Loading...
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