HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-04_COUNCIL MEETINGROLLCALL
AGENDA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JUNE 4, 1984
7:00 P.M.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES of May 7, 1984, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of ,
seconded by
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION - Kim Holland and Karen Kiser 4.
MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL - Outstanding Achievement Award for Accident Prevention
Performance 1983 - Alison Fuhr
MINUTES of the Regular Council Meeting of May 7, 1984 and May 21, 1984, approved as
submitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MC.TTERS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Planning Department. Public comment heard. First Reading of
Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote
to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Flood
Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and
Adjustments decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote
to pass.
A. Preliminary Plat Approval
1. Miller Addition - Generally located west of Dearborn Street and North
of Belmore Avenue (Contd from 5/21/84)
B. Appeal of Board of Appeals & Adjustments Decision
1. Roger A. Christgau - Variance at 6417 Timber Ridge
C. Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project (Continue to 6/18/84)
D. Lot Divisions
1. Lot 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition - Generally located east
of County Road 18 and north of Indian Hills Road
2. Lot 30, Colonial Grove 2nd Addition - Generally located east of Brookview
Avenue and south of 56th Street
3. Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls - Generally located west of Schaefer Road
and south of Knoll Drive
E. Set Hearing Dates
1. Zoning Change
a. Indian Hills 2nd Addition - R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to
R -2 Double Dwelling Unit District (7/2/84)
2. Preliminary Plat Approval
a. Blake Woods - Generally located east of Dearborn Street and north
of Belmore Lane (6/18/84)
3. Conditional Use Permit
a. Southdale Hennepin County Library - Parking Lot Expansion - Located
at 7001 York Avenue So. (6/18/84)
II. PUBLIC HEARING ON EASEMENT VACATION. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation
by Engineer. Public comment heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by
Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Vacation of Water Storage Easement - Lot 2, Block 3, Schey's Park View Third
Addition
III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. h. Dudley Parsons - Ordinance No. 312 - Animal Control
IV. AWARD OF BIDS
A. Playground Equipment
B. Public Improvements - P -BA -137, S.A.P. 120 - 151 -08, P -BA -261 and Misc. Park
Work ( #84 -3 Eng)
C. HP 150 /Software /Printer
Agenda
Edina City Council
June 4,1984
Page Two
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Garden Park /NSP Land Donation - Subject to Easement
B. Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Issues
C. Edina Foundation - Board Appointments (Term of James Van Valkenburg and
unexpired term of Dick Wyatt)
D. Vacation of Portion -of Lincoln Drive
E. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council
F. Post Agenda and Manager's Miscellaneous Items
VI. RESOLUTIONS. Favorable rollcall vote by majority of quorum to pass.
A. Expo '85 - Resolution of Support
VII. ORDINANCES. First Reading requires offering of Ordinance only. 3/5 favorable
rollcall vote to pass Second Reading. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if
Second Reading should be waived.
A. First Reading
1. Ordinance No. 434 -A8 - To Define Special Purpose Pools and Swimming Pools,
Change Deck Area Requirements, Clarify Fence Requirements and Amend
Location Requirements
VIII. FINANCE
A. Liquor Fund Reports as of 1/31/84, 2/29/84, and 3/31/84 .
B. Claims Paid. Motion of , seconded by , for payment of the
following Claims as per Pre -List dated 6/4/84: General Fund $46,454.60,
Park Fund $7,083.62, Art Center $609.13, Swimming Pool Fund $4,556.66,
Golf Course Fund $7,504.24, Recreation Center Fund $13,288.94, Waterwork
Fund $12,787.39, Sewer Rental Fund $3,158.99, Liquor Dispensary Fund
$1,050.63, Construction Fund $15,106.19, Total $111,600.39
AGENDA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
JUNE 4, 1984
7:00 P.M.
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ROLLCALL
MINUTES of May 7, 1984, approved as submitted or corrected by motion of ,
seconded by
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION - Kim Holland and Karen Kiser
MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL - Outstanding Achievement.Award for Accident Prevention
Performance 1983 - Alison Fuhr
MINUTES of the Regular Council Meeting of May 7, 1984 and May 21, 1984, approved as
submitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING NY=ERS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Planning Department. Public comment heard. First Reading of
Zoning Ordinance requires offering of Ordinance only. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote
to pass Second Reading or if Second Reading should be waived. Lot Divisions, Flood
Plain Permits, Plats, Appeals from Administrative or Board of Appeals and
Adjustments decisions require action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote
to pass.
A. Preliminary Plat Approval
1. Miller Addition - Generally located west of Dearborn Street and North
of Belmore Avenue (Contd from 5/21/84)
B. Appeal of Board of Appeals & Adjustments Decision
1. Roger A. Christgau - Variance at 6417 Timber Ridge
C. Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project (Continue to.6/18/84)
D. Lot Divisions -
1. Lot 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition - Generally located east
of County Road 18 and north of Indian Hills Road
2. Lot 30, Colonial Grove 2nd Addition - Generally located east of Brookview
Avenue and south of 56th Street
3. Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls - Generally located west of Schaefer Road
and south of Knoll Drive
E. Set Hearing Dates
1. Zoning Change
a. Indian Hills 2nd Addition - R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to-
R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District (7/2/84)
2. Preliminary Plat Approval
a. Blake Woods - Generally located east of Dearborn Street and north
of Belmore Lane (6/18/84)
3. Conditional Use Permit
a. Southdale Hennepin County Library - Parking Lot Expansion - Located
at 7001 York Avenue So. (6/18/84)
II. PUBLIC HEARING ON EASEMENT VACATION. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation
by Engineer. Public comment heard. If Council wishes to proceed, action by
Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass.
A. Vacation of Water Storage Easement - L°ot 2, Block 3, Schey's Park View Third
Addition
III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. h. livaley Parsons - Ordinance No. 312 - Animal Control
IV. AWARD OF BIDS
A. Playground Equipment
B. Public Improvements - P -BA -137, S.A.P. 120 - 151 -08, P -BA -261 and Misc. Park
Work ( #84 -3 Eng)
C. HP 150 /Software /Printer
Agenda
Edina City Council
June 4,'1984
Page Two
V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Garden Park /NSP Land Donation - Subject to Easement
B. Nine Mile Creek and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Issues
C. Edina Foundation - Board Appointments (Term of James
unexpired term of Dick Wyatt)
D. Vacation of Portion of Lincoln Drive
E. Special Concerns of Mayor and Council
F. Post Agenda and.Manager's Miscellaneous Items
Van Valkenburg and
VI. RESOLUTIONS. Favorable rollcall vote by majority of quorum to pass.
A. Expo '85 - Resolution of Support
VII. ORDINANCES. First Reading requires offering of Ordinance only. 3/5 favorable
rollcall vote to pass Second Reading. 4/5 favorable rollcall vote to pass if
Second Reading should be waived.
A. First Reading
1. Ordinance No. 434 -A8 - To Define Special Purpose Pools and Swimming Pools,
Change Deck Area Requirements, Clarify Fence Requirements and Amend
Location Requirements
VIII. FINANCE
A. Liquor Fund Reports as of 1/31/84, 2/29/84, and 3/31/84
B. Claims Paid. Motion of I , seconded by , for payment of the
following Claims as per Pre -List dated 6/4/84: General Fund $46,454.60,
Park Fund $7,083.62, Art Center $609.13, Swimming Pool Fund $4,556.66,
Golf Course Fund $7,504.24, Recreation Center Fund $13,288.94, Waterwork
Fund $12,787.39, Sewer Rental Fund $3,158.99, Liquor Dispensary Fund
$1,050.63, Construction Fund $15,106.19, Total $111,600.39
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES
May 7, 1984
Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner and Mayor
Courtney.
MINUTES of April 2, 1984, were approved as submitted by motion of Member
Turner, seconded by Member Schmidt.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
There being no further business, the meeting wa§, adjourned.
Gordon L. Hughe
Executive Direc r
i
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY. COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 7, 1984
Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, 'Turner and Mayor
Courtney.
OFFICER MICHAEL LUTZ COMMENDED. Mr. Rosland introduced Officer Michael Lutz
pointing out that he began working with the City of Edina in 1973. Mr. Rosland
also advised that Officer Lutz has 37 Letters of Commendation from citizens
in his personnel file, along with eleven citations for meritorious service from
police supervisors. He stressed that Officer Lutz has been instrumental in the
revival of the Edina Police Reserve Program by serving as a volunteer coordinator
of the program. Mr. Rosland further added that Officer Lutz has been a dedicated,
dependable employee who has set an excellent example for his peers and younger
officers, and he commended him for his dedication and loyal service to the City
by presenting him with a silver pen bearing the City logo. Members of the Council
also extended their appreciation and thanks.
MINUTES of the Regular Council Meeting of April 16, 1984, and the Special Council
Meeting of April 23, 1984, were approved as submitted by motion of Member Turner,
seconded by Member Schmidt.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED /TREE TRIMMING IMPROVEMENT NO. TT -02 AUTHORIZED. Affidavits
of Notice were presented by Acting Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on
file. Mr. Rosland explained to Council the proposed tree trimming project noting
there are 863 trees to be trimmed in Edina, 219 trees of which are considered 12"
and under, and 644 trees which are 12" and over. He stated the cost of trimming the
trees under 12" would be $30 per tree, trees over 12" would be $55 per tree, with an
average figure of $48. Mr. Rosland indicated several residents have written letters
pointing out they have had their trees trimmed recently, and he noted the City will
call attention to these cases by having the Forester review them and adjust them
accordingly. Mr. Rosland was asked to reiterate what constitutes a boulevard, and he.
explained that a typical street has a 60 -foot right -of -way, with approximately a 30 -foot
travelled portion curb -to -curb, and the 14 feet remaining on each side of the curb
line would be considered boulevard. Trees that are situated on these boulevards are
the responsibility of the City. Member Bredesen questioned if only elm trees were
included in the trimming project. Director of Parks and Recreation, Kojetin, clarified
the project would include trimming all species of trees. Walt Zierman, 5657 Woodcrest,
expressed that he understood oak trees should only be trimmed in the wintertime.
Mr. Kojetin confirmed that would be the City's intended time for trimming oaks. Mr.
Zierman also voiced concern as one of his trees was recently trimmed, and Mr. Kojetin
mentioned that the forester would investigate the matter. John Warner, 5038 Bruce
Place, stated he had a tree that was ready to die and requested the forester look
at it. Bill South, 5325 Oaklawn,-informed Council of a tree damaged on his property
by a storm three years ago and asked that the forester look at it also. No further
comments being heard, Member Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING TREE TRIMMING IMPROVEMENT NO. TT -02
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council
heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of
each parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed
improvement:
TREE TRIMMING IMPROVEMENT NO. TT -02 IN THE FOLLOWING:
Area bounded by Highway 100 on the West, 50th Street on the North, eastern
City boundary line on the East and the southern City boundary line on the
South
and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council
has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of
the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with said improvement including
all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of
necessary easements and rights for completion of such improvement; that said improve-
ment is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as
TREE TRIMMING IMPROVEMENT NO. TT-02 and the project is proposed to be assessed
against properties having one or more boulevard trees.
Motion for adoption of the Resolution was seconded by Member Schmidt.
Rollcall: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO.L -25 AUTHORIZED ON 100% PETITION. Mr.
Hoffman indicated that a petition for an ornamental street light had been received for
6208, 6209, 6216 and 6217 Parnell Avenue and that said petition also requested the
Council to assess the entire cost against the property owners. Mr. Hoffman presented
5/7/84
estimated cost of construction at $364, proposed to be assessed against 4 assessable
lots at an estimated cost of $91 per lot. Mr. Hoffman also stated that the property
owners have requested they re -sod the area themselves, of which Mr. Hoffman was
in agreement with. Member Schmidt thereupon offered the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L -25
UPON PETITION THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows:
1. It is hereby found and determined that a petition has been filed requesting the
Council to construct an ornamental street lighting improvement to serve 6208, 6209,
6216 and 6217 Parnell Avenue, and to assess the entire cost against the property
of petitioners, and that said petition has been signed by all owners of real prop-
erty abutting on said street where said improvement is to be located.
2. The making of said improvement in accordance with said petition is hereby
ordered pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429..031 (3), (Session Laws of 1961,
Chapter 525, Section 2). Said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred
to in all subsequent proceedings as ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L -25.
The entire cost of said improvement is hereby ordered to be assessed against the
properties abutting on Parnell Avenue where said improvement is to be located.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GUSTAFSON REPLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, INDIAN HILLS, CONTINUED.
Affidavits of Notice were presented by Acting Clerk, approved as to form and ordered
placed on file. Mr. Hughes reported that the subject property measures 141,700
square feet and is zoned R -1, Single Family Dwelling District. Approximately 25
percent of the property is contained within the normal elevation of Arrowhead Lake.
The property is developed with a single family dwelling located slightly north of
the center of the lot. Mr. Hughes noted that this request for subdivision was heard
at the February 29 meeting of the Planning Commission. At that time a two -lot
subdivision of the property was requested with Lot 1 containing 91,600 square feet,
and Lot 2 containing 50,100 square feet, both of which include the area lying in
Arrowhead Lake. Subsequently, Mr. Hughes explained that a modified subdivision
plan has been developed that still presents two single family dwelling lots on the
property, with the first lot measuring approximately 74,000 square feet, and the
second lot measuring 67,700 square feet. Mr. Hughes further elaborated that it is
the stated intent of the subdivider to demolish the existing dwelling and build two
new single family dwellings on the proposed subdivided lots. Mr. Hughes pointed out
that at their February 29 meeting the Planning Commission recommended that this.sub-
division request be denied. Member Turner questioned if the Planning Commission
discussed the difference in the proposed subdivision compared with the recent Peterson
subdivision, indicating any unusual circumstances. Mr. Hughes mentioned staff opined
in their report to the Planning Commission that'the proposed subdivision enjoyed the
same characteristics as the Peterson subdivision and likewise should be approved.
Mr. Hughes pointed out that he was not in attendance at the February 29 Planning
Commission meeting, however. Greg Gustafson, representative of the proponent, Jeff
Gustafson, was present and explained their two major objectives as 1) the two lots
that would be created by the subdivision are very large lots, and 2) the distance
between the two proposed homes is 100 feet. Mr. Gustafson stated they were willing
to lay out the plans of the proposed second site and invite City staff to look at the
lot in question. He also indicated the proposed subdivision requires no variance and
would not require removing any major trees on the property. Mr. Connor Schmid,
attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. John Weston of 6516 Indian Hills Road, was present
and stated the opposition of the Indian Hills residents indicating the proposed sub-
division would adversely,impact the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Mr.
Schmid introduced Mr. John Uban, a planner from Howard Dahlgren & Associates, stating
the Westons felt it would be helpful to have his viewpoint on the issue. Mr. Uban
outlined the major issues involved in the proposed subdivision and of those in the
future, being 1) the consistency of decision - making, 2) recognizing the early inten-
tions of the first plats, and 3) developing guidelines. He opined that homes placed
in a position to block the scenic view of Arrowhead Lake would change the character
and symmetry of the Indian Hills neighborhood. He further explained that in order to
subdivide property, positive support of the adjoining landowners should be required.
Mr. Schmid stated there are about 30 adjoining landowners who have expressed their
opposition to the proposed lot division. Mr. Orrin Haugen, 6612 Indian Hills Road,
was present and stated his opposition with his specific concern being that the lot
in question is only appropriate for one single family dwelling because of the steep-
ness of the terrain. Mr. Richard Smith, 6600 Mohawk Trail, a builder, developer and
land planner was present and stated that by permitting wholesale development and lot
splits, Indian Hills could be turned into "just another community ". He asked for the
Council's careful consideration of this subdivision as the result would have a great
affect on the future of the Indian Hills area. He also concluded that the restrictive
covenants are effective until December 31, 1988, and there can be no changes in the
5/7/84
profile or the topography of the Indian Hills area until that time. Member Turner
inquired how the 100 foot setback from Arrowhead Lake would affect the property.
Mr. Hughes stated the inlet is part of Arrowhead Lake and the conservation restriction
would include it. He explained that it was not part of the shoreline of the lake but
is a storm water retention area, and they are connected to each other. Member Turner
asked Mr. Gustafson if the lot area figures included the lake area. Mr. Gustafson
replied that they did. She also asked if they had a general idea of how large the
lots are not including the water. Mr. Gustafson replied the owner indicated they
are 1 3/4 acres above the water. Proponent, Jeff Gustafson, stated it was his
understanding that the small pond adjoining the lots were for the City storm sewer
runoff and that it was owned by the City due to tax forfeiture in 1972 and the City
asked it not be auctioned off. He elaborated that had the City auctioned the land
off, it could have been filled and built upon. Dr. Roger Christgau, Lot 2, Block 1,
Indian Hills Pass, stated to the contrary the lot was platted as an outlot on the
original plat map. Mrs. Peterson stated the pond was the only access for the area
to the lake except for the lots that surround the lake. Member Turner questioned if
the smaller lots on Arrowhead Pass were subdivided at a later point in time, or if
they were part..of the original plat. Mr. Hughes noted they were subdivided at a later
point, adding they were replats of previously existing large lots. Mr. Haugen stated
a correction to Mr. Hughes' statement that the land to the west was subdivided but
was not part of the original Indian Hills plat. Mr. Schmid asked for clarification
on which of the restrictive covenants were enforceable and which ones were not.
Mayor Courtney reminded Mr. Schmid that Mr. Larsen, at the February 29 Planning Comm-
ission meeting, stated the covenants were a private matter between homeowners. City
Attorney, Erickson, concurred with that statement. Mr.,Richards stated he was not
clear on the size of the lot in question in relation to the other lots in the neigh-
borhood. He also asked for clarification of the natural high water level of the
Arrowhead Lake in relationship to the lots in the entire surrounding area. Mr.
Richards then moved to have staff research the above -cited questions and present a
report to Council by the next meeting. Member Turner seconded the motion.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
Discussion followed regarding setting a date for the continued hearing for May 21,
1984. Attorney Erickson pointed out that Minnesota Statute states Council must act
within 120 days from the completed application date, and if they do not, it is
deemed approved. Mr. Erickson clarified that the 120 days have not expired, but if
need be he asked the applicants if they would agree to an extension. The applicants
agreed to whatever extension was needed for action by the Council.
REZONING FOR EDINBOROUGH TO MIXED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5 GRANTED FIRST READING
(ORD. 825 -A3); CONCEPT GIVEN APPROVAL. Affidavits of Notice were presented by
Acting Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Rosland recalled
that the funding mechanisms of the Edinborough project were presented at the March
26, 1984 Special Meeting and they were now asking Council for concept approval of the
project. Concept approval was explained as including the concept of the total
layout which included the concept of the park and the financing concept (which
consists of the housing revenue bonds and the second mortgage). The process was
clarified for Council as first giving concept approval and First Reading on the re-
zoning, second, completing the Redeveloper's Agreement, third, forwarding plans to
the Planning Commission for their review, and finally, returning to Council for
_second reading for rezoning and approval of the Redeveloper's Agreement. Mr. Larry
Laukka introduced members of the development team as Bor -Son Construction Company,
Winfield Developments, Inc., Laukka Inc., Jarvis, Inc., Henry Hyatt, Sheldon Baskin,
Daniel Epstein, Thomas LaSalle and his associate, Bill Brussman. Underlying the
master partnership agreement the three sub - partnership entities include the 1) elderly
entity, 2) the office entity, and 3) the housing entity. Mr. Peter Jarvis presented
graphics explaining the concept of the project which includes 1) approximately 400
townhouses /condominium residential units including approximately 600 underground
private parking spaces, 2) a public park of approximately three acres, including
an approximate one -acre enclosed structure, 3) approximately 200 rental units
for elderly occupancy in one building of approximately 17 stories with related covered
and surface parking, including tenant services of congregate dining facilities
serving two meals a day per person, linen and housekeeping services, social programs,
and 4) approximately 205,000 square feet of office space to be constructed in two
phases including Phase I to consist of 107,000 square feet in a 7 -story building,
and Phase II consisting of 98,000 square feet in a 6 -8 story building, together with
related covered and surface parking. Mr. Laukka presented an outline of the financial
mechanisms of the project in regard to mortgage bonds and tax increment bonds. He
also presented graphics illustrating the development costs to be financed by tax
increment bonds, the total development costs, the total repayments and benefits to
the City, residual benefits to the residential unit, and the mortgage interest re-
duction figures. He then proceeded to explain the breakdown on the allocation of
City participation in the residential development. Member Turner asked what kind of
research was made to determine if the proposed plans would meet the elderly housing
needs of Edina citizens. Henry Hyatt outlined their research of federal programs and
5/7/84
other market rate alternatives such as cooperatives and life -care concepts, stating
the proposed plan will be offering a complete service package. Member Schmidt
asked if parking would be available to the public under the elderly complex. Mr.
Hyatt indicated the plans are for private parking only. Member Schmidt also
expressed concern as to why the entire project wasn't only residential. Member
Bredesen questioned if there is a present need for additional office space in
Edina. Rick Martens of Winfield Developments responded that the market for office
space has improved. Member Bredesen then asked how funds are transferred from the
office to the residential development and where the funds originate for the building
of the park. Attorney Erickson explained how the tax increment district would work.
Member Richards asked what would happen if there was a shortfall in the tax increment.
Attorney Erickson commented that this would be detailed in the Redeveloper's Agree-
ment. Mr. Hyatt stated if the development ever required additional funding, the
partnership would be responsible, not the City. Member Richards then asked Joan
Lonsbury, Chairman of the Edina Park Board, what the Park Board's view was of the
proposed park development. Mrs. Lonsbury advised the Park Board felt the park
should be available and of service to the entire community. Member Richards also
asked about the quality of construction for the development and if a subdivision
dedication fee would be required. Mr. Laukka then explained that they would be using
materials that would create character in the buildings, that would provide a main-
tenance -free exterior and that would be of good quality. Mr. Rosland said there
would be a park dedication fee of approximately 10% of which may be left in a
dedicated fund for the maintenance of the park so it would not become a burden on
the taxpayers. Member Richards commented that he likes the' concept of low and
moderate income housing and meeting the needs of the elderly; however, he expressed
concerns about the economics of the project and that the following issues should
be addressed. 1) The cost and maintenance for the park, 2) assurance of the broad
use of the park, and 3) that the public financing aspects (revenue bonds) should be
closely scrutinized and monitored. Member Richards then offered a motion granting
concept approval of the project with the understanding that the approval would
include the public financing concept. Member Turner seconded the motion, who also
commented that the project addresses one of the items in the long range plan by
attracting low and moderate income individuals into the community. Member Bredesen
voiced concern as to the extra costs of the project as presented, and he voiced
disagreement to the public financing of the project and asked for further clarification
of City costs.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
Member Richards then offered Ordinance No. 825 -A3 for first reading as follows.:
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO.825)
BY ADDING TO THE MIXED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (MDD -5)
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
the following thereto:
"The extent of the Mixed Development District (Sub- District MDD -5) is
enlarged by the addition of the following property:
Tract 1•
That part of the West 500.5 feet of-the East 859.375 feet of the Southeast
Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, which
lies Westerly and Southerly of the center line of York Avenue.South, as said
center line is described in Book 73 of Hennepin County Records, page 4017939,
according to the Government Survey thereof.
Tract 2:
That part of the West 193.875 feet of the East 358.875 feet of the North
1211.68 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 32,
Township 28, Range 24, lying Southerly of the center line of York Avenue South,
as said center line is described in Book 73 of Hennepin County Records,
page 4017939, according to the Government Survey thereof.
Tract 3:
That part of the South half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 28,
Range 24, described as beginning at a point on the South line thereof 859.375
feet West along said South line from the Southeast corner of the Southwest
Quarter of said Section 32; thence West.along said South line 445.5 feet; -
thence North, parallel to the East line of said Southwest Quarter to the
North line of the South Half of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 32;
thence East along said North line 445.5 feet, more or less, to an intersection
with a line drawn North parallel to the East line of said Southwest Quarter,
from the point of beginning; thence South along said last described parallel
line to the point of beginning, according to the Government Survey thereof.
5/7/84
Tract 4:
The South 6.565 rods of the East 21.750 rods of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, excepting and excluding
therefrom a tract of land described as follows:
That part of the East 21 -3/4 rods of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4
of Section 32, Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Govern-
ment Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the North 73.435 rods
thereof, which lies Easterly of a line drawn parallel with and 60 feet
Westerly of the following described line:
Beginning at the point of the intersection of the North line-of said
Southwest 1/4 with the centerline of York Avenue South as shown on and
dedicated by the plat of YORKTOWN, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Southerly along an extension of said
said centerline 1632.47 feet; thence Southeasterly 435.9 feet along a
tangential curve to the left, having a radius of 555 feet and a central
angle of 45 degrees; thence Southeasterly tangent' to last described curve
451.65 feet; thence Southeasterly 435.95 feet along a tangential curve
to the right, having a radius of 555 feet and central angle of 45 degrees,
00 feet, 19 minutes to a point in the Southerly extension of the East line
of said Southwest 1/4, distant 103.43 feet South of the Southeast corner
of said Southwest 1/4 and there terminating.
Tract 5•
Lot 1, Block 1, Northwestern Financial Center
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and
publication.
Motion for First Reading of the Ordinance was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
LOT DIVISION FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PARKWOOD KNOLLS COUGAR ADDITION APPROVED. Mr. Hughes
presented the petition for division of Lot 1, Block 1, Parkwood Knolls Cougar
Addition generally located east of Malibu Drive and north of Telemark Trail,
advising that the proponent requests a party wall division of an existing two -
family dwelling. He noted that individual utilities are provided and staff would
recommend approval. No objections being heard, Member Bredesen offered the follow-
ing resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lot 1, Block 1, Parkwood Knolls Cougar Addition; and
WHEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels")-described as follows:
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, PARKWOOD KNOLLS COUGAR ADDITION lying
north of a line running from a point in the west line of said lot
therein distant 73.18 feet south of the northwest corner of said lot
to a point in the east line of said lot therein distant 75.08 feet
south of the'northeast corner of said lot;
and
Lot 1, Block 1, PARKWOOD KNOLLS COUGAR ADDITION, except that part
thereof lying north of a line running from a point in the west line
of said lot therein distant 73.18 feet south of the northwest corner
of said lot 'to a point in the east line of said lot therein distant
75.08 feet south of the northeast corner of said lot;
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and
Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship
and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes
of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina
Ordinance Nos. 801 and 825;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land
is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801
and Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance
thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose
or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision
that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance
with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval
of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
5/7/84
LOT DIVISION FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 1, THE HABITAT APPROVED. Mr. Hughes presented the
petition for division of Lot 4, Block 1, The Habitat, generally located at
6101 -03 Waterford Court, advising staff would recommend approval. No objections
being heard, Member Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land:
Lot 4, Block 1, The Habitat; and
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
That part of Lot 4, Block 1, THE HABITAT lying northerly of a line
drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 4 distant 16.67 feet
southerly as measured along said line, of the northwest corner thereof
to a point on the east line of said Lot 4 distant 123.48 feet southerly
of the northeast corner thereof', and reserving easements of record;
and
That part of Lot 4, Block 1, THE HABITAT lying southerly of a line
drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 4 distant 16.67 feet
southerly as measured along said line, of the northwest corner thereof
to a point on the east line of said Lot 4 distant 123.48 feet southerly
of the northeast corner thereof, and reserving easements of record;
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said
Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the
Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Ordinance
Nos. 801 and 825;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is
hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801 and
Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof
as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any
other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further
subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent
ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as
may be provided for by those ordinances.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR MUIR WOODS THIRD ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were
presented by Acting Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr.
Hughes pointed out that preliminary plat approval was granted for the Muir
Woods Third Addition at the March 19, 1984 Council Meeting. The subject property
is generally located west of Valley View Road and west of Mark Terrace Drive
extended. Mr. Hughes reminded Council that the proponents are requesting a
subdivision of the property to create one new buildable lot on the southerly
portion of the property which would measure 29,428 square feet. Staff recommended
approval of the subdivision subject to subdivision dedication. No objections being
heard, Member Richards offered the following resolution and moved its adoption,
subject to subdivision dedication as recommended by staff:
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL FOR MUIR WOODS THIRD ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that
certain plat entitled "Muir Woods Third Addition ", platted by Edwin L. and
Dorothy J. Sisam, husband and wife, and Americana State Bank of Edina, a
Minnesota corporation and Norwest Bank Bloomington, National Association, a
national banking association and Banco Mortgage Company, an Iowa corporation,
and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of May 7, 1984, be
and is hereby granted final plat approval subject to payment of a subdivision
dedication fee of $3,200.00.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Schmidt.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR NORMANDALE BLUFFS. Affidavits of Notice were presented
by Acting Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes
recalled that preliminary plat approval was granted for Normandale Bluffs on
July 11, 1983. The subject property is generally located west of Rolf Avenue
and south of West 64th Street, and Mr. Hughes recalled that the proponents` request
was that of a simple lot division of Lot 7 whereby the northerly 25 feet would be
attached to Lot 6 and the southerly 25 feet would be attached to Lot 8. Mr.
Hughes also recalled that preliminary plat approval was granted with restrictions
that 1) the garage for the existing dwelling be remodeled to provide a five
5/7/84
foot setback from the south lot line of Parcel A, and 2) the south 15 feet of
the subject property be dedicated to the City by Warranty Deed. The proponent
has returned with final plat of the property indicating a 75 foot lot on the
north end and a 15 foot outlot on the south end of the property for which a deed
has been provided. Staff recommended approval of the final plat subject to
receipt of the title opinion to accompany the 15 foot outlot grant. No objections
being heard, Member Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved its
adoption, subject to receipt of the title opinion to accompany the 15 foot outlot
grant:
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL FOR NORMANDALE BLUFFS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that
certain plat entitled "Normandale Bluffs ", platted by Duncan B. and Karen K.
Wallace, husband and wife, and Norwest Bank Minneapolis National Association,
a National Banking Association, and presented at the regular meeting of the
City Council of May 7, 1984, be and is hereby granted final plat approval subject
to receipt of title opinion to accompany the 15 foot outlot grant.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Schmidt.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR DEWEY HILL FOURTH ADDITION CONTINUED TO MAY 21, 1984.
Member Richard's motion was seconded by Member Schmidt to continue the final
plat approval for Dewey Hill Fourth Addition to May 21, 1984.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR MILLER ADDITION; HEARING DATE SET. Motion of Member
Turner was seconded by Member Richards, setting May 21, 1984 as the hearing date
for preliminary plat approval for Miller Addition, generally located west of
Dearborn Street and north of Belmore Lane.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON STREET VACATION FOR PART OF GARDEN AVENUE; VACATION GRANTED.
Affidavits of Notice were presented by Acting Clerk, approved as to form and ordered
placed on file. Mr. Hoffman explained this was a re- confirmation of street
vacation for part of Garden Avenue in that the previous legal description had posed
some problems. Mr. Hoffman stated they had clarified the legal description and
were recommending approval of the street vacation for part of Garden Avenue. No
objections being heard, Member Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION VACATING
PART OF GARDEN AVENUE
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 2nd day of April, 1984,
fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed street vacation for road purposes; and
WHEREAS, two weeks' published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the
hearing was held on the 7th day of May, 1984, at which time all persons desiring to
be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the
public that said street vacation be made; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects exist-
ing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation
affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling
electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains,
and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to continue maintaining
the same, or to enter upon such easement are or portion thereof vacated to maintain,
repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, that the following described portion of the street be and is hereby
vacated:
That part of Garden Avenue as platted in Garden Park, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, described as lying between a line 27 feet north
of and parallel with the south line of the North half of Section
32, Township 117, Range 21 and a line 264 feet north of and parallel
with said south line of the North half of Section 32.
and that the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a notice of completion
of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County Auditor,
and filed with the Register of Deeds, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section
412.851.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was;�seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
5/7/84
PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION FOR LOT 5 AND 6, BLOCK 1,
OAK RIDGE; VACATION GRANTED. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Acting Clerk,
approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hoffman noted that as a result
of a lot split, request for drainage and utility easement for Lot 5 and 6. Block 1, !
Oak Ridge, is presented. He stated staff recommended approval of the vacation subject
to Northwestern Bell's facilities being moved and issuance of new utility easements
on the new lot line. No objections being heard, Member Schmidt offered the following j
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION VACATING
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 2nd day of April, 1984, fixed
a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of easement for drainage and
utility purposes; and
'TIEREAS, two weeks' published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the
i
hearing was held on the 7th day of May, 1984, at which time all neroorn3 cesirin- to
be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and j
WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and.of the public
that said easement vacation be made; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects existing
easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects
the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling
electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains, and
hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to continue maintaining the
same, or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain,
repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, that the following described drainage and utility easement be
and is hereby vacated:
Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block 1, Oak Ridge of Edina
and that the City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a notice of completion
of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County
Auditor, and filed with the Register of Deeds, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 412.851.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Richards.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney.
Resolution adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON STREET VACATION FOR PART OF SUMMIT AVENUE; VACATION GRANTED.
Mr. Hoffman recalled that the public hearing on street vacation for part of Summit
Avenue had been continued from the April 16, 1984 meeting. Mr. Hoffman explained
that after further review on the proposed vacation of Summit Avenue, staff recommends
the following: 1) vacate portion of Summit Avenue right -of -way and a six foot
strip per concept approval of the townhouse zoning, and 2) reserve easements for
utility companies who have facilities on the right -of -way. He further explained
reasons not to vacate the southerly portion of Summit adjacent to the service
station is to preserve control of the area, particularly in light of parking
restrictions that may need to be imposed. He stated staff recommends requiring
the townhouse owners and association to provide routine maintenance of the southerly
portion of Summit Avenue and also indemnify the City against claims, making the
vacation become effective on the issuance of a building permit for the second
phase of the townhouse project and receipt of the agreement. No objections being
heard, Member Turner offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION VACATING
PART OF SUMMIT AVENUE
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 19th day of March, 1984,
fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of easement for road
purposes; and
WHEREAS, two weeks' published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the
hearing was held on the 16th day of April, 1984, at which time all persons desiring
to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the
public that said street vacation be made; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects
existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the
vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning
or controlling electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or
water pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to
continue maintaining the same, or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof
vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove or otherwise attend thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Edina, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, that the following described portion of the atreet be and is hereby
vacated:
5/7/84
That part of Summit Avenue as dedicated in the plat of GRAND VIEW
HEIGHTS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minne-
sota, described as beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 5, Block 4,
GRAND VIEW HEIGHTS; thence northerly along the easterly line of said
Block 4 to the southerly right -of -way of Interlachen Boulevard (County
Road No. 20); thence southeasterly to the most northerly corner of
Lot 32, Block 3., GRAND VIEW HEIGHTS; thence southerly along the west
line of said Block 3 to its intersection with the easterly extension
of the southerly line of said Lot 5; thence westerly to the point of
beginning.
The west 6.00' of Lots 30, 31 and 32,.Block 3, GRAND VIEW HEIGHTS,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
and that the City Clerk is,authorized and directed to cause a notice of completion
of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County
Auditor, and filed with Register of Deeds, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 412.851.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
BID AWARDED FOR TREE TRIMMING IMPROVEMENT NO. TT -02. Mr. Rosland presented tab -
ulation of bids for tree trimming of public property trees in the area bounded
by Highway 100 on the West, 50th Street on the North, the Eastern City boundary
line on the East and the southern City boundary line on the South, showing
United Tree Service at $34,433.70, Midwest Stump at $37,450.00, and Tri -State
Service at $42,285.00. Member Bredesen moved award of bid to recommended low
bidder United Tree Service at $34,433.70. Motion was seconded by Member Turner.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
BID AWARDED FOR AQUATIC WEED IMPROVEMENT NO. AQ -84 -3. Mr. Rosland pointed out
that the two bids for weed harvesting of Mirror Lake and Mill Pond had been sub -
mitted with Minnetonka Seaweed Eaters at $8,400 and Midwest Aqua Care at $9,860.
Mr. Rosland advised, however, that Minnetonka Seaweed Eaters did not at the present
time have their equipment assembled and felt it to be inadequate for the job.
Therefore, staff recommended award of bid to Midwest Aqua Care. Member Richards
expressed concern as to the difference in cost between the two bids at 20% and
advised he was not concerned with the present status of Minnetonka Seaweed Eaters
equipment, only that it was ready at the time of the harvesting and could do
the job. Mr. Rosland stated they had to be assured the job would be done on time
and felt they did not have this reassurance from Minnetonka Seaweed Eaters. Mr.
Hughes mentioned in the past there had been problems with certain contractors and
felt it important to have the job done correctly and on time. Member Schmidt,'s
motion was seconded by Member Turner for award of bid to staff recommended bidder
Midwest Aqua Care at $9,860.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Nays: Richards
Motion carried.
HEARING DATE SET FOR WATER STORAGE EASEMENT VACATION. As recommended by staff,
Member Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON
WATER STORAGE EASEMENT VACATION
LOT 2, BLOCK 3, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW THIRD ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. It is hereby found and determined that the following described easement for
water storage purposes should be considered for vacation, in accordance with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 412.851 and 160.29:
That part of Lot 2, Block 3, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW THIRD ADDITION described
as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed
bearing of West, along'the north line of said Lot 2, a distance of
120.00 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be
described; thence on a bearing of South, a distance of 30.00 feet;
thence South 40 degrees 06 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of
60.00 feet along a line which, if extended, would intersect the south
line of said Lot 2 at a point therein distant 200.00 feet west of the
southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence North 32 degrees 15 minutes
21 seconds West, a distance of 51.91 feet; thence North 45 degrees
00 minutes West, a distance of 9.90 feet; thence North 66 degrees
48 minutes 05 seconds West, a distance of 15.23 feet; thence North
86 degrees 17 minutes 05 seconds West, a distance of 77.16 feet; thence
5/7/84
South 67 degrees 22 minutes 48 seconds West, a distance of 26.00 feet,
to the west line of said Lot 2; thence north, along the west line of
said Lot 2, a distance of 24.00 feet to the northwest corner of said
Lot 2; thence east, along the north line of said Lot 2, to the point of
beginning.
2. This Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the orm of notice
included in paragraph 3 hereof for the purpose of holding a public hearing on
whether such vacation shall be made in the interest of the public.
3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and
purpose of said hearing to be published once a week for two weeks, in the Edina
Sun, being the official newspaper of the City, the first publication at least 14
days prior to the date of such hearing and to post such notice, at least 14 days
prior to the date of such hearing, in at least three (3) public and conspicuous
places within.the City, as provided in Minnesota Statutes,, Section 412.851. Such
notice shall be in substantially the following form:
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
ON VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR STORAGE OF WATER
ON PART OF LOT 2, BLOCK 3, SCHEY`S PARK VIEW THIRD ADDITION
IN THE CITY OF EDINA
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota_, will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street on
June 4, 1984, at 7 p.m., for the purpose of holding a.public hearing on the
proposed vacation of the following easement for storage of water:
That part of Lot 2, Block'3, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW THIRD ADDITION described
as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed
bearing of West, along the north line of said Lot 2, a distance of
120.00 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be
described; thence on a bearing of South, a distance of 30.00 feet;
thence South 40 degrees 06 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of
60.00 feet along a line which, if extended, would intersect the south
line of said Lot 2 at a point therein distant 200.00 feet west of the
southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence North 32 degrees 15 minutes
21 seconds West, a distance of 51.91 feet; thence North 45 degrees
00 minutes West, a distance of 9.90 feet; thence North 66 degrees
48 minutes 05 seconds West, a distance of 15.23 feet; thence North
86 degrees 17 minutes 05 seconds West, a distance of 77.16 feet; the
South 67 degrees 22 minutes 48 seconds West, a distance of 26.00 feet,
to the west line of said Lot 2; thence north, along the west line of
,5aid Lot 2, a distance of 24.00 feet to the northwest corner of said
Lot 2; thence east, along the north line of said Lot 2, to the point of
beginning.
All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or
not the above proposed easement vacation is in the public interest and should
be made shall be heard at said time and place. The Council shall consider
the extent to which such proposed easement vacation affects existing easements
within the area of the proposed vacation and the extent to which the vacation
affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or
controlling electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or
water pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation,
to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such easement area or portion
thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove or otherwise attend thereto,
for the purpose of specifying, in any such vacation resolution, the extent to
which any or all of any such easements, and such authority to maintain, and to
enter upon the area of the proposed vacation, shall continue.
BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by "Member Schmidt.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
5/7/84
PETITION FOR ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHT ON ASHCROFT LANE AND 63RD STREET, REFERRED
TO ENGINEERING. As stated by Mr. Rosland, a petition for ornamental street light
on the corner of Ashcroft Lane and 63rd Street had been received and would be
referred to the Engineering Department. Motion by Member Bredesen was seconded
by Member Schmidt to refer petition for ornamental street light at Ashcroft Lane
and 63rd Street to the Engineering Department.
.Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR MENDELSSOHN 2ND ADDITION, REFERRED TO ENGINEERING.
As stated by Mr. Rosland, a petition for watermain, storm sewer, sanitary sewer,
graveling, and permanent street surfacing with curb and gutter for the Mendelssohn
2nd Addition had been received and would be referred to the Engineering Department.
Motion by Member Bredesen was seconded by Member Schmidt to refer the petition for -
improvements for Mendelssohn 2nd Addition to the Engineering Department.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
FEASIBILITY REPORT 84 -2, WEST 44TH STREET APPROVED; HEARING DATE SET. City Engineer,
Hoffman presented Feasibility Report 84 -2, West 44th Street, advising that the project
would be state -aid funded with a special assessment to abutting property owners.
Upon recommendation. by Mr. Hoffman, Member Richards offered the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CURB AND GUTTER AND BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -262
1. The City Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report as to
the feasibility of the proposed Storm Sewer described in the form of Notice of Hearing
set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such improvements, said report is
hereby approved and directed to be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, May 7, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Edina City
Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in said
improvements.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time,
place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper once a
week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be not less than
three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to all affected properties
in substantially the following form:
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING
WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -262
S.A.P. 120 - 140 -01
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall, on Monday, May 21, 1984,
at 7:00 P.M., 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:
West 44th Street - T.H. 100 to Brookside Avenue
ESTIMATED COST
I. Permanent Street Surfacing with Concrete Curb $356,063.23
and Gutter - Improvement No. P - BA - 262
The area proposed to be assessed for a portion of the cost of the proposed improve-
ments includes Lot 17 and 19, Aud. Sub'd. No. 176; Lots 10 and 11, Thielen's Brookside;
Lots 7 and 8, Sud. Subd. No. 176; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 4, Arden Park Third
Addition; and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Arden Park 3rd Addition.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
FEASIBILITY REPORT 84 -2, INDIANHEAD LAKE APPROVED; HEARING DATE SET. Mr. Hoffman
presented Feasibility Report 84 -2, Indianhead Lake, advising the project would
be assessed with proposed general fund contributions as in past weed harvesting
projects. Upon recommendation by Mr. Hoffman, Member Richards offered the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
5/7/84
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
HARVESTING OF AQUATIC WEEDS AND TREATMENT OF INDIANHEAD LAKE
IMPROVEMENT NO. P- AQ -84 -3
1. The City Planner, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report as to
the feasibility of the proposed improvements described in the form of Notice of
Public Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such improvements,
said report is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file in the office of
the City Clerk.
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, May 21, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Edina
City Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in
said improvements.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time,
place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper
once a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be
not less than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to
all affected properties in substantially the following form:
(Official Publication)
CITY OF EDINA
4801 W. 50TH STREET
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
HARVESTING OF AQUATIC WEEDS AND TREATMENT OF INDIANHEAD LAKE
IMPROVEMENT NO. P- AQ -84 -3
On Monday, May 21, 1984, the Edina City Council will conduct a public hearing to
determine the necessity of undertaking a weed harvesting project as well.as the
aeration and chemical treatment of Indianhead Lake during 1984, and if found
necessary, to order undertaking of this work as an-assessable project. This
hearing will be held at 7:OO p.m. at the Edina City Hall, 4801 W. 50th Street.
If the project is ordered, it is expected that the total cost of harvesting, aera-
tion, and chemical treatments would be assessed against benefitted properties.
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 benefitted.
The estimated total cost of the proposed project is:
Weed Harvesting $5,200
Aeration and Treatments 5,200
$10,400 Total
Based upon this estimate, the total assessment per dwelling is estimated to be
$315.15.
The area proposed to be assessed includes all lots which are riparian to Indianhead
Lake. These properties are described as follows:
Lots 2 -6, Block 5, Indian Hills
Lots 12 -19, Block 5, Indian Hills
Lots 1 -5, Block 1, Indianhead Crest
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Indianhead Lake View Addition
Lot 35, Auditors Subdivision No. 196
Tract A, R.L.S., No. 86
Lots 1 -3, Block 1, Claudia Ridge
Lots 1 -3, Block 2, Sally Addition
Lots 1 -5, Block 1, Overholt Hills James Addition
If approved, this project will be undertaken in 1984. Assessments would be levied
later this year and would be due and payable in full in 1985.
Please forward any comments or suggestions to the City Council in care of City Hall
prior to the hearing or be present at the hearing itself. The project may be
modified based upon the views expressed to the Council.
All recommendations and objections will be heard at said meeting.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
ON -SALE BEER LICENSE FOR NORMANDALE GOLF, ID
receipt of application for on -sale beer lice
Turner's motion for issuance of the license
Departments was seconded by Member Bredesen.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richard, Schmidt, Turner,
Motion carried.
C., APPROVED. Council was advised of
nse for Normandale Golf, Inc. Member
upon approval by the.Police and Health
Courtney
EVANS MEINEKE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT APPEAL, NOT GRANTED. Mr. Hoffman explained that on
- September 19, 1983, the City held a special assessment hearing for street improvements
on Grove Street; improvements that were originally petitioned for by Evans Meineke
and James Peterson. He stated that Mr. Meineke was not present at the assessment
5/7/84
hearing and subsequently contacted the City in the early months of 1984 to appeal
the assessment on Lot 2, Block 2, Warden Acres, Peterson Replat. Mr. Meineke told
the staff that he felt the assessment was not proper, based partly on the fact that
45% of the lot in question is covered by an electric transmission line, and that this
was the original basis for denial of the requested R2 District rezoning in 1980.
The consideration Mr. Meineke was seeking was that his measured front footage be
stopped at the beginning of the cul -de -sac since he was denied the R -2 District
rezoning. Mr. Meineke was present and stated he was not aware that the cul -de -sac
would be placed on Grove Street until after the petition had gone in for the dev-
elopment. He also stated that the cul -de -sac was not included in the original
petition and he was of the understanding that the Grove Street cul -de -sac would be
paid for by all the residents. Mr. Meineke stated further that he did not understand
he would be assessed for the cul -de -sac on Grove Street in the sum of $6,201.00.
He explained that approximately 45% of Lot 2 is buildable and that the rest remains
on easements, and he felt it unfair that he had to pay for the assessment. He con-
cluded that he would be forced to obtain legal advise on the issue if Council did
not grant him relief of the assessment. Mr. Peterson was also present and spoke
on behalf of Mr. Meineke stating he felt it unfair that Mr. Meineke be assessed for
the project. He elaborated that the notice sent to the property owners was cancelled
and a rescheduled hearing notice was never issued. Mr. Hoffman stated the hearing was
held as scheduled and was not cancelled. Member Richards asked Mr. Hoffman if the
City had followed its customary procedure for this type of project, Mr. Hoffman stated
they did. He also asked who would pay for the portion of Mr. Meineke's assessment
if he did not pay for it. Mr. Hoffman clarified that unless there had been an error
made on the assessment, the City would not have the right to re- assess the project,
and that the monies then would have to come out of the general funds. Mr. Erickson
advised the courts have allowed moral obligations as a basis for proper expenditures of
public monies, but explained that moral obligations usually arise out of harm to the
person or the property. He noted that this situation does not pertain to that category.
Member Bredesen moved to support staff's decision that no relief be granted to Mr.
Meineke for reasons stated that he was given ample time to state his request for
special relief at the public hearing. Member Turner seconded the motion.
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
EDINA EXPO '85 NOTED. Member Turner indicated that a date has been scheduled for
April 20 and 21 for Edina Expo '85. She suggested any additional ideas would be
gratefully accepted.
PAINTING OF FENCES DISCUSSED. Member Bredesen stated he received a call-regarding
the painting of fences. The question arose as to whether the City has an ordinance
to require the painting of fences. Staff responded that there is no such ordinance.
No formal action was taken.
PAIRING PROJECT FOR PEACE DISCUSSED. Mayor Courtney stated he received a letter
requesting local mayors to pair up and correspond with Soviet Union cities of
similar size in an effort to seek peace. He mentioned that he had composed a letter
in rough draft form and asked Council if they advised him to send the letter.
Member Richards voiced that he was not in favor of sending the letter in that it
might be construed that the City was taking a particular stand on the issue.
No formal action was taken.
-SIXTH ANNUAL ALL - VOLUNTEER AWARDS RECEPTION NOTED. Mr. Rosland reminded Council of
the Sixth Annual All- Volunteer Awards Reception at the Interlachen Country Club
on May 8, from 5 -7 p.m. and encouraged their attendance.
PRIVATE SALE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 6, WESTCHESTER KNOLLS GRANTED; RESOLUTION ADOPTED.
Mr. Rosland stated that the property in question, Lot 1, Block 6, Westchester Knolls,
is tax - forfeited land that the City does not desire to control. He further ex-
plained that the Council must pass a resolution in order for the State to issue
the parcel of land for private sale. Member Schmidt then offered the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the lot described as PINS No. 33- 117 -21 -22 -0067, Lot 1, Block 6,
Westchester Knolls, is a lot for which the City of Edina does not desire to control,
and
WHEREAS, that parcel has been listed by the County as tax - forfeited property
owned by the State of Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, the parcel cannot be developed but is properly attached to the land of
abutting property owners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that
the County of Hennepin place this parcel of land on private sale, and that the
sale of that land be limited to abutting property owners for attachment thereto.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Richards, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
5/7/84
CLAIMS PAID. Motion of Member Richards was seconded by Member Schmidt for
payment of the following claims as per Pre -List dated May 7, 1984: General
Fund $133,851.75, Park Fund $20,645.27, Art Center $8,976.46, Swimming Pool
Fund $7,940.00, Golf Course Fund $28,357.33, Recreation Center Fund $3,702.26,
Gun Range Fund $99.99, Waterwork Fund $20,919.27, Sewer Rental Fund $1,250.39,
Liquor Dispensary Fund $12,455.55, Construction Fund $1,884.81, Total $240,083.18.
There being no further business, Mayor Courtney declared the meeting adjourned
at 12:02 a.m.
Acting City Clerk
r
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
MAY 21, 1984
Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner and Mayor Courtney.
JERI MARTY COMMENDED. Mr. Rosland introduced Mrs. Jeri Marty advising that she and
her husband will be leaving the state. He commended her for her conscientious and
outstanding work as Administrative Secretary in the year's time that she has been
employed for the City and presented her with a silver pen bearing the City logo in
appreciation. Members of the Council also expressed their thanks and appreciation
and joined in wishing her well.
PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED ON STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -262 (W. 44TH STREET); HEARING
CONTINUED TO JUNE 18, 1984. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved
as to form and ordered placed on file. Pursuant to due notice given, a public
hearing was conducted and action taken as hereinafter set forth:
A. CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT STREET SURFACING WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, SIDEWALK
AND MINNEHAHA BRIDGE REPLACEMENT IMPROVEMENT NO. P -BA -262 IN THE FOLLOWING:
West 44th Street from Brookside Terrace to T.H. 100
Mr. Rosland presented total estimated cost of construction for P -BA -262, West 44th
Street from Brookside Terrace to T.H. 100, at $356,063.23, with estimated cost to be
paid by State Aid funds of $338,753.23, and estimated cost to be assessed at $17,310.00
proposed to be assessed against 865.50 assessable feet at $20.00 /per foot. Engineer
Hoffman advised that the proposed project consists of constructing a new bituminous
surface with concrete curb and gutter the entire distance from the Soo Line Railroad
to T.H. 100. Additionally, a concrete sidewalk adjacent to the curb would be con-
structed on the north side of the roadway which would be maintained by the City.
The proposed street would be 36 feet wide from Brookside Avenue to T.H. 100 with
parking restricted on the north side; an alternate would be 32 feet wide with no
parking either side. He noted that these dimensions are minimum widths required for
use of Municipal State Aid Funds. The major portion of the project would include
replacement of the current structure at Minnehaha Creek. If approved, construction
could be accomplished in 1984 or early 1985. Assessments would then be levied in
1985 with the initial installment due in 1986. The improvement is proposed to be
assessed over a ten year period, with an annual rate of interest not to exceed the
amount allowed by law. Mr. Hoffman presented a graphic showing the average current
width in feet of West 44th Street and advised that a copy had been mailed together
with a letter to the residents who had presented a petition to the Council at its
meeting of April 16, 1984, and who had asked to be notified of the public hearing.
West 44th Street is a collector street with approximately 2500 vehicles per day
and thus is eligible for use of gas tax funds. Staff feels that no significant'
changes will occur as to traffic volume and speeds and that the area around the
bridge will be a safety improvement over existing conditions. Mr. Hoffman noted
that the main issue of concern appears to be the width of the existing street versus
proposed widths. The project proposes to continue to have one lane of traffic in
each direction with parking on one side, or to ban parking along the street in the
project area. This type of project is in character with normal modern day engineer-
ing standards applied to development of a city street system. Mr. Hoffman then
presented the following alternatives: 1) 36 feet wide with parking allowed on the
south side, fundable through use of gas tax monies and standard assessment to .
adjacent property owners, 2). 32 feet wide with no parking allowed either side,
fundable through use of gas tax monies and standard assessment to adjacent property
owners, 3) less than 32 feet wide with no parking allowed or parking with desig-
nated hours, funding unknown as to whether a variance could be obtained for use of
gas tax funds or by general assessment, and 4) no construction on the roadway.
Mr. Hoffman then explained how alternatives one through three would be constructed
and also how the bridge structure could be positioned. Member Bredesen asked what
the logic was for building the roadway to the 32 foot standard. Mr. Hoffman explained
that studies have shown that on collector streets the safest configuration is one.
that has.12 foot traffic lanes and that on a narrower street there is less of a safety
margin because there is no setback for the sidewalk. Member Bredesen then asked
when the portion of the roadway from Mackey Avenue to Wooddale would be improved
and if 44th Street would lose its eligibility for gas tax funds if the proposed
improvement were funded by other means. Mr. Hoffman responded that the portion from
Mackey Avenue to Wooddale is not presently in the City's five year reconstruction
plan. Also, that 44th Street would remain on the State Aid system regardless of
the funding for the proposed improvement. Appearing and speaking in opposition to
proposed improvement were the following: Kelsey Smith, 4801 W. 44th Street, Bob
Larson of Morningside, Walter Schulz, no address given, Jim Welna, 5139 W. 44th
Street, E. Dudley Parsons, 4437 Brookside Terrace, Terry Morrison representing the
Bonn family at 4383 Thielen Avenue, Bob Mazeiner, 5101 W. 44th Street, Dennis Coyne,
4601 W. 44th Street, Cathy Steim, 4520 W. 44th Street, Robert Drake 4164 W. 44th
Street and Marsha Jones, 4709 W. 44th Street. Concerns voiced were that widening
the roadway would change the character of the neighborhood, trees would be removed,
5/21/84
1
traffic speeds would increase together will traffic volume, that property values
would be affected, and that the width established would set a precedent for the
remainder of 44th Street when future improvements are proposed. Member Bredesen
commented that many questions have been raised regarding the proposed improvement
and that the residents have voiced opposition to widening the roadway to 32 feet or
36 feet to meet State Aid standards for gas tax funding. He added that in order for
the Council to make a decision the questions would have to be addressed. Mr. Hoffman
advised that, based on the comments from the residents, staff could bring a revised
proposal back for Council's consideration. Member Bredesen then moved that the
hearing be continued to June 18 to allow staff to prepare a proposal which would
address the concerns of the residents. Motion was seconded by Member Schmidt.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON AQUATIC WEED IMPROVEMENT P- AQ -84 -3; IMPROVEMENT ORDERED.
Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed
on file. Pursuant to due notice given, a public hearing was conducted and action
taken as hereinafter set forth:
A. AQUATIC WEED IMPROVEMENT P- AQ -84 -3 IN THE FOLLOWING:
Indianhead Lake
Mr. Hughes presented total estimated cost of Aquatic Weed Improvement P- AQ -84 -3 as
follows: Weed Harvesting $5,200 and Aeration and Treatments at $5,200, totaling
$10,400.00, proposed to be assessed at $315.15 per dwelling for properties abutting
Indianhead Lake in southwest Edina. If approved, this project will be undertaken in
1984. Assessments would be levied later this year and would be due and payable in
full in 1985. Mr. Hughes added that letters have been received from owners of the
properties at 6613 Dakota Trail and 6409 Indian Hills Road, objecting to being
included in the assessment area. He noted that these properties front on a small
lagoon connected to the.north end of Indianhead Lake and because they do not front
on the lake they do not consider their properties benefitted by this improvement.
In response to question of Member Schmidt as to erosion of soil into the lagoon,
Mr. Hughes stated that this is a problem, and that it is hoped that a smaller weed
cutter could be utilized in that area. Algae is also a problem on the north end
and it is anticipated that a permit can be obtained to use copper sulphate on the
lagoon which is.very effective in removing algae. Robert Perkins, 6909 Dakota Trail,
stated he was speaking both as a resident on the lake and as a representative of
the Board of Directors of Indianhead Lake Association. He noted that about four
years ago a lake restoration project was undertaken by the association on a voluntary
contribution basis.. The Board would therefore recommend that the project be approved
and that the cost be assessed to benefitted property owners. Mr. Perkins added that
the Board would like the Council to consider in the future a ban on phosphates as
lawn fertilizer. No further comment being heard, Member Turner offered the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION ORDERING AQUATIC WEED IMPROVEMENT AQ -84 -3
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council
heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly published and mailed to owners of each
parcel within the area proposed to be assessed on the following proposed improvement:
AQUATIC WEED IMPROVEMENT NO. AQ -84 -3 IN THE FOLLOWING:
Indianhead Lake
and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council
has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of
the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said
improvement including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for
the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance
for such improvement; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred
to in all subsequent proceedings as AQUATIC WEED IMPROVEMENT NO. AQ -84 -3 and the
area.to be specially assessed therefor shall include Lots 2 -6, Block 5, Indian Hills;
Lots 12 -19, Block 5, Indian Hills; Lots 1 -5, Block 1, Indianhead Crest; Lots 1 and 2,
Block 1, Indianhead Lake View Addition; Lot 35, Auditors Subdivision No. 196; Tract A,
R.L.S. No. 86; Lots 1 -3, Block 1, Claudia Ridge; Lots 1 -3, Block 2, Sally Addition;
and Lots 1 -5, Block 1, Overholt Hills James Addition.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen.
_ Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GUSTAFSON REPLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, INDIAN HILLS CONTINUED TO
JUNE 4, 1984; FINDINGS, REASONS AND DECISION TO BE PREPARED. Planner Hughes advised
that the public hearing on preliminary plat approval for the Gustafson Replat of Lot 5,
Block 1, Indian Hills, had been continued from the Council meeting of May 7, 1984.
The subject property involves a single-family lot developed with.one home, located
on the west side of Indian Hills Road. At the May 7 meeting, the Council asked staff
to analyze various lot sizes in the vicinity, to review setback-of houses from
Arrowhead Lake particularly as it relates to the platting ordinance requirement for
a 100 foot protective easement around the lake, and to provide some clarification of
what exactly the Planning Commission considered when they recommended denial of 'the
subdivision. Mr. Hughes advised that staff analyzed lot areas within a 1,000 foot
S
5/21/84
radius of the subject property. He presented a graphic showing that the median
lot size within this radius is approximately 40,500 square feet. The median lot
area was determined to be about 34,500 square feet. This indicates that the average
lot area is skewed upward somewhat due to the presence of some very large lots.
The graphic also showed areas of platted lots which border on Arrowhead Lake. The
average area of these lots is about 42,000 square feet. The median area is about
32,000 square feet which likewise shows the skewing effect of some very large lots.
Mr. Hughes noted that due to the sophistication of the equipment used, that the
accuracy of these measurements is in the range of plus or minus five percent. He
explained that the applicant's surveyor has reshot the elevation of Arrowhead Lake
and has recomputed the lot sizes to be now 38,700 square feet for the large lot and
34,500 square feet for the smaller lot. Also included is some minor realignment
of the center lot line. He explained that all the lot measurements are exclusive
of water area. Mr. Hughes then showed a second graphic of an aerial photograph.
on which staff had highlighted the locations of existing homes on Arrowhead Lake
and on which was drawn a line depicting a 100 foot setback from the shoreline. He
elaborated that very few properties on the lake have been replatted since the sub-
division ordinance was amended to require a 100 foot wide conservation restriction.
Some of the homes on the westerly side only maintain a setback in the 40 to 50 foot
range, while some of the southerly homes exceed the 100 foot setback. Mr. Hughes
noted that although the applicant in the recent Peterson Replat was advised of the
100 foot requirement, a conservation restriction was not received prior to final
plat approval. If the applicant in that case would now grant a conservation
restriction to the City, it is apparent that a restriction of 100 feet in width
would not be possible unless the existing house on the property was affected, and
would perhaps cause the new home on the siteato.be constructed slightly closer to
Indian Hills Road. Mr. Hughes indicated that he had spoken with John Palmer and
Helen McClelland of the Planning Commission. They both felt that the rationale
for denial was that the lot under consideration was more closely akin to the large
lots on the east side of Indian Hills Road, whereas the Peterson property to the
west was more closely akin to the line.of smaller lots which come up from the south.
They also cited factors involving the topography of the lot under consideration and
that more trees would be involved. Mr. Palmer also mentioned that the lot under
consideration was much more visible as one entered Indian Hills and therefore,
given the topography a second house would be more noticeable. Member Turner
questioned if the conservation restriction of 100 feet would apply to.the
lagoon. Mr. Hughes replied that in consulting the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) they presented conflicting evidence. The old geological survey
maps indicate it to be one water body, but the recently completed wetlands map
shows two separate basins and a field investigation would be required to make
a determination. Speaking in opposition to the proposed subdivision were the
following: Richard Smith, 6600 Mohawk Trail; Don Buck, 6509 Indian Hills Road;
Bob Gardner, 6620 Indian Hills Road; Monica Flynn, 5312 Post.Lane, President of
Indian Hills Homeowners Association; Joe Buchan, 6616 Indian Hills Circle; and
Katie Lund, 6308 Indian Hills Road. Greg Gustafson, representing the proponents,
pointed out the following regarding the proposed subdivision: 1) the smaller of
the proposed lots is 50% larger than the smaller of the Peterson lots recently
subdivided, 2) the site is buildable and is perfect for a walkout home, 3) the
pond is totally separate from the lake as recently surveyed, 4) a 75 foot conser-
vation restriction from the lake is proposed, 5) the existing -house on the property
will be destroyed, and 6) many of the lots in Indian Hills are too.small.in size to
be subdivided. Mr. Gustafson noted that the law provides for equal treatment of
equal situations and that the proponents are asking to be treated in a fair and
equal way consistent with the Peterson subdivision. Also speaking in support of
the proposed subdivision were: Ginger Kauppi, 4948 Poppy Lane, a former resident
of Indian Hills; and Pat Lewis, 6821 Cheyenne Trail. Ron Krueger, surveyor for
the proponents, stated that the proposed subdivision was recently surveyed by him
and he confirmed the fact that the pond is separate from the lake, having some
80 feet of land between the pond and the lake. Member Turner questioned whether
both of the proposed new lots would have to comply with the 100 foot conservation
restriction setback, and if a judgement were made that the pond is part of the lake,
whether.there would be a building site on both lots that would comply with the
setback requirements. Mr. Hughes responded that the northerly house could comply,
but the southerly house could not if the setback was measured from both the main
part of Arrowhead Lake as well as from the pond. Also, the front yard setback
requirement in that area is greater than 30 feet. Jeff Gustafson, proponent,
noted that with regard to conservation easements from public bodies of water, the
State of Minnesota has accepted a 75 foot setback as being reasonable. Member
Turner asked if a variance could be requested for the 100 foot conservation restriction.
Attorney Erickson stated that there is a. process in the platting ordinance for a
variance, but that apparently this has not been followed. Member Turner then
stated she did not support the subdivision as requested although lot sizes are
consistent. However, she added that she felt strongly that the Council not grant
a variance from the shoreline conservation restriction, that the pond should be
5/21/84
considered a part of the lake and that the setback should follow along that part,
and therefore there are not two buildable lots. Mr. Erickson advised that the est-
blished proecdure in matters like this is to authorize staff to prepare Findings of
Fact for Council's review in making a decision. Member Turner then moved that the
staff be directed to prepare Findings, Reasons and Decision for review by the Council_
at its meeting of June 18, 1984. Motion was seconded by Member Bredesen, who stated
that he had heard nothing from the public comments to indicate that a wrong decision
had been made by the Planning Commission.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
Mr. Erickson noted that the statutory period of 120 days from date of application
would expire and asked the proponents if they would agree to an extension. Mr. Greg
Gustafson stated they would agree to an extention.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR MILLER ADDITION CONTINUED TO JUNE 4, 1984. Affidavit$
of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file.
Planner Hughes presented the request for preliminary plat approval for the Miller
Addition,.generally located west of Dearborn Street and north of Belmore Lane. He
noted that the subject property has a long and complicated history and measures
approximately 67,500 square feet in area and is zoned R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District.
The property is comprised of nine, pre- existing R -1 lots as well as a portion of a
vacated street. All of the R -1 lots measure 46 feet in width and are therefore non-
conforming. One of the nine lots is owned by the City (the center lot) due to a tax
forfeiture and is used for drainage purposes. The remaining eight lots are owned by
the proponent. Mr. Hughes noted that the principal problem with the subject property
is access. The property lies at the junction of two major plats of northwest Edina.
Mendelssohn Addition is the easterly plat that includes much of the portion from Tyler
Avenue to the east and West Minneapolis Heights starts at Tyler Avenue and goes west.
When originally platted, the west one -half of the Tyler Avenue right of way was
dedicated by West Minneapolis Heights. For unknown reasons, the east half was not
dedicated by-Mendelssohn. In 1965, the City vacated the west one -half of Tyler
Avenue in response to a petition. As a result, the lots composing the subject pro-
perty lost their frontage on a public street right of way. The only lawful access was
via a 12 foot wide alley from Belmore Lane. The southerly six lots of the property
subsequently forfeited for non - payment of taxes and were acquired by the proponent,
with the exception of the City lot. The northerly three lots were developed with a
dwelling which received access via a long driveway from Harrison to the west. This
dwelling was destroyed by fire several years ago and was not rebuilt due in part to
its lack of frontage on a public street. The present proponent subsequently acquired
these lots. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the only readily available access to the
property is afforded by the Spruce.Street right of way located at the north of Dear-
born Street. However, Dearborn Street is improved for only about one half of its
length between Belmore and Spruce Street. The remainder of the Dearborn right of way
as well as all of Spruce is unimproved. Therefore, a major road extention would have
to occur to get to the property. In extending that street, access would be:-provided
only to the northerly portion of the property. The southerly lots would remain land-
locked. A public road could not be extended southerly from Spruce Street to serve
the property due to insufficient lot depth. Also, such a road would result in some
properties to the east or west being bordered on three sides by a public street.
A public street could perhaps be extended from Harrison. Although no right of way
exists for such a street, it appears that some parcels presently owned by the public
could be used as right of way for a street. To remedy this problem, the proponent
has suggested that a new cul de sac be extended'westerly from the present terminus
of Dearborn Street. The property would then be replatted into four lots which conform
to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It is likewise proposed that the City
owned lot be returned to the State in that its use for drainage purposes will no longer
be necessary after the street and storm sewer are extended into the area. It is .
hoped that this lot could be acquired and incorporated into lots 2 and 3 of the pro-
posed plat. The proposed access from Dearborn Street crosses.Lot 2, Block..l,..of
Mendelssohn Addition. This lot is not controlled by the proponent who has-stated
that he has unsuccessfully attempted to acquire land for the proposed right of way.
The proponent has therefore asked that the City approve the proposed subdivision and
acquire the necessary right of way by eminent domain if necessary. Mr. Hughes advised
that this plat was reviewed by the Community Development and Planning Commission on
a couple of occasions. The Commission encouraged the property owners to attempt to
work out the access issue. That apparently did not occur. The Commission thereupon
recommended approval of the subdivision, subject to the resolution of the access
problem and passed it on to the Council to see if the use of the City's power of
eminent domain is possible in this case to resolve the access issue. David Licht,
Northwest Associated Consultants, was present representing the proponent. He indicated
that Len Kraemer of Barr Engineering Company was also present who has worked on the
storm drainage for the plat. He explained that when the request was made in 1957
for vacation of Tyler Street that there was a subsequent request that the alley which
exists between Harrison and what was Tyler Street be changed into a street so that
5/21/84
there would be access to the subject property. Mr. Licht explained that they had
looked at every possible access to the property and there did not seem to be a
reasonable alternative that would allow for single family detached homes. Clustering
of townhomes had been explored but was considered not compatible with the area.
Four single family lots would be compatible and can be done in terms of acceptable
standards. He indicated that a plat has been filed by the property owner to the
east that would cul de sac at the same point as the property under consideration,
thereby making Dearborn Street a no longer needed right of way. This would result
in an advantage to the Kuenzli family, 6528 Belmore Lane, who own the lots on
Dearborn Street and from who the proponent has been unsuccessful in acquiring land
for the proposed right of way. Lot 1 would be a standard lot and utilities would
be provided for the Kuenzli lots by the subdivision under consideration as well
as by the development to the east. Also, an outlot would be designated on the
easterly side of the proposed plat which would bring the Kuenzli lots into con-
formance as buildable parcels and would resolve a'lot of the issues. Mr. Licht
pointed out that a very real concern is topography and drainage on the site.
He advised that a drainage area has been calculated by Barr Engineering to hold
storm water and that an easement would be given to the City for that purpose,
the area to be maintained by the property owners. From a design standpoint the
drainage area offers a protection to the neighborhood as does the cul de sac
design. Houses are moved away from basically the back lot lines and minimizes any
traffic impact. C. M. Simonson, 305 Harrison Avenue, stated that the neighborhood
adjacent to the property is unhappy about the way this project has been handled,
indicating that for years they had been told the property was not buildable due
to lack of facilities and no access, that a public meeting should have been held
advising the adjacent owners of such change of policy and he also voiced concern
about drainage of the site. Nancy Abbott, 315 Harrison Avenue, had two concerns:
1) drainage of water from the site into their backyard, and 2) loss of the open
space. Greg Postier, 311 Harrison Avenue, also was concerned over loss of the
green area and that water would drain into his flat yard. Maxine Woodstrom,
307 Harrison Avenue, stated that her property was flooded in 1965 being the lowest
parcel, and asked that the proponent be made responsible if flooding occurred on
her property. Robert Baker, 6600 Belmore Lane, stated when they recently bought
their property they were told the vacant property would remain just as it is and
asked that the record showed their objection to the subdivision. He added that
Mr. Miller has not taken care of the property. .Bernie Kuenzli stated he was the
owner.of.the land proposed to be condemned and reiterated that the City had
assured the previous owner of the subject property that a building permit would
never be issued for the site. Phoebe Carlson, 6600 Belmore Lane, stated her
objection to the proposed subdivision and reviewed the history of ownership of
the land by the Carlsons and confirmed that there had been water drainage problems
before the pond was dug for water storage. Betty Kuenzli asked if someone could
come in and condemn their property for private use and-benefit.. Attorney Erickson
opined that the condemnation would be for the purpose of providing a public street
to serve a subdivision of four lots. Beauford Carlson also stated his objection
to the proposed subdivision. Len Kraemar of Barr Engineering Company presented
a storm water analysis of the subject site, stating that all the development
that would occur in the area was also considered. He pointed out that more water
storage volume would -be added than presently exists in the depression area now
to take care of the drainage problem. James W. Miller, the proponent, made a
presentation in support of the proposed subdivision, stating it is in the City's
interests to develop that land. He submitted that the subdivision is a practical
and reasonable conclusion for the property and urged plat approval. In response
to a question of Member Schmidt, Mr. Kraemar stated that storm water plan proposed
for the site will be better than what is there now. Member Schmidt stated she
would like more in on the proposed subdivision before making a decision
and so moved, asking that Council be provided with copies of past Council Minutes
regarding the issue of the property being unbuildable. Motion failed for lack of
a second. Member Turner stated that from a planning point of view the proposed
subdivision makes sense, but that the issue is finding a reason for condemning
one person's property to: benefit one property owner. Mr. Erickson stated that he
would.like to research the..issue of entitlement to access by condemnation before
action is taken on the subdivision. With reference to the plat filed by the owner
of property to the east, Mr. Hughes indicated it could be interrelated with the
Miller subdivision. Mr. Erickson also commented that questions remain as to site
drainage and should be resolved. Member Schmidt thereupon moved that preliminary
plat approval on the Miller Addition be continued to June 4, 1984, so that the
issues of access by condemnation, site drainage and relationship of the two plats
could be researched. Motion was seconded by Member Turner.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
5/21/84
FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR DEWEY HILL FOURTH ADDITION (FORMERLY DEWEY HILL THIRD ADDN.)
Mr.- Hughes presented the petition for final plat approval for Dewey Hill Fourth
Addition generally located north of W. 78th Street and east of Shaughnessy Road,
recalling that the property has been the subject of numerous Council zoning hearings.
At the meeting of November 21, 1983, Council approved a revised overall development
plan for the PRD -3 zoned site from a 114 unit condominium,plan to allow construct-
ion of a 34 -unit townhouse development. Laukka and Associates, the proponent, has
now returned with a final plat for the westerly portion of the site, that portion
that fronts on Shaughnessy Road and are requesting final plat approval for town-
house type lots in keeping with the final rezoning that they received. After
this initial.phase of the project, it is presumed they would return with subsequent
final plats (Dewey Hill Fifth Addition, Sixth Addition, etc.) until the project is
complete. Mayor Courtney asked what the density was for the plat. Mr. Hughes
recalled that the density was 35 units on about 13 acres of property, or less than
3 units per acre. In response to Member Turner, Mr. Hughes indicated there are no
changes since last reviewed by Council. No further comment being heard, Member
Turner offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT
FOR DEWEY HILL FOURTH ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that that certain plat entitled "Dewey Hill
Fourth Addition ", platted by Laukka and Associates, Inc. a Minnesota corporation,
and First Edina National Bank, a national banking association, and presented at the
Regular Meeting of May 21, 1984, be and is hereby granted final plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
Robert Clark, 7701 Glasgow Drive, asked what happened to Dewey Hill Third Addition.
Mr. Hughes explained that Dewey Hill Third Addition was a single lot plat of this
property for construction of a 114 unit condominium building. There was then a change
in the plan with new zoning for a different development type which then necessitates
a further platting of the property. The proponent has elected to entitle the replat
Dewey Hill Fourth Addition.
HEARING DATES SET FOR VARIOUS PLANNING MATTERS. As recommended by staff, motion of
Member Bredesen was seconded by Member Schmidt setting the following hearing dates
for planning matters:
1) Appeal from Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision.- Robert Bossman,
4609 Moorland Avenue - June 18, 1984,
2) Appeal from Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision - Roger A. Christgau,
Variance at 6417 Timber Ridge - June 4, 1984,
3) Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project - June 4, 1984.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
PORTION OF LINCOLN DRIVE VACATED SUBJECT TO CONDITION. Affidavits of Notice were
presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes
presented a petition for vacation of a portion of Lincoln Drive, explaining that
the request is made in connection with the agreement the City entered into with
Wallace Kenneth with regard to the rezoning of his property along County Road 18.
As part of the agreement the City agrees to vacate the unimproved Lincoln Drive
right of way adjoining Block 1, Outlot A, and Lot 2, Block 2, all in Interlachen
Hills 3rd Addition which lies southerly and easterly of a prescribed line as defined
in the Notice of Public Hearing on Vacation of Portion of Lincoln Drive. Mr. Kenneth
then agrees to dedicate or convey to the City Lots 6.thru 12 and 28 thru 35, Block 1,
which lots would be combined-into the City's park which is Outlot A. Mr. Hughes
explained that the vacation should be made effective only upon receipt of the deeds
to the lots from Mr. Kenneth on the closing date. Mr. Erickson indicated.the
vacation should be made effective as of June 6, 1984. No objections being heard,
Member Bredesen moved adoption of the following resolution:
RESOLUTION VACATING PORTION OF LINCOLN DRIVE
WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 16th day of April, 1984,
fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of a portion of Lincoln
Drive; and
WHEREAS two weeks' published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the
hearing was held on the 21st day of May, 1984, at which time all persons desiring
to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the
public that said street vacation.be made; and
WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects
existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the
vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning
or controlling electric or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water
r
5/21/84
pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to
continue maintaining the same, or to enter upon such street or portion thereof
vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT .RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, that the following described portion of Lincoln Drive be and
is hereby vacated effective as of June 6, 1984, unless rescinded, amended, or
modified by the City Council on or before said date:
All that part of Lincoln Drive adjoining Block 1, Outlot A, and Lot 2,
Block 2, all in INTERLACHEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION, which lies southerly and
easterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 1, in said Block 1; thence
South 77 degrees 07 minutes 56 seconds West, assumed bearing, along
the northerly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 227.31 feet to the
northwest corner of said Lot 1, being,the point of beginning of the
line being described; thence South 0 degrees 11 minutes 19 seconds East,
a distance of 92.00 feet; thence South 52 degrees 25 minutes 51 seconds
West, a distance of 14.04 feet to the westerly line of said Lincoln
Drive and there terminating.
No easements were involved in said vacation; and the Clerk is authorized and
directed to cause a notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered
in the transfer record of the County Auditor, and filed with the Register of Deeds
in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney'
Resolution adopted.
PAIRING PROJECT PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED. Dr. Kristofer Hagen and Mrs. Marilyn
Jones gave a presentation on the Pairing Project, stating that its long -run
objective is to match U.S. and U.S.S.R. cities to form a framework for citizens
of the two countries to learn more about each other. The project has paired
1,052 U.S. cities with Soviet counterparts using the criteria of comparable
(1) size, (2) physical setting and environment, and (3) economic base. The project
provides suggestions for a community portrait to be put together by U.S. citizens
and sent to their paired city in the Soviet Union. This would include a letter
of greeting from the mayor of Edina to the Soviet mayor of Gubakha, U.S.S.R., the
city paired with Edina. After discussion of the request for a letter from the
Mayor to the Mayor:of Gubakha, it was agreed that the Council would be uncomfort-
able in directing the Mayor to send such a letter. No formal-action was taken.
BID AWARDED FOR AQUATIC WEED HARVESTING IN INDIANHEAD LAKE. Mr. Rosland presented
tabluation of bids for Aquatic Weed Harvesting in Indianhead Lake, showing Midwest
Aqua Care at $4,200.00 and Freshwater Restoration System at $4,886.00. Motion of
Member Turner was seconded by Member Schmidt for award of bid to low bidder, Midwest
Aqua Care at $4,200.00.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
BIDS AWARDED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES. Mr. Rosland presented tabulation of bids
for public safety vehicles advising that these are the low bids received through
the Hennepin..County Joint Purchasing Contracts -and are replacements:
(1) 1984 Ford LTD Crown Victoria (Police Emergency Response Vehicle) -
Brookdale Ford at $10,765.00
(3) 1983 General Motors Used Cars (Police Detective.Vehicles),- Avis Rent -a -Car:
System, Inc. at $24,597.00
(1) Full sized Emergency Response Vehicle (Fire Department) - Brookdale Ford
at $10,415.00.
Motion of Member Schmidt was seconded by Member Turner for award of bids to low
bidders through Hennepin County Joint Purchasing Contracts for the five vehicles.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
BID AWARDED FOR GUN RANGE BULLET
TRAP. Mr.
range bullet trap, advising that the bidder
of $9,164.00 was made by Caswell Equipment
was seconded by Member Schmidt for award of
at $9,164.00.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney.
Motion carried.
Rosland
is the
Company,
bid to
presented a bid for the gun
only supplier available. The bid
Inc. Motion of Member Bredesen
Caswell Equipment Company, Inc.
AMM ANNUAL MEETING NOTED. Mr. Rosland advised that the Annual Meeting of the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities is scheduled for Wednesday; May 30,
1984, at 5:30 p.m. at the Brooklyn Park Community Activity Center. He noted that
Mayor Courtney and he will be attending and suggested that any Council Member
wishing to attend should contact him so that reservations can be made.
J.
5/21/84
APPOINTMENT TO REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland advised that the State
Legislature in its 1984 session passed legislation for the establishment of a Regional
Transit Board, who would assume the responsibility for the planning aspects of the
metropolitan transit system. He noted that Mayor Courtney has received a letter from
Alison Fuhr, who is a member of the Metropolitan Transit Commission, advising that
she is interested and eager to serve on the Regional Transit Board to represent
Edina, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley and Robbinsdale. Member Schmidt moved that
the Council support Alison Fuhr's nomination as a member of the Regional Transit
Board. Motion was seconded by Member Turner.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
C. WAYNE COURTNEY RECOMMENDED FOR NOMINATION AS CHAIRMAN OF MWCC. Mr. Rosland noted
that he had received a letter from Sandra Gardebring, Chairman of the Metropolitan
Council, advising that nominations are open for Chairman of the Metropolitan Waste
Control Commission. Mayor Courtney stated that,he had served on the Commission for
a period of eight years and requested that his name be submitted for chairman.
Member Schmidt's motion was seconded by Member Turner to submit the name of C. Wayne
Courtney as chairman of the MWCC.
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 171 -A15 (FEE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) ADOPTED; SECOND READING
WAIVED. Mr. Rosland recalled that the Zoning Ordinance recently adopted outlines
• procedure for Conditional Use Permits to be issued upon application and payment of
• fee. Staff would recommend that a fee be established equal to City staff time
expended and the City's direct costs incurred in processing the application. A sum
of $500.00 shall be deposited with the City when the application is submitted, with
additional deposits of $500.00 required as prior deposits are expended, and with
any deposits not expended being refunded to applicant. He noted that Section 2 of
the proposed ordinance simply renumbers various ordinances and sections therein,
with no change in the amount of fees. Member Turner moved adoption of Ordinance
No. 171 -A15, with waiver of Second Reading as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 171 -A15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SCHEDULE A TO ORDINANCE NO. 171
TO ADD THERETO THE FEE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND TO AMEND CERTAIN ORDINANCE AND SECTION NUMBERS
THE
the
ORD.
NO.
825
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Schedule A to Ordinance No. 171 is hereby amended by adding thereto
following:
SEC.
NO. PURPOSE OF FEE /CHARGE
AMOUNT FEE NO.
4(e) Conditional Use Permit The fee shall be equal to City staff 29f
Sec. 2.
29d and 29e
ORD SEC.
NO. NO.
825 4(e)
time expended and City's direct
costs incurred in processing the
application. A sum of $500.00 shall
be deposited with City with the
application submission. If the
deposit is expended prior to com-
pletion of processing the application,
and upon.request of the City Planner,
the applicant shall deposit an
additional $500.00. Additional deposits
of $500.00 shall continue to be so
made as prior deposits are expended.
Any deposits not expended shall be
refunded'to the applicant, but no
other refunds will be made. -
The Ordinance Numbers and Section Numbers for Fee Nos. 29a, 29b, 29c,
to Schedule A of Ordinance No. 171 are hereby amended to read as follows:
PURPOSE OF FEE /CHARGE
Variance
Transfer of land to
another district
825 17(d), Temporary retail sales
3(a), in PID
(iii)
11
AMOUNT FEE NO.
$50.00 29a
$300.00 for (1) R -2 lot 29b
$450.00 for (2) R -2 lots and 29c
$600.00 for all other transfers 29d
$300.00 for first permit, $200.00 29e
for subsequent permits
5/21/84
Sec. 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Schmidt.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Ordinance adopted.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 1031 -A2 (WEEDS AND GRASSES) AND ORDINANCE NO. 1211 -A1 (CUTTING OF
WEEDS AND GASSS ALONG PUBLIC STREETS) DISCUSSED; FIRST READING NOT GRANTED.
Mr. Rosland presented Ordinance No. 1031 -A2 - To Declare Poisonous Plants and Weeds,
and Grass or Grass -Like Vegetation over Six Inches High, A Nuisance, and Ordinance
No. 1211 -A1 - To Require Cutting of Grass and Weeds Over Six Inches High Along
Public Streets, for review by the Council. He explained that the major change in
the proposed amendments was that of reducing the allowed height of grass and weeds
from 12 inches to 6 inches. He recalled that part of the problem was that:
1) there are many areas in the City that are left in a wild state, 2) there exist
three or four privately owned properties where the grass is not cut, and 3) how
to control dandelions. According to direction from the Council, the City sprays
for dandelion control on a limited basis and with a diluted solution. Mr. Rosland
pointed out that he has met with Gene Davis, Weed Inspector, and that now notice
is given to the owner of the premises in violation requiring compliance within
7 days and that the fee for removal by the City has been increased to $75.00 per
hour, which cost is then assessed to the owner. Speaking in support of the ordinance
amendments were Mel Olson, 7124 Heatherton Trail and Harry Weingartner, 7137 Glou-
chester Avenue, who urged adoption. Mr. Weingartner pointed out that municipalities
surrounding-Edina all have more strict ordinances and only allow..a maximum height
of 6 inches. Member Schmidt called-attention to a letter from Larry R. Mozis,
4917 Lantana Lane, with regard to dandelions and weeds on public property along
the Hwy. 100 east frontage road from 70th Street to Hibiscus Avenue. Mr. Rosland
reiterated that in order to be effective, weeds and dandelions should be aprayed
.twice a year, and that a spraying program is susceptible to weather conditions and
use of a less effective chemical application. Member Schmidt stated that the six
inch maximum height would help resolve some of the resident's problems, as proved
by the ordinances in other cities. Member Schmidt then offered First Reading of
Ordinance No. 1031 -A2 and Ordinance No. 1211 -A1. Motion for First Reading was
seconded by Mayor Courtney. Member Bredesen called for discussion. He stated his
concern was, in addition to the fact that City owned land would not be in compliance,
whether or not the ordinances would be enforceable and if it would really solve the
problem of the private properties which continue to be in violation. Mr. Erickson
pointed out that in Ordinance No. 1031 -A2 the City's exclusion applies to land
maintained by the City as a natural open space area, and that the ordinance provides
that the nuisance shall be removed within the time and in the manner specified in
the notice. Mr. Rosland commented that, by requiring compliance withn 7 days_
with a follow -up by the Weed Inspector, it is hoped that the individual violations
can be eliminated. Member Turner stated she felt those changes are an appropriate
way to enforce the present ordinance, and that the proposed Ordinance No. 1031 -A2
goes beyond the necessary role of government and could not support it. There being
no further discussion, Mayor Courtney called for the rollcall vote.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Schmidt, Courtney
Naye: Bredesen,-Turner
First Reading not granted.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED REGARDING HANSEN ROAD RAILROAD CROSSING. Mr. Rosland recalled
that recently the Council approved and authorized reconstruction of Hansen Road
between Vernon Avenue and West 60th Street and that the improvement involved
the Soo Line Railroad crossing and signals. Because the estimated costs for the
improvement of the railroad crossing to meet state standards was considered to
be too high, staff has requested that Federal Safety Funds be made available for
the project. Mr. Hoffman has advised that MNDOT has indicated that funds could
be allocated for 1985, with construction by the Soo Line Railroad and with MNDOT
handling the contract administration. Staff would recommend adoption of a resolution
that the City will contribute to the cost of the project in an amount not to exceed
10% of the actual cost, which will reduce the City's participation as originally
estimated. Member Bredesen offered the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the City will contribute to the cost
of installing a controlled railroad crossing signal system at an amount not to
5/21/84
exceed ten percent of the actual cost at the intersection of Hansen Road and the
Soo Line Railroad.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Schmidt, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
CLAIMS PAID. Motion of Member Turner was seconded by Member Schmidt, for payment of
the following claims as per Pre -List of 5/21/84: General Fund $212,593.99, Park
Fund $34,867.42, Art Center $5,842.95, Swimming Pool Fund $70,270.62, Golf Course
Fund $13,481.85, Recreation Center Fund $4,754.37, Gun Range Fund $326.95, Waterwork
Fund $23,547.29, Sewer Rental Fund $163,609.16, Liquor Dispensary Fund $85,203.75,
Construction.Fund $50,543.34, Total $665,141.69; and for confirmation of payment of
the following claims dated 4/30/84: General Fund $233,275.99, Revenue Sharing Fund
$12.60, Park Fund $9,391.48, Art Center $764.99, Swimming Pool Fund $1,205.29, Golf
Course Fund $2,622.16, Recreation Center Fund $11,134.10, Gun Range Fund $428.73,
Waterwork Fund $17,387.91, Sewer Rental Fund $2,737.58, Liquor Dispensary Fund
$325,774.77, Total $604,735.60.
There being no further business on the Agenda, Mayor Courtney declared the meeting
adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
City Clerk
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: June 4, 1984
TO: Kenneth Rosland
FROM: Gordon Hughes
SUBJECT: Miller Addition
Attached is a copy of the Staff report for Blake Woods which is located east
of Dearborn Street. The Council requested information on this proposed
subdivision for the June 4 Meeting. The Planning Commission considered
this request on May 30 and recommended approval of the subdivision due to
notice requirements. The Council will be unable to hear the Blake Woods
plat until the June 18 Meeting.
The attached Staff report should be used at this time to evaluate the Miller
Addition.
GHL /Ide
NUMBER S -84-8 Blake Woods
LOCATION Generally east of Dearborn Street and north of Belmore
REQUEST
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MAY 30, 1984
5 -84 -8 Blake Woods
Refer to: Attached preliminary plat
Generally Located: East of Dearborn Street and North of Belmore
The subject property measures 52, 500 square feet in area and is zoned
R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District. The property is composed of three,
existing R -1 lots which each measure 100 feet by 175 feet. These lots
front on the unimproved northerly extension of Dearborn Street. The
unimproved Spruce Road right of way adjoins the northerly boundary of
the property.
The proponent requests a replatting of the existing three lots into four
new lots which would be arranged around a new cul de sac on Dearborn.
This cul de sac would be located opposite the westerly extension of
Dearborn Street as proposed by the plat of Miller Addition which was
approved by the Commission on May 2, 1984. If the proposed cu) de sacs
were constructed as shown, the northerly 100+ feet of the Dearborn right
of way, as well as the Spruce Road right of way, could be vacated and
incorporated into the proposed lots. The applicant also proposes to
vacate the alley adjoining to the east boundary of the property and likewise
incorporate it into the proposed lots.
The proposed replatting depends, to a certain extent, on access to
Miller Addition. You will recall that Miller Addition relied upon the
acquisition of right of way across lots on the west side of Dearborn which
were not owned by Millers. The City Council considered Miller Addition
on May 21, 1984. The Council continued the subdivision until June 4, in
order to consider the relationship between Miller Addition and the subject
subdivision.
Recommendation
The replatting of the subject property is inextricably linked to Miller Addition.
Staff recommended approval of Miller Addition and its proposed access. If
this access is acquired, we believe that the proposed plat of Blake Woods,
including the proposed right of way vacations, represents a reasonable replatting
of the property and should be approved. Again, Staff believes that the proposed
plan of Miller Addition and Blake Woods represents the best approach from a
planning standpoint.
S -84 -8
May 30, 1984
Page two
If access to Miller Addition is not acquired, however, some modifications
to Blake Woods are needed. In our view, the existing access to Miller's
property via Dearborn Street and Spruce Road must be preserved and,
therefore, no right of way should be vacated ( except possibly Spruce
Road east of Dearborn) . If the City decides to improve Dearborn and
Spruce to provide :cess for Miller, Staff believes that no cul de sac, should
be platted in Blak, 'foods, and instead the subject property should simply be
replatted into four actangular lots which fronton Dearborn.
As an alternative, zccess to Miller's from Harrison Avenue, to the west,
may be possible even though right of way technically doesn't exist for
such a street. If this is accomplished, we believe that Blake Woods
could be replatted as now proposed. In this situation, the proposed
cul de sac should be relocated somewhat westerly.
It should '.:e ;acted that sanitary sewer is not readily available to this property.
A main wi" have to be extended from either the westerly boundary of the
Miller prc Derty to the west or from Arthur,Street to the east. The extension
from the west appears most feasible, but it again would require an easement
from the lots west of Dearborn.
Staff acjain reiterates its support from the proposed replat subject to the
resolution of the access issues described above. If approved, the following
conditions should be imposed:
I. Subdivision dedication.
2. Developer's Agreement which includes the extension of sanitary
sewer and the looping of water mains.
3. Vacation of the rights of way as shown on the plat.
4. Submission of grading plan for the lots prior to preliminary
approval by the Council.
5. A minor redesign of the proposed cul de sac to reduce its radius.
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
i'�
I
_ I
_ 940
'r 950
-205 -w
,145
too
}VACATE �40' SPRUCE ROAD N ,
-�— J-CS �--_. I ►I SPRUCE R(
-Oc
_0y
Ln
\141501 sq.ft. �� ! — �►� �
w i I , ,
� Coo � , '1 � I I � � � \ •9 I
1 3800- sq.ft.
q — _
Q / / ,� / / � �` � I l• � \ — —,�1 -� . — 25.1_ _
w L • \
CO
/ II
105
+
:w o \
\ I 1
_°� - 15050 sq.ft. I
ul
7_
0 \ /
/ it NO 0
/ 55 \
- 13750 sq.ft. ,
2
tn
107— ��
4130.37 ►30,37
1. ,�,
!.130• _ � 60
...
1 30.16
N
3�0 ID bo
3 ,_
x-48) 4 =
Z 1 �`s9o) P,32
--- Z Z - ; . r,I
Z(S -38) 375 1 .S1 a
V
(S26) 9
-.. Z- i4zS� r
r1
� -z �m
cl
CJ (47S
IZ :i N �h N
0
00
Il5
8
i
j33
A-M .
Y
w
510 NORTH CENTRAL LI FE 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
312 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
(612) 475 - 0373
DORSEY & WHITNEY
A Partnership Including Professional Corporations
2200 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
(612) 340 -2600
TELEX:29 -0605
TELECOPIER : (612) 340-2668
Honorable Members of the
City Council
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland,
City Manager
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
THOMAS S. ERICKSON, P. A.
(612) 340 -2659
May 30, 1984
Re: Miller Addition:
or Refuse Access
Points of Access
Owner
The City's Power
or Improvements
to a Nonabutting
Dear Council Members and Mr. Rosland:
�A I
201 DAVIDSON BUILDING
8 THIRD STREET NORTH
GREAT FALLS, MONTANA 59401
(406) 727 -3632
SUITE 675 NORTH
IB00 M STREET N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
(202) 955 -1050
30 RUE LA BOETIE
75008 PARIS, FRANCE
Oil 331 562 32 50
to Grant
to Existing
Property
The City Council has requested our opinion concerning
a parcel of property located in northwest Edina (the "Miller
Addition "). Mr. John Miller has presented the Council with
a proposed plat for the properties, which plat requires the
condemnation of certain private property to provide ordinance -
conforming access to the Addition. The issues addressed in
this letter relate to the City's power to grant or refuse
the desired access or improvements to existing points of access
to the Miller Addition. I will first state some pertinent
facts and history of this matter.
The Miller Addition occupies 1.55 acres of land
and is located generally west of Dearborn Street and north
of Belmore Lane in northwest Edina. The Addition is comprised
of nine lots which no longer conform to Edina's zoning ordi-
nance. Eight of the lots, Lots 2 through 5 and Lots 7 through
10, are owned by Mr. Miller. Lot 4 is owned by the City and
is currently used for drainage purposes.
The principal problem with'the proposed redevelopment
is access. The Addition currently has two points of access.
DORSEY & WHITNEY
Honorable Members of the
City Council
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland,
City manager
Page 2
May 30, 1984
First, a 12- foot -wide alleyway abuts the Addition's entire
western boundary. This alleyway is not, however, wide enough
to conform with the zoning ordinance. Second, the property
is accessible on the northeast by an unimproved portion of
Spruce Road, the dead end of which abuts the eastern boundary
of the adjoining lot to the north of the Addition. Because
only the northeast corner of the Addition touches Spruce Road,
the Addition does not "abut" Spruce Road. Also, this access
would provide ingress to only one of the four proposed lots
in the Addition and is, therefore, inadequate.
Mr. Miller proposes that a new cul de sac be extended
westerly into the Addition from Dearborn Street. Mr. Miller
has unsuccessfully attempted to purchase this property.
A consultant retained by Mr. Miller has testified
before the Planning Commission that the proposed redevelop-
ment, including the cul de sac, is the most rational plan
from an access standpoint. An engineer has submitted proposals
for a drainage and sewage system adapted to the Miller plat.
Several neighboring property owners oppose the pro-
posed condemnation and redevelopment and specifically have
asked whether the City can condemn a public road for the bene-
fit of one developer.
With the above facts in mind, the City Council has
asked our opinion on two questions:
1. Can the City legally, in its discretion, condemn
the requested private property to provide the access desired
by Mr. Miller?
2. If the City decides not to condemn, can Mr.
Miller compel the City to provide the desired access, compar-
able access, or improvements to existing points of access
to the Addition?
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 465.01 (West 1977) confers upon
the City of Edina a general power of .eminent domain. The
City's powers to condemn are limited to the express terms
of this statutory grant, as well as by the Constitution.
Under the Constitution, private property may be condemned
DORSEY & WHITNEY
Honorable Members of the
City Council
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland,
City Manager
Page 3
May 30, 1984
only if such condemnation is "necessary" to further a "public
use." The statutory grant is general in nature, except as
to condemnation procedures. Except as limited by the Constitu-
tion (re: public use and necessity), the decision of whether
or not to condemn private property is wholly discretionary
and legislative and, therefore, not subject to close judicial
scrutiny. See generally 6B Dun. Dig. Eminent Domain § 1.00
(3d Ed. 1983). Therefore, except insofar as they relate to
the issues of public use and necessity, the complaints raised
by neighboring property owners are irrelevant to the above
two questions.
The "public use" requirement is met if the proposed
access is open for everybody to use on equal terms. Meuller
v. Supervisors of Town of Courtland,*117 Minn. 290, 135 N.W.
996 (1912). The number of expected users is irrelevant.
This requirement would clearly be met if the proposed access
is a public street, and would clearly not be met if the pro-
posed access is a private road.
As to "necessity," absolute necessity is not re-
quired. The record need only support an inference that the
proposed taking is reasonably necessary and convenient to
a legitimate end. County of Blue Earth v. Stauffenberg, 264
N.W.2d 647 (Minn. 1978). Community redevelopment is a legiti-
mate end. The City appears to have ample facts and evidence
to support a position that the proposed access is a reasonable
and convenient means to redeveloping the Addition.
Should the City Council decide not to condemn for
the public road, it apparently cannot be compelled to do so.
Absent statutory grounds to compel a condemnation, this
decision is purely legislative and, therefore, not subject
to close judicial review. Lafayette Land Company v. Village
of Tonka Bay, 305 Minn. 461,'324 N.W.2d 804 (1975). The
Lafayette case clearly holds that a city is under no legal
duty to provide access or to improve any existing points of
access.
Minnesota Statutes do provide a means by which cer-
tain property owners may petition a town board compelling
a 33- foot -wide access to such property from a public road.
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 164.08, subd. 2 (West Supp. 1984). However,
DORSEY & WHITNEY
Honorable Members of the
City Council
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland,
City Manager
Page 4
May 30, 1984
this statute requires for implementation a tract of land at
least five acres in area. Since the Miller Addition is com-
prised of only 1.55 acres, this statutory provision is clearly
not applicable. There being no other statutory duty we could
find to provide access or improve existing access to the Miller
Addition, the City of Edina appears to have no legal duty
to Mr. Miller in this regard.
In summary, it appears that the City may, if it
wishes, legally condemn the private property to provide the
access desired by Mr. Miller; however, it cannot be compelled
by Mr. Miller to do so. Nor can Mr."Miller force the City
to improve either of the two existing points of access to
facilitate any alternative developments of the property.
Should you have any further questions concerning
this matter,-please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours,
2---' -
"(_�
T o as rickson
TSE:cle
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
c; 4 June 1984
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
RE: Miller Subdivision
File No: 117.02
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
At the 21 May 1984 City Council meeting there appeared to be a general consensus
that the lot layout which has been suggested for the Miller land represents a
reasonable and good design and use of the property. Two concerns were, however,
voiced over other issues.
Drainage, based upon comments raised by neighbors was seen as a possible problem.
Early recognition of this possible problem by the Millers resulted in their
retaining Len' Kramer and Barr Engineering to evaluate the situation and to
formulate a plan to adequately handle the storm water runoff. Barr Engineering
was specifically chosen for this work as they are the recognized experts in the
area on storm drainage planning. They have extensive experience in flood plain
planning for the region, as well as working for a majority of the organized
watershed districts in planning and evaluating development projects such as
that being undertaken by the Millers. From what we understand from your staff,
the City Engineer has reviewed Mr. Kramer's storm water plan and concurs that
it addresses the needs of the 1.5 acre Miller site, as well as surrounding
approximately four acre area. We view this drainage question as a highly
technical issue which has a clear cut answer of being acceptable or not.
The second issue relates to the street which is suggested as going through the
Kuenzlie's property and may possibly involve condemnation. The concern expressed
was that only the Millers would benefit from such action. It is our position
that while the Millers would undoubtedly benefit, there are in deed advantages
for the City as a whole, the,specificrarea and notably the Kuenzlies.
From a City -wide perspective, the tax yield increase from what is now being
paid versus that which would occur from single family homesteaded development
is seven times greater. This is compared with the fact that four additional
homes will certainly not necessitate extra fire, police or other such services.
In times of restricted resources, the City as a whole is seen as benefiting
from the added revenue to be generated by the Miller project.
There is also a benefit to the neighborhood which includes the undeveloped land
in the area. The Miller development as suggested would facilitate the Blakewoods
subdivision which is proposed to the east. Four more additional lots and
resulting taxes would be generated. As will be discussed further below, this
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925 -9420
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
4 June 1984 Page Two
can be done with minimal public or private investment in property improvements
for streets and utilities. Also, as has been previously pointed out, the
Kuenzlies property, which we understand to be so undersized presently that it
is not buildable, would be reshaped to create not only buildable lots, but
conforming lots to current zoning ordinance standards. A portion of this
objective is being achieved through land which is being given up at no charge
by the Millers.
The Kuenzlies, who have expressed the possibility of developing the rear of
their land for their own use, will not only be able to build upon what is now
classified as an undeveloped parcel, will also net approximately 3,740 square
feet in additional land from the property gained by the vacation of Dearborn
and Spruce, minus the land for the proposed cul -de -sac. Furthermore, if the
Miller proposal as now requested is rejected and access to their property has
to be made via Dearborn and Spruce, our calculation suggests that the con -
struction project would reach approximately $40,000. It is assumed that this
would be assessed to benefitting owners. It is further assumed that in such a
case, the Millers would only be allowed one or two units. If benefit were
established on a unit basis, the Kuenzlies would incur a minimal $10,000 assess-
ment against their land. This is viewed as a waste of money for all concerned
for unwarranted construction work.
For those of you interested, we have attached further details on this matter.
In closing, I would point out that the area and specific property in question
has been a problem for nearly 30 years. At the time in 1957 that Tyler Street
was requested for vacation, the property owner requested that the alley be made
into a street to provide access. In taking action on this matter in 1965, the
City either overlooked or rejected this alternative. It also apparently
rejected a suggestion by Mr. Hyde to buy the land with public funds. It would
therefore appear that the intent, regardless of neighborhood claim, has been
that given an acceptable solution, the Miller property should be developed.
We believe, as well as formally recognized by the Planning Commission, as well
as yourselves, that a proper solution has now been presented.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Very truly yours,
NORTHWEST ASSO TED CO N NC.
. Lich , AIC
President
DRL /nd
cc: John Miller
Jim Miller
Gordan Hughes
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
David Licht
FROM:
Alan Brixius
DATE:
4 June 1984
RE:
Miller Subdivision - Edina
FILE
NO:
117.02
TAX
GENERATION COMPARISON
The
following table shows
the 1983 tax generation
for each of the
nine
existing
lots in the Miller
development site.
The
total tax generation for
the
entire site was only
$716.33.
TAX GENERATION,
1983
Market Assessed
Special
Total
Lot
PID
Value Value
Taxes
Assessments
Taxes
2
30- 117 - 2121 -0008
7,400 2,9601
273.212
5.963 16.754
10.745
306.66
3
30- 117 -2121 -0009
1,500 600
55.37
5.96 16.74
- - - --
78.07
4
30- 117 - 2121 -0010
1,500. 600
55.37
5.96 16.74
10.73
88.80
5
30- 117 - 2121 -0011
11100 440
40.60
- - -- - - - --
10.72
51.32
6
30- 117 - 2121 -0012
TAX EXEMPT (CITY
OWNED)
7
30- 117 - 2121 -0013
11000 400
36.91
- - -- - - - --
10.71
47.62
8
30 -117- 2121 -0014
11000 400
36.91
- - -- - - - --
10.71
47.62
9
30 -117- 2121 -0015
11000 400
36.91
- - -- - - - --
10.71
47.62
10
30- 117 - 2121 -1016
11000 400
36.91
- - -- - - - --
10.71
47.62
$15,500
$6,200
572.19
17.88 50.22
75.03
716.33
143% of Market Value
2Based on 1982 tax rate of 92.306
3Trunk watermain assessment
4Storm sewer assessment
SStorm sewer assessment
4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925 -9420
David Licht
4 June 1984
Page Two
Based on information
provided in Exhibit A, we have prepared the projected
tax generation for the four lot subdivision. We have used five different
market values to
cover a range of housing construction costs.
PROJECTED TAX GENERATION, 1984
HOMESTEAD
Estimated
Assessed No. of
Total Tax
Market Value
Value Tax Units
Generation
$ 80,000
$16,800 $ 994 x 4
$3,776
$100,000
22,800 1,371 x 4
5,484
$120,000
28,800 2,083 x 4
8,332
$140,000
34,800 2,652 x . 4
10,608
$160,000
40,800 3,221 x 4
12,884
The estimated market value of each lot after development is
anticipated to be
between $100,000
and $120,000. If all lots and homes have a
total market value
of $100,000, the
tax generation from the four lots will be $5,484, seven times
the amount of taxes collected from the site in 1983.
The following table displays the tax benefit to each taxing
jurisdiction
based on the 1984 mill rate breakdown.
TAX DISTRIBUTION, 1984
Taxes
Jurisdiction
Percentage 80,000 100,000 120,000
140,000 160,000
Local School
50.2 1,899 2,753 4,183
5,325 6,468
Voc. School
1.5 57 82 125
159 193
Hennepin Co.
31.3 1,180 1,716 2,608
3,320 4,033
City of Edina
10.9 410 598 908
1,156 1,404
Metro Watershed
6.1 230 338 508
648 786
3,776 5,484 8,332
10,608 12,884
SITE LAYOUT
The Miller subdivision
would serve to correct a number of nonconforming
parcels
with a functional
and cost efficient lot layout. Subsequent
to the Miller
application, the
Blake Woods plat was submitted which coordinated the develop-
ment of land east
of Dearborn into similar design as the Miller layout.
David Licht
4 June 1984
LAND TRADE
Page Two
The Miller subdivision proposed a cul -de -sac through the Kingsley property
to provide access to his site. To develop this cul -de -sac, Mr. Miller would
trade Outlot A to the Kingsleys to bring their property south of the cul-
de -sac into conformance with City ordinances. Miller also suggests the
vacation of Dearborn north of the cul -de -sac and all of Spruce Street.
With the street vacation, the existing ownership of the street right -of -way
would transfer to the adjacent property owners.
As.the Miller subdivision is designed, the Kingsleys would lose approxi-
mately 3,660 square feet of lot area. Through the outlot trade and street
deducation, the Kingsley property would receive a total area of 7,400 square
feet. This land swap will benefit the Kingsley property by bringing it into
conformance with City requirements.
New cul -de -sac area through Kingsley property - 3,66,0 square feet.
Dearborn Vacation to Kingsley 2,840
Spruce Street Vacati�on.to Kingsley 3,560
Outlot A 1,000
7,400 square feet
STREET IMPROVEMENT
Without the proposed cul -de -sac access to the Miller site, Dearborn and
Spruce Street must be constructed to provide site access., This street
extension will be more costly due to additional length. Street construction
is typically assessed on a front foot benefit. Mr. Gordon Hughes, however,
indicated that in this case a special benefit assessment would probably
be used to assess the Miller site. He feels that the Miller site would
receive the greatest benefit.
EDINA TAX RATES
(Payable 1984)
1984 MILL RATE
1983 MILL RATE
CITY OF EDINA
10.372
9.049
MDIEPIN COUNTY
29.689
28.451
MISC METRO
5.318
5.106
WATERSHED #1 (Nine Mile)
0.458
0.463
WATERSHED #3 (Minnehaha)
0.281
0.086
VOCATIONAL SCIIDOL
1.446
1.119
LOCAL, SCHOOLS
272 EDEN PRAIRIE
50.079
49.981
273 EDINA
47.597
45.915
273 -16 EDINA
47.597
45.915
273 -28 EDINA
46.884
47.793
273 -35 EDINA
47.597
45.915
273 -227 EDINA
50.722
45.518
273 -237 EDINA
50.722
45.518
270 HOPKIPJS
45.023
45.475
280 RICHFIELD
56.238
49.948
283 ST. LOUIS PARK
51.266
49.261
G.
"EFFECTIVE
TAX RATE" (NON HOMESTEAD)
1984 TOTAL 1 -3 UNITS
MILL RATE RESIDENTIAL
4+ UNITS
C'MERCIAL
272 -1
RESIDENTIAL
(Assessed 280) (Assessed @ 340)
+ IPIDUSTRIAL
(Assessed @ 43%)
97.362
273 -1 94.880
7@
3.3
4.2
273 -3 94.703
2.7
2.7
3.2
4.1
273 -16 -1 94.880
2.7
3.2
4.1
273 -28 -1 94.167
2.6
3.2
4.1
273 -35 -1 94.880
2.7
3.2
4.1
273 -227 -1 98.005
2.7
3.2
4.1
273 -237 -1 98.005
2.7
3,3
4.3
270 -1 92.306
2.6
3.3
4.3
270 -3 92.129
2.6
3.2
3.1
4.1
280 -1 103.521
280 -3
2.9.
3.5
4.1
4.4
103.344
283 -3 98.372
2.9
3.5
4.4
MPLS -3 113.546
2.8
3.2
3.4
4.3
ARFA -WIDE 101.727 applied to 21.75280 of non
3.9
- residential value
4.8
273 -1 non - residential con-posite rate:
96.369
280 -1 non - residential cotposite rate: 103.131
(APPROX -DIATE TAX DISTRIBUTION
(273 -1)
1977
LOCAL SCHOOLS 50.6
1978 1979 1980
48.0 47.8 48.5
1981 1982
1943
1984
VOCATIONAL SCFI00LS 2.7
2.4 2.5 .1.9
47.1 49.5
1.8
51.0
50.2
M ivTPIN COUNTY 33.2
CITY of
35.4 35.6 34.4
1.7
34.7 33.0
1.2
31.6
31.3
MINA 9.2
^ICI'I:0 & WATERSHED 4.3
10.0 10.0 10.9
4.2 4.1 4.3
10.9 10.3
10.0
10.9
5.5 5.5
6.2
6.1
GYl1TQ Tr
n
Preliminary Plat
Of
MILLER ADDITION
940
�/DEARBORN
Z' ET
STRE
7
Uj
A4 r 4 r, r C; OWN" 0.6yezoloeR
L J , - ,\ —. Ab-
f7
Sode 14V
I—.%AWA AM
f`I 11
YI
m
A107ES
/ v;e A.- te
''7
Scale o' Kennep
a,- Iley, "Wleo,' heh 1,es e Vapfomes S/Wn Mr ar ,,d o�
Illy arM& Mol-Ch 1W
ForMy ',e='aa.�,e S-14 1�e b— h.11' hL
raid of me dr=lel* ale4j� of 4e Vrlh hoe W 3 7 .. y,4aOy Mon by Me
e
d e n./ e—/ou LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
J. 'v ' y0 k"heol oloAlm W5 Y ' uft 01.
33422
e 7,?o / 0/0/ area, 67 4W /Y 3-6 _ Jo r".? Ab AW
PRELIMINARY PLAT:
BLAKE WO
940 _
- -950— .•\
--20S'
145 60
VACATE''40' SPRUCE% ;ROAD
� ,I, /' - �•� - =� - - -1 � it -f-' --
:� I I,
L
o- se `,v.
\141501 sq.ft.
i / •n / � /moo t , � r ' _ L
/, i i ^o �/i r ,f i� \• 13800- sq.ft.
r i r o, I 1 l r I `-
i�
6 sue\ r
\ 207
A
\ a pO .m
DEAR 0RN`'IIN_ / -,''COURT /05 ;W
15050 sq.ft.
\9=W- ;
, � \ so w LU
-�--- Ittis , .
6
z ,a.' 0
i
i
X
a0 ��
Q
� h I tt
y .O
0 13 S LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Late 1,2 and 3, Block 2, MENDELSSOHN,
I� Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with
vacated roads and alley adjacent to said lots.
t SPRUCE ROAD
/ DEVELOPER:
PKR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
5001 W. 80th St. Suite 710
_t Bloomington, MN 55437
PHONE: 831 -7227
\ �\
SURVEYOR:
It
I
1'
T
i
i qP
21r<: HEDLUND
ENGINEERING
HEDLUND ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
7726 Morgan Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
PHONE:866 -2523
SCALE: 1 INCH: 30 FEET
DATE: MAY 16, 1984
0 30 60 90
I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me
or under my direct supervision and ?hot I am a duly
Registered Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor
of Minnesota.
under the lows of o-j�
f.,the/�
�Statte
(
Colvin H Hedlund Minn Reg No 5942
21r<: HEDLUND
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING & LAND PLANNING
l Atu lj
SJRVEYORS
INC. 1415 NORTH LILAC DRIVE, GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55422 (612) 544 -7619
June 4, 1984
Mr. David Licht
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4820 Minnetonka Blvd. - Suite 420
Minneapolis, Mn. 55416
RE: Engineers Estimate for the Proposed Miller Addition
Dear Mr. Licht,
The estimated construction cost for extending public
utilities and streets along Dearborn Street and Spruce Street;
from the existing pavement on Dearborn Street to the east
property line of the proposed Miller Addition, at Spruce Street
would be as follows:
6" WATERMAIN
Construction Cost $ 5,200.00
Indirect Cost (25X) 1,300.00
Sub -total 6,500.00
8" SANITARY SEWER
Construction Cost $ 9,000.00
Indirect Cost (25X) 2,250.00
Sub -total $119250.00
32F STREET WITH CONCRETE CURB & BUTTER
Construction Cost $ 8,300.00
Indirect Cost (25X) 29075.00
Sub -total $10,375.00
COMMON EXCAVATION
Construction Cost $ 91000.00
Indirect Cost (25X) 2,250.00
Sub -total $11,250.00
The total project cost would be $39,375.00, which would
include a 25% indirect cost; consisting of engineering fees for
plans and specifications, construction staking, inspection,
bonding cost and capital interest.
•0311 ;0 .ono !t�e!tu63 aseaid
At044ew anoge 044 6uipte6at suoi;senb Cue ate at044 ;j
uos;enaja A4tadotd
qua3erpe pue sapeAb ieug; uo 6uFpuadap Apatinbat aq pjnoD 4314M
44SOD taMas wt04s /Cue opnl3ut 4ou saop 03ew14sa awoge a4l
0
�J
VAN
1
N U M B E R B -84 -16 Ann E Patrick Fallon
L O C A T 10 N 6417 Timber Ridge , Lot 18, Block 1, The Timbers
R E Q U E S T 5 Foot Rear Yard Variance
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
• B -84 -16 Ann and Patrick Fallon, 6417 Timber Ridge
Lots 18, Block 1, The Timbers
n n� P.I.N. 06- 116 -21 -13 -0057
<� Request: 5 foot rear yard variance
Mr. Sand said Mr. and Mrs. Fallon propose a new dwelling
on an unusual lot in the Timbers subdivision. The lot has a
steep slope (22 feet) from west to east across the width of the
dwelling. In addition, the lot slopes down from front to rear.
The buildable area of the lot is restricted to a triangular area
due to the unusual lot shape. The building plans have been
designed to accomodate the topography and shape of the lot.
This neighborhood contains a number of unusual lots with
difficult topography, vegetations and lot shapes. Approximately
two thirds of the lots have been developed at this time and the
Staff is not aware of any variances. The proponent has supplied
a petition from the adjacent property owners stating no
objections to the variance.
The variance case was established with the idea that the
southeasterly property line, with the dimension of 139.59 feet,
is the rear property line. Under this interpretation, a corner
of the dwelling encroaches 5 feet into the required 25 foot rear
yard. A 32 square foot portion of the building encroaches on the
yard; the fireplace and deck are permitted in the rear yard as
illustrated.
However, under the new Zoning Ordinance adopted in March,
there is a new definition of rear lot line and special provisions
for measuring the rear yard that should be considered in this
case.
"Lot line - rear" is defined as "the boundary of lot
which is most distant from and approximately parallel with the
front lot line."
In addition, the Ordinance states: "Rear Yard - Setback
Interior Lots. If the rear lot line is less than 30 feet in
length or if the lot forms a point at the rear and there is no
rear lot line, then for setback purposes the rear lot line shall
be deemed to be a straight line segment within the lot not less
than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the
midpoint of the front lot line to the junction of the interior
lot lines and at a maximum distance from the front lot line."
This provision was added to accommodate unusual lot
shapes where there is no rear yard that is "approximately
parallel with the front lot line." The interior property line of
139.59 feet forms an angle between 30 and 40 degrees with the
front line which is not parallel. In addition, the lot depth
measured from this line is substandard at 107 feet. However, if
the lot is considered to come to a point at the southerly lot
corner, a 30 foot hypothetical lot line.would be established.
The proposed dwelling maintains a 40.foot rear yard from the
hypothetical rear lot line and does not required a variance.
This method of measurement also produces a conforming 127 foot
lot depth.
Therefore, it is the Staff recommendation that the Board
approve the hypothetical rear yard measurement and declare that
the plans are acceptable without a variance. The lot has a
number of unusual characteristics that tend to create a hardship
that justifies a variance. The magnitude of the encroachment on
the "rear yard" is very small at '32 square feet. Thus a small
variance also appears reasonable. The Staff recommends a
decision approving the interpretation that the hypothetical rear
lot line is the appropriate method in this case.
Mr. and Mrs. Fallon were present. Mr. Fallon stated that
they had spoken with the neighbors and found no objection.
Dr. Roger Christgau, 6500 Indian Hills Pass, requested
that the Board follow the Ordinance and deny the variance
request. The Ordinance was made to protect the citizens and
requests such as the subject one resulted in overcrowding.
Dr. Christgau did not accept the alternate rear yard
determination and expressed a concern that the present code would
establish and undersirable precendent for Lot 18, Block 1, the
Timbers which is also an unusual shape.'
Ann Fallon explained to the Board that they had submitted
other plans and due to the unusual shape of the lot, had
redesigned those plans to conform as closly as possible to the
lot shape. Dr. Christgau stated that homes should be centered
on the lots. Any alteration would not be suitable for the
Fallons.
Mr. Folke Victorsen, 6440 Indian Hills Pass, stated that
the request did not conflict with his home at all and that he was
located directly behind the proposed house between Dr. Christgau
and the Fallons' home.
Mrs. McClelland noted that she did not believe in
granting variances for new dwellings on.lots, however, this was
an exception. Lot 18, Block 1, the Timbers was a different case
and the present case should not be considered a precedent.
Mr. Lewis moved for approval of.a variance subject to the
plans presented. Discussion ensued regarding the definition of
the lot shape. Dr. Cristgau believed it to be a rectangular lot
and the rear yard lot line should be considered on the southeast
side. The Board believed it to be a pie- shaped lot with a rear
yard coming to a point. Mr. Lewis stated that because it is a
pie- shaped lot, a variance would not be needed and withdrew his
original motion. Mr. Lewis moved to accept the hypothetical rear
line measurement and accept the plans presented without a
variance. Mrs. McClelland 2nd the motion. All were in favor.
No variance would be granted or denied.
II. ADJOURNMENT
Mrs. McClelland moved for adjournment and Mr. Del Johnson
seconded the motion. All were in -favor; the motion carried.
tz
Linda D. Elsen
a
ROGER A. CHRISTGAU. M. D.
6600 INDIAN HILLS PASS
EDINA. MINNESOTA 66496
m N-t ri
�n I � M l
P,\ , +
k-S i Pr I N G-
� 1 T`( WF--f;oI NPt C �J Nr- I
t q da rj o� RNfft S -4- P4U STr''glf
N- v P%- JNL P iz kZ- 6 y I -? -Tk Mou-
P-\ D �we _ "T ° Y *cTtQr4 k-r-
TRP,r-%-- �� acrr I� 5 7kri wfcl� P4Ptpxi
O%J- t,"
-A P P -fp&
TC)
Q-C6 JN�fNTf 'w 3
5-ra cT�2F r APP v� , s a S
To Ck� at-\ wlTK THE ucrk- C f T �STICS
ROGER A. CHRISTGAU. M. D
6600 INDIAN HILLS PASS
EDINA cc� MINNESOTA 66496
5T- TES q- ��N J -E^\ 747 � k ST
W -- " fry epz tEc o
P�oQF,(LT`� Owl 1 w l J� -TV& TO
5 fk-(o %ITFA X-,`[a 7k
K- APKW5 -rte L-
l
q-' -T" ,j S -ycl, I M I NA-'f- -1 qf- LC5T= Li r To
3 - -r-6- q L (QW (V ()'P- PPS (-f 06--T kU
t-Alvv 14 C Q�vfiv -NCOI lk S m** PL opil eo
-,"0 JTRO- K-N t f(-NLL"-(
Tl-(rT- T(M gQ- Nf) I l v ,uPr �a(L
►��( �' R- Eli'`( ( 1, 10 , (� C o C IL I N 0(Ad-4 41 LLf ) .
��t45 �c ,
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
STAFF REPORT
MAY 17, 1984
B -84 -16 Ann and Patrick Fallon, 6417 Timber Ridge
Lot 18, Block 1, The Timbers
P.I.N. 06- 116 -21 -13 -0057
Refer to: Attached site plan, floor plan, elevations, petition for
variance and statement from adjacent property owners
Request: 5 foot rear yard variance
Mr. and Mrs. Fallon propose a new dwelling on an unusual lot in the
Timbers subdivision. The lot has a steep slope (22 feet) from west to east
across the width of the dwelling. In addition, the lot slopes down from
front to rear. The buildable area of the lot is restricted to a pie- shaped
segment due to the unusual lot shape. The building plans have been
designed to accomodate the topography and shape of the lot. The proposed
building will conform to all setback requirements with the exception of one
corner that encroaches 5 feet into the required 25 foot rear yard. The
proponent requests a variance to permit approximately 32 square feet of
building to encroach on the rear yard. It should be noted that the
fireplace and deck are permitted in the setback as illustrated.
The subject lot is considered an interior lot and the south
easterly lot line of 139.59 feet is considered a rear lot line; which is
most distant and nearly parallel with the front lot line. If this lot were
considered a pie- shaped lot with no rear line, the lot would be p -ermitted a 30
foot hypothetical rear lot line from the southerly corner. The proposed
dwelling meets a 40 foot rear yard from this hypothetical rear lot line.
The lot has a substandard lot depth of 107 feet if the
southeasterly lot line is considered the rear yard. The lot has a
conforming 127 foot rear yard if the hypothetical rear lot line is used.
This neighborhood contains a number of unusual lots with difficult
topography, vegetations and lot shapes. Approximately two thirds of the
lots have been developed at this time and the Staff is not aware of any
variances. The proponent has supplied a petition from the adjacent
property owners stating no objections to the variance.
Recommendation
It is reasonable to classify this lot as a pie- shaped lot and thus
a rear yard variance would not be required. In the alternative, the lot
has a number of unusual characteristics that tend to create a hardship that
justifies a variance. The magnitude of the encroachment on the "rear
yard" is very small at 32 square feet. Thus a small variance also appears
reasonable. The Staff recommends a decision approving the interpretation
that the hypothetical rear lot line is the appropriate method in this case.
�tkt 1E►,l uJ
i.LE. VT'. '- 0-
. frn IT ./) K I
Tf
--_ 1 LJ
} ram
rw Ti
I Tl�
-FM
rw Ti
I Tl�
-FM
PETITION FOR VARIANCE
0
Applicant 4".
Case Number
Date
Fee Paid
Ph 3 =i!p 743
Address V, nCQn� lit V� �C. (Y) P
ZIP C _
Status of Applicant (owner, buyer, agent, etc.):
Property Identification No.
Legal Description:
' f /Y, B!
Street Address:
Request: VCV1,
Minnesota statutes andvl
satisfied affirmatively.
aaJ 4
dina ordin =nces require that the following conditions must be
The proposed variance will: (if yes, please explain. Use additional sheets if neces-
sary.)
a) Relieve an undue hardship which was not self - imposed or a
mere coGnCve ienc�_/1 I ( 4 n
EMMO
\Y\ C(.�
dV'L TYj 1 T'11 _
b Correct extraordinary `c circumstances a plicab to this
property, but not applicable to other property in the
vicinity or zoning district.
c). Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the vicinity and zoning district.
d) Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning
.district.
Yes No
in
* Please furnish 6 (six) copies of all plans. gnature of Applicant
* Applications are accepted on a "first come" basis with a limit of 5 (five)
requests per agenda.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
RE ].,LOT18 The Timbers
THis lot narrows down. on the East side to the
extent that its a distinct handicap
,Y ^
The Fallon>s.in purchasing this.lot would like to have a
deviation from the normal setback of 30 feet from the
street reduced to 25 feet on the East side.
This has been agreed to by the presentowners of the
adjacent lots.
Zr' �� Ye C C�i(�
/ G/
L�i oi� Number 17!
t Numbed z0
Lot Number
arch -type roof or to the average distance of the highest gable
on a pitched or hip roof.
(d) Rear Yard Setback - Interior Lots. If the rear lot
line is less than 30 feet in length or if the lot forms a point
at the rear and there is no rear lot line, then for setback
purposes the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a straight line
segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length,
perpendicular to a line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot
line to the junction of the interior lot lines, and at the
maximum distance from the front lot line.
(e) Rear Yard Setback - Corner Lots Required to Maintain
Two Front Street Setbacks. The owner of a corner lot required
to maintain two front street setbacks may designate any interior
lot line measuring 30 feet or more in length as the rear lot
line for setback purposes. In the alternative, the owner of a
corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may
deem the rear lot line to be a straight line segment within the
lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line
drawn from the junction of the street frontages to the function
of the interior lot lines, said line segment being the maximum
distance from the junction of the street frontages.
(f) Through Lots. For a through lot, the required setback
for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the
single dwelling unit building does not. front shall be not less
than 25 feet.
2. Building Coverage - Lots Less Than 91000 Square Feet in
Area. Building coverage may be increased to 30 percent for lots less
than 9,000 square feet in area, provided, however, that the area
occupied by buildings and structures shall not exceed 2,250 square
feet.
3. One Dwelling Unit Per Single Dwelling Unit Lot. No more
than one dwelling unit shall be erected, placed or used on any lot
unless the lot is subdivided into two or more lots 'pursuant to the
City subdivision ordinance.
4. Decks and Patios. Notwithstanding the provisicns of
section 7 of this ordinance, the first 150 square feet of an
unenclosed deck or patio shall not be included when computing
building coverage.
5. Basements. All single dwelling unit buildings shall be
constructed with a basement having a gross floor area equal to at
least 50 percent of the gross floor area of the story next above.
The floor area of accessory uses shall not be included for making the
above calculation.
11 -7
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Scale: 1" = 30'
�'V'
70 1P \
i
�So 9�9
c9,
/ HEREBY CERTIFY rHAr rH /S SU4VFr PLAN OR REPORT
1fAS PREPARED BY me OR UNDER A/Y D/R£Cr swERV /SIOW
ANO THAT I AA/ A DULY REGISTERED LANG SURVEYOR
UNDER rHE LAWS OF THE STATE OF HINNESOTA.
2 \�
2)'
o
DESCRIPTION
Lot 18, Block 1,
THE TIMBER
Hennepin County, Minnesota
o Denotes iron monument
70
I�
z c-
LOCATIOI+I MAP
LOT DIVISION
N U M B E R LD -84 -9 Baglien
L O C A T 10 N Lot 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition
Generally located east of CR No. 18 and north of Indian Hills Rd.
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND: PLANNING COMMISSION
_ STAFF REPORT
MAY 30, 1984
LD -84 -9 Baglien. Lot. 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition
Refer to: Attached Survey
Generally located: East of County Road No. 18 and North of Indian Hills Road
The application requests a party -wall division of an existing two - family dwelling.
Individual utilities are provided.
Recommendation
Approval.
�e
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND: PLANNING COMMISSION
_ STAFF REPORT
MAY 30, 1984
LD -84 -9 Baglien. Lot. 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition
Refer to: Attached Survey
Generally located: East of County Road No. 18 and North of Indian Hills Road
The application requests a party -wall division of an existing two - family dwelling.
Individual utilities are provided.
Recommendation
Approval.
- n
.QD4 p /V,
i8
a
7— IZ41Z)
j Aron
--7720 - t
ri
Lv I ' _7 S
r �!
1 �I V - ✓a - G� J
IJ 7. �D Q i �'. y _ c s�.c� 4 ` \. • �� .ITS • -
.1
-7736 i
/SO.Qp
3'36 13 -
S�tOra��Q�e
y aJ�r►�r.,f-
n .
11' a
w�
o �,
A P
W. 53 R o _
t R i
PARK —
a > > : - �� pTLST k
<.
5• TM
LLJ• + \ *RACE
' - • -�- -`
I I ; Comm F
• c u ; '> W '' !
0-
W TN r
D +
i AkE RME - t T
-4 BAB ri 9 T
56 '� ST w 56 •w
O J
P L
-r--DlQQi
WJODLANr wCOOCRES' �p / �r,0 OP
O
'ORO TERRA E T } - i
1 i I i i
4 }4- �--� P M I L B R O O K L-Ar -N-}E't�
sr
LOT DIVISION
NUMBER LD -84 -10 Grinnell /Walser
LOCATION Lot 30, Colonial Grove 2nd Addition
East of Brookview and South of 56th Street
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MAY 30, 1984
LD -84 -10 Grinnell /Walser. Lot 30, Colonial Grove 2nd Addition
Refer to: Attached survey.
Generally located: East of Brookview and South of 56th Street
The applicant, who resides at 5615 Brookview, proposes to acquire a
three foot wide strip of property from his neighbor to the south to
facilitate construction of an addition which will conform with setback
requirements. The lot and dwelling to the south will continue to conform
with zoning requirements.
Recommendation
Approval.
F
E AVE
nnnVW V _
0
a
t
O
O
N
y
ci
C
30
C
m
N
db
LOCATION
'D
MAP
graWRIMMIMMI&V
Y-Y L W 0 O-
SAX ON Y
LESLEE
�FFREY
�mm
Lois DIVISION
NUMBER LD-84-11 Hepp
L 0 C A T 10 N Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls
Generally located west of Schaefer Road and South of Knoll Drive
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
0
0
31:
z
R
WESTWOO
COURT
I
PINE 6R
T
7'1 '
RO '0
FP-
Y-Y L W 0 O-
SAX ON Y
LESLEE
�FFREY
�mm
Lois DIVISION
NUMBER LD-84-11 Hepp
L 0 C A T 10 N Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls
Generally located west of Schaefer Road and South of Knoll Drive
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
11`
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMSSION
STAFF REPORT
MAY 30, 1984
LD -84 -11 Hepp. Lot 11, Block 5, "Parkwood Knolls"
Generally located: West of Schaefer Road and South of Knoll Drive
Refer to: Attached Survey
The proponent is requesting the division of Lot 11, Block 5, Parkwood
Knolls for the purpose of conveying a portion of his lot to the owner of
Lot 12. A portion of the swimming pool and dog kennel on Lot 12 was
apparently constructed across the common lot line with Lot 11: several years
ago. The proposed division represents the resolution of an adverse possession
claim by the owner of Lot 12. Setback requirements for the home on Lot 11
continue to be met after the division.
Recommendation
The proposed division appears to remedy the encroachment problem caused
by the swimming pool and we, therefore, recommend approval. It should be
noted that the Ordinances require a 20 foot setback for the dog kennel. The
proposed division provides a 6 foot setback.: Thus, if total compliance with
all Ordinances is desired, the relocation of the kennel may be desirable.
4•'Y
J`vO5 6
o•
;m3
�P so",, /I.
n
DES.CRIPTIOV OF PART OF LOT 11 BLOCK 5 "PARKWOOD KNOL
That part of Lot 11, Block 5, "PARKWOOD KNOLLS" which lies easterly
erly of the following described line: Beginning at the northeast corner
thence southwesterly 13Q 70 feet along a line, if extended, would inter!
line of said Lot 11 at a point therein distant 5& 05 feet westerly from the
\ corner of said Lot 11; thence southerly to the southeast corner of said L
terminating, according to the recorded plat thereof.
Coate*
a° ti
o � \
> \
�T
N
N
� =-O.9/ -- E' 30
RTa.gnT.TTTT0N
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of
land:
Lot 11, Block 5, "Parkwood Knolls "; and
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
Lot 11, Block 5, "Parkwood Knolls" except that part which lies easterly
and southeasterly of the following described line (herein called "Line A "):
Beginning at the northeast corner of said Lot 11; thence southwesterly
130.70 feet along a line, if extended, would intersect the south line
of said Lot 11 at a point therein distant 58.05 feet westerly from the
southeast corner of said Lot 11; thence southerly to the southeast
corner of said Lot 11 and there terminating, according to the recorded
plat thereof,
and
Lot 12, Block 5, "Parkwood Knolls" and that part of Lot 11, Block 5,
"Parkwood Knolls" which lies easterly and southeasterly of of said Line A.
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said
Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the
Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina
Ordinance Nos. 801 and 825;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land
is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801
and Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance
thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or
as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that
no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with
the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of
this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances.
Adopted this 4th day of June, 1984.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of.
land:
Lot 30, ', Colonials -Grove22iidAAddit on, Edina, Minn. "; and
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
Lot 30 "Colonial Grove 2nd Addition, Edina, Minn. ", except the
northerly three (3) feet thereof,
and
Lot 32, "Colonial Grove 2nd Addition, Edina, Minn." and the northerly
three (3) feet of Lot 30, "Colonial Grove 2nd Addition, Edina, Minn."
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the,;Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations of the City of Edina will.create an unnecessary hardship and said
Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposesoof the
Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina
Ordinance Nos. 801 and 825;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land
is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801
and Ordinance No. 825. are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance
.thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or
as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that
no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with
the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of
this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances.
Adopted this 4th day of June, 1984.
DVQOT ITTTONT
WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of
land:
Lot 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition
WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate
parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows:
That part of Lot 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition, which lies
northerly of a line (herein called "Line A ") drawn from a point on the
west line of said Lot 4, distant 77.20 feet southerly of the northwest
corner of said Lot 4 to a point on the east line of said Lot 4, distant
72.64 feet southerly of the northeast corner of said Lot 4,
and
All of Lot 4, Block 1, McCauley Heights 8th Addition except that part
which lies northerly of said Line A.
WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning
Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said
Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the
Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina
Ordinance Nos. 801 and 825;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City of Edina
that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land
is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 801
and Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance
thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or
as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that
no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with
the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of
this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances.
Adopted this 4th day of June, 1984.
t
I�
W
V
ME
I
r _..
2317- 46
1057
-EAST
-
�_J__= _____�!_�___ Utility — Ea5ement_as per_P1at_ -
r'
1 ^2118 N. 66 °l7'05 °W,
CL
0
v
0
IL
?
FCF `'RELEA`E ��� -_..--
\= -- 6 Q°06
EASE�AEIJ7
AF TE E
o \\
Q \ -- 'Iy1nt 2 "��Y °i prrtion
c° rys e m,
L
TWATEk A` PER \
releasr'd Po�npe,;semenrt
�
n c
1F \ rLr storage oC Water a5
S� `•` Ooc.
� ,�� ps
c o /
I t
per No. 3Ag48?3
J
�\\
h
F -f O
�
9
n
I
1
7.
•
_
TiTber retaining Waft
wal( .n M.; area
�-
not
z - - -- 308.35 j y - -- - - -
s 'EAST
SURVEY FOR: HARVEY GOLUB
c
DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 3, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW THIRD ADDITION. SEXecuted r,nreccordedeasetnent io mainta %n,%
eXi5t:n9 retaining Wa115 -
We hereby certify to Harvey Golub, North Star Abstract and Title Guaranty, Inc., and Ticor Title Insurance Company, that this is a true and correct
representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments,
if any, from or on said land.
Dated this 8th day of March, 1984.
NOTE: Bearings shown are assumed.
SCALE: 1" = 20'
EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC.
S u rveyors
by
Minnesota Registration No. 9053
E. DUDLEY PARSONS
4437 Brookside Terrace
Edina, IMN., 55436
25 YA1 Y 1984
Ms. Marcella Daehn, Clerk
City of Edina
4801 West 50th St.
Edina, MN., 55424
Dear Madam,
As a follow -up to the incident wherein arty wife, 'r4argaret L. Parsons
was severely bitten by a dog whose owner is a resident of this city, I
wish to propose two amendments to ORDINANCE NO. 312, the so- called Animal
Control Ordinances
(a) Amend Sec. 29 (f), lines 1 and 2 by replacing the phrase "... on
three or more separate occasions ..." with the phrase "... on any
occasion ..." The section would then read:
(f) Any animal which has been impounded on any occasion under the
provisions of this ordinance for biting persons other than members
of its owner's immediate family shall be deemed a public nuisance.
(b) Amend Sec. 29 further by the addition of:
(1) Any animal quarantined pursuant to Sec. 23, or which is deemed
a public nuisance by reasons of activities described under Sec.
29, (a) through (g) shall be impounded as provided in Sec. 2 and
Sec. 3, and shall not be released to its owner until the owner
shall provide a fenced area as provided in Sec. 30 (c)= and shall
assure the Animal Control Officer that the animal will be confined
within such fenced area.
It is my belief that the City of Edina should not hold to an ordinance
which, with reference to dogs, is less restrictive than the law of the State
of Minnesota:
347.22 Damages, owner liable: If a dog, without provocation, attacks or
injures any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where
he may lawfully be, the owner of the dog is liable in damages to the
person so attacked or injured to the full amount of the injury sustained.
The term "owner" includes any person harboring or keeping a dog but the
owner shall be primarily liable. The term "dog" includes both male and
; .female of the canine species. (Effective August 1, 1980)
A further interpretive IM40 states, in part:
"This amended section imposes strict liability for certain injuries in-
flicted by a dog ... irrespective of any question of negligence and
without proof of scienter, and leaves a dog owner in the position of
insurer. ..."
Ordinance No. 312
Page Seven
Sec. 27. Keeping of Livestock. Unless the Board of Health has
consented thereto in writing, no person shall keep livestock in the City
within 500 feet of human habitation or within 500 feet of real estate
plotted into lots and designated as an addition.
Sec. 28. Animals Running at Large. No person shall allow any
animal to run at large on any public property or public area or on
private property without the consent of the owner or possessor of the
private property.
Sec. 29. Confinement or Destruction of Certain Animals;
Declaring Certain Animals to be a Public Nuisance.
(a) Any domesticated animal in heat shall be kept confined in a
manner _which will prevent its escape and access thereto by other animals.
(b) Any domesticated animal of a fierce, dangerous or vicious
nature or disposition shall be confined (i) in a manner which will
prevent its escape and its causing harm to persons; and (ii) in a place
from which it cannot be released except by its owner and except when
muzzled and under the control of a competent person.
(c) Any animal which in its uncaptured, wild state has the
physical capacity to be dangerous to the safety or welfare of any person
shall be confined (i) in a manner which will prevent its escape and its
causing harm to persons; and (ii) in a place which prevents access to the
animal from the outside by persons other than its owner or those having
control of it. Such place and sanitation facilities for it shall be
approved by the City Animal Control Officer and the City Public Health
Sanitarian prior to the importation of the wild animal into the City.
The City shall inspect the facilities from time to time to insure the
health and safety of the public and the animal. Reducing such a wild
animal to captivity, whether trained or otherwise domesticated, shall not
remove such animal from the requirements and regulations hereof. Any
wild animal which is not confined as herein provided shall be deemed a
public nuisance and the City shall proceed to abate said public nuisance
by all lawful., remedies, including impoundment and destruction, without
compensation to the owner. In the event that any such wild animal is a
member of a protected species, applicable state and federal laws shall
apply to the abatement of the nuisance.
(d) Any animal which habitually chases motor vehicles on public
streets or threatens, worries, chases or attacks pedestrians, bicyclists
or other persons on public property, public areas or private property
other than property owned or possessed by the owner of the animal shall
be deemed a public nuisance.
(e) Any domesticated animal which attacks, wounds, worries,
injures or kills any domestic animal or wildlife shall be deemed a public
nuisance.
Ordinance No. 312
Page Eight
(f) Any animal which has been impounded on three or more
separate occasions under the provisions of this ordinance for biting
persons other than members of its owner's immediate family shall be
deemed a public nuisance.
(g) Any animal which damages plantings or structures or
micturates or defecates on private property without the consent of the
owner or possessor of the property shall be deemed a public nuisance.
(h) Any animal described in Subsections 29(a) through 29(g)
found running at large shall be impounded by the Police Officers or
Animal Control Officer of the City in the manner described in this
ordinance; provided such animal may be immediately destroyed by a Police
Officer or under the direction of the Animal Control Officer if it cannot
be impounded after reasonable effort or cannot be impounded without
serious risk to persons attempting to impound it.
(i) No more than two animals over six months of age shall be
kept or harbored at any place in the City except in a licensed pet shop
or licensed animal hospital unless permission has been granted by the
Board of Health and unless such place is open to inspection by the Health
Officer and Public Health Sanitarian of the City at all reasonable times.
(j) No person owning, operating, having charge of, or occupying
any building or premises shall keep or allow to be kept any animal which
shall by any noise disturb the peace and quiet of any persons in the
vicinity thereof.
(k) Any person may call or deliver to the Animal Control
Officer a complaint stating facts and circumstances of an alleged
violation of this ordinance. The Animal Control Officer shall
investigate such complaint. If a violation occurs in the presence of the
Animal Control Officer, he may issue a summons. If probable cause of a
violation exists,which violation did not occur in the presence of the
Animal Control Officer, he may submit all reports, witness statements and
evidence to the prosecuting attorney for a formal complaint.
Sec. 30. Restrictions on Dogs.
(a) No dog shall be permitted to be off the premises of its
owner at any time unless it is leashed or accompanied by a person having
as effective control over it by command as by leash.
(b) No person having custody or control of a dog shall permit
the dog to damage any lawn, garden or other private or public property,
or to micturate or defecate on private property without the consent of
the owner or possessor of the property. It shall be the duty of each
person having the custody or control of a dog to remove any feces left by
such dog on any public property or public area and to dispose of such
feces in a sanitary manner. It shall furthermore be the duty of each
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Edina Park and Recreation Department
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: May 25, 1984
Material Description (General Specifications):
Playground Equipment.
Quotations /Bids:
Lo any
1. Hamele Sales, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd., Suite 240
Plymouth, MN 55441
2. Earl F. Andersen & Assoc., Inc.
7115 Oakland Ave. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
3.
Department Recommendation:
Hamele Sales, Inc.
Finance Director's Endorsement:
The recommended bid is
Amount of Ouote or Bid
$40,478
$44,857.68
is not within the amount budget for the purchase,
r+. uaien, Finance Director
City Mananer's Endorsement:
I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
2. I recommend as an alternative:
AM ELE
SALES
Inc.
P.O. Box 256
HAMEL, MINNESOTA 55340
MN TOLL -FREE 1- 800 - 362 -3508
PROPOSAL FORM
PARK SYSTEM PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT - 1984
OTHER STATES TOLL -FREE 1- 800.328 -3557 EDINA, MINNESOTA
May 2 5 , 1984
City Council
City of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Council Members:
We, the undersigned, doing business as Hamele Sales, Inc.
and hereinafter known as the Bidder, have examined the sites of the proposed
work, familiarized ourselves with local conditions affecting the costs and
examined the specifications.
We hereby propose to enter into an agreement with the City of Edina, Minne-
sota, to furnish all labor, materials, equipment and skills for the six
playground units, all in accordance with the specifications and addenda thereto,
as prepared by the City of Edina, Minnesota, for the following sum:
1. Lump Sum Bid
Forty Thousand Four Hundred Seventy —Eight and no /100
Dollars ($ 40,478.00 )
Accompanying this proposal is a cash deposit, certified check or bid bond in
the amount of 10% bid bond Dollars ($ ) drawn to the order
of the City of Edina, with the understanding that if this proposal is accepted
and the undersigned refuses, fails, or neglects to execute a contract and furnish
said bond within ten (10) days of date of acceptance, said bid security.shall
be liquidated damages occasioned by such failure and thereupon said City shall
realize said bid security and use the proceeds in payment of incurred damages
and upon the further understanding that said bid security will be promptly
returned upon the rejection of this proposal.
Suppliers of Park and Recreation Equipment, Site Amenities, Architectural Sculptured Concrete Products,
Rubber Flooring, Park Shelters and Buildings, Custom Wood and Sculptured Concrete Products.
It is understood and agreed that this proposal cannot be withdrawn within
thirty (30) days without consent of the City and that the said City has
the right to accept or rejcect any or all proposals and waive any informal-
ities or irregularities therein.
lllcel1111i�51s'ewizl6ellll
BY Fran Hamele
Title President
PC Box 256 Legal Residence 12800 Industrial Park B1-,
Hamel, mN 55340
(Mailing address) Suite 240, Plymouth, MN 55441
Phone Number ( 612 ) 478 -9400
(State whether the Bidder is sole Proprietor,
a Partnership or a Corporation, and if a
corporation, the State in which it is incor-
porated.)
Hamele Sales, Inc. (Corporation)
lMinnesota
Officer
c
PROPOSAL FORM
PARK SYSTEM PLAYGROUND ZQUIPMENT - 1984
EDINA, MINNESOTA
City Council
City of Edina
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Council Members:
May 24 , 1984
We, the undersigned, doing business as EARL F. ANDERSEN AND ASSOC., INC.
and hereinafter known as the Bidder, have examined the sites of the proposed
work, familiarized ourselves with local conditions affecting the costs and
examined the specifications.
We hereby propose to enter into an agreement with the City of Edina, Minne-
sota, to furnish all labor, materials, equipment and skills for the six
playground units, all in accordance with the specifications and addenda thereto,
as prepared by the City of Edina, Minnesota, for the following sum:
1. Lump Sum Bid
Forty -four thousand eight hundre fifty -seven dollars and eighty-
-seven cents
Dollars ($ 44_,997_6g )
Accompanying this proposal is a cash deposit, certified check or bid bond in
the amount of ten percent Dollars ($ 4,857-69 drawn to the order
of the City of Edina, with the understanding that if this proposal is accepted
and the undersigned refuses, fails, or neglects to execute a contract and furnish
said bond within ten (10) days of date of acceptance, said bid security shall
be liquidated damages occasioned by such failure and thereupon said City shall
realize said bid security and use the proceeds in payment of incurred damages
and upon the further understanding that said bid security will be promptly
returned upon the rejection of this proposal.
It is understood and agreed that this proposal cannot be withdrawn within
thirty (30) days without consent of the City and that the said City has
the right to accept or rejcect any or all proposals and waive any informal-
ities or irregularities therein.
aM non son
Title President
Legal Residence 7115 Oakland Av. S.
Richfield, MN 55423
Phone Number 869 -0088
(State whether the Bidder is sole Proprietor,
a Partnership or a Corporation, and if a
corporation, the State in which it is incor-
porated.)
Corporation
Hennepin County
BEQUEST FOR PURMASE
A
j
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Francis.J. Hoffman, City Engineer
.IA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITE14 IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: June 1, 1984
Material Description (General Specifications):
Section I - Hansen Road - Permanent Street Surfacing & Curb & Gutter
Section II - Westridge Ct. - Permanent Street Surfacing & Curb & Gutter
Section III - Garden Park Improvements
Section IV - 'Playground'Concrete Rings
Section V - Arneson Park Curb & Gutter
Quotations /Bids:
Company "Amount of Quote or Did
1. See attached Tabulation
2.
14,
Department Recommendation: Midwest.Asphalt Corporation - Bid Section I. II, III = $473,720.59
Reject Bid Section IV & V
"aw WOi -ks -.y)iI Vf,
Signat a Department
Finance Director's Endorsement:
The recommended bid is V is not
within the amount budget for the purchase.
J. N. Dalen. Finance Director
City • naner's Endorsement:
1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
2. I recommend as an al ternati ve :
Kenneth R stand, City f•lanager
TABULATION OF BIDS
1.1 I 1 VI- CUINM. 1911YIVCJV Ili
CONTRACT #84 -3 (.ENG.)
PERMANENT STREET SURFACING AND CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -137
S.A.P. 120- 151 708
IMPROVEMENT NO. 84 -4
GARDEN PARK GRADING,:GRAVELING AND CURB AND GUTTER
PLAYGROUND CONCRETE RINGS
ARNESON PARK-CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
IMPROVEMENT "'N0. BA -261
BID OPENING - MAY 31, 1984 - 11:00'A.M.
BIDDER
SECTION
I
SECTION
II
SECTION
III
SECTION
IV
SECTION
V
TOTAL
Midwest Asphalt Corporation
'382,873.09
7,935.00
82,912.50
12,144.00
6,146.40
1492,010.99
Bury & Carlson, Inc.
392,765.29
7,685.50
95,353.00
7,920.00
4,681.90
508,405.69
Matt Bullock Contracting Co.
404,422.4E
9,335.00
90,181.60
9,900.00
4,662.00
518,501.05
Alexander Construction
421,091.5C
9,575.00
113,953.60
18,480.00
6,492.00
570,042. 10
aminous Roadways, Inc.
453,648.6C
8,851.25
92,225.50
11,880.00
6,598.00
573,203.35
Hardrives, Inc.
434,216.1
9;090.00
127,907.50
9,966.00
7,016.00
588,195.60
Buesing Bros. Trucking, Inc.
502,900.25
9,726.00
98,949.00
8,646.00
5,310.00
525,531.25
M \.
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE:
05,398.50
7,780.00
81,927.50
11,220.00
6,565.00
$512,891.00
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: CRAIG SWANSON
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Hanager
3
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEPI IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: JUNE 4, 1984
Material Description (General Specifications):
HP 150 /Software /Printer
Quotations /Bids:
Company
1. Dodd Electronics (Low Bid to Logis)
0
3.
Department Recommendation:
Dodd Electronics
fiv-- C-
Amount of Quote or Bid
$6,185.00
Signature Department
Finance Director's Endorsement:
The recommended bid is Gx"" is not within the amount budget for the purchase.
J. N. �O� ,Finance Director
City M per's Endorsement:
1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve
the purchase.
2. I recommend as an alternative:
Kenneth Rosland, Ci y Manager
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, City Engineer
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: 509 Surface Water Management Plan
The Metropolitan Council proposed legislation during 1981 and 1982 which
became law in 1982 regarding surface water management. The City Council
opposed adoption of such plan prior to legislation occuring. The belief
at the'time was that Minnehaha Creek and Nine Mile Creek Watershed Districts
had . good operating plans in place.
However, Chapter 509 of the 1982 State Law now requires updating and
further development of existing plans. City staff has been working with
both Watershed Districts in developing potential new policy and projects
that would involve watershed participation.
Attached are preliminary projects and policies that are being discussed
currently. Also, attached is a map showing existing DNR public waters
and wetlands in Edina. On Monday evening, June 4, City staff will make
a short presentation, with the aid of a large scale map, to discuss the
feasibility of providing greater or less watershed and City control over
existing ponds and wetlands. We request no official action on this
matter other than comments which staff may pass on to either Watershed
Board.
KR: FJH:lm
June 1, 1984
f
- Preliminary Draft - 4/19/84
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
STORMWATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT POLICY
It is the policy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to manage
stormwater runoff for the objectives of reducing the frequency and extent of
high water and floods, and to improve water quality. The District intends to
provide management criteria for these objectives in its watershed management
plan mandated by Chapter 509. These criteria would be implemented by
municipalities in their local water management plans also required by Chapter
509. The stormwater management criteria may require retrofitting developed
areas which have water quantity /quality problems.
The District prefers non - structural solutions to management of runoff. It is
recognized, however, that non - structural management opportunities will vary
with degree of urbanization and other factors.
GOALS
- Limit the rate of runoff on a regional or subwatershed basis so that
future peak rates of runoff are less than or equal to existing
rates.
An increase in the rate of runoff may be allowed where it is
demonstrated that; 1) flooding will be reduced, 2) increased rates
will not cause damage and 3) water quality will not be degraded.
Reduce rates of runoff from subwatersheds draining by streams to
Lake Minnetonka such that peak rates, after full development, are
less than existing rates.
Reduce high water levels and peak flows which inundate and cause
structural damage to improved properties.
Preserve and utilize natural detention areas for stormwater runoff
such as wetlands and lowlands.
(1)
Reduce nutrient and pollutant loadings carried by surface water from
one subwatershed to another. Non - structural methods will be used
wherever possible to enhance natural assimilative capacities of
wetlands and detention basins.
Reduce harmful nutrient and pollutant loadings to water bodies used
for recreational or fisheries purposes.
Enhance the quality of recreational opportunities, wildlife and
fisheries habitat and aesthetics, to the maximum practicable extent
by augmentation of low water levels.
(2)
- Preliminary Draft - 4/19/84
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT POLICY
It is the policy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to reduce the
extent and frequency of high water and flood damage, prevent adverse changes
in water quality, protect wildlife habitat and preserve aesthetic values of
open space in areas abutting lakes, streams-and wetlands. To the extent
allowed by law, the District intends to provide management criteria for these
objectives in its watershed management plan mandated by Chapter 509. These
criteria would be implemented by municipalities in their local water
management plans also required by Chapter 509.
The District believes it is in the best interests of the public health, safety
and welfare to restrict development and construction in flood plain areas
which are inconsistent with the above objectives.
Goals
- Reduce high water levels and floods which inundate or cause damage
to properties by maximizing the amount of flood plain storage
capacity for stormwater and snowmelt runoff.
- Reduce harmful nutrient and pollutant loadings to water bodies used
for recreational and fisheries purposes by maximizing the amount of
flood plain area which functions as a filter for stormwater runoff.
- Preliminary Draft - 4/19/84
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT '
DREDGING POLICY
It is the policy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to allow dredging
projects only when it is demonstrated that such projects will have an overall
benefit on the affected water resource. The District intends to provide
management criteria for dredging projects in its watershed management plan
mandated by Chapter 509. These criteria would be implemented by
municipalities in their local water management plans also required by Chapter
509.
The District believes dredging projects should be limited to those which are
in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare. (1)
Goals
- Minimize adverse environmental change to protected waters.
- Maintain natural shoreline characteristics and appearance by
restricting alterations of existing lake and wetland shoreline
alignments.
- Improve 'or maintain general recreational, wildlife and fisheries
characteristics of lakes, streams and wetlands.
- Prohibit projects which would connect navigable bodies of water with
backwater, wetland or other water areas not accessable by
navigation.
(1) Dredging projects may be allowed when dredging is necessary to
implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access.
- Preliminary Draft - 4/19/84
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
SOIL LOSS /SEDIMENTATION CONTROL POLICY
It is the policy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to reduce
deposition of sediment in the waterways of.-the District to the maximum
practicable extent. The District intends to provide criteria for these
objectives in its watershed management plan mandated by Chapter 509. These
criteria would be implemented by municipalities in their local water
management plans also required by Chapter 509.
The District believes sediment and erosion controls are necessary and
consistent with sound surface water management.
Goals
Reduce sediment loadings to lakes, streams and wetlands resulting
from construction activities and land development.
Identify erosion prone and sediment source areas along with
potential solutions to existing problems throughout the District.
Reduce the frequency and amount of public expenditures required for
maintenance and dredging of waterways damaged by sedimentation.
- Preliminary Draft -
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
POLICY FOR OTHER WORK IN THE BEDS OF PROTECTED WATERS
4/19/84
It is the policy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to allow public or
private projects which are located in the beds of protected waters only when
such projects have an overall benefit on the affected water resource, minimize
significant environmental detriment and do not restrict the carrying capacity
or navigational capability of the waterway. -The District intends to provide
criteria for these objectives in its watershed management plan mandated by
Chapter 509. These criteria would be implemented by municipalities in their
local water management plans also required by Chapter 509.
The District believes it is in the best interests of the public health, safety
and welfare to allow only those projects which are consistent with the above
objectives.
Goals
- Minimize the use of lakebeds and the beds of streams and waterways
for the placement of fill, roads, highways, utilities and other
structures.
Minimize the effects of projects which will result in an increase in
nutrient or pollutant loadings to water bodies used for recreational
and fisheries purposes.
Prohibit projects which will adversely affect water levels or
quality.
NINE MILE PROJECTS
1.
105th Street Constriction
2.
Smetana Lake Outlet Structure
3.
Bush Lake Restoration Project
4.
Anderson Lake Outlet
5.
Bush Lake Pump Outlet
,6.
Adam's Hill Pump Outlet
,7.
Lake and Ponding Basin Dredging: Oxboro Lake, Skriebakken, St. Edwards,
North Bay Bush Lake, Lake Edina
�8.
Weed Harvesting Within Lakes and Ponding Basins
—
9.
Revisions to Outlet and Inlet Structures at Sedimentation Basins to
Enhance Treatment
10.
Creek Bank Stabilization and Improvements
—11.
Hiking and Nature Trail Construction Along Nine Mile Creek
---12.
Control Structure for Edina - Bloomington Stormwater Management Area
13.
Sedimentation Basin Construction Within the Kenneth Area, Edina West
High School, Edina School Nature Imterpretive Center and Salley Lane
Drainageway in Edina
14.
Braemar Branch Improvement Via Control Structure and Dredging
15.
Schaefer Road Ponding Basins Connection and Outlet
16.
Water Quality Improvements of the District's Numerous Lakes
,17.
Watershed Water Quality Testing Program
18.
Lake Jane Storm Sewer
19.
Mayview Road /Lorence Road Storm Sewer
20.
Kraemer Pond Outlet
21.
Bradford Road /Crawford Road Upgrading
22.
Glenridge Sump Outlet
23.
Lone Lake Overflow Outlet
24.
Woodhill Road Sump Outlet
25.
Woodgate Pond Overflow Outlet
26.
Lake Holiday Overflow Outlet
27.
Bellevue /Caribou Overflow
28.
James Road Pond Overflow Outlet
29.
Glen Lake Water Level Stabilization
30.
Shady Oak Lake Water Quality and Beach Improvements
. - ♦� i�`qw ��, � �� ems_ -.,, - �— ' Nr9J -. 3bP� s ?' \�
_ s� - lolw./ lozw 1o92W � I _ ► I ,�' r, „ t:
7f 5OW
• II � ~•, t
732W �
731w 1 r
II 1 1 652P ;w6S3P
i" t 729P ly
t7P
P
r .r... 711P' 1 I �r...r 1.54P
' 739P' 1LIW. II ��.:. )0i7td «` r� .
7%W jj
I L
1 .43W ,r3ut ley Yd �l.656P 39P P
659W' a
1 7>.3•J 1 iI .,���Y - Hannan 51P �j �•�+ - it
b57P' . l
V.c cone
�1t� L
,�'•. 72P, _ �1 I 7154 ST.. PARK
lw •
7• 7lbW 660P
77yw� 775 ♦;? .�: _ _ _ ,w J, /i bWP� - - -- I
r .
.,'� 662
HnPKIV:_ � � i
777? .. .il ` lrlY',• --- , �66SP II
Wow
41re w•hr0nk
z tih.0 /, 1 ' 1- bblw' .bb6W I I 41P +
EDINA IbP'
kip'' t ' y794W 74tw -�-- -_
.-
r � I� 1 � Lake i .;'• :'°°` 1 '. ••��
741w i,b I ,
793 roo
`1 ,. .. she ('rn. wT
�� MINNETgNKA ` `8o,�euaw
F %
►9bw- • rtoJ✓ �t L �-(,70J
94P 791w "; 401 • S(OP I 669
; w.
y� * i Har•kee I _
3 1 749W� 50P 1 �� �� b75P b8iu/
611P
If b12W I 11 I�, '
r.
j
1 r 1 6-16W {M
Li
1 , c 80) Y06 1
/ ' bl9W T
`ter ~
7o
13W
�I
e /07 /x.1 62P'
EDEN f'I 1: �
,.
1009w'.
-79P
.. , l00%w;
—�
u II
1050%J / Lake p
- 1 Er1.na 71
.r0/3w IoY✓ -- JJ Y JI %079/° �I
e,
1045w' o lW, I 1 :'I
1I 'I _
I `
1�
�.
/otsw 1049W , 4P ,11, I!
IOI6W • �I "jl` •j- r
- �1011W.� .,�� �O•AP 104`�P; � w bW i, _ 1 1111 .
10% 104%W
1 1 •IiIIP,
loloW�� 1 1 +
47P , --
BLOOMII
j�
Nine Mile Creek Watershed District
4344 IDS CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, M I N N E S O T A 55402
NOTICE
OF
ANNUAL NINE MILE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT TOUR
The Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Board of Managers will conduct a tour
of the watershed from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 1984.
Various proposed and existing development areas will be reviewed, including:
Bredesen Park (Mud Lake) in Edina
Mount Normandale Lake
Opus II Development
Various Ongoing Projects Within the District
The tour will begin at 2:00 p.m. at Stonewings Restaurant (8301 Normandale
Boulevard) and return there for supper at 5:00 p.m. Please call Barr
Engineering Co., 920 -0655, before 12:00 noon, Friday, June 8, 1984, if you
plan to attend.
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 31, 1984
TO: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
FROM: David A. Veld
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 434 Amendment
Attached are several amendments to Ordinance No. 434. These amendments .
are needed to address several issues which in the past 'have caused confusion
with swimming pool installers and homeowners.
This amendment also addresses hot tubs and fencing requirements for
the hot tubs. In the past, the whirlpools needed fencing but hot tubs
did not.
The amendments also clarify the language for deck requirements, adequate
fence design and setback requirements for hot tubs and whirlpools.
I would like to have these amendments acted on by the Edina City Council
with second reading waived because there is a swimming pool permit on hold
pending these language changes.
DAVJIde
r
ORDINANCE NO. 434 -A8
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 434
TO DEFINE SPECIAL PURPOSE POOLS AND SWIMMING
POOLS, CHANGE DECK AREA REQUIREMENTS, CLARIFY
FENCE REQUREMENTS AND AMEND LOCATION
REQUIREMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 1 of Ordinance No. 434 is hereby amended by
changing the following definitions:
"Swimming Pool" is any basing for holding water designed for human
use, with a furface area exceed 100 square feet.
"Special Purpose Pool" is any basin for holding water designed for
human use, 100 square feet or less in water surface area. This definition
includes, but is not limited to, treatment pools, therapeutic pools, whirlpools,
spa pools hot tubs and wading pools.
"(g) Pool Deck. Unobstructed deck areas not less than 48 inches wide
shall be provided to extend entirely around (i) each swimming pool and (ii) each
special purpose ool if an art thereof is installed within 5 feet of a swimming
ool; rovided, however, that no deck need be rovided for that side o a I'll �ecial purpose pool formin a common wall with a swimmin poo where the water
de th of the swimmin ool and s ecial ur ose ool are both less than 54 inches
each- 19oo},- -i rcla�ir�g- s�nritr�mi -pec) _ at3c#-speeW- }suvfxp se- s; -eve i rto #
ene- suel:r- �pool; -"*t- e"- c�embinatioftrgs- eenstpuet -ed -at #he- same- leeaticxr�
1iwevertaep- twe-e� -mere- peels are- 4eeatec#- t�e�et -to- • 1�°°videcf,
decirare- "- hessth$rr-4fF inches -wide- need -be- � ie� e re tlheV001y -�roee
d the - peeler -te-vv c+- Jtl�- decrarea -A cortneeted... shall tbove,
but:not. more. than 9 inches above; 'the normal water line. The deck area shall be
constructed of impervious material, and the surface shall be such as to be smooth
and easily cleaned and of non -slip construction. The deck shall halve a pitch of
at least one - fourth inch to the foot, designed so as to prevent back drainage
into the pool. If deck drains are provided, drain pipe lines shall be at least
two inches in diameter; drain openings shall have an open area of at least four
times the cross - sectional area of the drain pipe. The deck drain system shall
have indirect connections to the sanitary sewer. The deck drains shall not be
connected to the recirculation system piping."
Section 3. Section 23 of Ordinance No. 434 is amended to read:
"Section 23. Location. No portion of a swimming pool or appurtenances
thereto shall be located at a distance less than ten feet .from any side or rear
property line, nor in front of the building line. No portion of a special purpose
00 or a urtenance thereto shall be located at
nrnp a distance ess than om 5 eet r
any side or rear erty line, nor in front of the buildinq line.
Section 4. Section 24 of Ordinance No. 434 is hereby amended to read:
Sec. 24. Fences. All swimming pools and special purpose pools shall
be completely enclosed by a non- climbina_ type fence. All fence openings or
points of entry into the pool area enclosure shall be equipped with gates .
The fence and gates shall be at least four feet in height and shall be con-
structed of a minimum number eleven gauge woven wire mesh corrosion -
resistant material, or other materials approved by the Building Inspector.
All gates shall be equipped with self - closing and self - latching devices placed
at the top of the gate or otherwise inaccessible to small children. All fence
posts shall be decay or corrosion - resistant and shall be set in concrete bases,
or other suitable protection. The openings between the bottom of the fence and
the ground or other surface and the openings between the vertical pickets
shall not be more than four inches.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately
upon its passage and publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Published in the Edina Sun on
Attest:
(signed) Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
(signed) C. Wayne Courtney
Mayor
LIQUOR FUND
BALANCE SHEET
CITY OF EDINA
As of January 31, 1984
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash:
Demand Deposits
$(43,238.02)
Working Fund
3,800.00
$ (39.438.02)
Contracts Receivable
47,891.35
Loan To Other Funds
415,000.00
Inventory:
Liquor
$352,948.20
Wine
271,241.91
Beer and Mix
56,901.91
681,092.02
Prepaid Expenses:
Unexpired Insurance
$ 7,560.00
Surplus
400.00
7,960.00
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
$1,112,505.35
FIXED ASSETS:
Land $233,784.60
Land Improvements $ 22,552.28
Buildings 729,769.27
Furniture and Fixtures 299,844.14
Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55
$1,055,201.24
Less Allowance for Depreciation
and Amortization 432,854.35 622,346.89 856,131.49
TOTAL ASSETS $1,968,636.84
LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Trade Accounts Payable
$ 132,238.53
Accrued Payroll 7030.35
$ 139,268.88
Due to Other Funds 16,169.64
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES $ 155,438.52
SURPLUS:
Invested in Fixed Assets $856,131.49
Unappropriated 957,066.83 1,813,198.32
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS $1,968,636.84
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE
CITY OF EDINA
One Month Ending January 31, 1984 and January 31, 1983 Increase -
1984 19R3 Decrease*
50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total T„tai
SALES:
19.49%
19.39%
303,342.64
256,136.67
769,373:15
16.63%
16.73%
93,542.25
15.16
15.39
Liquor $
36,994.48
$ 76,821.74
$ 68,343.62 $
182,159.84 $
40,052.80
$ 79,409.04
$ 68,114.95 $
187,576.79
$ 5,416.95*
$1-,059.240.72
Wine
Beer
26,261.98
46,898.58
38,352.89
111,513.45
25,002.18
47,719.82
40,211.72,
112.933.72
1,420.27*
104,644.84 $
Mix and Miscellaneous
14,968.72
30,046.55
25,440.86
70,456.13
16,282.61
30,343.21
24,329.93
70,955.75
499.62*
954.31
2,317.22
2,062.91
5,334.44
932.85
1,983 62
1,919 59
4,836 06
498.38
$
79,179.49
$ 156,084.09
$ 134,200.28 $
369,463.86 $
82,270.44
$ 159,455.69
$ 134,576.19 $
376,302.32
$ 6,838.46*
Less bottle refunds
2,077.62
4;949.35
4,384.72
11,411.69
2,069.15
5,108 24
4,710.18
11,887.57
475.88*
N ET SALES$
77,101.87
$ 151,134.74
$ 129,815.56 $
358,052.17 $
80.201.29
$ 154,347.45
$ 129,866.01 $
364,414.75
$ 6,362.58*
COST OF SALES:
Inventory - January 175,604.42
Purchases 70, 759.45
$ 246,363.87
Inventory Jan. 31 186,387.16
$ 59,976.71
289,642.25
99,890.91
$ 389,533.16
267,857.43
121.675.73
237,950.02
19.49%
19.39%
303,342.64
256,136.67
769,373:15
16.63%
16.73%
93,542.25
15.16
15.39
116,913.43
106,743.21
289,867.57
13.67
14 :63
331,492.27
4.33%
4.00%
420,256.07
$ 362,879.88
$1-,059.240.72
2.96%
- 2.10% --
226,847.43
.87
.96
291,318.45
254.606.53
755,798.32
1:23
1 :12
104,644.84 $
$
$ 128,937.62
$
$ 303,442.40
703,196.69
264,192.61
967,389:30
681,092.02
286 297.28
209,893.84
66,210.93
276,104.77
209 873.34
66 231 :43
108 273.35 303 442 :40
GROSS PRO�IT 17,125.16 $ 29,459.01 $ 25,170.72 $ 71,754.89 $ 13,969.86 $ 25,409.83 $ 21,592.66 $ 60,972.35 10,782.54
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Selling 6,257.70 11,924.69 9,343.10 27,525.49 5,360.91 10,321.11 8,663.04 24,345.06 3,180.43
Overhead 3,596.88 3,444.54 4,060.66 11,102.08 2,846.10 4,608.86 3,093.21 10,548.17 553.91
Administrative 6,312.03 7,543.02 6,575.85 20,430.90 5,845.84 6,597 95 5,992 50 18,436.29 1,994 61
TOTAL OPE R ATjN G 16,166.61 $ 22,912.25 $ 19,979.61 $ 59,058.47 $ 14,052.85 $ 21,527.92 $ 17 ;748 :75 $ 53;329:52 $ 5,728.95
EXPENSES .
NET OPERATIN9
PROFIT 958.55 $ 6,546.76 $ 5,191.11 $ 12,696.42 $ 82.99* $ 3,881.91 $ 3,843.91 $ 7,642.83 $. 5,053,58
OTHER INCOME:
Cash Discount 1,119.99 1,271.73 1,212.40 3,604.12 922.02 1,603.64 1,502.49 4,028.15 424.03*
Cash over or under 11.36* 22.74* .93 33.17* 3.67* 42.40* 86.32 40.25 73.42*
Income on investments -0- -0- -0- -0- -0-
Other 39.02 60.48 35.88 135.38 10.97 7.48 '9 :31 27.76 107.62
$ 1,147.65 _ $ 1,309.47 $ 1,249.21 $ 3,706.33 $ 929.32 $ 1,568-.72 $ 1,598.12 $ 49096.16 $ 389.83*
NETINCOIV� 2,106.20 $ 7,856.23 $ 6,440.32 $ 16,402.75 $ 846:33 $ 5 ;450.63 $ 5.442.63,
25,674.96*
91,851.42*
74,706.30*
17,145.12*
PERCENT TO NET SAL
Gross profit
Operating expenses
Operating profit
Other income
22.21%
19.49%
19.39%
20.04%
17.42%
16.46%
16.63%
16.73%
20.97
15.16
15.39
16.49
17.52
13.95
13.67
14 :63
1.24%.
4.33%
4.00%
3.55%
.10 %*
2.51%
2.96%
- 2.10% --
1.49
.87
.96
1.03
1.15
1.02
1:23
1 :12
$
11,738 99
$
4,663 76
PERCENT TO NET SAL
Gross profit
Operating expenses
Operating profit
Other income
22.21%
19.49%
19.39%
20.04%
17.42%
16.46%
16.63%
16.73%
20.97
15.16
15.39
16.49
17.52
13.95
13.67
14 :63
1.24%.
4.33%
4.00%
3.55%
.10 %*
2.51%
2.96%
- 2.10% --
1.49
.87
.96
1.03
1.15
1.02
1:23
1 :12
NETS' ')ME 2,73% 5.20% o- 4.96% 4.58% 1.05% 3.53% .19% 3.22%
t,4
LIQUOR FUND
BALANCE SHEET
CITY OF EDINA
As at February 29, 1984
/ VIft:60
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash:
Demand Deposits
Working Fund
Contracts Receivable
Loan to Other Funds
Inventory:
Liquor
Wine
Beer and Mix
Prepaid Expenses:
Unexpired Insurance
Supplies
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
FIXED ASSETS:
$( 9,647.49)
3,800.00
$348,169.28
258,373.16
60,001.10
$ 6,010.00
400.00
$ (5,847.49)
47,891.35
415,000.00
666,543.54
6,410.00
$1,129,997.40
Land $233,784.60
Land Improvements $ 22,552.28
Buildings 729,769.27
Furniture and Fixtures 299,844.14
Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55
$1,055,201.24
Less: Allowance for Depreciation
and Amortization 436,864.35 618,336.89 852,121.49
TOTAL ASSETS $1,982,118.89
LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
CURRENT LIABILITIES: —
Trade Accounts Payable
Accrued Payroll
Due To Other Funds
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
SURPLUS:
Invested in Fixed Assets
Unappropriated
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
$ 122,935.11
7.043.68
$ 129,978.79
16.169.64
$ 146,148.43
$852,121.49
983,848.97 1,835,970.46
$1,982,118.89
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE
CITY OF EDINA
Two Months Ending February 29, 1984 and February 28,1983.
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Selling
11,124.98
20,354.31
15,758.31
Overhead
6,192.78
7,884.41
7,587.79
Administrative
12,331.15
15,707.68
13,278,55
TOTAL OPERATING
29,648.91
$ 43,946.40
$ 36,fi24.65
EXPENSES
Increase -
24.65
50th Street
NETOPERATING$
Yorkdalei984
$ 13,832.77
Grandview
PROFIT
Total
50th
Street
Yorkdalel983 Grandview
Total
Other
nPCrPaGe Total
110.42
SALES:
260.88
54.18
77.25 -
63.82
1 195.25
65.63
$
2,146.40
$ 2,714.58 $
2,972.09 $
7,833.07 $
2,278.62 $
3; 793.77 $...
2;810.45 $
8,882.84
$ 1,049.77*
N ETINCOM E$
6,494.89
Liquor $
75,496.71
$
150,317.17
$
134,998.31
$
360;812.19
$
78,872.93
$
155,384.47
$
134,777.09
$
369,034.49
$
8,222.30*
Wine
52,231.40
93,739.16
77,275.63
223,246.19
51,042.90
94,828.35
78,498.64
224,369.89
1,123:70*
Beer
30,124.37
60,033.91
50,281.75
140,440.03
31,131.01
58,998.43
47,672.34
137,801.78
2,638.25
Mix and Miscellaneous
1,901.67
4,824.54
2,885.59
10,611.80
2, 031:57
4,021.62
3,689.51
9,742.70
869.10
$
159,754.15
$
308,914.78
$
266,441.28
$
735,110.21
$
163,078.41
$
313,232.87
$
264,637.58
$
740,948.86
$
5,838.65*
Less bottle refunds
4,194.95
9,591.70
8,523.18
22,309.83
4,103.85
10;006.54
9,122.50
23,232.89
923.06*
N ET SA LES $
155,559.20
$
299,323.08
$
257,918.10
$
712,800.38
$
158,974.56
$
303,226.33
$
255,515.08
$
717,715.97
$
4,915.59*
COST OF SALES:
Inventory - January 1175,604:42
289,642.25
237 - 950.02
703,196.69
209,893.84
303,342.64
256,136.67
769,373.15
66,176.46*
Purchases
134,699622
198,291.13
201,595.10
534,585.45
149,473.70
261,076.37
197,370.00
607,920.07
73,334.62*
$
310,303.64
$
487,933.38
$
439,545.12
$1,237,782.14
$
359,367.54
$
" 564,419.01-
$"
453,506.67
$1,377,293.22
$139,511.08*
Inventory Feb. 29
188,741.84
246,389.47
231,412.23
666,543.54
229,040.08
311 ;259.42
- 240;515.49
780,814.99
114,271.45*
$
121,561.80
$
241,543.91
$
208,132.89
$
571,238.60
$
130, 327.46
$
253,159.59
$
212,991.18
$
596 1)478.23
$
25,239.63*
GROSS PROFIT
33,997.40
$
57,779.17
$
49,785.21
$
141,561.78
$
28,647.10
$
50,066.74
$
42,523.90
$
121,237.74
$
20.324.04
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Selling
11,124.98
20,354.31
15,758.31
Overhead
6,192.78
7,884.41
7,587.79
Administrative
12,331.15
15,707.68
13,278,55
TOTAL OPERATING
29,648.91
$ 43,946.40
$ 36,fi24.65
EXPENSES
88.46
24.65
60.71*
NETOPERATING$
4,348.49
$ 13,832.77
$ 13,160.56
PROFIT
-0-
OTHER INCOME:
47,237.60
12,201.66
22,533.68
18,696.28
21,664.98
6,692.45
8,675.96
7,268.07
41,317.38
119737.54
14 9814.52
12,214.66
110,219.96 $
30,631.65 $
46,024.16 $
38,179.01 $
53,431.62
22,636.48
38.766.72
114,834.82
$ 31,341.82 $ 1,984.55* $ 4,042.58 $ 4,344.89 $ 6,402.92
6,194.02*
971.50*
2.550.66
4.614.86*
$ 24,938.90
Cash Discount
2,089.30
2,638.51
2,880.44
7,608.25
2,222.16
3,782.61
2,658.17
8,662.94
1,054.69*
Cash over or under
12.91*
34.35*
11,20
36.06*
2.28
66.09*
88.46
24.65
60.71*
Income on investments
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Other
70.01
110.42
80.45
260.88
54.18
77.25 -
63.82
1 195.25
65.63
$
2,146.40
$ 2,714.58 $
2,972.09 $
7,833.07 $
2,278.62 $
3; 793.77 $...
2;810.45 $
8,882.84
$ 1,049.77*
N ETINCOM E$
6,494.89
$ 16,547.35 $
16,132.65-$
39,174.89 $
294.07::$:
7 ;836.35::$
7 ;155.34 $
15,285.76
$ 23.889.13
PERCENT TO NET SALES:
Gross profit
Operating expenses 21.85%
Operating profit 19.06
f Other income 2.79%
NET I' `M€ 1.38
(y
19.30% 19.30% 19.86% 18.02% 16.51% 16.64% 16.89%
14.68 14.20 15.46 19.27 15.18 14.94 16.00
4:91
1:I5 1.10/
4.17% 5.53% 6.25%
5.50%
1 :25/
.18% 2.58% 2.80% 2.13%
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash:
Demand Deposits
Working Fund
Contracts Receivable
Loan To Other Funds
Inventory:
Liquor
Wine
Beer and Mix
Prepaid Expenses:
Unexpired Insurance
Supplies
LIQUOR FUND
BALANCE SHEET
CITY OF EDINA
As at March 31, 1984
ASSETS
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
$ 60,492.22
3,800.00
$332,434.13
269,921.93
48,663.54
$ 64,292.22
39,786.69
415,000.00
651,019.60
$ 4,460.00
400.00 4,860.00
$1,174,958.51
FIXED ASSETS:
Land $233,784.60
Land Improvements $ 22,552 28
Buildings 729,769.27
Furniture and Fixtures 299,844.14
Leasehold Improvements 3,035.55
$1,055,201.24
Less: Allowance for Depreciation
and Amortization 440,874.35 614,326.89 848,111.49
TOTAL ASSETS $2,023,070.00
CURRENT LIABILITIES:
Trade Accounts Payable
Accrued Payroll
Due To Other Funds
LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
SURPLUS:
Invested in Fixed Assets $ °848,111.49
Unappropriated 1.036.246.47
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND SURPLUS
$ 115,292.81
7,249.59
$ 122,542.40
16.169.64
$ 138,712.04
1,884,357.96
$2,023,070.00
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSE
CITY OF EDINA
Three Months Ending March 31, 1984 and March 31, 1983
Increase-
1984 Decrease*
50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total 50th Street Yorkdale Grandview Total m-,
SALES:
Liquor $
116,126.60
$
236,371.23
$
-210,083.88
$ 562,581.71
$
122,093.83
$
244,979.15
$ 210,698.89
$
577,771.87
$
15,190.16*
Wine
79,488.72
144,241.98
118,846.35
342,577.05
77,986.30
146,719.78
119,138.00
343.844.08
1,267.03*
Beer
48,305.92
98,624.18
82,324.33
229,254.43
49,195.59
92,905.26
74,746.65
216,847.50
12,406.93
Mix and Miscellaneous
3,008.90
7,546.23
6,177.05
16,732.18
3,110.23
6,701.07
5 ;573.94
15,385.24
1,346.94
$
246,930.14
$
486,783.62
$
417,431.61
$1,151,145.37
$
252,385.95
$
- 491,305.26
$ 410,157.48
$1,153,848.69
$
2,703.32*
Less bottle refunds
6,240.61
14,800.12
13,264.70
34,305.43
6,431.57
15, 659.76
14,192.59
36,283.92
1,978.49*
NET SALES $
240,689.53
$
471,983.50
$
404,166.91
$1,116,839.94
$
245,954.38
$
475,645.50
$ 395,964.89
$1,117,564.77
$
724.83*
COST OF SALES:
Inventory - January 1
175,604.42
289,642.25
237,950.02
703,196.69
209,893.84
303,342.64
256,136.67
769,373.15
66,176.46*
Purchases
204,104.22
322,352.18
300,996.89
827,453.29
223, 660.66
401,106.80
336,206.78
960,974.24
133,520.95*
$
379,708.64
$
611,994.43
$
538,946.91
$1,530,649.98
$
433, 554.50 '$
704,449.44
$- 592,343.45
$1,730,347.39
$199,697.41*
Inventory March 31
193,363.27
237,261.10
220,395.23
651,019.60
230,493.42
307,138.99
261,915.88
799,548.29
148,528.69*
$
186,345.37
$
374,733.33
$
318,551.68
$ 879,630.38
$
203,061.08 "
"$
397,310.45
$ 330,427.57
$
930,799.10
$
51,168.72*
GROSS PRO F$T
54,344.16
$
97,250.17
$
85,615.23
$ 237,209.56
$
42,893.30
$
78,335.05
$ 65,537.32
$
186,765.67
$
50,443.89
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Selling
16,258.39
29,195.34
23,005.62
:68,459.35
17,177.14
31,139.98
26,465.07
74,782.19
6,322.84*
Overhead
9,484.76
11,491.36
9,974.27
30,950.39
9,265.30
12,353.65
- - 10,158-.89
31,717.84
767.45*
Administrative
18,733.81
23,841.56
19,910.35
62,485.72
18,421.03
24,788.57
19,549.02
62,758.62
272.90*
TOTAL OPER ATII�G
44,476.96
$
64,528.26
$
52,890.24
$ 161,895.46
$.
44,803.47.
$.
.685282.20
$ 56,172.98..$1.169,258.65
$
.7,363.19*
EXPENSES _
NET OPERATING
PROFIT $
95867.20
$
325721.91
$
32,724.99
$ 755314.10
$
1,910.17*
$
10.,052.85
$ 9,364.34
$
175507.02
$
57,807.08
OTHER INCOME:
Cash Discount
3,247.35
4,436.62
4,255.92
11,939.89
3,350.98
5,932 .02
4,833.93
14,116.93
2,177.04*
Cash over or under
15.86*
60.83*
17.99
58.70*
4.18*
100.99*
89.09
16.08*
42.62*
Income on investments
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Other
96.17
152.54
118.39
367.10
70.51
96.75
73.82
241.08
126.02
$
35327.66
$
4,528.33
$
45392.30
$ 12,248.29
$
3,417.31"
$"
55927.78
$ 4,996.84
$
14;341.93
$
2,093.64*
N ETINCOM E$
13,194.86
$
375250.24
$
375117.29
87,562.39
$
1, 507.14
$:::15
980.63
$ 14,361.18
$
31,848.95
$
551,713.44
PERCENT TO NET SALES:
Gross profit
22.58%
20.60%
21.18%
21.24%
17.43%
16.47%
- - 16.55%
16.71%
Operating expenses
18.48
13.67
13.08
14.50
18.21
14.36
14.19
15.14
Operating profit
4.10%
6.93%
8.10%
6.74%
.78%
2.11%
2.36%
1.57%
Other income
1.38
.96
1.08
1.10
1.39
1.25
1.26
1.28
NET IN "`M E
5.48%
7.89%
9.18%
7.84%
.61%
3.36%
3.62%
2.85%
-''
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO* INV.
# P.O. N PTSSAGE
1560 1
L' 5/25/84
32.95
AUTOMnBILE SERVICE C
CONT REPAIRS
10-4248-560-56
156012
G5/25184
55.83
AUTOMCOTLE SERVICE C
C(NI REPAIRS
10-4248-560-56
156013
C 5/25/ F4
33.96
ALIERNATER REBUILD
GEN SUPPLIES
10-45C4-328-3C
1 2'�
156017
(15/24/84
101 .60
ALLIED PLASTICS
GEN SUPPLIES
20-45C4-646-64
le
156026
05/3C/84
465.61
BADGER METER INC
INV WATER SUPPLY
30-1220-000-0C
Ti'
--WATER-PE-TERS
156026
05/3CI84
654 .4 4
EACGER METER INC
REPAIR PARTS
30-4540-783-78
21
1,794.23
27!
156031
05/24fF4
11 .42
EERTELSON BROS INC
GEN SUPPLIES
10-45C4-260-26
Z9
156031
05/25/84
22.89
EERTELSON BROS INC
OFFICE SUPPLIES
10-4 5 16-18 2- 18
3-1
30
156031
05/25/F4
30.PO
EERTELSON BROS INC
OFFTCF SUPPLIES
10-4 5 16-18 2-18
158.-80
EERTELSON BROS INC
CFF!CE SUPPLIES—
1-0---45-16-w'5-1 0-- 51
05/25/84
F.60
EERTELSON OROS INC
OFFICE,SUPPLIES
10-4 516- 510- 51
156031
C5125/?4
194.
jiTFLSON BROS INC
CFFICE
35
532.90
ol
156933
65/3C/84
101 .25
EERGFORC TRUCKING
INVENTORY
50-4626-842-84
41,
156033
C 5/3(1/94
88.65
EERIGFORD TRUCKING
INVENTORY
50-46 26- 86 2- 8 6
294.50
BRAUN ENG TESTING IN
CONSTRUCTION
160-1360-262-04
�7
294.50
156041
05/24/84
786*93
BURY & CARLSON INC
BLACKTOP
10-4524-301-30
52
186.93
53
J71:
54
C Ks
12
56
156044
C5125184
205*96
BILL BOYER FORD
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
74
��
33. fata►a
156064
171
"I
40� 156072
rra —CKS
C5/24/P4 2P.03 THERMAL CD REPAIR PARTS 50- 4540 - 821 -82
2F.03
05/25/84 ----21- 42- -CO --- --ADVERTISING
21.42 •
156077 05/23f04 140.40 CPO] REFRIGEFATI(N EQUIP PAINT
140.40
156079 05/241?4 29.12 CATCO PARTS
29.12 •
1560-82 05/25/84 9.75 --- SAFETY-----EQ0I0i—W&
156082 05124/84 16075 CONWAY FIRE 8 SAFETY PARTS
16--4210m1-40-1 4
tar -CI(S
50-4274-821-82
***-CKS
10-4620-56C-56.
1984 CITY
CF 7CT�A
Cl-ECR REGISTER
flo- 4214--m-420-49—
C6-C4-84 PACE 2
10:4620-560-56
CHECK N1.
CATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
A P.G. I N« SAGE
- - - -- - -- -- ._... - -- - -
- - -- - - - - --
-- - - - - - -- -
21
205.96 �-
-
***—CKS
156C46
C513C/?4
56.87
ELL " ERG P PO T C
CABLE TV
1(!-2149-000-00
a
-156046
C5/25f84
- 7.50
- -RAINING
ELUMBERG5�HOTb
T AIDS
---1U- 4608 - 440 -44
64.37
156U47
05/3C/P4
2.10
ERCWN PHOTO
C AB LE 7 V
10- 2149 - 000 -00
156047
C5/3C/84
4.10
FROWN PHOTO
PHOTO SUPPLIES
10-4508-440-44
156047
u5/25/�4
3.15
EROWN PHOTO__
PHOTO SUPPLIES
10-4508-440-44
C5125/84
20.70
E l, -RCW PHOTO
-PHOTO
15
30.05
156048
05/30I84
21.96
ERTSSMAN KENNEDY INC
GEN SUPPLIES
156040
C5 /3C /P4
24.51
FRISSMAK KENNEDY INC
GEN SUPPLIES
10-4504-52C-52
156049
05/3C/84
34.24
EURESH ROBERT
MEETING EXPENSE
10-4206-44C-44
34.24
23
II
k— C Ks
156054-----
05--
------TIRE-s—&
TUBES
27
121:C5
2S�
***—CKS
%0
156C60
05f25/84
158.26
C-CNCESSIONS
27-4624-664--66---------
-A.m-PASS-AD-OR--SA-US.AGT------
33. fata►a
156064
171
"I
40� 156072
rra —CKS
C5/24/P4 2P.03 THERMAL CD REPAIR PARTS 50- 4540 - 821 -82
2F.03
05/25/84 ----21- 42- -CO --- --ADVERTISING
21.42 •
156077 05/23f04 140.40 CPO] REFRIGEFATI(N EQUIP PAINT
140.40
156079 05/241?4 29.12 CATCO PARTS
29.12 •
1560-82 05/25/84 9.75 --- SAFETY-----EQ0I0i—W&
156082 05124/84 16075 CONWAY FIRE 8 SAFETY PARTS
16--4210m1-40-1 4
tar -CI(S
50-4274-821-82
***-CKS
10-4620-56C-56.
flo- 4214--m-420-49—
10:4620-560-56
3- 156125 - - --
05/25/84 -
�9�00 - - --
-MERIT
6UPFlY - --
- -GEN SUPPLIES
10 -454- 301- 30 - - - - -- --
36 156125
f -1
lit
69.00
1984 CITY
OF EDINA
GEN SUPPLIES
CHECK PEGISTER
•
06 -G4 -84
.GE 3
1•
MERIT
SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
10- 4.504 -_ 540-
40 - - -- 156125 -,. ______
_
05/25/R4 .-._
_ _ _59.85
- - 73.90
PER IT
SUPPLY -
J
_54____ _
10 -4504- 560 -50
CHECK NC.
DATE
AMOUhI
VENOCR
ITEM. DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NC. INV. N P.O. #
MESSAGE
J
4z 156125
C5125/84
69.00
MERIT
SUPPLY___
GEN SUPPLIES
20 -4504- 646 -64
156125
05/25784
79 0 -MERIT
SUPPLY
170.50 +
__ _
29.4504= 646 -64
44 156125
05/3C/84
19128.75
PERTT
SUPPLY
TRASH CANS
20-4 602- 64 4- 64
FERIT
SUPPLY
TRASH CANS
46 156125 --
__.U5/3C/84- -
-_ - -- ___249.00
PERIT
_
#rr -CKS
!
- - - -- -- -f�`I\
s
6
156091
05/25/84
121.54
CITY OF EDINA
WATER
10- 4258 - 446 -44
I6,I4
•
G5/30/84
- -
-- 156041 - - --
-- 05/25%84 -------
_
-- - - - - -- 57.15 -
C'TY OF- «1TNA - -- - -- - -HATER
_
-- ---------
0- 4258 = 646 -64
- - - - -- - --
^,
-
8
178.69
hi
I1d
11
•
J12
156094
05/30/84
7.99
CASH REGISTER SALES
GEN SUPPLIES
27 -4504- 661 -66
13'
7.9-9-*-
17I
•. I.11
i1A1•
9
is
r # # ##f
### -CMS
;•�
-
Is
17
156099
05/30/84
840.96
CUSHMAN MDTOR CO
REPAIR PARTS
1G- 4540 - 560 -56
!��•
16
156099
U5/3C/R4
56.92
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 662 -66
+9
156099 -------
�5/30/84-
56.92
CUSHMAN MOTOR CG
REPAIR PAF.TS
7- 454�I= 662 -66
20
156099
05/30/84
56.92-
CUSHMAN MOTCR CO
CCRRECTICN
27 -4540- 662 -66
'�•
21
857.88 #
22
•_. 23
# # # # #.
# ## -CKS
3.
24
zs'-
156111
C5124%E4
CAVIS WATER EQUIP CO
30- 74540- 78? =7E
REPAIR PARATS
-1 378.28
25
156111
[5/251/84
24.96
CAVIS WATER EQUIP CC
REPAIR PARTS
30 -4540- 783 -76
27
1 •403.24
29
_23
rtr#4f
f#r -CKS
'JI
��_i•
3
156114
�5%25/�4
DELEGARD TOOL CC
25.�J1 --
GEN SUPPLIES
10 =43Q4= 301 =30
t.32
156114
C5/25/E4
13.38
CELEGARO TOCL CC
PARTS
10- 4620 - 560 -56
' "f•
33
--
-- - - --
- - -- - -- -----
38.39 #
- - - - -- - -
-- -- - -- -
-
-
147
,
34
-- -
--
I
i
35
36
f # # #tf
# # #- CKS
.
" •
° ~I
,
3- 156125 - - --
05/25/84 -
�9�00 - - --
-MERIT
6UPFlY - --
- -GEN SUPPLIES
10 -454- 301- 30 - - - - -- --
36 156125
05125/94
69.00
FERIT
SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 301 -30
•
39 156125__
05/24/84
MERIT
SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
10- 4.504 -_ 540-
40 - - -- 156125 -,. ______
_
05/25/R4 .-._
_ _ _59.85
- - 73.90
PER IT
SUPPLY -
GcN SUPPLIES
_54____ _
10 -4504- 560 -50
-
=_
41 156125
C5/24/E4
142.20
PEPIT
SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
20- 45C4- 628 -62
4z 156125
C5125/84
69.00
MERIT
SUPPLY___
GEN SUPPLIES
20 -4504- 646 -64
156125
05/25784
79 0 -MERIT
SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
__ _
29.4504= 646 -64
44 156125
05/3C/84
19128.75
PERTT
SUPPLY
TRASH CANS
20-4 602- 64 4- 64
FERIT
SUPPLY
TRASH CANS
46 156125 --
__.U5/3C/84- -
-_ - -- ___249.00
PERIT
_
21 -4666- 661 -66 -- - --
- - - -- -- -f�`I\
a7 156125
G5/3C/84
139090
MERIT
SUPPLY
PARTS
27- 4620- 662 -66
I6,I4
40 156125
G5/30/84
195.50
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEAN SUPPLIES
28- 4512- 708 -70
61L 156126 ___G5_13G_/84 _194.25 _- CA_VISEUGENE
52 156126- 05/3094 - 37.49 DAVIS EUGENE
53 231 .74
# f f f # 1
156128 05/25/84 130.10
SALARY 60 -4100- 985 -90
- MILEAGE 60- 420E - 985 -90
17'
I7 .I
CONCESSINS 27- 4624- 664 -66 1 ,
A it
1984 CITY
OF rCINA
CHECK REGISTER
C6 -04-84
RAGE 4
CI'ECK N9.
O'.TE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT N09 INV. A P.O. 0
MESSAGE
v
156128
U5/25/84
30.F2
AMERICAN BAKERIES COMPANY
CONCESSIONS
28- 4624 - 104-70
3i
16C.92
- --
Mrs
rrlrrr
rrt— CKS
i
156143
05/27 84
131.88
EMRICH BAKING CO
CONCESSIONS
27 =4624- 664 -66
131 .88 +
i�
'c
rrlrrr
- --- - ----- '------ ---
-- ---- -- --- ---- -- -- -- -
f!r -CKS
...I
156148
C5 /3C /Q4
95C.50
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 440 -44
3I
156148
35/30184
- -41.29
EIUIN SAFETY SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 440 -44
•-
4
156148
65/25184
480.00
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 449 -44
�
51
156149
C5/25/P,4
157.50
ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 449 -44
19-29.29 r -
- - - -- -
- - - - -- - -
156149
G5 /3C /8 4
11.72
E7ESERG GOLF CARTS
REPAIR PARTS
27 -4540- 671 -66
II^
_-
-11 .72 !
-_
-
zzl
•24
156156
05/3C/84
31.00
FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL
PRO SERV
10- 4224 - 421 -42
156156
05/30/84
31.0^
FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL
PRO S_RV
10- 4224 - 421 -42
156156 -
5/25/84
— — 227.53
- FAIRVIEW YOSFITAI
1ST A.D SI.PPLiES
10= 45.10- 440 -44
- -
�-
156156
05/30/84
137.80
FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL
1ST AID SLPPLIES
10- 4510 - 440 -44
427.33 +
•
rr
rrltrt
.I
156159
65/24/84
- 194.90
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOCL C
REPAIR PARTS
40- 4540- ?01 -80
4;z
156159
05/30/84
1,530.00
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL C
REPAIR PARTS
40- 4540 - 801 -8C
19824.90 •
+1;31
3n
156160
05/24/94
71.40
FLOYD LOCK 6 SAFE CC
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 301 -3C
�
--
71 .40
e
�,�e
3'
rrfrr♦
!fr —CMS
•
156162
65/25/84
23.18
F(WLER ELECTRIC
REPAIR PARTS
10 -4540- 560 -56
23.18
421
+ ++ -CKS
156183
G5/24/84
25.00
GIVENS INC
REPAIR PARTS
30- 4540- 782 -78
156183
05/24/84 --
- 4.00 -- -
GIVENS INC
REPAIR PARTS
-
•4J
4FJ
'e
491
A
• + + -CkS
X51,
0
156185
05/24/14
54.30
GOODIN CO
REPAIR PARTS
30- 4540- 781 -78
f fe
5-
156185 -
- -- 05/24/84 - --
-------- - - - - -- 21.3_'6 - - - -
-- GOODIN CO - - - --
CREDIT---- - - - - -- ---------
- - -30- 4540- 781 -78
'
53
5•f
32.44 +
i!
- - --
-- - -
- ;!! -CKS
~5-
I�
156192
05/30/84
29050.00
WALTER C GUSTAFSON
SERVICES
10- 4100 - 220 -22
i" 1984 CITY OF r-CINA
[-------CHECK tj'- CAfE
z7
4
1
156209
05/24184
156194
05/25/84
-05/25/84- -
20
156194 - --
05%30/.04
71
156209
0 5/24/84
22�
156209
05/25/84
23
156209
05/25/84
24
156209
C5/24/F4
307.50
GENERAL COMMUNICATNS
156199
[5125/84_
31
15 - 6199—
0-5/25184 __
RADIC SERV
4
21 .0 0
17
CHECK K -STER
1
156209
05/24184
;9 ___156209
_
-05/25/84- -
20
156209
05/25/84
71
156209
0 5/24/84
22�
156209
05/25/84
23
156209
05/25/84
24
156209
C5/24/F4
156213
U5/24/84 240.00 LEROY H LIBBY CONT SERV 30 -4200- 780 -78
240.00 *
CHECK K -STER
06-04-8i GE 5
AMOUNT
VENDOI
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
IN P.O. # MESSAGE
??.
29050.00
**-C RS
34
• **-cxs
25/24/84
307.50
GENERAL COMMUNICATNS
RADIO SERV
10-4294-440-44
3C-7- 50
__GERERA L COMPL NI CATNS
RADIC SERV
10 -4254 440 44
21 .0 0
615:00
37
rafrrf
**-Cl(s
30
3.46
G I PARTS
REPAAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
39
- -- 23.10
C5Y23184
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
--
10-4200-180-18
26.56
156240
[5%2'184
3 2
FLORENCE NORBACK
#128240
10- 4200 - 180 -18
***-Cps
�t
64.07
GENUINE PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
Y49.00
5- . 5 4 _
_G E N U-T N E7 PARTS-
R E P A I -V PARTS
10 -4540- 560 -56— _
_
-
13
33.79
GENUINE PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
4.22
GENUINE PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
15.99
GENUINE PARTS
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
-a
51.42
GENUINE PARTS
PARTS
Ifi-4620-560-56
237,46
HYCRAULIC SPECILTY
19.80
GENUINE PARTS
GEN SUPPLIES
45
237.46
-'k
4.7
***_CKs
U5/24/84 240.00 LEROY H LIBBY CONT SERV 30 -4200- 780 -78
240.00 *
-3-1
'S
??.
**-C RS
34
156238
25/24/84
21.00
Wfv h wCCOY
GEN SUPPLIES
10-4504-301-30
33
3C
21 .0 0
37
rafrrf
far -CKS
30
39
156240
C5Y23184
738*68
FLCRENCE NCROACR
CONSULTING
10-4200-180-18
156240
[5%2'184
3 2
FLORENCE NORBACK
#128240
10- 4200 - 180 -18
�t
4 2
Y49.00
-
13
***-Cms
4.1
-a
45
156243
05/24184
237,46
HYCRAULIC SPECILTY
PARTS
10-4620-560-56
45
237.46
-'k
4.7
<e
Carat*
C l(S
501
156245
05/30/84
27.00
ROBERT 8 HILL
SALT
10-4538-440-44
27.00
52
53
rrrfrf
rrr -CKS
711
17.1
4 4
4___
ITASCA EQUI_9_C76__
REPAIR PARTS
10 - 4 5W0_-_5_6'0-_5 6
-
56
7�
1118022
ry
1984 CITY
OF EC' -kA
CHECK REGISTER
C6 -04 -84
PAGE 6
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO* INV* N P.O. #
MESSAGE
'1
3,
#rflaa
j
��:i
156Z77
C5 /310/E4
222.70
CAFLSON FRINTiAG
FRIINTING
20 -4600- 627 -E2
n
.
222.70 •
156278
05/25/94
8.75
J_RRYS FOODS
GEN SUPPLIES
10- 4504- 440 -44
156278+
'5/30/84
21.93
JERRYS FOODS
GEN SUPPLIES
20 -45C4- 600 -60
-
3C.68 :
- - --
f f f f f a
v
+ +'
156250
C51231P1
34.45
1OF QUALITY FOCGS
CONCESSICNS
27- 4624 - 664 -6E
,
psi
156290
05123/R4
49.10
TOP QUALITY FOODS
CONCESSIONS
27- 4624 - 664 -66
E3.55
..
n
ffrrra
156292
15/3C/84
12069.00
HARRIS HOMEY!:R CO
INSURANCE
10 -4260- 510 -51
156292
5/?C/84
19172.00
hARR *_S HOMEYER CO
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 520 -52
22r
13�241.00 ►
- - -- - - -
- -- - - - -
_I
�
—
— ---------- - - -
- -— - - - - - - -- — -- -- - -
f# # —
.. CKS
156301
C5/24/24
61.10
KREMER SPRG. 8 ALIGN
PARTS
1G- 4620- 560 -56
ao
aa► #a a
# ## -CKS
.
-
1563C4
L5/24/R4
-- 6. 10
KkOX LUMBER CJ -- -
GEN SUPPLIES ----
- - -10- 4504 - 318 -3C
156304
5/24/84
68.71
KNCX LUMBER CO
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -45C4- 390 -3C
-
1563C4
C5/2 ? /F4
48.64_ �,�
..
kNCN LIMB_E P CC
LUMBER
20 -4604- 646 -E4
�+I
156344
05/23/84
551.,3
_
KNOX LUMBER CO
LUMBER
20- 4604- 646 -64
1563C4
C5/251P4
3�14.7p2�
NKCX LLPBcR CC
LUMBER
28- 4604 - 708 -7C
-
-
- 989.90 - - -- — - -
-- - - - - - - -- - — - - -
--
ur3-
fr #ara
#ff —CKS
aoi
156315
.5/25/84
395 -91
AyCOR APS -R
GEN SUPPLIES
-10- 4504 - 520 -52
•,
dal
395.91 •
4
-- - - - -- -- - - - - - -- -----
- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -
# # # -CkS-
a
156317
C5/24/E4
339.57 . --
LAUSCN PRODUCTS
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -45C4- 322 -3C
•
aF.
156317
05/24/84
_ - - - --
154.73
- - -
LAwSON PRODUCTS
GEN SUFPLIES -
_
10 -4504- 328 -30
156317
05/24/84
185.32
LAWSON - FRODUCTS
PARTS
10 -4504- 328 -30
156317
- - --
C5/24/E4
216.38
LAWSON FR 000CT_
PARTS
10- 4620- 56C -56
49
156317
5124/P_4
- - -- 435.77---
CA�S0N' PRODUCTS
GEN SUPPLIES
20 -45C4- 646 -64
irSO
156317
05/24/84
179.64
LAWSON PRODUCTS
GEN SUPPLIES
20 -4504- 646 -64
t
1,515.41 f
,,
aaa.aa
r ## - CkS
,4
°� - --
156324 - - --
- 05%24/84 -
- - -- .02-
LOGIS -- - - - - -- '- - - --
CORRECTION
-
10- 4228 - 160 -16
- - - --
rIIs<
156324
05/24/P4
433.16
LOGIS
BILLING
10- 4228 - 160 -16
�;I
L!j 1984 CITY CF ECIN4
CHECK NC. DATE AMOUNT
CHECK i 37ER 06-04-81 GE 7
VENDOR. ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. TNU- 6 P-0- ff PF"ZqArF
2
156324
05/24/?4
942.72
LCCIS
FILLING
10-4230-160 -16
3
156324
05124/84
19752.25
L 0 G I S
BILLING
10-4233-200-20
al
156324
05/24/84 --
19006.n1
L 0 G I S
BILLING
10-4233-420-42
5
156324
05/24184
550.47
L n- G I S
BILLING
30- 4232- 78C -78
s
156324
C5/24/84
590.47
L C G I S
BILLING
40-4232-800-80
_7
15632-4 - -
-- -05%24/84
50-4233-820-P2
156324
05/24/84
133.87
LOGIS
BILLING
50- 4233 - 840 -84
156324
05124/84
133.86
L CC IS
BILLING
50-4233-86C-86
,o
5716.66
141
156336
05/23/84
70.25
LANCE
CCNCESSICNS
27-4624-664-616
15
16
70.25
17
IE
1lrrrr
iii —CKS
1'5 6-3 4-2--
05 /2 -4 /8 4- ----17
82
ff
MAC c -- QU
-E o- P INC
REPAIR A R
20
178:27
2"
156344
05/24/24
40.85
FED OXYGEN
& EQUIP
CONT REAPIRS
10-4248-440-44
—AICSLPPLIES
—10-4516--440-44
73.97
28
Zo
30�
156353 --
15/11/14
6.F .15
'INKESOTA
GLOVE
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 301 -30
3:
32
68.15
—
c 1(s
35
156355
05125/94
23.36
11INNSCTA BEARING
CC
GEN SUPPLIES
10-4504-325-30
31
23.36
37
20
39
C KS
4-0-
10-4540-560-56
41
156359
05125/84
50. 97
Plhh TORO
INC
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-5f0 -56
42
156359
C5/25/84
18.79
MINN TORO
INC
PARTS
10-4620-560-56
4J--1563-5*—U5/?5-f8
144-50—
-K-lNff-TW(Y-t-Nc---------RE:PAIk-PARTS
411.
156359
05/25/84
121:63
MINK TORO
INC
REPAIR PAF7S
27:4540-670-66
45
156359
05/3C/84
20.63
MINN TORO
INC
REPAIR PARTS
27-4540-670-66
45
412.0 3
47
156360
L5124/84
28.50 MINNESOTA
- -
I N- tSOT A
WANNc'R
NO
— WAN -R
CONT REAPIRS
CONT -REAPIRS
10-4248-322-30
P
50
156360
05/24f84
5.04
MINNESOTA
WANNER
REPAIR PAFTS
10-4540:560:56
51
156360
05/30/84
168.91 ________MINNESOTA
WANNEF
CCNT REPAIRS
20-4248-642-f4
52
MINNESOTA
WANNER —
CONT REPAIRS
2G- 4248- 642 -64
53
15636C
05/24/84
17.50
MINNESOTA
WANNER
CONT REAPIRS
30- 4248 - 788 -78
54
433.07
55
56
57
C S
9
1994 CITY
OF TCIkA
CHECK REGISTER
06 -04 -84 PAGE R
CYFCK NC. CITE
APOUKT
VENOCR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO* INV.
4 P.0* 9 MESSAGE
156379
G5 /3C /p4
47.20
PrTRO FON= COMM
EQUIP RENTAL
10 -4226- 301 -30
;
:i
156379
5/3L/84
60.00
PETRO FON= COMM
GEN SUPPLIES
— 10 -4564- 184 -18
�I
`
107.20
fiff ##
-
* ■* -CKS
,.
A
1563f1
C5/3C/F4
321.20
STAR & TR!ELNF
CCNST
6C -1300- 137 -04
321 .20 •
- - - - -_-
- --
- -.
r►.
'-
is
I+
•ff*ff
■ ** -CKS
•.�•
+'
156385
C5 /3C /f[
240.00
c
NCGUIP.E �CB_FT
t c
TREE IN..F
10- 4242 - 353 -30
156385
'�5/3C/84
660.00
PCCUIRE ROBERT
TRIMMING INSFECTIONS
60- 1360- 010 -18
fi
156385
',':5/3[/94
_.
300.00
NCGUIRE ROBERT
-
TRIMMING INSPECTIONS
-- --
60- 1300 - 011 -18
�
y,+
1.2CO.0C *
I
e
e
* ** -CKS
156388
-5/25/P4
9.44
NTL ATOMIK MOTOR
REPAIR PARATS �-
-
10 -4540- 560 -56
=zi
156368
05/24/94
9.44
NTL ATOMTK MOTOR
--
REPAIR PARTS
10 -4540- 560 -56
�••
21
18.88 •
f
i
e
► -CKS
.i
'
156412
05/23/84
69.12
NW GRAPHIC SUF ?LY
INVEN SUPPLIES
23 -1209- 000 -OC
69.12
- -- -- --- - -
- - -- - - --
�-I
156413
05130/94
217.a 0
NATIONNICE PAPERS
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 520 -52
Q
-
-- 156413 --
- - 05/231?4
101.77
NaTI0NWIDE PAPERS - - -- -- -GEN
SUPPLIES
27- 451]4= 663 -66
--
•�
319.57 *
;�
33
7 C
C i f f f f
f ■* —CKS
156417
L5/24/84
468.55
CFFSr_T PRINTING
PRINTING
10- 4600- 421 -42
156417
-- 1`5/24/84 -
- -- - 37C.00 — --
OFFSET FR TNTI�G - -
FRI�TING - - - - -10
-46[0- 421 -42
83P.55
I
* ■• -CKS
156431
05/25/84
111.47
FRG RUTLDING SUPPLY
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -45C4- 520 -52
!�
f„
1
as
ff*f r#
CKS
156434
75/25/84
23.10
PRINTERS SERVICE INC
EQUIPMENT MAINT
28- 4274 - 707 -70
ao
23.10
511
521
156446
05/25/84 -
- -- - -- 81.97___ _-- - - - - -.
FTCNEER RIM & WHEEL-
FARTS-
`-,
156446
05125/84
81.97
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL
PARTS
10- 4620- 560 -56
sc�
sl
163.94
- --
7fi
f ■*11f
* ■ *-CKS
I
,
W 1984 CITY CF ECIKA CHECK R_ STZ'R
CHECK -_ NC. r - i AMOUNT V F. N 0 0 R ------ ----ITEM DESCRIPTION
06-04-84 GE 9
Arrnii&T mr- Tku- a gD-n- m brvzArr
,Z, 2
Q7_
3
156452
05125184
89.58
GUTCK SERV EATTERY
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
4
156 452
C5/25/s34
24 . ?.4
GU ICK SERV EATTERY
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
sl
156452
15/25IR4
28.60
CUICK SERV EATTERY
REPAIR PAF7S
10-4540-560-56
156452
05125/84
2.60
CUICk SERV EATTERY
PARTS
10-4620-560-56
71----156452
05'/25_l914
---- EATfERY ------FiAkYs
156452
75/25/E4
29:76
GUICK SERV EATTERY
PARTS
10-4620-560-56
2!7.30
*CK,S
13
15 -6 4
U5/24/P4 _
-26.60— -
0 L - ---- 0 Cb V co INC.
_G E-N ___SUPPLIES
14
15
2660
17
**—C f(S
to
156459
05/24184
RITEWAY
CONT REPAIRS
10-4248-560-56
59
PAPTAS
20
198:50
***-CNS
21
156471
05/2?/P4
74.06
KENNETH E RCSLANC
LCDC-TNG
10-4202-14C-14
--
+ ** -CKS
29
15642'4
05/23/94
14?.33
AMERICAN SHARECOM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
30
148 .33
32
33
***—CKS
34
156486
05/3L/84
_N STREICHER GUNS
AMMUNITION
10-4572-420-42
J5
156486
05124/84
F1:25
ECh STREICHER GUNS
PARISI
10-4620-560-56
3c,
156486
05/24/84
15.50
DON STREICHER GUNS
PARTS
10-4620-560-56
**—C Ks
41
156492
05/25/84
10.68
SOLTHDALE FORD
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
42
156492
05/25/P4
44.70
SOUTHD'ALE FORD
REPAIR PARIS
10-4540-560-56
43
1564920
25%84—
12 -1.98
?OUTHCAIEFORD
FARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
44
156492
05/25/84
221.16
SOUTHOALE FORD
PARTS
10-4540-560-56
45
156492
05/25f84
12.73
SOUTHOALE FORD
PARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
•-Ir
05/25/84
-14-.,? 6
SOUTHDALE
47
156492
05/25/84
1603
SOUTHOALE FORD
REPAIR PARTS
10-4540-560-56
49
156492
GW25/84
21.13
SOUTHOALE FORD
PARTS
10-4540-560-56
40—
X56492
05725/84 _ �_
_1_1 9
CLif-P-C-A LE-FOR D____Pkk
IS
50
156492
05/25f84
!3.64
SOUTHOALE FORD
PARIS
10-4540-560-56
1564()2
05/25184
6.88
SOUTHOALE FORD
PARTS
10-4620-560-56
623.99
51
***_CKs
55
56
57
156502
05/25/84
79.65
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
CONT REPAIRS
10-4248-560-56
1
1984 CITY
CF ECI�A
CHECK PEGISTER
06 -04 -84 PAGE 10
W
L1-
CHECK Nn.
-
CITE
AMOUNT
- - -- -- - - - --
VENDOR
- -- -. .. - - - - -
ITEM DESCRIPTION
-- - -- - -- - - - --
ACCOUNT N0. INV.
- -- - --
p P.O. p MESSAGE
1
21
1565[2
C5/25/E4
25.76
SUEURBAN CF•EVRCLET
CCNT REPAIRS
10- 4248- 560 -56
1565C2
05/25/84
P6.20
SUEURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540- 560 -56
15651:2
7,5/25/84
24.60
SUEURBAN CHEVROLET
CCNT REPAIRS -
10- 4540 - 560 -56
1565!:2
05/25/84
3.75
SUEURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540- 560 -56
�I
1565,:2
75/25/'4
3.75
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR PARTS
1u- 4540 - 560 -56
-j
156502
'5/25184
-153.06
SUEURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR FARTS _
10- 4540 - 560 -56 _
;yl
156562
'5/25/84
3.75-
SUEUREAh CHEVRCLET
CCRRECTICK
10 -4540- 560 -56
I�
373.02 •
'I
156503
= 5/23/84
6.74
SUBURBAN PLUMP. SUP
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
14'
1565`3
`=5/23/94
35.08
SUBURBAN PLUME SUP
R`'PAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
3
1565[3
'5125/f4
37.58 -
SUEUR8Ah °LLPE SLP
FARTS - ---- - - - -
-- -10- 4620- 56C -56 --
-
r,i <;
1565C3
05/25/84
166.51
SUBURBAN PLUME SUP
REPAIR PARTS
30 -4540- 785 -78
1565C3
05/25/84
43.37-
SUEURBAN PLLPP. SLP
CCRRECTICh
30 -4540- 801 -80
=•
1565 3
C5125/F4
43.37
- SUBURBAN PLUMP SUP
REPAIR PARTS
30- 4540- 801 -80
i
7
1565[3
;.5/25/84
149.79
SUBURBAN PLUME SUP
GEN SUPPLIES
40 -4504- 801 -80
e
156503
`5/25/94
43.37
SUEURBAN PLUME SUP
REPAIR PARTS
40 -4540- 801 -80
!
373.07
- -
- - - --
... CKS
-�
2,I
v -��
1565[5
.5 /3C /Fc
12$.79
S 0
ADVERTISINE
10- 4210 - 140 -14
1565[5
:= 5/24/94
-
32.90
-
SUN
ACVERTISING
10- 4210 - 140 -14
e
161.5 9 +
-- -
- - --
- --
' �
rz l
rrrirw
..iC
1565J8
i.5 /3C/84
8.48
ST PAUL BOOK
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 421 -42
1565CQ
05/23/84
3.75
ST PAUL BOOK
OFFICE SUPPLIES
27- 4516 - 661 -66
e
-
-- - --
12.23
-
156516
5/24794
24.90
SEARS ROEBUCK
TOOLS
10- 4580 - 560 -56
I ='I
24.90
•
r,•i
rw►rtr
••* -CK's
156525
_-5/24/84
- - - 238.55 --
-3 M CO - -
GEN SUPPLIES
--- 10 -45Q4- 325 -30
r "
23A.55 +
a
156526 -
--- C5724/84 _
- - -- 1,370.35 ---- .
---- 1RACY CIL --
GASOLTNE - - - -
-- 10 -4612- 560 -56
v•"
1:370.'5 •
r--
---- - --- --
rri -CKS
v
1. p _
15653, ^. - _
05/24/84
192.50
TENGAS CORP
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 301 -30
„ a
- - --
-� 92.5 .
- -- - - - - - - -- -- - -
r
50
I
51
irri f i
- --
- - - - -- -- - --
- -- ... - - --
- - -- - --
--
***-CPS
-r
iC
v5 =1
156539
C5/23/84
165.00
TURF SUPPLY COMPANY
SOD 8 BLACKOIRT
27- 4562 - 662 -66
Id
sal
156539
J5/3C/84
276.00
TURF SUPPLY COMPANY
BLACK DIRT
27- 4562 - 662 -66
1565?5
05%23%84
11C.�0
___SOD
_
TURF SUPPLY CCMFahY
PARTS
274620- 662
.�1,
551 .00
V
lil
11184 t-
OF -C -NA
�.�
CHECK
STER
06 -74 -8
AGE 11
. Cf -'Ck' Ni.
— - -
^A 7;
AMOUPT
VEADCa
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
'
# P.O. 0
MESSAGE
3
it +*rr
156553
156553
'5/23/84
2'
- _5/c_/84
124.`?7
2_4.00
UNITED ELECTRIC CORP
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 390 -30
_ **-C. KS
- - - --
-
358.A7 *
UNITED ELECTRIC CORP
- -- - -- - - -- -
REPAIR PARTS
26 -4540- 689 -68
`
-- - - - - -- - --
- -
�
'1
�I
156550
05/23194
87.77
_
GENERAL PARTS
- - -
EODUIP MAINT
- -
*** -CKS
27- 4274 - 661 -66
,
6'-
1565E5
X5%24/84
- - -- -- -� -
92. 0
IKING
V INDUSTRL CTR
-_-
***-CPS
92.90 r
27- 4620 - 662 -66
z•�
zz
156573
--
156573 - --
C5/24/P4
05/24%p4-
--- - - - - --216.48.__ _ --
VOSS ELECTRIC
- - --E - - -
REPAIR PARATS
10- 4540 - 390 -30
*•* -CKS
�.3
_ 34.08
c50 56
-
VOSS ELECTRIC
- - -- - - -- -------- - - -
REPAIR PARATS
- --
10- 4540 - 540 -54
- -- " - - --
�,•
156575
-- - - -- - -- - -- - - --
C512i784_
- - -. __ - -
48.00
- -- - - - --.
R "PR DUCTS
EATER PRODUCTS
REPAIR PARTS
-�,;•
-
za
Q_ ----------
- --... - -- - - - - --
- - - --
30 -4540- 783 -78
(.
30
ri +iii
'- •
33!
156579
156579
05/25/84
05/25/84
94.91
GILLIAMS STEEL -HDWE
- -GEN SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 440- 44 - - - --
-- -
-'I•I.
3.1I-
156579 -
35/25/?4 -
40.06
-- - - - -- Q '- - - -
2_.60
WILLIAMS STEEL -HDME _
-- -- - - -- -- -
YILLIAMS
GEN SUPPLIES
--
10- 4540- 560 -56
�%''
163.57 *
STEAL -HOWE
_ - --
GcN SUPPLIES -
- -
20 -4504- 646 -64 -
-
3,
•
---- - - -- — -- -- --
°o
156582
- - -- 1565E2__.__ --
05/30/84
`- -_. —` 615945 ____
- _CORDON SMITH CO
*** -CKS
I
I,,I•
^'
1565F2
U5 /?C %P4
C5/3C/F4
615.45-
- - -- -- - - -- - --
CORDON SMITH CO
_GASOLINE
CORRECTION ---
10- 4612 - 662 -66
---- --- -
10- 4612 - 662 -66 - - - - -- - - --
" - - - --
is'
,,��-----
+z
...-------- - --
- -- --
615.45
615.45
T
CORDON SMIH CG
GASOLINE
27- 4612 - 662 -66
h <i.
_
s
_
1565A7
C5/?Lipy -
- - - -- -i07� _ _---
41
.- __.._-� �.. --------
fACIGL_ SU_
- - -. --
*** -C KS
s -1
^.
107.41
MILEAGE
20 -4208- 600 -6G - -- -- _"
- "- - - --
-� I
j
4
-
51�
156592
-- - - - - -- --
05/25/84
--- -- - -
- - -- 127.+00
MIO CENTRAL FIRE
CLOTH REPLACEMENT
- - - - --
-- - - --
*►* -CKS
!c•:
--- - -_
10 -4574- 440 -44
'i 3I
5q
_ 156593
05 /25/P4
—
6D.00
MINNESOTA CLAY
INVENTORY SUPPLIES
23- 1209 - 000 -OC
8J
7C
71
IZ=
_
57I
156594
C5/3G/84
_ - - - - --
3.D25.00
FRONT
CONT SERY
]3
7q +_
_
—STORE
- --
10 -4200- 504 -50
75
qt
1984 CITY
CF ECINA
CHECK REGISTER
06 -C4 -84
Pe GE 12
CHECK r;;.
C^ *E
AMOUN*
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO- INV. a P -O. A
MESSAGE
(z
I
3.025.06
- - - -- -- - - ---
,.. -CKS
c
�-
156597
+- 5/25/ 04
43.Q0
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
1ST AID SUPPLIES
28- 4510 - 708 -70
�
riI
e;
I
•. :..•
,:I•
•►• -CKS _
156603
C5 /3C /P4
155.35
WITT'K GOLF SUPPLY
RANGE BALLS
27- 4636 - 663 -66
"
15661
05/24/84
54.92
LITTEK GOLF SUPPLY
RANGE SUPPLIES
27- 4637 - 663 -66
209.37 -
- -
-
,•. -CKS
156613
C5/3[!F4
250.00
PCNEILUS STEEL
GEN SUPPLIES
10- 45 ^4- 42C -42
:ci
156613
05/3[/94
564.95
NCNEILUS STEEL
PARTS
10- 4620- 560 -56
156613 - -
05/3C/84
400,00 - -
- - NCNEILUS STEEL -
GEN SUPPLIES -
- -'20- 4504 = 646 -64
-
I2,
156613
C5 /3C /F-4
4C0.00
PCREIIUS STEM
GEN SUPPLIES
30 -4504- 782 -78
156613
-._
;5/3C/94
475.75 -_.
NCNEILUS STEEL
GEN SUPPLIES
40- 4504 - 801 -80
22
2x790.70 t
31
24
.ttt ti
�26
156764
05 /23/34
28.42
SOLTHE@TOWN PLBC INC
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 661 -66
I�
�`-
- - 2Q.42
119
156705
-5/23/84
22F.00
HOARD NCRBACK
SERICES
10- 4120- 18C -18
156705
05/23/?4
453.00
HOWARD NCRBACK
SERICES
10- 4120- 184 -18
156705
Z�5/23/g4 -- - - -
_ -- g.28 - - - - -
-- HONARD NOR BACK -- - - -- - - -MIL
EAGE ------------
- - - -10 -4268- 180 -1 B - --
r32�
1567:;5
:.5/23/84
23.46
HCWARD NCRBACK
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 184 -18
-� -�
3'-
- - -- 712.74 r
I
1567`'6
G5/23/ii4
67.50
RALPH H!Nv-S
SERVICES
10- 4120 - 180 -18
3e
156706
'5/23/ ?4
324.00
R;L-PH HINES
SERVICES
10 -4120- 184 -18
37
1567Q6
05123/84 - - - -
- _ -- - 1.38 - - -- --
- -R CLPH �HIN.S - - -� - - - -- --
MILEAGE-------- - -- - - - --
10- 4208 - 180 -18
mar
156726
C 5/23/94
12.89
RALPH HINES
MILAGE
10- 4208- 184 -18
�^
<o
4C5.76 •
i
\w
4,
1567 7
55/23/P4
17.50
HARRY MELIN
SERVICES
10- 4120 - 180 -18
a2
1567[7
C5/23/E4
210.00
WRY
SERVICES
10- 4120 - 184 -18
a3 - - - --
1567C7- - -- --
05/23/94 - -
- - - - -1 .38 -_-
-
_NEL!N
-HARRY -MELIN - - - - - - -- -- - -- -
MILAGE - - - - -- -
- - - -1b -4268- 180 -18 --
- - -- -- - - - --
�a•
156707
7J5/23/84
23.69
HARRY MELIN
MILAGE
10- 4208- 184 -18
=5
252.57 .
Ile
1.7
nd
156708
156708
1- 5/23/84
05/23/84
69.00
8.74
ERNEST 0 OLSON
ERNEST 0 OLSON
SERVIES
MILAGE
10- 4120 - 184 -18
10- 4208 - 184 -18
e
as-
-7 7 . i 4 -* - - -
-- - - - - - -- - -- - - - -- -- - - - -- - -
- -- - -- _
6,1
1567'-9
05/23/84
57.00
HAROLD HABIGHCRST
CUS70DIAN
10- 4120 - 184 -18
- u5/23/g4 - -- - - --
-- - -2.;d -_ - -
- - -
-- HQRCLD HABI6HORST
MILAGE---- - -- -- - -
- - - - -1-0-- - - -
- 4208 - 184 -18
`.53I
59.30 •
I
sa
L5
156710
- 5%e?184
45.00
MN B OTT
SERVICES
10- 4120 - 184 -78
_• , j
G
156710
� 4
-5/23/4
7.59
YM B OTT
MILAGE
10- 4208 - 184 -18
R e
r
1984 CITY CF FCI�A CFSCK REGISTER
CHECK !\C. C:'E AMOUNT VENDC? ITEM DESCRIPTION
52.59 +
06 -04 -8, rGE 13
ACCOUNT NO. INV. ft P.O. A MESSAGE
10 -4200- 200 -2C
10- 4620 - 560 -56
10- 4540- 560 -56
10- 4620- 560 -56
10- 4620 - 560 -56
156711
:5/23/94
75. C0
CCVEY TREE EXPERT CO
CONT SERV
10 -4200- 353 -30
05/24/F4
165.94
C--NISON MAILING SERV
156711
- `5/23/E4
11.5E8.75
CAVEY TRE_ EXFEFT CC
CCNST
60- 1300 - 010 -18
- •
119663.75 •
156723
I
30.23
FARWELL OZMUN KIRK
156712
05/23/84
100.00
ERNEST A VIERKANT
CCNSTRUCTICN
60- 1300- 001 -40
•
100.1?0 •
156724
C5/24/94
rl
APFLIED FLUID POWER
156713
- 5/23/F4
49393.010-
.CE G?FLF`JEF
CCRRECTION
27- 4100 - 675 -66
- - - -- . -- - -- - -
=
156713
05/24/94
4,393.00_
J!!E GREUPNJ -P
CORRECTION
27 -4100- 675 -66
C5/24/84-
�.
tMI
156713
C5/23/O4
4.393.00
JCE GREUPNEP
_ _
GCLF LESSONS
27- 4100 - 675 -66
-- - - - - --
156713
.:5/23184
4.393.J0-
JCE GREILPJEF
CCRRECTION
27- 4100 - 675 -66
+
69.91
LAND-CARE & EOUIP
156713
- 5124/84
439.00-
.(E CRrLFNEF
CCRP,ECTICN
27- 4100 - 675 -66
156713
05/23/84
4,393.00
J!'E GRE)UPNEP
GOLF LESSCNS
27- 4100 - 675 -66
�•
156713
]5/27/F4
49393.0'0-
JOE GREUFNER
CCRRECTION
27- 4111- 675 -66
156713
- 5123/F4
49393.00
.SE GRELFNEF
G(LF LESSCNS
27- 4111 - 675 -66
3,C 54.99
4,393.00
-
-
156714
C5/2 4
36.00
JEAN HAEFELL
INST ART CENTE
23- 4100 - 614 -61
' -6.0n •
156715
= 5123/84
25.00
FRANCES BATSCN
INST ART CENTE
23 -3500- 000 -OC
156716
5/23/84
21.00
KATHL`_EN 'WANDER
INST ART CENTE
23- 3560 - 000 -OC
21 OC
156717
-5123/84
13.75
FIFE EDIN
I%ST ART CENTER
23 -4100- 614 -61
- -
13.-75 t
- -- - - - -
-I
156715
05/23/84
26.x0
CUAST T4ANSFER INC
PARTS
10- 4620- 560 -56
26.00
156719
.:5/24/94
33.00
THE FITNESS STORE
GEN SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 440 -44
156720
-;5124/84
229.00
SUTPH-N CORP
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -4504- 449 -44
22Q.00. «.
- ---
--' '-
156721
5/24/4
1.770.00
OEBE HENSEL
EXPENES ICE SHOW
20- 2235 - 000 -OC
10 -4200- 200 -2C
10- 4620 - 560 -56
10- 4540- 560 -56
10- 4620- 560 -56
10- 4620 - 560 -56
1.770.00 «
156722
05/24/F4
165.94
C--NISON MAILING SERV
CCNT SERV
-- - -
165.04 «- -
- --
156723
5/24/84
30.23
FARWELL OZMUN KIRK
PARTS
30.23
- - -- —
156724
C5/24/94
25.23
APFLIED FLUID POWER
REPAIR PARTS
_.�
- - -- - -- - -
25.23 .
- - -- _ -- - --
- - - -- . -- - -- - -
156725
C5/24/84-
60., ?6
tMI
PARTS
_,,� - - - -- - -- - -- -- -
-
- -_ - -- - - - - -- 601.06 .
--------- - - - - -- -- - - - -
-- - - - - --
156726
05/24/94
69.91
LAND-CARE & EOUIP
PARTS
10 -4200- 200 -2C
10- 4620 - 560 -56
10- 4540- 560 -56
10- 4620- 560 -56
10- 4620 - 560 -56
1984 CITY
CF CC:• l
CHECK REGISTER
06 -04 -84 OPGE 14
I
CHECK N'.
DATE
cFouU T
NENDCR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT N0. INV* N P.O. N PESSAGE
69.91
3
156727
:5/24/84
68.RC
F4RMON GLASS GLAZING
REPAIR PARETS
10 -4540- 540 -54
5i
=1
68.eO
15672$
^5724/84
- -- _ - -47.60
7R4FF7C -LINES CO
GEN SUPPLIES
10 -454- 328 -30
i
47.60
•
='
156729
-05/24/81
117.11
SC -AFER EQUIPPE�I
TOOLS
10 -45E0- 301 -30
156729
05/24/84
92.68
SCHAFER EQUIPMENT
TOOLS
10- 4580- 301 -30
-i
209.79
*
!�
15 67 30
.;5/24/84
72.72
I-ANCE HARDWARE
LAMPS 8 FIX
27- 4606 - 663 -66
i
72.72
*
I:i
156731
:5/24/P4
385.12
NEWARK ELECTRONICS
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540- 330 -30
•
3F5.12
*
156732
(_5/24184
54.00
IFS
PERMITS
50- 4310 - 820 -R2
1567?2
CS/24/F4
54.-JD
I'S
PERMITS
50- 4310- 84G -84
.,
az�
156732
C5124/F4 --
- 54.00
--
-- 1R$- -
PERMITS - -----
- - -50- 4310- 86C -86 -
-
162.00
znl
156733
C5/247?4
- -- - -- -74,71
-- -
--- FETE4S0N FIRE SAFETY
GEN SUPPLIES
-
40 -4504- 801 -8C
,. `;•:i
74.71
*
_
2�j
156734
= 5/25/84
117.00
LANDSCAPE 8 TURF
FERTILIZER -
20 -4558- 642 -64
ze
1 17 . J 0
*
156735
05/25/F4 -
- - -- -- - 58.41
--
- - EAFZEII ENTERP TPC - --
GEN SUPPLIES ----
- - - -20 -4504= 646 -64
156735
25/25/94
59.41
BARZEN ENTERP INC
GEN SUPPLIES
20 -4504- 646 -64
116.F2
*
I�
I•i
156736
05/25/84
218.P6
SUBURBAN GAS
PARTS
10 -4620- 560 -56
218.36
1-I39
156731
:5/211+ 4
172.24
G.S SUPPLY
TOOLS
10 -4580- 301 -3U
172.24
•
156738
X5/25/84
93.51
KAL EQUIP COMP
REPAIR PARTAS
10 -4540- 540 -54
a-
93.51
+
4"
156739
U5/25/84
10.00
MN STATE FIRE
DUES
10 -42C4- 440 -44
_I
<-
10 .70
�G
15674C
"5/25/84
289.24
HENN CTY MEDICAL CTR
1ST AID SUPPLIES
10 -4510- 440 -44
111314
289.24
•
156741
+:5/25/8[
25.00
FOAO RESCUE
1ST AID SUPPLIES
10 -4510- 440 -44
-
25.00
X33
52
1567422
25/25/84
40.10
LABEL MASTER
TRAINING AIDS
10 -4608- 440 -44
I
5"
40.10
•
55
156743
C5 /25/P4
96.50
LEROY LISK
CLEAN SUPPLIES
10- 4512- 440 -44
5li
LiJ 1984 r_I +Y CF FOIDA CHECK STER 06 -04 -F AGE 15
L
CHECK NC. COTE CMOUAT VENDO-1 ITEM OESCPIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. 0 P.O. p NESS AGE
y ' 56.50 # - -- - - - -- - - -- — —
3
156744 05/25/84 195.00 - -
- C- W TURF SOD
4 - ---- - -
195.00 * '
G
7 156745 - — -- j5/25/P4 - -- - -2 91000 - - -- - -- F - -� - -- - - -- - - -- -- --
07 -70
7
HOLST_N IC� RINKS CNT REPAIR: 284248- 7
2:910:00 +
- - -- - - - -- - - - - --- -- - - - - -- -- - _ _
15E746 �5%Z5/F4 09471
.00 - - - -- - -- - -- - -- -- --
CRYSTAFLEX PLASTIC CCNSTRUCTICN 28- 1300 - 000 -00 -i
" 9+771.00 f I
13 —. —. -. __- _. —__C-5 _ ._ _ __— ..___ —__ —_ .'
156 4 /25%F4 1.350 .GO MPLS B SU8 SEWER -CONY REPAIRS 31248 -7 783 -7b -
,Z "^ 1 +350.00 +
,sl Ila
ie -- 156748 - - C5%30%84 -- - -- 6 -- - -- -- - - -- '
+ 00 TO�,KA EOUIF- - - - -- -- REPAIR PARTS - - --
I'
,17 I 156748 X5/30/84 457.00 TONKA EQUIP REPAIR PARTS 30- 4540- 785 -78 I•
8 6 +772.00 +
.z.
Sao 156749 C5/3C/84 6F0.00 N R SIGN COMP PAINT 10- 4544 - 335 -3L ,'�L.
all 680.,2 0 +
�L3 15675C 0513C/94 283.50 ERIC AhDERSCN SERVICES 10- 4120 - 160 -16 -^)
z4 -- -- - -- -- -
2e3.50
2e l 156751 L5/3'f04 98.70
al JOHN "PRIOS REIMBURSEMNT REG 20- 3500- 000 -00
_ -.
v =u 156152 5 /3C /84 81.97 NOLLIE PAULSON WAGES 23- 4200 - 610 -61
I- - - - - - - -- - - - -- —--------- - - - - -- -
4,32 156753 :5/30/84 156.00 CYC WICKER INST ART CENTER 23- 4100 - 614 -61
156.00 • I „I-
y: 35 156754 5 /3C /F4 63.60 SUSAN FRAME INST AAT CENTER 23- 4100 - 614 -61 "l
63.60 f
I "I - - -- - -- -- - -- - - - --
30 I 156755 05/3C/84 F13.00 RIVER IND COMP INSURANCE SETTLEMENT
3, 10- 3220 - 000 -00
�
41 - - -15 6 7 5 6 - - -- C 5 / 3 C / ? 4 - - — --
191.95 - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- -- ---- -- - - -- -- --_ _ -- - - -- - - -- -- -- . - -- - -- - -- -- -- - -- _
CITY OF RICHFIELD LIGHT 8 POWER 10 -4252- 345 -30
42 . - --- - 191.95 #
43
�44 156757 05/3C/84 350.00 NN VALLEY CONST 60- 1300 - 258 -04
_ - -- — --------- - - - - -- ----- _- �' "'i
41 350.00 # 159 s
_ -- - - -- -- - - - -- e
4a CKs fll4..
EKTEC INC INVEN SUPPLIES �9�C0 -00 - - - -- - - - - --
42.19
5 1 16,7 ....
156761 05/3GrF4 35.50 E — ----- -___ -- _- - -- -- ____ -.- ea
Sz L_CNARO HEALY INC UNIFORM ALLOW 20- 4266 - 621 -62 F-5
�S4 ?5.50
54 70 ..t
— _ 71
5'' 156762 — 05/30%$4 12D.00 _ 7 -'
INTERNATIONAL CONF CCNFERENCE 10 -420 - 490 -49 -
55 120.0 0 + - 74
57 751
y
1984 CITY
CF 4CIPA
CF'CK. REGISTER
06 -04 -84 PAGE 16
CHECK NC.
CATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT N0. INV.
k P.O. 4 MESSAGE
�((.i
3�
I`
15 6715 3
-'5/3C184
21)0.70
PCFTUEPS SERV 8 RENT
EQUIP RENTAL
20- 4226 - 646 -64
1
200.2 +
0
- - -
- -- -
-�
156764
u5/30'/94
123.97
F2WARD LANCELLO
MILEAGE
10 -4208- 390 -3G
156764
C513C/F4
- - '0.00
ED4ARC LANCELLC- -
RENTAL -- -
- -1C- 4226- 39C -30
- -
153.97 +
156765
75/3C/94
120.JC
C T q
ENTRY FEE - - -- - -- -
- - -10- 2149 - 000 -00
12G.00
* *• -CKS
156767
C5/30/P4
31.57
CYNDIE HAYS
RZIMB PRINTING
10- 4600- 420 -42
�I
156768
,;5/30/84
1,260.00
CAVE OLIVrR
TREE REMOVALS
60 -1300- 002 -18
.i
156769
L5 /3C /84
3,071.76
TRADE WINOS
MISC
26- 1300 - 000 -00
39071;76 f
- - -- - --
-
124
156770
;:5/30/84
1.250.90
RECREONICS CORP
MISC
26- 1300 - 000 -00
"•��
- -- --
- -
_
,cl
27!
156771
05/3C/84
104.71
NAIL GOLF FOUNDATION
BOOKS
27- 4502 - 663 -66
..104.71 -� - --
- - - -- -- -
,.�
J-
156772
u5 /3C /F.4
475.00
SPCRTSMAN RELCACING
AMMUNITION
10- 4572- 420 -42
�,.
156772
CS /3C /R4
- 150.00
:FCRTSNAN RELOADING
AMMUNITION
104572- 460 -46
y
625.00 +
156773
05/3'/ °4
95.21
C4VID BLOJO
SHOES
10- 4266- 421 -42
�,-
95.21 +
156774
C5 /3C /P4
17.50
AUTO SOUND CO
EQUIP MAINT
10- 4274- 421 -42
17.50 +
3'.
156775
_15/3C/ °4
--lV-17
ALEXANDER MANLF CC
GEN SUPPLIES
1il- 4504 - 440 -44
105.17 .
12
I .
a3 -_-
156776 - ---
- -05/30/84
- 14968
.
CUSTOM CAMERA-9 ELEC
Ph0T0 SUPPLIES
10 -4508- 440 -44 --
- - -- I
�A4
149. 68 •
156177
i:5/3G%84
40.00
MN DEPTH OF LABOR
YORKERS COMP
10- 4202 - 140 -14
Erl.
40.00 +
:n
4 ^�
15677E - - --
�5 / ?C1F4
— 1b.70
�C�TOGCMERY 44RC5-----
REPAIR PAPTS
1 �54�4�0 -44
16.70 +
F
911
e2' - -
- - -- 15 6 7 7-9 - - - - --
u5/3C/84 -- -_ - --
- -- ----- - -47.50
ROCT 0 MATIC -- - -- - -_ - --
-GEN SUPPIES--------- -
- - - -- 23- 4504 - 611 -61
5
40.50 +
j
-
CKS
�5c
17,
469454.60
FUND 10 TOTAL
GENERAL FUND
�
b
CA
06-04-8 3GE 17
ACCOUNT NOe INV. # P*'Oe N—F.ESSA-GF---
1984 CITY OF rCINA
CHICK
STER
CHECK NC. GATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
2
7,C83.62
FUND
')0
TOTAL
PARK FUND
3
609.13
FUND
23
TOTAL
ART CENTER
57106
4.556.66
FUN,?
26
TCT!L
SWIMMING o00L-tupid-
795C4.24
FUND
27
TOTAL
GCLF COURSE FLND
13,288.94
FUND
28
TOTAL
RECREATION CENTER FUND
---o
FUND
30
TOTAL
WATER WORK FUNC
3,158.99
FUND
40
TCTfiL
SEWER RENTAL FUND
1,050.63
FUND
5C
TOTAL
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
15,106.19
FUNC
--60-
TOTAL
—
CGNSTRUCTICk FUND
111 I6O0.39
TOTAL
NY
1SI
15!
if;
221
40
231
L4
A0
Computer checks 56931 thr
CA
06-04-8 3GE 17
ACCOUNT NOe INV. # P*'Oe N—F.ESSA-GF---
, 7
:711T
;2111
Ufa
57106
of
---o
p. q
711