARY 8, 1986
5 -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Generally Located: South of Dublin Road and West of
Antrim Court
Refer to: Attached Preliminary Plat
The subject property measures approximately 4 acres in
size, and is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling District. The
property is developed with a single dwelling located
slightly northeast of center.
The proponent has submitted a request for an 8 lot
subdivision of the property. The existing dwelling would be
removed. The proposed lots range in size from 17,170 to
27,750 square feet with an average size of 20,800 square
feet. Two of the lots would front on Dublin, two on Antrim
with the remaining four served by a new cul -de -sac off
Antrim Court.
The subject property is part of the Prospect Hills area
which contains some of the largest lots in the City. Over
the years a number of subdivisions of these large lots have
occurred. The most notable being Danens Meadows, directly
east of the subject property, for which a 10 lot subdivision
was approved in 1980. Also developed by Mr. Trones, lots in
Danens Meadows average approximately 20,600 square feet in
area.
The proposed plat illustrates the vacation of excess
right of way along the west side of Antrim Court. This
excess right of way'is a result of a realignment of Antrim
Court which occurred as a result of the Danens Meadow Plat.
Construction of the cul -de -sac to serve the proposed
subdivision will require a substantial cut into the existing
hill. Retaining walls up to 12 feet tall will be required
along sections of the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will
require considerable fill to provide adequate building pads
at and an elevation high enough to be served by existing
sanitary sewers. During the period of construction there
will be the potential for considerable soil erosion if
adequate erosion control steps are not taken.
Recommendation
1. Lots in the proposed subdivision are very similar to
the lots in Danens Meadows. The use of Antrim Court as the
access point to the subdivision is preferrable to using
Dublin Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing
to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly
the loss of fewer trees.
2. The 20,800 square foot average of the proposed lots is
nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens
Meadows.
The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess
and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7
should be only partially vacated in order to maintain an
adequate boulevard.
Staff recommends Preliminary Plat approval with the
following conditions.
1. Developers Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication
3. An erosion control plan to insure against
undue erosion during the construction
period.
4. Vacation of excess right of way along
Antrim Court.
F-D)NA OAK5 I..UO 8
FRELIM IdArg FLAT -
Mh/ 33
I
'Q S INV 952. 48
,6 EX 517
v1H 4
/ 2 1
ra - 999 y� �� rl � -/ o
/NV • 939. 67 / r
--x/ T
� V � i � ,vv 93/f. /8 EX /ST•
TR - 94�
2005 / I1 �,� \\ INVS -9:
alo
IAA
>✓���
III \
� b
• r \ �4ri 1I_ —.,1 I I y� "6 95 / �� \p I � I I r I
952 --
/541
- .
9e I
4f
I\ �
PR N_D Ao0/r/0/v I
I /
h
�pIUIS��IJS wlt6�iN 'aS�ec -�-• H-iI s
INAICai�ED . �r �/�ht A t.-.i Nes
Lets 2141 %, 71 8,1 tl� iL(I S hid •e �
T�IUrDtfl .
Lod 5 is 110!1t v 7 c5wN -- -�
Yj
t
EDINA OAKS
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
BY
RUDY TRONES CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Prepared By:
RON KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
7382 Washington Avenue South
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
/ RON KRUEGER &. ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND SURVEYING • ENGINEERING • PLANNING
7382 WASHINGTON AVENUE SO. • EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 • PHONE (612) 941 -3030
December 27, 1985
Members of the City Council,
Planning Commission, and Staff
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On behalf of Rudy Trones Construction, Inc. I would like to
express our appreciation for your consideration of the following
land development application. We are requesting preliminary plat
approval of 8 single family lots.
We look foreward to your comments and to working with you toward
the completion of a successful development.
Sincerely,
eter J. Knaeble, P.E.
RON KRUEGER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
PK /cb
I. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
A. OWNERSHIP
The site is owned by Robert A. Roberts, 7012 Dublin Road,
Edina, and is optioned to Rudy Trones Construction, Inc. a
Minnesota Corporation with offices at 7101 York Avenue
South, Edina, Minnesota, for purchase subject to
preliminary plat approval.
B. DEVELOPER
The developer of this site will be Rudy Trones
Construction, Inc. This developer has been active in real
estate development and residential construction in Edina.
Other consultants involved in the project are:
Ron Krueger & Associates, Inc.- Engineering, Planning,
Surveying
C. DEVELOPMENT TIMING
The Developer proposes that the lots be developed so that
home construction can start in the summer of 1986. In
order to provide building sites within that time schedule,
the Developer hopes to gain City approvals by early March
with site development beginning in early April and being
completed in June. The Developer would then begin
marketing and building the units with first occupancy
expected in summer of 1986. Full project completion is
expected by the spring /summer of 1987.
D. PUBLIC APPROVAL
Approvals necessary for the project to proceed are:
1. Preliminary plat approval for 8 single family lots.
The site is presently zoned single family residential
(R1), so no rezoning is required.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. PROJECT BOUNDARIES /LAND USE
The project site is located approximately South of Dublin
Road and West of Antrim Court.
The site is bordered on all sides by existing single
family home developments.
B. TRANSPORTATION
The site will be served by Dublin Road and Antrim Court.
C. ZONING EXISTING /PROPOSED
The site is currently zoned single family residential
(R1). No rezoning is being requested.
D. VEGETATION
The site is densely covered with mature hardwood trees.
The proposed development was layed out to minimize the
number of trees to be removed during construction.
E. PRELIMINARY PLANS
Attached to this report is one plan sheet:
Sheet 1 of 1 Preliminary Development Plan
C $�
i - S - S�)
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
ADDRESS
��v/ � %►-`mil -�i�- �C.:�
44
7 o
-7
7p-d,
� 7
7�d �
AtFi
? /US
1-i
i�
i
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
�. fv-
Az;c
rka;
ADDRESS
74a--
76332 -
-�z) 3z w
i
}
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
Ike,
NAME
ADDRESS
?07z 6�
7a
701 5�
-7 o �Z o
t
NAME
` G�•I//�
i
oxk
..ADDRESS
l7r-
GLENN G.NYBECK
GORDON V.JOHNSON
JOHN K. BOUQUET
JAMES VAN VALKENBURG
MARK G.OHNSTAD'�
DONALD' D. SMITH'
MARSH J. HALBERG
DENNIS M:PAT,RICK
JOHN R. PRAETORIUS
THOMSEN,`NYBECK,JOHNSON, BOUQUET & VAN VALKENBURG; P.A.
LAW OFFICES
SUITE 102
7250 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS I EDINA), MINNESOTA 66435
(612) 635 -7000
Mayor C. Wayne Courtney
Mayor of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
February 28, 1,986
RE: Edina Oaks Preliminary Plat
Elm
OF COUNSEL
HELGE THOMSEN
RICHARD D. WILSON, P.A.
JACK W. CARLSON
STEVEN J.OUAM
ROBERT E.ZECK
Dear Mayor Courtney and Members
of the Edina Council:
In the absence from town of Don Smith of our office,
who has represented Mr. Trones on this matter at various hearings
before the Planning Commission, I would like to make some comments
for your consideration.
Mr. Trones is anxious to develop this area on Dublin
Road, Antrim..Road, and Antrim Court. In the area there are many
lots that have been subdivided -and Mr. Craig Larsen can give you
the detail of those subdivisions.
There have been a series of hearings on this matter
and I would like to summarize the proposals made at those hearings:
# Lots Size Square feet Variation
'8 Averaze 20,800 16,650 to 27,750 square feet
6 Average 27,800 22,125 to 33,480 square feet
5 Average 32,800 23,000 to 46,800 square feet
There have been several meetings of the Planning Commission,
namely on January 8th when they turned down the request for an 8 lot sub-
division; January 29th when they turned down the 6-lot proposal; and
February 26th when the Planning Commission approved and recommended the
5 lot.proposal subject to certain conditions.
Mayor C. Wayne Courtney -2- February 28, 1986
Mr. Trones has had meetings with the neighbors and had
agreed to the five lot proposal; and to a 50 foot conservation ease-
ment. Accordingly, even though the Ordinance permits him to develop
the 8 lot subdivision, he is now proposing the 5 lot subdivision.
There are many lots in the immediate area that are under
20,000 including the lots of some of the objectors. The neighbors
immediately to the North of this project and many on the West, South
and East have agreed to the latest proposal.
Mr. Trones, as you know, has developed many-other areas
within the City and did an excellent job on those. Mr. Trones will do
the building on these lots and accordingly on his proposed plats he
has indicated approximate locations and sizes of buildings. In this
way Mr. Trones can control the earth, topography, erosion, and tree
removal problems that have been raised by people at the various Planning
meetings.
Mr. Trones has met with these people and has agreed to
reduce his request from 8 lots to 5, has agreed to a conservation ease-
ment of 50 feet if the staff feels that that is proper, acknowledges
that the staff has recommended approval of everyone of these proposals;
and further acknowledges that the Planning Commission has, on February
26th, recommended approval of the 5 lot proposal.
ments.
documents:
All of these proposals far exceed the Ordinance require-
For your information I am enclosing copies of the following
1. Staff report of January 8, 1986.
2. Excerpts from the Planning Commission meeting of
January 8, 1986.
3. Planning Commission minutes (excerpts) of January
29th.
4. Staff report of February 26th.
Mayor C. Wayne Courtney -3- February 28, 1986
At the February 26th Planning Commission meeting there
were two abstentions. One was Gordon Johnson of our office who abstained,
and the other was Helen McClelland who did indicate at the meeting that
she favored the proposal, but that she was abstaining from the vote
If there are any questions on this proposal I would appre-
ciate your comments or call. I realize that the neighbors are excited
over the fact that there will be a subdivision there rather than the
natural habitat that is now in existence. However, Mr. Trones has the
option to buy and will proceed to develop, and there is certainly no
obligation on his part to keep land in an open state.
JVV:jd
cc: All Members of the C
Kenneth Rosl-a nd
Craig Larsen
Gordon Hughes
Rudy Trones
r
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
5 -86 -1
Generally Located:
Refer to:
STAFF REPORT
JANUARY 8, 1986
Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
South of Dublin Road and West of
Antrim Court
Attached Preliminary Plat
The subject property measures approximately 4 acres in
size, and is zoned R -1, Single Dwelling District. The
property is developed with a single dwelling located
slightly northeast of center.
The proponent has submitted a request for an 8 lot
subdivision of the property. The existing dwelling would be
removed. The proposed lots range in size from 17,170 to
27,750 square feet with an average size of 20,800 square
feet. Two of the lots would front on Dublin, two on Antrim
with the remaining four served by a new cul -de -sac off
Antrim Court.
The subject property is part of the Prospect Hills area
which contains some of the largest lots in the City. Over
the years -a.. number _ o -f= subd:: v-i-s ons —o -f —these larger lots have
occurred. he�-most' notable being Danens Meadows, directly
east of the subject property, for which a 10 lot subdivision
was approved in 1980. Also developed by Mr. Trones, lots in
Danens Meadows average approximately 20,600 square feet in
area.
The proposed plat illustrates the vacation of excess
right of way along the west side of Antrim Court.. This
excess right of way is a result of a realignment of Antrim
Court which occurred as a result of the Danens Meadow Plat.
Construction of the cul -de -sac to serve the proposed
subdivision will require a substantial cut into the existing
hill. Retaining walls up to 12 feet tall will be required
along sections of the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will
require considerable fill to provide adequate building pads
at and an elevation high enough to be served by existing
sanitary sewers. During the period of construction there
will be the potential for considerable soil erosion if
adequate erosion control steps are not taken.
I
a j .
Recommendation
1. Lots in the proposed subdivision are very similar to
the lots in Danens Meadows. The use of Antrim Court as the
access point to the subdivision is preferrable to using
Dublin Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing
to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly
the loss of fewer trees.
2. The 20,800 square foot average of the proposed lots is
nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens
Meadows.
The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess
and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7
should be only partially vacated in order to maintain -an
adequate boulevard.
Staff recommendsCPrel imi nary -PPlat approvals with the
following conditions.
1. Developers Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication
3. An erosion control plan to insure against
undue erosion during the construction
period.
4. Vacation of excess right of way along
Antrim Court.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD WEDNESDAY JANUARY 8, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman William Lewis, Del Johnson, Helen
McClelland, Virginia Shaw, John Bailey,
Jane Paulus, John Palmer, John Skagerberg
and David Runyan
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. John Palmer moved for
1985 Community Development and
Minutes. Mr. John Skagerberg
in favor. The motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
S -86 -1
approval of the December 4,
Planning Commission Meeting
seconded the motion. All were
Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property
measures approximately 4 acres in size, and is zoned R -1,
Single Dwelling District. The property is developed with a
single dwelling located slightly northeast of center.
Mr. Larsen explained that_•the proponent has submitted a
request for anr8 lot— subdi-vi-san of the property. The
existing dwelling would be removed. The proposed lots range
in size from 17,170 to 27,750 square feet with an average
size of 20,800 square feet. Two of the lots would front on
Dublin, two on Antrim with the remaining four served by a
new cul -de -sac off Antrim Court.
Mr. Larsen added the subject property is part of the
Prospect Hills area which contains some of the largest lots
in the City. Over the years a number of subdivisions of
these large lots have occurred. The most notable being
Danens Meadows, directly east of the subject property, for
which a 10 lot subdivision was approved in 1980. Also
developed by Mr. Trones, lots in Danens Meadows average
approximately 20,600 square feet in area.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed plat illustrates
the vacation of excess right of way along the west side of
Antrim Court. This excess right of way is a result of a
realignment of Antrim Court which occurred as a result of
the Danens Meadow Plat.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission construction of the
cul -de -sac that will serve the proposed subdivision will
require a substantial cut into the existing hill. Retaining
walls up to 12 feet tall will be required along sections of
the new road. Lots 1,2,4 and 5 will require considerable
fill to provide adequate building pads at and an elevation
high enough to be served by existing sanitary sewers.
During the period of construction there will be the
potential for considerable soil erosion if adequate erosion
control steps are not taken.
Mr. Larsen summarized staffs findings:
1. Lots in . the proposed subdivision are= _ver_y= s-imi -lar =,tom
the lots Danens,_Mead wo s. The use of Antrim Court as the
access point to the subdivision is preferable to using
Dublin Road. The proposed road provides acceptable spacing
to the intersection, a less severe road grade, and possibly
the loss of fewer trees.
2. The 28,860 square foot average of the proposed lots is
nearly identical to the 20,600 square foot size in Danens
Meadows.
The right of way along the frontage of lot 8 is excess
and could be vacated. The right of way along lots 3 and 7
should be only partially vacated in order to maintain an
adequate boulevard.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends Preliminary Plat
approval with the following conditions.
1. Developers Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication
3. An erosion control plan to insure against
undue erosion during the construction
period.
4. Vacation of excess right of way along
Antrim Court.
The proponent Mr. Rudy Trones, Ron Krueger and Peter
Knable of Krueger and Associates and interested neighbors
were present.
Mr. Trones addressed the Commission informing them he.
proposes to build homes that are comparable to the homes
previously built in Danens Meadow. All the proposed homes
would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Trones stated he understands the concerns of the
neighbors regarding the amount of ground to be moved,
relevtions3of the terrain and the amount of�vegetation, that
may be disturbed as a result of this proposal. Mr Trones
assured the Commission and neighbors that where possible the
terrain would remain in its natural state.
Mr. Skagerberg asked Mr. Trones if he had an erosion
control plan that would address the erosion issue after the
proposed homes were completed. Mr. Trones said that all
sites .w,ould =be- sodded -which ow uld =help _ contr.ol= er.os.i.on.. He
also added he felt the drainage problem would lessen due to
grading, in addition, he would encourage buyers to maintain
their yards in the natural .condition.
Mrs. Rhonda Bland spokesperson for concerned neighbors
of the area submitted to the Commission a signed petition
opposing the proposed subdivision and development at 7012
Dublin Road.
Mrs. Bland addressed the Commission explaining the
concerns and reasons for neighborhood opposition to the
proposed development. She stated three main reasons for
opposing the proposed development: 1) topography 2)
relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing
neighborhood and 3) traffic safety factor.
1) Topography:
Mrs. Bland told the Commission the neighborhood is
comprised of a rolling topography, steep slopes, and
woodlands (many of the woodlands are oak). This area offers
a rich habitat for wildlife. Mrs. Bland noted that because
of the fully developed status of Edina the presence of
unaltered plant communities and natural wildlife habitats
are very limited. She explained that to date the development
and subdivision in the area has been compatible with the
overall topography of the neighborhood and has not greatly
changed the character of the land. Mrs. Bland told the
Commission that according to Edina's Comprehensive Plan; "It
is the policy to utilize topography and vegetation
characteristics as a basis for determining suitable lot
size." She added that it is the firm belief of many members
of the neighborhood that this policy was disregarded in the
proposed subdivision. It is felt that according to the
submitted plat, natural high elevations would be reduced and
lowlands would be raised, this would severely alter or
eliminate the present topography of the area. She
indicated that the neighbors understand the pressures to
subdivide and develop lots in Edina. They believe the goals
of the land use element are to provide for the orderly and
logical development and re- development of lands and maintain
an attractive living environment while preserving the high
quality residential character of Edina. Mrs. Bland asked
Mr. Trones to amend his proposal so that the natural
topography of the area remains unaltered.
2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the
existing neighborhood.
Continuing, Mrs. Bland stated it is understood that
the policy of Edina is to allow further subdivision for the
purpose of developing single family lots only if
neighborhood character and symmetry are preserved. It is
felt that the proposed subdivision would detract from the
character of the Prospect Hills neighborhood. Mrs. Bland
said the proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows (a
transitional area-between the smaller lots bordered on the
east by Shannon Drive and the very large lots to the west of
Prospect Hills) and not to Prospect Hills which have a large
average lot size. Mrs. Bland quoted an October 31, 1979
staff report which read: "The Danens Meadow project
provided a logical transition between these two diverse
areas." Mrs. Bland further added the provision of adequate
transitions between dissimilarly platted lands is one of the
most historic objectives of land use planning. Because the
proposed lot sizes relate to Danens Meadows it does not make
them acceptable to the neighborhood of Prospect Hills. Mrs.
Bland told the Commission that she was aware that the lot
measurements of the proposed subdivision fall within the
stipulations of the Edina Zoning ordinance, but the proposed
subdivision is not sympathetic to prevailing neighborhood
standards. Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Comprehensive Land
Use Plan: "Currently, Edina's Zoning Ordinance contains a
single set of standards for each residential district that
applies throughout the City. Existing standards work well
in the City's's newer neighborhoods, but they present
problems in older neighborhoods which were developed under
less restrictive standards. In order to assure that
recevelopment will occur in a manner sympathetic to
prevailing neighborhood standards, uniform guidelines for
redevelopment should be developed for sub -areas of the
City." The character and stability of the City's
neighborhoods depend on the standards imposed for each
individual area.
3. Traffic Safety Factor.
Mrs. Bland pointed out to the Commission that Prospect
Hills has only two points of access into the area, 70th and
Antrim Road in the north and Shannon Road in the south.
This roadway serves not only those who live in the
neighborhood but also those to the east on the newer part of
Shannon and those in the south in the Dewey Hills area.
The road curves and winds and has a steep grade. In the
summer road conditions are at their best, but are still a
safety hazard, in the winter these conditions are
compounded. Since there are.no sidewalks all pedestrian
traffic is on the street. Mrs. Bland said from a traffic
safety point of view the proposed subdivision would result
in an increase of traffic flow. This fact would be
compounded with 2 of the proposed homes accessing on
Dublin. This in Mrs. Blands opinion would increase the
possibility for potential accidents. Mrs. Bland recommended
that Mr. Trones amend his proposal in view of the above
mentioned concerns.
Mr. Daryl Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive asked the
Commission to examine the proposed subdivision in relation
to the large lots of Prospect Hills and not the smaller lots
of Danens.Meadows.
Mr. Ron Krueger explained to the Commission that Mr.
Trones completed a development with Csimil_.= ar– topogr- aphy –on=
=St— Albans_Add.ilf0—'. At that time an' extensive amount of
time and care with minimal altering of the natural -
environment was taken in the placement of each home. Mr.
Trones has the same intentions for the proposed development.
All areas with natural contours will stay the same. Each
proposed home will be designed to fit in the lot with
minimal lot alteration.
Mr. Roy Olson of 5920 Lee Valley Road stated he is not
opposed to this development, but expressed surprise on the
number of proposed homes. Mr. Olsons concern is a possible
drainage problem that could have a detrimental effect to his
property. He expressed that he would like some assurance
that the proposed subdivision would not add a drainage
problem for him. Mr. Olson added that traffic is a problem.
Mr. Peter Knable clarified thetp oblem_of =d-a.i.nage
adding that by his calculations the post development rates
of runoff would _less= tha`n� what occur at the present time.
He said they do not expect any additional downstream
problems from storm runoffs.
Mr. David Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road submitted to
the Commission snapshots of the area in question. Mr.
Elasky expressed his opposition to the proposed development.
Mrs. Helen McClelland stated her displeasure with the
proposed subdivision. She felt the development of 8 lots
would result in an absolute mutilitation of the topography.
She pointed out very few trees would be left if this
proposal was approved, which could result in numerous
erosion problems. Mrs. McClelland added the grading and
fill this proposal would need would severely alter the
environmental beauty of this area. She stressed traffic
considerations are a grave concern, pointing out that the 2
proposed homes accessing Dublin could be a real safety
problem. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion that 5 homes
would be a realistic amount to develop. A development of 5
homes would respect the areas topography. Mrs. McClelland
stated she would not consider the development of 8 homes on
this location.
Mr. Palmer stated he opposes the development of this
property for the reasons Mrs. Bland previously mentioned.
He added that he views this open area as a transition point
between the large lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller
lots of Danens Meadows. Mr. Palmer felt the rolling hills
and woodlands added a uniqueness to Edina and is a special
resource. Mr. Palmer concluded that he would like to see the
area developed with special care.
Mr. John Bailey agreed with the feelings of Mr. Palmer
and asked Mr. Trones if he had looked into the possibility
of developing this site with fewer lots.
Responding to Mr. Baileys question Mr. Trones stated at
the present time only 8 lots were looked at for development
at this site. In reference to Mrs. McClellands comments Mr.
Trones stressed he did not feel the site would be mutilated
by this development adding the existing terrain would remain
generally the same. Mr. Fran Hoffman, City .Engineer
commented that he believes Mr. Trones can preserve the
natural integrity of this site .
Mr. John Palmer moved for denial of the
subdivision based on the density of the proposal, taking
into consideration the special topography of the area and
viewing this area as a transitional point between the larger
lots of Prospect Hills and the smaller lots of Danens
Meadows. Mrs. Helen McClelland seconded the motion. All
were in favor. The motion carried.
P -86 -1 Hoyt Development
5555 West 78th Street
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the subject property
measures approximately 5 acres in size and is zoned Planned
Industrial District, PID. Until recently the property was
developed with a small industrial building. The Commission
may recall that a redevelopment of the property for office -
warehouse use was approved in July and by the City Council
in August, 1985. The previously approved plan has been
abandoned and a new design has been submitted.
Wy
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 26, 1986
S -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Lot 15, Prospect Hills
south of Dublin Road and
west of Antrim Court
Refer to: Attached revised preliminary plat,
area map, and previously proposed
plat.
The Commission will recall that a proposal for a six
lot subdivision of the subject property was denied by the
Commisison at its January 29, 1986 meeting. Mr. Trones has
resubmitted with a request for a five lot subdivision of
this 4.05 acre parcel.
The Commission should be advised that the proponent has
appealed the Commissions January 29, 1986 decision. The
City Council has set a March 3, 1986 hearing date on the 6
lot preliminary plat. However, the Council will be informed
of any action taken by the Commission at its February 26th
meeting.
The revised preliminary plat illustrates 5'lots ranging
from 23,000 sq. ft. to 46,800 sq. ft. in area. The average
lot size has been increased from 27,800 square feet to
32,800 square feet. Lot 1 would access on Dublin Road at
approximately the same point as the existing driveway. The
remaining four lots would be served by a new cul de sac off
of Antrim Court.
The curb cut off Antrim and the alignment of the cul de
sac remain similar to previous plans. However, the newest
proposal reduces the length of the road by approximately 20
feet. This results in increased rear yards on lots 2 and 3.
The revised preliminary plat proposes a 30 foot
conservation easement along the westerly and southerly
property lines. No structures or land alteration would be
allowed in the easement area.
Any recommendation for preliminary plat approval should
be conditioned on the following:
1. Developerrs' Agreement
t'
1
2. Subdivision Dedication
3. An erosion control plan during the construction period
4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim Court
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY JANUARY 29, 1986, AT 7:38 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Del Johnson,
Helen McClelland, Phil Sked. Jane Paulus,
John Palmer, John Skagerberg and David
Runyan
MEMBERS ABSENT: William Lewis , John Bailey and Virginia
Shaw
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the January 8,
1986 meeting minutes. Mrs. Jane Paulus seconded the motion.
All were in favor. The motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
LD -86 -5 Ron Clark Construction
6516 -6518 Gleason Court
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the proponent is
requesting a party wall division for an existing double
bungalow. Separate utility connections are provided.
Staff recommends approval.
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for approval of the
division. Mr. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All
were in favor. The motion carried.
Ld -86 -6 Country Club Builders
6441 -6445 Vernon Avenue
Mr. Larsen said the proponents are requesting an party
wall division of an existing double bungalow. Separate
utility connections are provided.
Staff recommends approval.
1
Mr. John Palmer moved for approval of the division.
Mr. Phil Sked seconded the motion. All were in favor. The
motion carried.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
S -86 -1 Edina Oaks, Rudy Trones
Lot 15, Prospect Hills
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to recall that an eight
lot subdivision of the subject property was considered on
January 8, 1986, and rejected. The proponent, Rudy Trones,
has submitted a new preliminary plat illus.tratingsix lots.
He added the revised plat increases the average lot
size fromr-2$, -- -80.0_ square - feet- to -27- 800 - squa -r-e -feet. In the
original plat lots ranged from 16,650 square feet to 27,750
square feet in area. The range in the revised plat is from
22,125 square feet to 33,480 square feet in area.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the location and grade of the
proposed cul de sac remain the same as in the previous plan.
However, the grading plan adjacent to the road has changed
significantly. Building elevations for lot 1 and 5 have
been raised which reduces the cut into the hill adjacent to
the road. The maximum height of retaining walls along the
road has been reduced from 12 feet to 6 feet. Except for
grading and filling necessary to prepare individual building
pads most earth work is confined to the interior portions of
the plat adjacent to the road.
Mr. Larsen said the revised preliminary illustrates the
location of existing trees, and indicates which will be
saved and which will be removed. According to the surveyor
trees with a diameter of 8 inches or greater are shown. The
plan does not illustrate all of the existing trees on the
western portions of lots 2, 3, and 4. C*V467= trees=,
inventor ied; �A_mould`tbe gemoved:14ue to construction of the
road and preparation of individual building sites.
The revised site p
Dublin Road for access.
cul de sac as an access
from the cul de sac for
does not have access to
must use Dublin Road.
lan illustrates lot 1 and 2 using
The house on lot 1 could use the
point. Staff believes that access
lot 1 is more appropriate. Lot 2
the cul de sac. Consequently, it
Mr. Larsen concluded Otacff _con.tinues _ to= recommend =the~
fo11-oi h:. ng- conditions - for -a- plat - approval.
1. Developers Agreement
2. Subdivision Dedication.
3. An approved erosion control plan during
the construction period.
4. Vacation of excess right of way along Antrim
Court.
The proponent Mr. Trones was present, with Mr. Krueger
of Krueger & Associates and Attorney Donald Smith,of
Thomsen, Nybeck, Johnson, Bonquet and Van Valkenburg, P.A.,
Residents of the area were also present.
Mr. Donald Smith pointed out to the Commission issues
that were discussed at the meeting of January 8, 1986 and
changes in the plat as a result of that meeting:
1. Density. Mr. -Trones creased- fhe_dens_i ty —_7
of the original plat by trimming the number of
lot sites to 6. The original plat depicts
8 lot sites.
2. Topography. The lots that require a significant
amount of grading and soil movement are lots
2 and 3. The remaining 4 lots require minimal
alteration. With the revised plat the impact of
free -3os evil -1` -be =m_ fnimal. Calculations indicate
that 90% - 95% of the total amount of trees on the
site will remain untouched.
3. Safety. The revised plat has two sites that will
access Dublin. However, Mr. Trones will abide by
the staff request that lot #1 access Antrim Court.
The future homeowner of Lot #2 will have sufficient
space to turn around and will enter Dublin front
first.
Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Trones tried very hard to
respond to the concerns of the Planning Commission, staff
and area residents. The number of lots has decreased,
resulting in an increase in individual lot size, the rolling
hills and vegetation of the area will be retained where
possible, Dublin will serve as assess to one lot instead of
the proposed two, and the revised plat complies with all
Zoning Ordinances. Mr. Smith submitted to the Planning
Commission a print -out of subdivisions in the general area
that were developed over the past several years.
. Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Krueger the height of the
retaining walls on lots 2 and 3. Mr. Krueger said the
retaining walls will be six feet high.
Mr. Krueger informed the Commission a crew of workers
was at the site for 1 1/2 days tallying the amount of trees
over 8 inches that would be lost as a result of constructing
building pads for each lot. Their calculations found that
with careful planning the tree loss would be minimal. The
proposed location of the cul -de -sac would require the
movai of::-T:j eees.
Mr. Trones told the Commission he met with homeowners
of the area and discussed the issues that were brought to
his attention at the January 8, 1986 meeting. The
homeowners expressed concern about the alteration of the
natural environment of the area as a result of this
subdivision. Mr. Trones referred to his Braemar development
as an example of maintaining the natural beauty of the land.
Mr. Trones pointed out the new lot size averages 27,800
square feet. This increase in lot square footage makes
the proposed lot sizes larger than many of the lots in the
area. Mr. Trones assured the Commission it is important for
him to maintain the integrity of the area.
Mrs. Rhonda Bland, 7000 Kerry Road submitted a signed
petition to the Commission opposing the development of a 6
lot subdivision at 7012 Dublin Road.
Mrs. Bland asked the Commission to recall her
presentation of the January 8, 1986 Planning Commission
Meeting. Mrs. Bland stated her presentation this evening
would address the failings of the revised proposal:
Topography:
Mrs. Bland told the Commission that members of the
neighborhood do not feel the increased square footage of the
lots satisfy the standards setforth in Edina's Comprehensive
Plan. "It is the policy to utilize.topography and
vegetation characteristics as a basis for determining
suitable lot sizes." Continuing Mrs. Bland stated this
subdivision is not a logical development of the land.
The wildlife would loose their natural habitat and the tree
loss would be greater than what Mr. Trones has indicated.
Mrs. Bland quoted the Edina Tree Ordinance #823 " A tree has
a diameter of greater than 6" when measured at a point of
four feet above ground level. The City Council hereby finds
it is necessary to maintain and protect the existing urban
forest in order to preserve wind break protection, abate
soil erosion and enhance the natural beauty of the City."
The elimination of trees, especially the many oaks in the
area is a high cost to pay for development. Mrs. Bland said
that no matter how well intentioned Mr. Trones is the
topography will be severely altered and its natural
environmental beauty lost forever. The removal of
vegetation and the alteration of the elevations on all six
lots present a potential for further erosion and soil
slippage. The development could aggravate an existing water
drainage problem.
2. Relationship of the proposed subdivision to the existing
neighborhood.
Mrs. Bland indicated the development of 6 lots does not
blend with the character and symmerty of the neighborhood.
In general the area of Prospect Hills is comprised of small
homes on large lots. This ratio results with land being the
dominant element. It is felt that Mr. Trones will build
large homes on the proposed sites, resulting in unbalance.
The residents of Prospect Hills feel the proposed plat is
part of Prospect Hills and redevelopment of this area must
considered with that in mind. The character of the
neighborhood must be maintained.
3. Traffic Safety Factor
Mrs. Bland said the 2 proposed home sites that will
access Dublin Road could result in a grave safety problem.
Several mishaps have already occurred in this area. It is
felt that for safety reasons no home sites should access
Dublin Road.
Mrs. Bland added if the density is reduced to three or
four homes sites many of the concerns of the residents
will vanish. Less need for excavation and fill will reduce
the extent of damage to the topography and the overall
development will be more compatible with Prospect Hills. If
all the home sites have access unto Antrim Terrace the
traffic safety factor is less of a concern. Mrs. Bland
offered an alternative to this subdivision. She contacted
each homeowner with land adjacent to the proposed site, all
homeowners stated they would be interested in listening to a
proposal which would enable them to purchase part of the
land that is Lot 15. In addition, the subdivision
dedication could be in the form of land rather then cash.
The presence of unaltered plant communities and natural
wildlife habitats is a very limited resource in Edina.
Several residents have expressed their support for an
assessment that could offset the ongoing maintenance costs
of the City for maintaining this land. Mrs. Bland asked the
Planning Commission to maintain the integrity of Prospect
Hills. She recommended that Mr. Trones further amend the
plat so the neighborhood concerns are addressed.
Darrell Boyd of 7204 Shannon Drive voiced his concern
regarding the density and lot size of the proposal. Mr.
Trones reminded him that the proposed lot sizes are larger
than many of the developed lots in the area. Allen VanBeek
of 7115 Antrim Road asked Mr. Trones if there is any form of
control which can be exercised to regulate what the new
homeowners place in their yards (ex. pools, tennis courts,
etc.). Mrs. Trones said the topography limits what could be
placed in yards. He anticipates that most yards would have
deck structures. Lot 6 and lot 1 are the only lots on
which he would anticipate the new homeowners putting in a
swimming pool or tennis court. Henry Langer of 7101 Antrim
Court expressed concern over possible water drainage
problems and traffic safety.
Mr. Smith said he understood the natural apprehension
of the neighbors regarding the change caused by this
proposed development, but cutting the number of lots to 3 or
4 is unfair. Mr. Smith stated the neighbors are demanding
8ubstan.tialry_ more square foo- age— in— lo.t_s .ze_from_Mr_..
Trones than they s} have on theii own lots Mr.
i Smith told the Commission that Mr. Trones has a history of
f "ine developments in_Ed.i.na_. There is a risk that another
developer could develop the property with less care than Mr.
Trones would take. There is no question that this
development will alter the terrain, but the development of 3
or 4 homes will alter the terrain. Mr. Smith pointed out
that the homes Mr. Trones builds are quality homes and it is
very important to Mr. Trones to develop these lots with
minimal alteration. Mr. Smith added that Mr. Trones will
comply with the staff request that only 1 home access Dublin
which will lessen neighborhood traffic concerns. Mr. Smith
feels Mr. Trones has done everything he could to eliminate
the general concerns of the residents. By asking him to
increase lot size to 1 1/4 acres you are asking him to have
a far greater lot size then what the local community meets.
Mrs. Eckberg of 7020 Kerry Road commented that she has
been approached to subdivide her lot but has refused. The
uniqueness of the area is special to her and that is the
reason she moved into this area. She understands change
comes but would like change to be subtle, once change is
made is cannot be undone. Mr.Elasky of 5916 Lee Valley Road
submitted to the Commission an ariel photo of Prospect
Hills. Mr. Elasky is opposed to the revised plat. Mrs.
Langer of 7101 Antrim Court pointed out an acre of land is
viewed differently if it is flat then if it is rolling. Mr.
Robert Naegeli of 5912 Lee Valley Road is against the
density of the proposal. He feels his view will be changed
due to the fact that he is 40 feet below the proposed homes.
Mr. Runyan introduced himself as acting chairman in the
absence of Mr. Gordon Johnson.
Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Larsen if the Commission had
control of home placement on new lots. Mr. Larsen informed
Mr. Palmer the Commission has never exercised control of
where a home is placed on the lot. Controls are exercised
where a water body is involved placing a conservation
restriction 100 ft. along the shore line. Mr. Trones
proposed placing a conservation restriction along the west
and south side of the property. This would protect the
natural vegetation of the environment .
Mrs. Helen McClelland stated that after conferring with
the Engineering Department, she agreed that the sewer line
should connect to the invert on Antrim Court to provide
proper gravity drop. Mrs. McClelland expressed her opinion
that the revised plat for 6 homes is too dense and still
caused extensive alteration to the site's topography. She
pointed out that if Mr. Trones wishes to promote country
living in Edina the prospective homeowners would expect
certain amenities, such as a back /side yards, for homes
priced at $500,000. In the present plat, lots 2 and 3 have
retaining walls and no yards; Lots 1 and 4 have extremely
limited yards. Such.homeowners could quickly become unhappy
with the City and the Commission. _s: McClelland-concluded --_�
that _ stfe - could- suppoi_ t_ a_pla.t-_f.or_5= homes_ar_o.und� the cul -de-
sac if the topography were respected. Mr. Paulus stated
she felt the present homeowners would suffer a great loss as
a result of this subdivision. She further added that in her
opinion the development of 3 or 4 lots would be a reasonable
approach to this property. Understandably the homeowners
are concerned about the integrity of their neighborhood and
they do not want to see a development mistake made.
Mr. Palmer said he is inclined to think this project is
to dense. Mr. Skagerberg added he is not unhappy with the
revised 6 lot subdivision, but his concern is. placement of
the proposed homes. He would like to see the homes blend
into the environment. Mr. Skagerberg commented it is
asking much of the developer to reduce the number of lots
too 3 or 4. Mr. Del Johnson said he leans toward a 5 lot
subdivision.
Mr. Smith said he felt the objectivity has been lost on
this matter. Mr. Smith said the Commission works under
rules. Mr. Smith pointed out that a 5 lot subdivision
increases the square lot footage to an average of 33,360.
The lots that abutt this area average in the 20's. Mrs.
McClelland said the rules she based her decision on are of
density and maintaining the integrity of the area. Mr.
Smith asked in. the decision making process the Commission to
look for objective criteria. It was felt by Mr. Trones that
the 27,750 average square footage is reasonably consistent
for the area.
Mr. Trones asked for some direction from the Commission
in the development of this property.
Mr. Runyan said he would like to see this site
developed creatively. He added the site is very rolling
which will enable the profile of the homes to appear lower
and fit into the terrain without appearing as large as they
would on a flat surface. Mr. Runyan added he finds a problem
with site #2. He can envision the development of lots
1,3,4,5, and 6 but indicated he has a hard time with lot 2.
Mr. Trones agreed with Mr. Runyan that lot #2 is a difficult
lot to develop.
Mrs. Helen McClelland moved for denial of the
preliminary plat on the basis of density. Mrs. Jane Paulus
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion
carried.
III. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
23 � ; 7.G, -�e� .z+ee �� ,,a �-2- S
_
.�.crc�1� o -c�-�a ; su -eta. �.c.c�� ; a� ��C. �S•�P �'"� . 7 -A T—.-A
fe'4 aZ"C-
z°
• ,� �, ce.�o ,we:Y�t ,�- oa�con a..�s� ��- a�
J`. L
.� .��Zc.e -,,,e -�f` �cv�� •Csc n�o �e._co�..e- ,- „a..:�� � :Z�.
) &L A-4- 'fie � , .
pru, —t.,( fv 6-zza( tr- " � 3I3l fb
MARCH 3, 1986
WE WISH TO MAKE A STATEMENT REGARDING OUR INTERPRETATION
OF THE FEBRUARY 4, 1986 MEETING WHICH WAS HELD IN MR. RUDY
TRONES' OFFICE.
MR. RUDY TRONES PRESENTED HIS NEW PLAT PROPOSAL WITH FIVE
LOTS. THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS PRESENTED WAS THAT WE
EITHER SUPPORT HIM ON THIS PROPOSAL, OR HE WOULD TAKE THE
PLAT OF SIX TO THE CITY COUNCIL. WE DO RECALL THAT TWO
PEOPLE EXPRESSED DEFINITE SUPPORT.
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HAVE ALWAYS WANTED FEWER THAN
FIVE HOMES ON THAT LOT. FIVE, IN OUR OPINION, ARE STILL
NOT DESIRABLE FOR THAT PARTICULAR TOPOGRAPHY. WE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY AND CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGH-
BORHOOD.
" _. �i- C;J�,.Fv'( '� C-6 Kau c�,�� k-�
3�3 ��
l
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
-AZ,14� A )22aAz-,,
fie., /-k f�'u:, c
I
ADDRESS
7X�
%��
7 ;2
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
f
Wiz,{ J
ADDRESS
`7 � 2 � i .�.,► i
T
v J
ri
-7,00 4v 1 1 12
11
AD�� %�• �� .
-700
fJ � j.( 6r,
h Z'^
I
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
I
ADDRESS
71 c/
7 /C
71
p7i i7-�tzw cT-,,
Zee
-7 ory
-76
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
t
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME
012.
I
ADDRESS
j -A
Sao 9 .,
6-1%vc)
7
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME ADDRESS ♦/1
i
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, OPPOSE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT
7012 DUBLIN ROAD, EDINA (LOT 15, PROSPECT HILLS):
NAME ADDRESS
�� , '�� �9- /
I
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that
certain plat entitled "SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION ", platted by
Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia G.
Gislason, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City
Council of March 3, 1986 be and is hereby granted final plat approval.
ADOPTED this 3rd day of March, 1986.
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 March 3, 1986, and as
recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 5th day of March, 1986.
City Clerk
?.
SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
7I. L . /12
Subdivision No. 57- 815-)Z—
Park Board
Environmental Quality Commission / r
FROM: Planning Department s[y� I (aC-r, ,+ PC'�6 `�� IVC��
SUBDIVISION NAME:
LANDS I ZE : �q �` GUTr 1 LAND VALM
(BY: Date:
Th d 1 f th '
e eve oper o is subdivision has been required to
0 A. grant an easement over part of the land
ElB. dedicate % of the land
C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land
As a result of applying the following policy:
A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 5% of
land dedicated)
1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition
beneficially expands the park.
2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications
so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park.
II3. If property abuts a natural lake, pond, or stream.
4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged
or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds.
D5. If the property -is a place of significant natural, scenF ic or his-
toric value.
F] 6.
B. Cash Required
Q1. In all other instances than above.
D 2.
MINUTES
FE
Answering rollcall were edesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor
Courtney.
MINUTES o cial Meeting of January 25, 1986 were approved as submitted
by m iember Turner, seconded by Member Kelly.
Bredese mmm
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR LOTS 41 AND 42, BLOCK 2, SOUTH HARRIET PARK 2ND
ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered
G placed on file. Planner Craig Larsen recalled that the request for preliminary
plat approval for Lots 41 and 42, Block 2, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition,
generally located east of Minnehaha Boulevard and south of W. 52nd Street,-had
�j been continued from the Council Meeting of January 6, 1986 pending agreement
between the proponents and concerned neighbors on certain deed restrictions.
The subject property consists of two, individually developed single dwelling
lots and the owners are proposing a four lot subdivision which would create
two new buildable lots. Mr. Larsen said that since that meeting the neighbors
and staff have gone over a list of restrictions proposed by the neighborhood
group and agreement has been reached on a list of restrictions that would be
imposed on the property by way of a private covenant. A graphic was presented
showing the proposed plat. The new lots would measure 81.5 feet and 80 feet
in width. The proposed restrictions are: 1) dwelling must front on West 52nd
Street, 2) dwellings must be single family, 3) dwellings on Lot 1 and Lot 2
must maintain a 40 -foot rear yard, 4) dwellings must be no greater than
1.5 stories, or 25 feet from the peak to foundation line, 5) roof pitch of
dwellings shall be 6 on 12 or greater, 6) garage floor elevations shall be no
more than 2 feet above elevation at center line of street, 7) siding material
shall be brick, cedar shingles, lap siding, or a combination thereof, 8) each
dwelling shall have no more than a two car garage, and 9) north faces of the
two new dwellings shall be less than 100% glass. Staff would recommend pre-
liminary plat approval with the following conditions: 1) execution of the
private deed restriction, 2) developer's agreement covering the extension of
the watermain to West 52nd Street to serve the properties, and 3) subdivision
dedication. Mr. Larsen advised that Richard Steiner, proponent, and repre-
sentatives of the neighborhood were present to confirm that an agreement had
been reached. No objections being heard, Member Bredesen introduced the
following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to the conditions identified
by staff:
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that
certain plat entitled "South Harriet Park Steiner Addition ", platted by
Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia C.
Gislason, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City
Council of February 3, 1986 be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR 5555 WEST 78TH STREET (HOYT DEVELOPMENT).
Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on
file. Mr. Larsen advised that the subject property, located south of West
78th Street and south of Cahill Road extended, measures approximately 5 acres
in size and is zoned Planned Industrial District, PID. Until recently the
property was developed with a small industrial building. Final plan approval
REQUEST.FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director, Park and Recreation Dept.
VIA: Ken Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: February 28, 1986
Material Description (General Specifications):
Van valkenburg Park Softball Field Improvements
Quotations /Bids:
Company
1. Norex
2. G.L. Contracting
3. Buesing Corp.
4. ACG, Inc.
5. O & P Contracting
6. Northdale Construction
7. B.H. Blattner
8. B.& D. Underground
9. Matt Bullock Contracting
'0. C.S. McCrossan
Department Recommendation:
Norex
Finance Director's Endorsement:
The recommended bid is.---' is not
purchase.
City Manager's Endorsement:
IV A.
Amount of Quote or Bid
$242,271.86
248,208.15
248,945.23
255,290.70
260,105.05
272,000.70
273,229.23
285,507.01
314,422.00
452,318.70
within the amount budget for the
Director
1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend
Council approve the purchase.
2. I recommend as an alternative:
neth Rosland, City
r
IVB
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO:
Mayor
and City
Council
ROM:
Bob
KOjetin,
Director, Edina Park and Recreation Dept.
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: February 28 ,1986
Material Description (General Specifications):
Tile for restrooms and handicap shower at Braemar Golf Course Club House
Quotations /Bids:
Com any
1, Dale Tile
2. Land of Lakes Tile Co.
Grazzini Brothers
Department Recommendation:
Dale Tile $8,831
Finance Director's Endorsement.
Amount of Quote or Bid
$8,831
$11,160
$14,215
Edina Park & Rec
Department
The recommended bid is/ is not within the amount budget for the purchase.
J John Walll n, Finance Director
Ci ty Anager `s Endorsement:
1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
_ 2. I recommend as an alternative:
nneth Rosland, City Manager
Serving Bloomington,
Eden Prairie, Richfield
and Edina
ousehold & Outside Maintenance for Elderly
February 19, 1986
Ms. Cecelia Smith
4801 West 50th
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Ms. Smith:
In response to our phone conversation Monday, this letter is a
formal request for an appointment of an Edina resident by
the City Council to our H.O.M.E. Advisory Committee. The
appointment would be for a two(2) year term beginning
April 1, 1986.
Judy Norback is the current Edina representative. She has
been an active, helpful committee member. Unfortunately,
she is resigning from the committee because of other
committments.
We would like to pass along a suggestion by Ms. Norback as
you consider a replacement. She thought the H.O.M.E Advisory
Committee would benefit most from an appointment who is well
acquainted with current activities in city hall.
Edina has always given good support to the H.O.M.E. program.
We think the program, in turn, has provided the opportunity
for a significant number of low- moderate income elderly to
continue living independently in their own homes. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Donald Hauge
H.O.M.E. Maintenance Coordinator
South Hennepin Human Services Council Creekside Center
9801 Penn Ave. So. Room 100 Bloomington, MN 55431 (612) 888 -5530
MANAGEMENT AUDIT COMMITTEE
Kenneth Woodrow, Chairman
6508 Willow Wood Road (36)
Warren Beck
4421 52nd Street West (24)
Edward (Ned) Bixby
6926 Moccasin Valley Road (35)
Karen Bohn
4112 Sunnyside Road (24)
Mark Kaiser
4702 Golf Terrace (24)
Philip Larson
6356 Red Fox Lane (36)
Patrick Rile
4506 Moorland Avenue (24)
Target Stores 935 -7593
Gabberts 925 -4551
General Mills 944 -2935
Piper Jaffrey 929 -5249
Erickson /Holiday 922 -6882
NW Natl Life 927 -9006
Dain Bosworth 925 -1762
r
Edina Recycling Program
Pilot Project -- Household Pick -up, May - Dec. 1986
1. Objectives of Program
To increase participation in recycling in Edina in order to comply with policies set forth
by Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Legislature.
To try out equipment, methods and personnel needed for a recycling pick -up program,
with the possibility in mind of expanding to a city wide program.
2. Pilot Project Area
The area bounded by 54th St. on the North, Crosstown Highway on the South, Xerxes Ave.
on the East and Highway 100 on the West. Approximately 3,100 households, mostly single
familv homes.
3. Duration of the Project
May through December 1986, with evaluation in Sept. -Oct.
4. Materials to be Picked Up
Paper: newspaper, letters & windowless envelopes
Glass: clear, green and brown
Metal: beverage cans, "tin" cans, aluminum foil and trays
5. Preparation of Materials for Pick -up
Householder to prepare materials and place at curb. See sample flyer.
Containers not provided, but could be made available.
6. Routes & Schedule
Once a month pick -up on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th Wednesday as indicated on the map on
flyer. Each route has between 750 & 800 households.
In case of holidays or bad weather postponement, pick -up would be made the following
Friday.
7. Pick -up Equipment & Personnel
Pick -up will be made by a two - person crew, with a truck and trailer. They will place
materials into bins on the trailer, sorting as they go. Materials will be unloaded at the
Recycling Center.
8. Marketing of Materials
Materials would be marketed together with materials collected at the Recycling Center.
Hauling will be done by City employees, but could be contracted if necessary.
9. Promotion & Public Information
Letter to each Pilot Project household one month before start -up.
Public information meeting at City Hall 3 weeks before start -up.
Newspapers, newsletters, city publications.
Cable TV
Block leader program - -lawn signs
10 Evaluation
Survey of householders after 3 or 4 months to get public response, satisfactions and
dissatisfactions.
Tabulation of quantities of materials collected and participation rate.
Identify any operational problems and suggest improvements.
11. Compliance with Edina Ordinances
Request exclusion from present regulations regarding placement of "garbage ". Future
changes might be needed to define "Recyclables" and address anv scavenging problems.
r) -
In projectiryfigures for the Household Pick -up Program, the following estimates were used:
1. a participation rate of 30 %, (930 of 3,100 households)
2. average pick -up of 45 pounds
3. the same proportions of materials as are now received at the Drop -off Center
4. total monthly pick -up of 21 tons.
Income
Sale of materials $4,680
Grants
Metropolitan Council
50C per household $1,550.
Metropolitan Council
$4 Ton payment $ 672
Total $6,902
Costs
Equipment
New 3/4 ton truck $14,500
40% (Park Bd. 60 %)
Containers for collection
Trailer lease
Salaries
$5,800
1,500
4,564
11,864 11,864
Coordinator (12 months) $10,000
Part -time emplovees.Public works
2 persons, 1 2 days /week 9,600
19,600 19,600
Publicity
Direct mail
Extra flyers
Lawn signs
Paper bags with Logo
Income
$ 6,902
Costs
34,044
Balance
- 27,142
Hennepin County will pay 50%
of net costs. $13,571
$13,571
An additional $5,000 grant
may be available from Met.
Council in a few months.
paid by Hennepin Co.
cost to City of Edina
$1,000
500
200
880
$2,580 2,580
Total $34,044
MATERIAL
PAPER FOR RECYCLING
newspapers, letters j
windowless envelopes
CANNOT BE RECYCLED
book s
s, g os
GLASS FOR RECYCLING
clear, green or brown
CANNOT BE RECYCLED
-proo
METAL FOR RECYCLING
beverage cans
aluminum foil & trays
"tin" food cans
such as soup cans
CANNOT BE RECYCLED
f ei
PREPARATION
Put paper in grocery bags
DO NOT TIE papers with twine
or string
Rinse food from jars
Remove lids, caps & metal rings
Avoid breaking
K SEPARATE BY COLOR &
Put in paper bags
1 e� ) •r I Colts
DeM its I \
Rinse food from cans & trays
Cans may be flattened to save space
Sort & place in grocery bags-- -
1. All pop & beer cans
2. Aluminum foil & trays
3. "Tin" food cans
Recycling collection begins at 8 AM. Place your recyclables at the curb for pick -up.
Put materials in paper grocery bags. Plastic bags are NOT RECYCLABLE.
It's OK to put sacks of sorted items into a box for collection. Label the box "Save
for Recycling" so the haulers will not pick it up.
h St
yinyt view
—
Lane
LOX. e.al $OUT.
!LN' i
ee�..�-
„ NNp.
C
.� .,�
0
58th
21%
���
1
Cora +o
ysC�
t
, ���
^�L[�
�
r
9
o
0
0 ,c�jL`hP0/, L 9`
CF AFC Psi
6 IJ6 7
'- IE!ILU, J LIZ i
WE
iff
ilk `
w t��
o
�j
N
4
8t X
X
4th
\ 11 a�
r°
--
z; 1 °� �e 4a
a ;ice C,
AA
i 1a e� 1 °� �y
f �J °o OQ'
--' Crosstown Highway .7
CANMRBURY.
D O W N S
February 268 1986
The Honorable Mayor C. Wayne Courtney
4313 Eton Place
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mayor Courtney,
On behalf of Canterbury Downs, I'd like to extend our
thanks and congratulations to you and your city. Your
community, Edina, showed tremendous support for Minnesota's
newest professional sport of horseracing during our Inaugural
Season.
As a tribute to your enthusiastic community, we have -
selected one of our major racing events to be named in your
city's honor -- the 130,000- Added, Edina Stakes on Saturday,
June 21, 1986. The highlight of all racing calendars is the
stakes program - a series of the richest, most prestigious of
races. Your special day could become an annual event of
celebration and unified city spirit, paying dividends for years
to come.
We have invited your Chamber of Commerce to take the lead
in promoting your city's day at the track as a fundraiser. We
hope to feature Edina, its citizens, entertainers and yourself
as our special dignitary. Please mark the date on your
calendar.
We hope to see you in the Winner's Circle on the day of the
Edina Stakes. Thank you in advance for your support. Our
office will be in touch with your office to review details.
Sincerely,
atrick L. Dawson
Director of Marketing
PLD /mjh
Canterbury Downs /1 100 County Road 83/P.O. Box 508 /Shakopee, Minnesota 55379/16121 445 -7223
RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON
S.A.P. 120 - 136 -04 FROM XERXES AVENUE TO EDINBOROUGH WAY
IN THE CITY OF EDINA. MINNESOTA
THIS RESOLUTION, passed this 3rd day of March, 1986, by the City of Edina in
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be
called the "City ",
WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, THE "City" has planned the improvement of MSAS 136 (West
76th Street) from Xerxes Avenue to Edinborough Way,
WHEREAS, the "City ", will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improve-
ment of this Street, and
WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on both
sides of the street approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State
Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restric-
tions, and
WHEREAS, the extent of these restrictions that would be necessary prerequisite
to the approval of this construction as a Municipal State Aid project in the
"City ", has been determined.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED.that the "City" shall ban the parking of
motor vehicles on both sides of MSAS 136 (West 76th Street) at all times.
Dated this 3rd day of March, 1986.
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 March 3, 1986, and as
recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 18th day of March, 1986.
City Clerk
RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON
S.A.P. 120 - 020 -17 (YORK AVENUE) FROM WEST 76TH STREET
TO WEST 78TH STREET IN THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
THIS RESOLUTION, passed this 3rd day of March, 1986, by the City of Edina in
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Municipal corporation shall hereinafter be
called the "City ",
WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the "City" has planned the improvement of CSAH 31 (York
Avenue) from West 76th Street to West 78th Street,
WHEREAS, the "City ", will be expending Municipal State Aid Funds on the improve-
ment of this Street, and
WHEREAS, this improvement does not provide adequate width for parking on both
sides of the street approval of the proposed construction as a Municipal State
Aid Street project must therefore be conditioned upon certain parking restric-
tions, and
WHEREAS, the extent of these retractions that would be necessary prerequisite
to the approval of this construction as a Municipal State Aid project in the
"City ", has been determined.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the "City" shall ban the parking of
motor vehicles on both sides of CSAH 31 (York Avenue) at all times.
Dated this 3rd.day of March, 1986.
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 March 3, 1986, and as
recorded in.the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 18th day of March, 1986.
City Clerk
4471C(9):TSE:022686
_= A.L3 'G
ORDINANCE NO. 1111 -A9
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1111
TO ESTABLISH A TAX LIEN FOR DELINQUENT
ACCOUNTS AND TO ESTABLISH SERVICE CHARGES
PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 171
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Sec. 4 of Ordinance No. 1111 is hereby
amended by adding thereto the following subparagraph (j):
'(j) If accounts are delinquent 30 days or longer,
said delinquent accounts shall be deemed to be charges against
all owners, lessees and occupants of the property served. The
City may certify such delinquent accounts to the County Auditor
of the County of Hennepin, and, if certified, the same shall be
collected and the collection thereof enforced in the same
manner, in all respects, as County and State taxes, and they
shall be added to such taxes, subject to like penalty, costs
and interest charges; provided, however, that such
certification shall not preclude the City or its agent from
recovery of such delinquent accounts and interest under any
other available remedy. The County Treasurer of Hennepin
County shall, when such delinquent accounts are collected,
forthwith pay them over to the.City Treasurer."
Sec. 2. Paragraph (c) of Seca 4 of Ordinance No. 1111
is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(c) Delinquent notices will be mailed 30 days after
original bills, and water service will be discontinued to any
accounts delinquent 45 days. A eharge of $3 w €ll be :Wade and
shall be payable be-fore seev4ee 3s restered."
Sec. 3. Paragraph (f) of Sec. 4 of Ordinance No. 1111
is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(f) A service charge will be made for shutting off
curb stops and for turning on curb stops or re- establishing
serefee if done at the customer's request, or if done 4f
serviee #s d4seentinued for due to non - payment of bills. The
charge will be in the amount established by Ordinance No. 171."
Sec. 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and
effect upon its passage and publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
ATTEST:
City Cler
Mayor
4472C(9):TSE:022686
ORDINANCE NO. 171 -A23
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 171
TO CHANGE THE AMOUNTS OF CERTAIN FEES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. The amounts of the following described Fee
Numbers of Schedule A to Ordinance are hereby amended to read
as follows:
Ordinance Section Purpose of
No. No. Fee or Charge
1111 4(f) Shutting off or
turning on curb
water stops at
customer's
request or due
to non- payment
of bill
Fee
Amount No.
$12.50 for 37i
each turn
on and for
each shut
off
Sec. 2. Fee No. 39h of Schedule A to Ordinance No.
171 relating to Sec. 4(c) of Ordinance No. 1111 and which reads
as follows is hereby deleted in its entirety:
'Restoration of service - $5.00"
Sec. 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and
effect upon its passage and publication.
First Reading: , 1986
Second Reading: 1986
Published in the Edina Sun - Current on , 1986.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
E
ORDINANCE NO. 1101 -A10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1101
TO PRESERVE REMEDIES IN ADDITION
TO CERTIFICATION FOR RECOVERY OF UNPAID CHARGES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Subparagraph (d) of Sec. 1 of
Ordinance No. 1101 is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(b) Terms. The gross rates shall apply unless
the bill is paid within the discount period, in which case
the net rates shall apply. All bills will be payable to
the Edina City Hall within 21 days of the date rendered,
and no discount shall be allowed after said 21 days have
elapsed. If such rental charge is not paid within 30 days
after the billing date, the City may certify the same to
the County Auditor of the County of Hennepin, and, if certi-
fied, the same shall be collected and the collection thereof
enforced in the same manner, in all respects as County
and State taxes, and they shall be added to such taxes,
subject to like penalty, costs and interest charges;
provided, however, that such certification shall not
preclude the City or its agent from recovery of such
delinquent accounts and interest under any other available
remedy. The County Treasurer of Hennepin County shall,
when such sewer rental charges are collected, forthwith
pay them over to the City Treasurer.
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force
and effect upon its passage and publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Published in the
ATTEST:
City Clerk
198
198
Edina Sun - Current on
209 -10
Mayor
198
510 NORTH CENTRAL LIFE TOWER
445 MINNESOTA STREET
ST. PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101
(612) 227 -8017
P. O. BOX 848
340 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 55903
(507) 288-3156
315 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
(612) 475-0373
350 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10022
(212) 415-9200
DORSEY & WHITNEY
A Partnership Including Professional Corporations
2200 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
(612) 340 -2600
TELEX 29-0605
TELECORER: (612)340 -2866
THOMAS S. ERICKSON, P. A.
(612) 340 -2659
February 13, 1986
Mr. Kenneth Rosland
City Manager, City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Ken:
201 DAVIDSON BUILDING
8 THIRD STREET NORTH
GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401
(406) 727 -3632
304 TRANSWESTERN PLAZA III
550 NORTH 31" STREET
P. O. BOX 1179
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59103
(406) 252 -3800
30 RUE LA BOETIE
75008 PARIS, FRANCE
Oil 331 552 32 50
Re: Establishment of tax lien for delinquent
water bill accounts
By letter of November 4, 1985, I sent you a
proposed ordinance establishing a tax lien for unpaid water
accounts that imposed an eight percent interest rate. You
inquired whether it would be possible to impose a higher
rate of interest.
I have determined that there are possible legal
difficulties with imposing a higher rate of interest and
that, from a pragmatic point of view, the best approach
would be to adopt the enclosed revised Ordinance No. 1111 -A9
which, rather than stating a particular rate of interest,
simply states that unpaid water bills shall be subject
to the same interest charges as delinquent property taxes.
I have discussed this matter with Gordon
Hughes. He is in concurrence with my recommendation that
the ordinance in the enclosed form be adopted.
I have also enclosed a proposed Ordinance
No. 1101 -A10 consisting of an amendment to the sewer
ordinance which would make that ordinance consistent with
the amended water ordinance by adding the language
"provided, however, that such certification shall not
preclude the City or its agent from recovery of such
delinquent accounts and interest under any other available
remedy."
DORSEY & WHITNEY
In order to provide further incentive for property
owners to pay their water bills, the charges for shutting
off and turning on water due to non - payment (currently
$20 and $5 respectively) should be increased the next time
that the fees ordinance is revised. The charges may be
increased up to the amount which reflects the actual cost
to the City of terminating and restoring service. A change
should also be made to the structure of fees under the
sewer ordinance. At present the sewer ordinance has a
charge of $20 to re- establish service after it has been
stopped at a customer's request, but only $5 to restore
service after it is turned off for nonpayment of bills.
Please let me know if you have any questions
or if I can be of further assistance on this matter.
Very truly yours, }
Thomas S. Erickson
TSE:cac
cc: >Y! Gordon Hughes
Mr. John Wallin
1986 CITY OF EDINA
V
CHECK N0. DATE
�( I 056761 - -- 02/26/86 - - --
�I lI lffi#f
I_ I
062003 -- 02/25/86 - -
062026 02/25/86 _
062026 02/25/86
CHECK REGISTER
AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
300.00 BILL HANSON UNIFORM ALLOW
300.00 •
- 32.70
32.70
146.14
52.76
198 90 •
03- 03. -86 PAGE 1
ACCOUNT NO._INV. A P.O. N MESSAGE
10 -4266- 440 -44 �3
* **-CKS 5
n
— ALBINSON BLUE PRINTING— - -10= 4570= 260 =26 —. �i
BADGER METER INC REPAIR PARTAS
BADGER METER INC REPAIR -PARTS
V'
- - - - - -- -- - - -- -- --
f** -CKS
-- 1
40- 4540- 807 -80
�1
— 40- 4540 = 807 =80-
�
I_I
i
------- _._------ ---------------- ---
- -_ _. #f- CKS__..._
_ i ".'I
10- 4540- 520 -52
�.
I =a
062030
02/25/86
146.00
BERNARD J
MULCAHY CO
REPAIR PARATS
I I
-
- - --
— - - -146.0 0
I,ll
- - - -50 -4626- 862- 86- - - - - --
- - - --
�'
f#tfff
i f * -CKS
-
1
` f
062033
02/25/8E
96.00
BERGFORD
TRUCKING
INVENTORY
** *-CKS
062033
02/25/86
187.60
BERGFORD
TRUCKING
INVENTORY
062033
02/25/86
222.50
BERGFORD
TRUCKING
INVENTORY -- —
4,r
506.10 •
fkit #f
4Av OS2035 02/25/86 154.20 BOUSTEAD ELEC B MFG
154.20 •
v
ffffii
062037 02/25/86 39757.35 BRAUN ENG TESTING IN
%w 062037 02/25/86 19153.80 BRAUN ENG TESTING IN
49911.15
SUPPLIES
CONST 60 -1300- 264 -04
CONST 60 -1300- 268 -04
062038 02/25/86 100.00 GEORGE BUTLER POLICE SERV
1 100.00_*
062047 02126/86 21.25 BROWN PHOTO PHOTO SUPP
21.25 •
062048 02/26/86 12.96 BRISSMAN KENNEDY INC GEN SUPP
12.96
T 062049 02/25/86 87.00. BURESH ROBERT MEETINGS
h 87.00 •
� II
f'4 S4I 062058 02/25/86 100.00 HAYNE�ENN T7 ELI RBI
- — - -- -- --- -- - 100000 •
10- 4100 - 420 -42 ,
- -1
* * *- CKS ``'I
10- 4508- 420 -42 25073
10 -4504- 520 -52
611
10- 4206 - 440 -44
* ** -CKS
I
- - - - - -- -- - - -- -- --
f** -CKS
-- 1
40- 4540- 807 -80
�1
— 40- 4540 = 807 =80-
�
I_I
i
------- _._------ ---------------- ---
- -_ _. #f- CKS__..._
_ i ".'I
10- 4540- 520 -52
�.
I =a
f* *— CKS
.F
50- 4626- 822 -82
50 -4626- 842 -84
I,ll
- - - -50 -4626- 862- 86- - - - - --
- - - - -
- --
- - - -- -- - - - -- -
i f * -CKS
-
1
10- 4540 - 646 -64 174172
** *-CKS
CONST 60 -1300- 264 -04
CONST 60 -1300- 268 -04
062038 02/25/86 100.00 GEORGE BUTLER POLICE SERV
1 100.00_*
062047 02126/86 21.25 BROWN PHOTO PHOTO SUPP
21.25 •
062048 02/26/86 12.96 BRISSMAN KENNEDY INC GEN SUPP
12.96
T 062049 02/25/86 87.00. BURESH ROBERT MEETINGS
h 87.00 •
� II
f'4 S4I 062058 02/25/86 100.00 HAYNE�ENN T7 ELI RBI
- — - -- -- --- -- - 100000 •
10- 4100 - 420 -42 ,
- -1
* * *- CKS ``'I
10- 4508- 420 -42 25073
10 -4504- 520 -52
611
10- 4206 - 440 -44
* ** -CKS
I
,.
ER
03 -03 =86
E 2
1986 Cl
F EDINA
CHECK RL
r
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. 0 MESSAGE
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
f
* ** -CKS
3`
,
REPAIR
PARTS
10- 4540 - 520 -52
758892
062064
02/25/86
21.26
THERMAL CO
* ** -CKS
21.26
ADV_RTISIN6
..
•rrrr*
2
-- i3
062072
02/26/86
74.00
DAILY CONST REPORTS
•I "�
`I
74.00
-
*** -CKS
062078
02/26/86
171.35
COCA COLA BOTTLING
„
171.35
*
** *-CKS
23
°al
WATER
10- 4258 - 446 -44
062091
02/25/86
115.64
CITY OF EDINA
062091
02/25/86
45.00
CITY OF EDINA
- 160.64
* -
•
rfr *f*
�.'
062106
02/25/86
100.00
DAHL- MR HILDING
�•
100.00
062125
02/26/86
490.17
MERIT SUPPLY
10- 4504 - 520 -52
614102
490.17
-i
062150
... --- -. —.
02/25/86
-- -
22.71
ELECTRONIC CENTER
'
rrrr*!
— ___.---
- - - --- 22.71
•
.
062160
02/25/86
249.00
FLOYD LOCK 8 SAFE Cf
386112
062160
02/25/86
8.85
FLOYD LOCK B SAFE Cf
- -- -°
** *-CKS
- 257.85
r - - -- -- —
v .
10- 4540- 520 -52
26142
REPAIR
062183
02/25/86
290.20
GIVENS INC
.R
062183
02/25/86
GIVENS INC
<j
062183 —
02/25/86
92.60
_ _ _
GIVENS INC
• =
�i.
062183
02/26/86
41.35
GIVENS INC
10- 4540 - 540 -54
062183
02/25/86
284.40
INC.,_._
PARTS
062183
_
02/25/86
_ _ _
158.00
__GIVENS
GIVENS INC
a
10- 4540 - 646 -60
904.25
G� �I
OcFICE
EQUIP
10 -4906- 600 -60
62552
°I
"
062188
02/25/86
33.72
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO
a
--
REPAIR
PARTS
i40- 4540 - 802 -80
62368—
,.
ER
03 -03 =86
E 2
r
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. 0 MESSAGE
z
* ** -CKS
3`
,
REPAIR
PARTS
10- 4540 - 520 -52
758892
5
•
* ** -CKS
ADV_RTISIN6
-10- 4210 - 140 -14
2
-- i3
I;,i a
i
-
*** -CKS
n
CONCESSIONS
28- 4624 - 704 -70
„
** *-CKS
23
°al
WATER
10- 4258 - 446 -44
WATER
10- 4258 - 646 -64
I -,:
i
r ** —CKS
POLICE
SERV
10 -4100- 420 -42
�•
* *r -CKS
•
GEM SUPP
10- 4504 - 520 -52
614102
* ** -CKS
REPAIR
PARTS
40 -4540- 801 -80
386112
I..I
- -- -- - -
- -- -°
** *-CKS
REPAIR
PARATS
10- 4540- 520 -52
26142
REPAIR
PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
26001
.R
-
- - --
* ** -CKS
REPAIR
PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
62048
d
REPAIR
PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
62047_
REPAIR-PARTS'
10- 4540 - 646 -60
61767
- - °°
OcFICE
EQUIP
10 -4906- 600 -60
62552
°I
REPAIR
PARTS
40- 4540 - 802 - 80_62367
--
REPAIR
PARTS
i40- 4540 - 802 -80
62368—
--
—` '•
72
*** —CKS
7J
REPAIR
PARTS
40 -4540- 801 -80
76•
1986 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
03 -03 -86
PAGE 3
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. 6 P.O. a
MESSAGE
r
v
33.72 +
z
w
062194
02/25/86
23.85
GENERAL C04HUNICATNS
GEN SUPP
10 -4504- 420 -42
61241
- CKS -
- --
-
n
23.85 *
- --
-- -- -- -- - -- —
- - -- - --
�.
f ►f ►f i
++ *-CKS
�.
062249
02/25/86
100.00
WILLIAM KOFFMAN
POLICE SERV
10- 4100 - 420 -42
I "I
100.00 •
iff #ff
fi+ -CKS
'9
062267
02/25/86
433.51
IBM CORPORATION
EQUIP RENAL -
10- 4226 - 510 -51
433.51
f • k • f f
... .._ _.. _ —. . —_.-
_. -._ _._
-
-- ##.-CKS
__
'- -- -
-- - -
062278
02/25/86
12.68
JERRYS FOODS
CLEAN SUPP
10- 4512 - 440 -44
12.68 #
- - -
-- -- ------- - - -�_.
11
r
f f 1 f f f
• ## -CKS
�.
062289
02/25/86
100.00
WALTER JOHNSON
POLICE SERV
10 -4100- 420 -42
100.00 +
I
_
4fifff
•f• -CKS
,
062295
02/25/86
127.89
-- TRIARCO ARTS B CRAFT
CRAFT SJPP - -- "- --
- -23- 4588 - 616 -61 --
180356
127.89 •
f #i-CKS
062304
02/25/86
72.80
KNOX LUMBER CO
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
420001
062304
02/25/86
- -- -14.78
- KNOX LUMBER CO
REPAIR PARTS -
--- - - - -10 -4540- 540 -54
411946 - - --
•
87.58 •
- # #i- CKS -
-�
- -- -
062313
02/26/86
550.00
JOHN H FOSTER
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 560-56
550.00 #
- --
_ ._.. - -- -- - - -
- -- - -- —
#fikff
•
052324
062324
02/25/86
02/25/86
919.92
19816.83
LOGIS
LOGIS
COMPUTER SERVICES
COMPUTER SERVICES
10 -4228- 160 -16
10- 4230 - 160 -16
062324
02/25/86-' __
29952.32---
-LOGIS - -- — - " - --
COMPUTER- SERVICES
10= 4233 =200 =2
• :;
062324
02/25/86
29196.53
LOGIS
COMPUTER SERVICES
10 -4233- 420 -42
062324
02/25/86
19094.49
LOGIS
COMPUTER SERVICES
10 -4233- 560 -56
062324
02/25/86
19980.38
LOGIS
COMPUTER SERVICES
-- -40 -4232- 800 -80-
-
r i
062324
02/25/86
474.30
LOGIS
COMPUTER SERVICES
50- 4233- 820 -82
062324
02/25/86
474.30
LOGIS
COMPUTER SERVICES
50- 4233 - 840 -84
062324
_ _
02/25/86 -- —
474:29
LOGIS— — "—
COMPUYER�ER�IY�E$ 54'133 =861-
i
129383.36 *
74
7, ,
.. ..
-- -- --' --— - —
--- -- ---- --- '-- -----
- - -- -- - --- -
---- _— . - -.. --
7.1
r
�
V
062365
02/25/86
100.00
BURT MERFELD
POLICE SERV -
rkf •ff
1986 Cl
)F EDINA
*a* -CKS
CHECK R,
062356 02/25/86
160.92
MN BLUEPRINT GEN SUPP -
10- 4504 - 260 -26 —
�r
062356 02/25/86
V
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
201.72
v
fff rff
062332
02/25/86
39640.00
LEAGJE OF MN
CITIES
'
* ** -CKS -
062359 02/25/86
39640.00 +
MINN TORO INC REPAIR PARTS
27 -4540- 662 -66 596848
V
ffrft•
31.60
109134.78
THOMSEN NYBECK
SERVICES
062344
02/26/86
29.00
MED OXYGEN B
EQUIP
v
062344
02/26/86
17.05
MED OXYGEN &
EQUIP
104.50
062344
02/25/86
36.36
MED OXYGEN 8
EQUIP
104.50
82.41 ...
rrtfrt
�. 062346
!ER
ITEM DESCRIPTION
DUES
03 -03 -86 E 4
ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE_
7
* ** -CKS
10- 4204 - 140 -14 �I•
e
- - -- - -. _ - fff -CKS i,l+
EQUIP MAINT -- 10- 4274- 449 -44
1ST AID SUPPLIES 10- 4510 - 440 -44 �';•
1ST 410 SUPP 10 -4510- 440 -44 :I
* ** -CKS
02/25/86 1849061.90 MET N WASTE C L COMM SEWER SERV 40- 4312 - 801 -80
1849061.90
062363 02/26/86 7.15- MONARCH MARKING CORRECTION 50- 4516 - 540 -84
062363 02/26/86 7.15 MONARCH MARKING PAPER SUPP 50- 4516 - 540 -84
062363 02/26/86 7.15 MONARCH MARKING PAPER SUPP 50- 4516- 840 -84
7.15
r trrfff
062365
02/25/86
100.00
BURT MERFELD
POLICE SERV -
rkf •ff
*a* -CKS
100.00 •
062356 02/25/86
160.92
MN BLUEPRINT GEN SUPP -
10- 4504 - 260 -26 —
�r
062356 02/25/86
40.80
MN BLUEPRINT GEN SUPP
10- 4504 - 260 -26 I - "i-
201.72
02/25/86
151.23
•r
--
trfr.t
28-4624- 704 -70
'
* ** -CKS -
062359 02/25/86
31.60
MINN TORO INC REPAIR PARTS
27 -4540- 662 -66 596848
*C.
#kf rtt
062380
31.60
109134.78
THOMSEN NYBECK
SERVICES
10- 4100 - 220 -22
* ** -CKS
109134.78 •
062363 02/26/86 7.15- MONARCH MARKING CORRECTION 50- 4516 - 540 -84
062363 02/26/86 7.15 MONARCH MARKING PAPER SUPP 50- 4516 - 540 -84
062363 02/26/86 7.15 MONARCH MARKING PAPER SUPP 50- 4516- 840 -84
7.15
r trrfff
v "�' ffffrf
eJ
r
I"
i
* ** -CKS
- ** *-CKS
I
_ + ** —CKS <I_
- --- .. . - - -- — - - ._ -. .
* ** —CKS
062365
02/25/86
100.00
BURT MERFELD
POLICE SERV -
10- 4100- 420 -42
100.00 •
v
062370
02/25/86
151.23
MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO
CONCESSIONS
28-4624- 704 -70
151.23 *
- -- - - -- -
i
#kf rtt
062380
02/25/86
109134.78
THOMSEN NYBECK
SERVICES
10- 4100 - 220 -22
109134.78 •
062381
02/25/86
104.50
STAR 8 TRIBUNE
ADVERTISING
10- 4212 - 160 -16
104.50
v "�' ffffrf
eJ
r
I"
i
* ** -CKS
- ** *-CKS
I
_ + ** —CKS <I_
- --- .. . - - -- — - - ._ -. .
* ** —CKS
v
1986 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
03 -03 -86
PAGE 5
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. #
MESSAGE
062383
02/25/86
49914.32
MPLS COMP TREAS
WATER PURCHASED
40- 4640- 803 -80l
4014.32 •
- - -- -
+ ++ -CKS
%w
062385
02/26/86
240.00
MCGUIRE ROBERT
TREE INSPECTION
10- 4200 - 353 -30
062385
02/26/86
720.00
MCGUIRE ROBERT
TREE INSPECTION
60 -1300- 012 -18
960.00 •
-
- - - - -- --
I'•�
frrrrr
+fr -CKS
062406
02/25/86
85.00
NTCC NW RESION
REPAIR PARTS
10 -4540- 520 -52 635662
85.00 +
9✓
frttrr
+ ++ —CKS
062412
02/26/86
- 61.76 -- -
— NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
INVENTORY -SUPP —
-23- 1209 - 000 -00 - --
-- - — -- -
-�'
062412
02/26/86
35.37 -
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
CREDIT
23 -1209- 000 -00
26.39
�+
fkrrrt
+ *+ -CKS
062417
02/25/86
19452.00
OFFSET PRINTINa
PRINTING - --
- 10- 2010- 000= 00- _�5949'
`
19452.00 +
999999
* *+ -CKS
v
052445
02/26/86
5,453.47
PAPER CALMENSON B CO
PARTS
10 -4620- 560 -56
�
59453.47 f..
-
- - - - - -- - - - -
- -- - - - - - - -- -- --
'V
rrktft
- - -
-
.rf -CKS
r
062457
02/26/86
67.46
R.L.GOULD 8 CO.INC.
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 662 -66
67.46 +
frrrrf
+ ++ -CKS
062461
02/25/86
83.80
REED SALES 8 SERVICE
REPAIR PARATS -
27- 4540 - 662 - 66156499 —
J
062461
02/25/86
79.96
REED SALES 8 SERVICE
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540- 662 -66 156498
062461
02/25/86
84.82
REED SALES 8 SERVICE
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 662 -66 156493
062461
02/25/86
- - - 5.12
- REED SALES & SERVICE
REPAIR -- PARATS - __
27- 4540 = 662 =66- 156495 - --
- -- -
- "-
253.70 +
- - - -- -
ffr -CKS
qw
062465
02/26/86
64.45
RICHFIELD PLUMB B CO
CDNT REPAIRS
28-4248 - 707 -70
„<I
~
In i�
ftrrrr
+ ++ -CKS
r,
062470
02/25/86
25.00
DR ROCKWELL
MED SERV
10- 4100- 481 -48
- - -- - - -- --
—
25.00
fr +frr
+ ++ —CKS
]<
r
M
1986 Cl
,F EDINA
CHECK
RL
;ER
03 -03 -86
E 6
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. N
MESSAGE
062484
02/25/86
93.12
AMERICAN SHARECOM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
93.12 *
- - -- - -
- - - - - -- - -- ---
-
•frfr*
* ** -CKS
e
062498
02/25/86
14.59
STARK EILECTTRONICS
REPAIR PARTS
10 -4540- 520 -52
14.59
-- - - -- -
_---- - - - -- --
_
��,
f►ftfr
._. -
frt -CKS
062503
02/25/86
25.38
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
REPAIR PARTS
10 -4540- 520 -52
578722
062503
02/25/86
12.35
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
REPAIR PARTAS
10 -4540- 520 -52
879229
062503
02/25/86
88.91
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540- 520 -52
818723
062503
02/25/86
13.90
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 520 -52
882883
062503
02/25/86
22.98
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
REPAIR PARATS
10- 4540 - 646 -64
877629
I•
062503
02/25/86
104.24 -_
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
CREDIT
40 -4540- 801 -80
876421__
062503
02/25/86
- 40.75 --
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
REPAIR PARTS
40 -4540- 801 -80
875829
Z
062503
02/25/86
34.25
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
REPAIR PARATS
40 -4540- 801 -80
576252
062503
02/25/86
99.50
SUBURBAN PLUMB
SUP
REPAIR PARTS
40- 4540 - 801 -80
875828
233.78 *...
_.
- - - --
- -- - - - -
frf •fr
- -
--
-- - -
* *f -CKS
�•
- -
062508
02/25/86
22.38
ST PAUL BOOK
GEN SUPP
10- 4504- 440 -44
062508
02/25/86
6.20
ST PAUL BOOK
GEN SUPP
4504 - 510 -51
062508
02/25/86
2.91- J
ST PAUL BOOK
CREDIT -
_ _1D-
10- 4504 - 510 -51
•
25.67
-- - --
* ** -CKS
•
•
062526
02/25/86
29000.00
TRACY OIL CO
GASOLINE
10- 4612-560 -56
29000.00 •
- -- - --
- - --
rfrrrr
* ** -CKS
052545
02/25/86
22.90
TWIN CTY GARAGE
DOOR
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
1907
22.90 •
i+
* ** -CKS
I �
062553
02/25/86
115.34
UNITED ELECTRIC
CORP
GEN SUPP
--
`!
062553
02/25/86
40.78
UNITED ELECTRIC
CORP
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
062553
02/25/86
65.10
UNITED ELECTRIC
CORP
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
062553
02/25/86
56.99
UNITED ELECTRIC
CORP
REPAIR PARTS
_
10- 4540 - 646 -64
_
062553
02/25/86
19105.94
UNITED ELECTRIC
CORP
CONST
27- 1300 - 000 -00
-
062553
02/25/86 _
_ _ 140.74
UNITED ELECTRIC
CORP
ON
27- 1300 - 000 -00
'
062553
02/25/86
- 166.40
UNITED ELECTRIC
CORP
____CONSTRUCTION
GEN SUPP'--
-
- - - - -- - - --
--
• =�
062553
02/25/86
45.80
UNITED ELECTRIC
CORP
REPAIR PARTS
40 -4540- 802 -80
Il,l
19737.09
-
Q
,I
ffrrrf
* ** -CKS
")
062587
02/25/86
132.25
WEIGLE SUE
-
72
l3
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 600 -60
132.25 *
��
b
�
V
�
1986 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK,REGISTER
03 -03 -86 PAGE 7
r..
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE
v
*r►►.r
* ** -CKS
,
062590
02/25/86
100.00
HENRY WROBLESKI
POLICE SERV
10 -4100- 420 -42
`
100.00 •
*r *rr*
* ** -CKS
052592
02/25/86
240.00
MID CENTRAL FIRE
GEN SUPP
10 -4504- 449 -44
11105
052592
02/25/86
183.75
MID CENTRAL FIRE
CLOTHING REPLACEMENT
10- 4574- 440 -44
11105
`
423.75
•r
999999
* ** -CKS
062594
02/25/86
39604.16
STORE FRONT
CONT SERV-
10-4200-504-50-----'
39604.16
f4w
* ** -CKS
062702
02/25/86
105.00
JUDY LIEBER
S= RVICES
23- 4100 - 614 -61
105.00 *
_. - -- - -
- - -- - -- - -..._. ---
- - - -__ - --
- -,
I
qw
062703
02/25/86
192.00
PAM BONZELET
SERVICES
23 -4100- 614 -61
.�
- - 192.00 *
- - -- - - -- -
-- -- -- - -- -
062704
02/25/86
17.15
ACE SUPPLY CO INC
REPAIR PARTS
10 -4540- 540 -54
75375
062704
02/25/86
6.00
ACE SUPPLY CO INC
_
REPAIR PARTS
_
40- 4540 - 802 -80
76562
r,
23.15
052705
-02/25/86
13.50
ROGER DLWIN -
LIU LIC - -- -
- -- -10 -30:8= 000 -00
- - -- - -
r
062705
02/25/86
45.15
ROGER OLYIN
MEETIN EXPENSES
10 -4206- 420 -42
052705
02/25/86
9.98
ROGER OLYIN
EQUIP M4INT
10 -4274- 420 -42
062705
02/25/86
14.06
ROGER OLWIN -
GEN SUPPLIES--
10- 4504 - 420 -42
-
4I
062705
02/25/86
14.40
ROGER DLYIN
GEN SUPP
10- 4504 - 460 -46
97.09
y
062706
02/25/86
49.98
MINVALCO
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 520 -52
49.98
r
062707
02/25/86
47.80
MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC
CONT REPAIRS
10- 4248-560 -56
I�
47.80
rI
062708
02/25/86
86.00
MARSHALL 8 SWIFT
OFFICE SUPP
10 -4516- 200 -20
86.00 *
r
062709
02/25/86
160.00
DANNYS CONST
CONT REPAIRS
10- 4248-461 -46
160.00 *
-T
r -
062710
02/25/86
188.37
BRADY OFFICEWARE
GEN SUPP
10- 4504- 420 -42
188.37
w
062711
02/25/86
304.45
NATL CAMERA EXCHANGE
GEN SUPP
10- 4504 - 470 -47
304.45
062712
02/25/86
175.00
EDINA EMPLOYEES CLUB
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 500 -50
'
°�
I
1986 Cl
jF EDINA
CHECK RL
TER
03- 03'-86
E 8
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
- -- - --
ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. N
------ - - - - -- - - -- - -
MESSAGE
- - - - --
rr
175.00
*
I.
062713
02/25/86
72.80
DAIRY HOME
CONCESSIONS
28- 4624 - 764 -70
e..
72.80
*
Iq ,
062714
02/25/86
12.50
BARBARA SCHNEIDER
CLASS REFUND
23- 3500- 000 -00
ny
12.50
*
052715
02/25/86
5.00
MARY ANNE GROBE
CLASS REFUND
23- 3500- 000 -00
w
5.00
*
062716
02/25/86
19316.00
SPANCRETE MIDWEST CO
CONST
27- 1300 - 000 -00
19316.00
*
062717
02/25/86
15.90
INTER CONF OF BLDG
BOOKS
10 -4502- 120 -12
15.90
*
OG2718
02/25/86
53.13
SUSAN MOOR.
SUPPLIES MILEAGE
10 -2149- 000 -00
-
53.13
062719
02/25/86
570.00
MPLS B SUB SEWER
CONY REPAIRS
40- 4248 - 863 -86
10935
b
570.00
0627 10
02/25/86
709558.50
- DORSEY & WHITNEY
SERVICES
10 -4218- 220 -22
Air
062720
02/25/86
177.00
PLUMBING 8 HEATING
CONT REPAIRS
40- 4248 - 803 -80
8302
t
OG2721
02/25/86
67.00
MPH INDUSTRIES
EOUI MAINT
10- 4274 - 420 -42
12170
062721
02/25/86 _
67.00
MPH INDUSTRIES
EQUIP MAINT
10- 4274-420 -42
12168
062721
02/25/86
44.35
_
MPH INDUSTRIES
_
EQUIP MAINT
_
10- 4274 - 420 -42
12169
178.35
+
062722
02/25/86
630.00
PTAC
POLICE TRAINING—-
10- 4202- 420 -42
630.00
*
062723
02/25/86
145.30
SHERIFFIS DEPT
ROOM B BOARD
10- 4286 - 220 -22
145.30
*
062724
02/25/86
29452.72
FEED RITE CONTROL
WATER
40- 4622- 805 -80
-
-
29452.72
*
062725
02/25/86
6.54
RETAIL DATA SYSTEMS
CONT REPAIRS -
- 50- 4208- 861 - 8626882
-
Qp
6.54
*
062726
02/25/86
251.93
BRW
CONST
60-1300-371-01'040216'
251.93
*
C
062727
02/25/86
74.70-
MIDWEST CHEM SUPPLY
CLEANING SUPP
10- 4512 - 440 -44
- - - - - --
74.70
+
062728
02/25/86
587.40
BARR ENG COMP
CONT SERV _ W
__ _16- 2010 - 000 -00
.-
r I
587.40
062729
02/25/86
' 49.98
A PLUS RESORT
POSTAGE
10- 4290 - 510 -51
,3
-�
49.98
+
7a �
1.
75 •.
1986 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
03 -03 -86
PAGE 9
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. A P.O. 0
MESSAGE
062730
02/25/86
28.45 -
LYNDALE GARDEN CTR
GEN SUPP
10 -4504- 643 -64 55158
28.45 .
- - - - - --
-- - - -- -- - -- - -
- - -
-
062731
02/25/86
261.62
LUNDS
CONT SERV
50- 4200 - 821 -82 3282
261.62 •
- - - - -- - --
-- - -- -- - -- -- - - -- - -
062732
02/25/86
194.79
XEROX CORP
EQUIP RENAL
10- 4226 - 510 -51
194.79 •
062733
02/25/86
253.60
LABOR RELATIONS ASSO
CUNT. SERV
10- 4200 - 440 -44
253.60 *
- -- -- - -
- -- - - - --
062734
02/25/86
4.75
MOORE BUSINES CENTER
GEN SUPP
10- 4504- 500 -50
062734
02/25/86
236.15
MOORE BUSINES CENTER
GEN SUPP
- 10- 4504- 500-50 -
062734
02/25/86
19.90-
MOORE BUSINES CENTER
CRE]IT
10 -4504- 500 -50
221.00 •
,o
062735
02/25/86
35.00
SPENCER PETERSON
SKATING LESSON
10- 2235- 000 -00
35.00 *
,r
062736
02/25/86
35.00
WAYNE DAHLSTEN
SKATING REFUND
10 -2235- 000 -00
35.00 *
v
.••...
* * *-CKS'
,
062738
02/25/86
25.00
PARK NICOLLET MED
S ERV
-10- 4224 - 420 -42
r
052738
02/25/86
63.50
PARK NICOLLET MED
PHY EXAM
10- 4246- 260 -26
88.50 •
y
**•. **
* * *-CKS
-
062746
02/26/86
38.00
FIRE ENGIN =ERING
SUBSCRIPTION
10- 4204 - 440- 44 - - - - -- - --
,�
38.00
I
•
062747
02/26/86
- "- 89.17 ' -
RUTH SCHMOLL
PETTY CASH - _-
---10.-;4504-440-44 --
-
89.17
062748
02/26/86
129.00
OSWALD FIRE HOSE
GEN SUPP -'- -- -
- - -10 =4504= 449 -44 -- -- -
-
129.00
062749
02/26/86 -
- 105.77 - - - --
MINTEX CORP
GEN SUPP
105.77 •
062750
02/26/86
15.04
KATHY GUSTAFSON
SUPPLIES -
23 -4588- 616 -61
15.04 •
062751
02/26/86 -- --
-- 27.00 -----
SYLVIA SUN]ING-
CLASS REFUND-
23- 3500 = 000 -00
- -- ----- - - -
I�M1I
- -'
r
062751
02/26/86
4.00-
SYLVIA SUNDING
CLERICAL FEE
23- 3800- 000 -00
23.00 *
W ,
062752
02/26/86
359595.00
CURRAN V NIELSON CO
CONST
27- 1300 - 000 -00 6948
359595.00 *
I�
- I
062753
02/26/86
269826.00
NATL AUTO SPRINKLER
CONSTRUCTION
27- 1300 - 000 -00
v
�
60
1986 Cl
F EDINA
CHECK R,
;ER
03 -03 -86
E 10
CHECK N0.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
- - -- - -- - - - --
ACCOUNT NO. INV. 8 P.O. 9
- - - -- - -- -- --
MESSAGE
- - - --
d.
269826.00
*
I.,I
,I
062754
02/25/86
369823.00
BOWLER COMPANY
CONSTRUCTION --
27- 1300- 000 -00 - -
!°
369823.00
*
l
062755
02/26/86
150.00
BRIAN HOLZER
SERVICES
10- 9200 - 440 -44 -
-Uiw
t..
150.00
*
I
062756
02/26/86
150.00
STEVE CONROY
SERVICES
10- 4200 - 440 -44
way
150.00
*
062757
02/26/86
150.00
WILLIAM THOMPSON
SERVICES
10-4200- 440 -44
150.00
062758
02/26/86
200.00
DON BECKERING
SERVICES
10- 4200 - 440 -49 -
�,
200.00
062759
02/26/86
300.00
TED PAULFRANZ
UNIFORM ALLOY
-10- 4266 = 440 =44 -
tw
300.00
062760
02/26/86
300.00
- FRANK WELLMAN
UNIFORM ALLOW
- -
10 -4266- 440 -44
- _
!w►
300.00
i
* * * -CKS
too
062762
02/26186
16.00
-
NANCY KARKOFF
- -
CLOTHING
10- 4266- 420 -42
16.00
*--
1i
b
.I
062763
02/26/86 -
- 49123.07
--
- HENN CTY TREASURER
ROOM B BOARD
10- 4286- 220 -22 12096
40123.07
i
062764
02/26/86
- - 153.54
.
- BRADY OFFICE WARE
GEN SUPP
10- 4504 - 420 -42
153.54
+
-- - . ..
b
,
062765
02/26/86
62.00
INTERSTATE OFFICE
EQUIP MAINT
10- 4274 - 420-42
I.
62.00
. - --
-
-- - - - --
- -- -
062766
02/26/86
24.60
MATS ALEXANDERS
CONi WORK
10- 4200 - 622 -62
(•
24.60
i
0.52767
02/26/86
RED WING SIDE STORE
UNIFORM ALLOWENCE
10- 4262- 301 -30
062767
02/26/86
- _ ,416.75
74.95
-
-
RED WING SHOE STORE
UNIFORM ALLOWENCE
- - 10- 4262 - 560 -56 - -
r
062767
02/26/86
329.85
RED DING SHOE STORE
UNIFORM ALLOWENCE
10- 4262 - 646 -64
062767
02/26/86
89.95
RED WING S40E STORE
UNIFORM ALLOWENCE
40 -4262- 801 -80
911.50
tar I
062768
02/26/86
145.86
ERIC ANDERSON
SERVICES
10- 4200 - 500 -50
145.86
062769
02/26/86
-- -- -- 38.40
NFPA
HANDBOOK----
i
38.40
*
- - - - -- - --
-- -- -- - -- - - -- - -- -
-
b
062770
02/26/_86
15.00_
DON LARSON
DUES
10 -4204- 280 -28
I.
'1
,Z
I"
15.00
- -- -- -- - --
-- - --
- - -- --
, `I
!
)3
062771
02/26/86
92.01
R 8 R SPECIALTIES
-.
CONi REPAIRS
- - - - -- -
28- 4248 - 707 -70 7178
-- - -- ----• - - - - • -- -
1
?'
1986 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
03-03 -86
PAGE 11
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. #
MESSAGE
92.01 •
�I
`f
062772
02/26/86
30.22
DALE LUNDGREN
MILEAGE - - - - --
- -28 =4208- 706 --70 - - - -- -
`.
30.22 ;
062773
02/26/86
128.47
E Z SHARP
GEN
128.47 •
`
062774
02/26/86
500.00
DAVE LANGHOLTZ
SERVICES- --
- - -- 28- 3480- 000 -00
500.00 •
062775
02/26/86
500.00
FRANK FISCHER
PROF SERV
--28 -3480- 000 -00 - - -
-
500.00 •
062776
02/26/86
630.00
PTAC
POLICE TRAINING
- 10- 4202 - 420 =42
; I
630.00 *
'
062777
02/26/86
- 15.00 -
- -AM SOCIETY FOR IND
CHAPTER
15.00 •
♦
062778
02/26/86
177.38
FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS
GEN SUPP- - - - -
-- - -40- 4504 = 803 -80
177.38
OS2779
02/26/86
- - 19800.00 --
- - -SUN ELECTRIC CORP
GEN SUPP'-- _-----
" - - "10- 4504 - 560 -56
L
19800.00 •
062780
02/26/86
872.41
M 8 COMPANY
GUN
�4
872.47 •
062781 ' - -
-_- 02/26/86 -
119597.00
- - POLAR CHEV & MOZDA
TRUCKS
--
14
`
119597.00 *
062782
02/26/86
19250.00
SAVIORS SO=TYARE
CONT SERU
-10- 4200 - 500 -50
l
19250.00 •
062783
02/26/86
- 29.89
-" - RALPH JOHNSON
GEN SUPPI --- - - " -
-- - " - "10 -4504- 260 -26 -- --
29.89
062794
02/26/86
51.95
PRO INSTANT PRINT
GEN SUPP -' -- -- -
- - - - -` __29- 4504- 720 -72 '
51.95 •
;•
062785'
02/26/86
109800.00
- _RIDGEDALE ELECTRIC
CONSTRUCTION - --
-� 27-1300-000-00--- - --
-
109800.00 •
062786
02/26/86
109000.00
E2 CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION
27- 1300 - 000 -00 -
100000.00 •
062787
02/26/86 -
-- - - - -- .55 - -
- - -AT & T - -
TELEPHONE-
�t
- --
,�
062787
02/26/86
9.25
AT & T
TELPHDNE
10- 42 °_6- 628 -62
9.80
•rrrtr
••• -CKS�
063537 -
02/26/86
942.00
TTRI STATE DRILLING - -
REPAIR PARAT$
40= 4540= 805=80
r
942.00 +
V
1986 Cl F EDINA
CHECK RI
'ER
03 -03 -86 E
12
%.
i
CHECK NO. DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
4 P.O. t MESSAGE
�tl
z
.• +.•.
+++ —CKS
064131 02/25/86
114.00
WALL STREET JOURNAL
DUES
10- 4204 - 140 -14
6,�
114.00 +
0
4
+ ** ***
* *+—CKS
of
1389790.20
FUND
10
TOTAL
GENERAL FUND
506.82
FUND
23
TOTAL
ART CENTER
4,
1229959.44
FUND
27
TOTAL
GOLF COURSE FUND
1
19710.53
FUND
26
TOTAL
RECREATION CENTER FUND
51.95
FUND
29
TOTAL
GUN RANGE FUND
V
1969351.84
FUND
40
TOTAL
UTILITY FUND
29204.30
FUND
50
TOTAL
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
59883.08
FUND
60
TOTAL
CDNSTRUCTION FUND
I
V
'
4689458.16
TOTAL
~
I
!.
COMPUTER CHECKS'S
li 68955
- — - -- — -~
- THRU 69094
- - _
L1f PF,- -V
F-3,'Z F,il'i'F.NT,
:I
AIL
T
%w
c:- lyn;a_,
—
-
.I
GG
I1,
J
b
1
I
IP