Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1986-12-15_COUNCIL PACKET
AGENDA JOINT MEETING OF EDINA HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY /CITY COUNCIL EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 15, 1986 7:00 P.M. ROLLCALL MINUTES of HRA Meetings of November 17 and December 1, 1986 approved as submitted or corrected by motion of , seconded by (HRA) I. GRANDVIEW REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT - Jerry's Shopping Center /Ramp (HRA) II. AUTHORIZE PURCHASE OF LAND - Grandview Parking Ramp (HRA III. RESOLUTIONS A. Sale of Land to HRA - Grandview Parking Ramp (Council) B. Ordering Improvement --Public Works Garage (Council) IV. AWARD OF BIDS A. Edinborough - Phase V Courtyard Drains (HRA) B. Edinborough Park - Piano (HRA) ADJOURNMENT OF HRA EDINA CITY COUNCIL I. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. All agenda items listed with an asterisk ( *) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. * II. MINUTES of the Regular. Meetings of October 20 and November 3, 1986 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS. Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planner. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. Zoning Ordinance: First and Second Reading requires 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council required to pass. Lot Divisions, Plats, Appeals: Favorable rollcall vote of majority of quorum required to pass. Final Plat Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: 3/4 favorable rollcall vote of .all members of the Council required to pass. A. Final Rezoning and Final Plat Approval 1. R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to R -2 Double Dwelling Unit District - Generally located south of West 62nd Street and east of Valley View Road - Robert Kidd 2. Kidd Addition B. Preliminary Plat Approval 1. Starita 1st Addition - Generally located west of Blake Road and south of Waterman Avenue extended 2. White Oaks 8th Addition - Generally located west of Townes Road and south of Sunnyside Road C. Final Development Plan 1. Fairview Southdale Hospital - 6401 France Avenue - To construct a medical office building - D. Lot Division * 1. Lot 6, Block 1, Indian Hills 3rd Addition E. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - To Add Day Care as Permitted Use in Planned Office District IV. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS V. AWARD OF BIDS 1. Sewer .Lining (Contd from 12/1/86) * 2.. Sewer Jet.Machine Repair * 3. Five (5) Full -size police Pursuit Vehicles * .4. S -10 pickup Truck VI. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS 1. Approval of Traffic Safety Committee minutes of 12/9/86 1,0 2. Report on West 50th Street (Edina Court to Halifax Avenue) 3. Proposed Fees and Charges for 1987 by Resolution 4. Acquisition of OPTECH III -P Voting Systet^ (Contd from 12/1/86) 5. Smoking at Braemar Arena 6. Confirmation - Board of Review Date - 5/11/87 Agenda Edina City Council December 15, 1986 Page Two VII. RESOLUTIONS. Favorable rollcall vote by majority of quorum to pass. , * A. Designation of Director and Alternate Director - Suburban Rate Authority * B. Designation of Director and Alternate Director - LOGIS * C. Designation of Official Newspaper for 1987 VIII. SPECIAL BUSINESS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL IX. POST AGENDA AND MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS X. FINANCE * A. Payment of claims as per pre -list dated 12115186: General Fund $1,059,964.29, Revenue Sharing Fund $225,000.00, Art Center $5,532.57, Swimming Pool Fund $70.07, Golf Course Fund $53,016.29, Recreation Center Fund $5,295.47, Utility Fund $4,673.72, Liquor Dispensary Fund $525,609.27, Construction Fund $318,317.80, IMP Bond Redemption #2 $986,095.64, Total $3,183,575.12; and for confirmation of payment of the following claims dated 11130186: General Fund $729,816.85, Art Center $483.23, Swimming Pool Fund $52.76, .Golf Course Fund $6,289.62, Recreation Center Fund $2,537.54, Gun Range Fund $134.52, Utility Fund $4,140.27, Liquor Dispensary Fund $302,057.96, Total $1,045,512.75 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Tues Dec 30 Year -End Council Meeting Mon Jan 5 Regular Council Meeting Mon Jan 12 Special Council Meeting - Mission Statement Mon Jan 26 Regular Council Meeting 5:00 p.m. Manager's Conf Rm 7:00 p.m. Council Room 7:00 p.m. Council Room 7:00 p.m. Council Room i) Councilmember Kelly introduced the following reso- lutions and moved to adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF LAND TO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Edirria, - - Minnesota ( "City " -) WHEREAS, City owns land ( "City Land ") in the Grandview Redevelopment Area described as follows: Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block -3, "Grand View Heights" according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County., Minnesota;.and .Whereas, it,is necessary and desirable, and in the best interest of the City, to sell the City Land to the Housing and J Rede- velopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota (the "HRA ") to allow it to fulfill the Grandview Area Redevelopment Plan, as amended, (the "Plan ") and to fulfill a Contract for Private Development (the "Con- tract") between the HRA and Jerry's Enterprises, Inc., the ful- fillment of which is for the benefit of the City; Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, by the City Council of the City, that the Mayor and the Manager or Clerk, are hereby authorized and directed to take such action and to execute and deliver all docu- ments as may be necessary or desirable to sell and convey the City Land to the HRA for the price of $100,000.00 and to carry out the in- tent and purpose of this resolution; and that the execution and delivery by the Mayor and the Manager or Clerk of any such documents shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents by the City Council in accordance with this resolution. Dated the 15th day of December, 1986. Attest: City Clerk Mayor The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Turner and was upon vote being taken thereon, `the..foiiowing voted in favor thereof: Bredesen.Kelley, Richards, Turner and Courtney The. following voted against the same: None. whereupon said resolut:iori was, declared passed and adopted and was signed by the Mayor- and his signature attested by the City Clerk.. I EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING NOVEMBER 17, 1986 Answering rollcall were Commissioners.-Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Courtney. MINUTES of the H.R.A. Meeting of November 3, 1986, were approved as submitted by motion of Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Bredesen. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. JOINT HRA /COUNCIL MEETING CONVENED. Mr. Hughes proposed that a joint meeting of the HRA and Council be convened to consider concurrently the Grandview Biltmore Project and that action be taken by the HRA and Council individually as required. Mayor Courtney Courtney thereupon convened the joint meeting. AMENDMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR GRANDVIEW BILTMORE PROJECT APPROVED; SALE AND ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS AUTHORIZED. Manager Rosland advised that the proposed regulatory agreement for the Vernon Terrace Project will not be required because of a change in the financing arrangements. Frank Dunbar, developer, reported that they are prepared to market the bonds for the 152 residential unit multifamily housing project. They have been meeting with the building inspection department and contemplate drawing down. the building permit on November 26, with construction to begin December 1. A one -year construction period for the project is contemplated, with built -in incentives for earlier occupancy. Mr. Dunbar explained that they still feel there is a strong market appeal for the location and the product. Commissioner Kelly asked about the public improvements. Attorney Erickson clarified that the redevelopment contract provides that the HRA will recommend and use its best efforts to cause the City to hold_ ahear _ing_andorder_the_improvements for the construction of the signal lights and sidewalks and such other improve- ments as it deemed appropriate. The City would make its decision on the public improvements independently of the development contract. No further comment being heard, Commissioner Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BE IT RESOLVED By the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota, that the Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment between the HRA and Grandview Development Company as presented at the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of November 17, 1986, be and is hereby approved; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Vice Chairman and Secretary of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota be directed and authorized to execute the Amendment. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Richards. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. Member Richards introduced the following resolution after the reading thereof had been dispensed with by unanimous consent and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF MULTIFAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS (VERNON TERRACE PROJECT), OF THE CITY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE CITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the City), as follows: H.R.A. /COUNCIL MINUTES November 17, 1986 Page Two Section 1. Authorization and Recitals. 1.01. General Authority. By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the "Act "), the City is authorized to plan, administer, issue and sell revenue bonds or obligations and to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily housing developments within its corporate limits, which revenue bonds or obligations shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development. This Council has approved a Housing Plan for the City (the "Housing Plan "), by a resolution adopted on April 19 and May 17, 1982, after a public hearing was held thereon. The Housing Plan has been reviewed and commented on by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota.Statutes, Section 462C.01 and 462C.04, Subdivision 1. This Council has approved a multifamily housing program under the Housing Plan (the "Program "), by a resolution adopted on November 4, 1985. The program provides for the financing of a project under the Act consisting of the acquisition, construction and equipping by Grandview Development Company Limited Partnership (the Borrower) a Minnesota limited partnership, of an approximately 152 residential unit multifamily housing project intended primarily for the elderly and related facilities to be located.in the City (the "Project "). The Program has been reviewed and approved by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.04, Subdivision 2. 1.02. Outstanding Bonds. On December 18, 1985 the City issued its Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Biltmore Housing Project) (the "1985 Bonds "), which are currently outstanding in the principal amount of $13,840,000. 1.03. Proposed Bonds. Representatives of the Borrower have proposed that the City, acting under and pursuant to the Act, issue and sell its Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Vernon Terrace Project), in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $13,840,000 (the "Bonds "), for the purpose of refunding the 1985 Bonds. Pursuant to the proposal, the proceeds of the 1985 Bonds will be loaned by the City to the Borrower, and the Borrower will agree to make payments sufficient to pay the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds when due. The City will grant a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined) to a Trustee (as hereinafter defined). 1.04. Documentation. Forms of the following documents relating to the Project and the Bonds have been prepared and submitted to this Council and are hereby directed to be filed in the office of the City Clerk: (a) a Loan Agreement (the "Loan Agreement "), to be dated as of December 1, 1986, proposed to be made and entered into between the City and the Borrower; (b) an Indenture of Trust (the "Indenture "), to be dated as of December 1, 1986, proposed to be made and entered into between the City and Norwest Bank, Minneapolis, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee "); (c) a Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Bond Purchase Agreement "), to be dated December 11, 1986 proposed to be made and entered into among Piper, Jaffray & Hopwood Incorporated (the "Purchaser "), the City and the Borrower; and (d) a Preliminary Official Statement (the "Official Statement ") containing certain information regarding the City,_the Borrower, the Project and the documents set forth above, whereby the Purchaser will offer the Bonds to investors. Section 2. Findings. It is hereby found, determined and declared that: (a) the financing of the Project, the authorization of the Bonds in a maximum aggregate principal amount not to exceed $13,840,000, the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and the performance of all covenants and agreements of the City contained in the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and of all other acts and things required under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement and H.R.A. /COUNCIL MINUTES November 17, 1986 Page Three the Bonds valid and binding obligations in accordance with their terms, are authorized by the Act; (b) the Program has been approved by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.01; (c) it is desirable that a series of Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds in an amount not to exceed $13,840,000 be issued by the City upon the terms set forth in the Indenture, under the provisions of which the City grants to the Trustee a security interest in certain revenues and payments to be received by the City under the Loan Agreement as security for the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds; (d) the loan repayments contained in the Loan Agreement are fixed, and are required to be revised from time to time as necessary, so as to produce income and revenue sufficient to provide for prompt payment of principal of and interest on all Bonds issued under the Indenture when due; and the Loan Agree- ment also provides that the Borrower is required to pay all expenses of the operation and maintenance of the Project, including, but without limitation, adequate insurance thereon and insurance against all liability for injury to persons or property arising from the operation thereof, and all taxes and special assessments levied upon or with respect to the site of the Project and payable during the term of the Loan Agreement; (e) the execution and delivery of. the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement will not conflict with, or constitute on the part of the City a breach of or a default under, any existing agreement, indenture, .mortgage, lease or other instrument to which the City is subject or is a party or by which it is bound; provided that this finding is made solely for the purpose of estopping the City from denying the validity of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture or the Bond Purchase Agreement by reason of the existence of any facts contrary to this finding; (f) no litigation is- pending- or —to- the - best- knowledge of -the members of this Council, threatened against the City questioning the organization or boundaries of the City or the right of any officer of the City to hold his or her office, or in any manner questioning the right and power of the City to execute and deliver the Bonds, or otherwise questioning the validity of the Bonds or the execution, delivery or validity of the.Loan Agreement, the Indenture or the Bond Purchase Agreement, or questioning the appropriation of revenues to payment of the Bonds or the right of the City to loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Borrower; (g) all acts and things required under the Constitution and the laws of the State of Minnesota to make the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement the valid and.binding obligations of the City in accordance with their terms will have been done upon adoption of this Resolution and execution of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement; provided that this finding is made solely for the purpose of estopping the City from denying the validity of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agreement by reason of the existence of any facts contrary to this finding; and (h) the City is duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota and is authorized to issue the Bonds in accordance with the Act. 3. Approval of Documents. The forms of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture and the Bond Purchase Agree- ment referred to in Section 1.04 are approved subject to such modifications as are deemed appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City Manager, which approval shall be conclusively evidenced by execution of the Loan Agreement, the Indenture, the Bond Purchase Agreement and the Bonds by the Mayor or Deputy Mayor, the City Manager and the City Clerk, as the case may be. The Mayor or •, 1 H.R.A. /COUNCIL MINUTES November 17, 1986 Page Four Deputy Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute the Loan Agreement upon execution thereof by the Borrower, to execute the Indenture upon execution thereof by the Trustee and to execute the Bond Purchase Agreement upon execution thereof by the Purchaser and the Borrower. The City authorizes the distribution of the Official Statement to prospective purchasers of the Bonds with such variations, insertions and additions as the Mayor, Deputy Mayor or City Manager may deem appropriate. Copies of all of the documents shall be delivered, filed and recorded as provided therein. The Mayor or Deputy Mayor, the City Manager and the City Clerk are also authorized and directed to execute such other instruments as may be required to give effect to the transactions herein con- templated. 4. The Bonds; Terms, Sale and Execution. 4.01. Authorization. The City hereby authorizes the issuance of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed.$13,840,000, in the form and upon the terms set forth in the Indenture and this resolution. The Bonds shall bear interest at a net effective rate not to exceed 10% per annum. The Mayor or Deputy Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to approve the final interest rate. The Bonds are hereby sold to the Purchaser at a price.not less than 98% of the principal amount hereof and upon the terms contained in the Bond Purchase Agreement. 4.02. Execution. The Mayor or Deputy Mayor, and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bonds as presecribed herein and in the Indenture and to deliver them to the Trustee, together with a certified copy of this resolution, the other documents required in the Indenture, and'such other certificates, documents and instruments as may be appropriate to effect the transactions herein .contemplated . The Trustee is hereby appointed authenticating agent for the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.55, Subdivision 1. 4.03. Modifications, Absence of Officers. The approval hereby given to the various documents referred to above includes an approval of such modifications thereto, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as may be necessary and appropriate and approved by the City Attorney and the City Manager prior to the execution of the documents. The execution of any instrument by the appropriate officer or officers of the City herein authorized shall be conclusive evidence of the approval of such documents in accordance with the terms hereof. In.the absence or disability of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor, any of the documents authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed by the acting.Mayor, and in the absence or disability of the City Manager or the City Clerk by such officer of the City who, in the opinion of the City Attorney, may execute such documents. -- -- Section 5. Authentication of Proceedings. The Mayor or Deputy Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk and other officers of the City are authorized and directed to furnish to the Purchaser and bond counsel certified copies of all proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds, and such other affidavits and certificates as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Bonds as such facts appear from the books and records in the officer's custody and control or as otherwise known to them; and all such certified copies, certificates and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall constitute representations of the City as to the truth of all statements contained therein. Section 6. Limitations of the City's Obligations. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Indenture or the Bond Purchase Agreement or any other documents referred to in Section 1.04, the Bonds shall not constitute a debt of the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation, and shall not be payable from nor charged upon any funds other than the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and no Holder of the Bonds shall ever have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds or the premium, if any, or interest H.R.A. /COUNCIL MEETING November 17, 1986 Page Five thereon, or to enforce payment thereof against any property of the City other than those rights and interests of the City under the Loan Agreement which have been pledged to the payment thereof, and the Bonds shall not constitute a charge, lien or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City other than those rights and interests of the City under the Loan Agreement which have been pledged to the payment thereof. The agreement of the City to perform the covenants and other provisions contained in this resolution or the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Indenture or the Bond Purchase Agreement and the other documents listed in Section 1.04 shall be subject at all times to the availability of the revenues furnished by the Borrower sufficient to pay all costs of such performance or the enforcement thereof, and the City shall not be subject to any personal or pecuniary liability thereon other than as stated above. Adopted November 17, 1986. Attest: City Clerk Mayor Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. There being no further business the joint meeting of the HRA and Council was adjourned by motion of Commissioner /Member Kelly, seconded by Commissioner /Member Bredesen. Motion carried. Gordon L. Hughes Executive Director J MINUTES EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 1, 1986 Answering rollcall were Commissioners Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Courtney. RESOLUTION ADOPTED RELATING TO SOUTHEAST EDINA (HEDBERG) PROPERTY. Motion of Commissioner Bredesen was seconded by Commissioner Turner and unanimously carried to continue the meeting and discuss the adoption of the resolution relating to Southeast Edina property with the Edina Council Agenda item VIII.B. Accordingly, the Hedberg property acquisition was considered concurrently by the HRA and the City Council. Manager Rosland recalled that at the November 17, 1986 Council Meeting the Council had been informed that the vacant land in the southeast area of the City owned by the Hedberg family is apparently for sale. Staff was asked to research the matter as to land area, use.of tax increment financing by the HRA, acquisition of the property and the existing Southeast Edina Tax Increment District. Planner Craig Larsen presented a graphic pointing out that the property is bounded on the west by France Avenue, on the east by York Avenue and on the south by I -494 and the Bloomington border. Dayton's Home Store is immediately to the northwest and the York Plaza Apartments to the northeast. There are approxi- mately 95 acres of vacant land with 30.03 acres lying in the existing tax increment district. Hedberg property outside the district is 53.89 acres, with 2.6 acres in Bloomington. In the subject area 8.29 acres is owned by the Decourcy family. Attorney Erickson presented a legal analysis on the subject property summarized as follows. A tax increment district is needed to capture the tax increment and may be useful whether or not the property is owned by the HRA or the City. The existing Southeast Edina Tax Increment District cannot be expanded to include additional property. Three new kinds of tax increment district can be created: a) a redevelopment district, b).a housing district, and c) an economic development district. Mr. Erickson explained the duration, allowed uses and applicable requirements for creation of each of the districts and the time limitation. If the HRA determines to assist in the development of the subject property, it can amend the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan to all the undeveloped property. This would allow pooling of tax increment from all districts in the Plan area to pay for redevelopment activity in any district in the Plan area. This would be a necessary and desirable step prior to creation of tax increment districts. From a legal viewpoint, Mr. Erickson made these recommendations: 1) amend the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan to include all unimproved property in the subject area, and 2) initiate studies to determine whether redevelopment projects and redevelopment district or other tax increment districts can be created. Mayor Courtney asked if the existing tax increment district could afford the proposed acquisition. Mr. Rosland said that the cash flow analysis illustrates that without almost immediate development of the property, substantial deficits will occur in the district's reserve balance. The reason for this is that the resources of the entire district are required to support the Edinborough project for the next six to seven years. After 1993, excess increments will be available for other projects. As an alternative, the HRA could negotiate a contract with a developer prior to pursuing acquisition. Such a contract could perhaps reduce the HRA's exposure caused by holding the land. Advantages and disadvantages of HRA ownership were then pointed out. Mayor Courtney called for comments from the Commissioners /Members. Commissioner /Member Richards recalled that at the.last meeting the Council had talked about the possibility of developing some housing on the subject site in response to a perceived need for people of moderate means and young people. The development of the site in a planned unit development (PUD) concept would make more sense than to see it develop in a piecemeal fashion with a number of developers. He cited the example of the Edinborough housing project Edina HRA Minutes December 1, 1986 Page Two which has worked whereby the City controlled that site by acquiring it and then entering into a cooperative venture with the private sector who assumed the risk associated with holding the property. The City would then be participating in the sense of creating rather than reacting to some type of overall development plan. The private development would then create a value that could be captured in whatever district the City might be able to create to pay back initial costs associated in acquiring the property. He added that he felt going that route would be in the best - interests of Edina. Mayor Courtney said that he agreed with those comments. Commissioner /Member.Bredesen said his reaction was very positive and that the City should do something unique with this property which is the last major parcel of vacant land in the City. Commissioner /Member Turner said that two issues are important for this area and are mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan: 1) the need to minimize the traffic impact of any development on this.site, and 2) housing at a level to accommodate the people who would work in this general area. She said she felt that a PUD is the best way to address those two issues and that the City's involvement would provide a chance to minimize the traffic impact of development in this area. Commissioner /Kelly reiterated her approval. John Hedberg was present and was asked for his comments. Mr. Hedberg advised that they want to sell their property, want to see it developed. in the best way possible for Edina and want to obviously benefit from the sale. He indicated they would have no objection to talking to representatives from the City, but that in fairness to the developers they have contacted they would want to see what the private sector has to offer. Commissioner /Member Richards said that he has.asked that a resolution be drafted that would authorize and direct the HRA staff to: 1) negotiate with the owners of the property for its acquisition, 2) prepare amendments to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan to include all of the redevelopment property in that area, and 3) to gather information to determine the feasibility of the project. Commissioner Richards thereupon introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION BY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, there is within the Southeast Edina area a tract of land, comprising approximately 95 acres (of which 2 acres are in the City of Bloomington), which is the largest tract of undeveloped land remaining in the City of Edina (the "City "), and which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof (the "Redevelopment Property "); and WHEREAS, . it may be desirable that the Housing.and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota (the "HRA ") own the Redevelopment Property so that it can better control and plan the development thereof, including the uses thereof, and the timing and density of development thereof; and WHEREAS, it may be necessary or desirable to create one or more tax increment districts on the Redevelopment Property to assist with the purchase, ownership and development of the Redevelopment Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Director and Executive Director of the HRA, and the Attorney for the HRA, be and hereby are, directed and authorized to: 1. Negotiate with the owners of the Redevelopment Property as to the terms of purchase by the HRA of the Redevelopment Property, and to report back to the HRA as to such terms for further approvals and directions: 2. Prepare amendments to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan to include therein all of the Redevelopment Property with the City for review and adoption by the HRA; and 3. Make such surveys, tests and studies, and gather such information, as they deem necessary, to determine the feasibility of creating, and the ability to Edina HRA Minutes December 1, 1986 Page Three create, one or more redevelopment projects, and one or more tax increment districts, on the Redevelopment Property within the City, and report back to the HRA as to such feasibility and ability. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Bredesen, who commented that he.viewed this proposed project as a private development and that because of the unique nature of the property the HRA should become involved in directing the project from the start. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, motion of Commissioner Bredesen was seconded by Commissioner Richards for adjournment. Motion carried. Gordon L. Hughes Executive Director r HRA I. II. III. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Kenneth Rosland FROM: Gordon Hughes SUBJECT: Grandview Parking Ramp and Public Works Garage DATE: December 15, 1986 The HRA and the City Council have considered the subject project on several occasions during 1986. On the most recent occasion (July 21, 1986) the Council /HRA adopted four resolutions which 1) approved final zoning plans for Jerry's Shopping Center improvements, 2) authorized drafting of a redevelopment contract with Jerry's, 3) authorized final plans and bids for the parking ramp and public works garage, and 4) authorized the sale of $2,000,000 of tax increment bonds to finance the project. (A copy of the July 21st minutes are attached for your reference.) Since the July 21st meeting, the City has undertaken the $2,000,000 bond sale and has prepared final plans and specifications for the ramp /garage. Bids are scheduled for opening on December 23. We have also negotiated a redevelopment contract with Jerry's Enterprises which follows the terms outlined on July 21st. The key element of this agreement is that Jerry's Enterprises will accept a special assessment equal to 20 percent of the cost of the parking ramp. This assessment will be applied toward the cost of the Public Works garage. The term of the assessment is proposed to be 15 years which is the same as the assessment levied for the 50th and France project. Other provisions of the Redevelopment Contract are summarized in the attached memo from Mr. Erickson. Staff recommends that the HRA /City should now proceed with the following action: * The HRA should authorize execution of the Redevelopment Contract • The HRA should authorize purchase of the parking ramp /public works garage land from the City • The City Council should authorize the sale of the land to the HRA • The City Council should formally order the public works garage as an improvement as a portion of its cost will be financed through special assessments MEMORANDUM TO: Edina City Council Kenneth E. Rosland, Edina City Manager FROM: Thomas S. Erickson DATE: November 26, 1986 RE: Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. Redevelopment Agreement Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. ( "Jerry's ") plans to expand its existing facilities on Vernon Avenue by approximately 43,000 square feet. The expansion includes a one -story addition to the existing hardware store and a multi -story addition to the existing office and commercial facility. The HRA proposes to enter into a Redevelopment Agreement (the "Agreement ") with Jerry's pursuant to which Jerry's will construct the improvements described above and the HRA will construct a two -level public parking ramp for 272 cars over a garage /maintenance building to be used by the City. The land on which the ramp and building will be constructed will be purchased by the HRA from the City for $100,000. The building (but not the ramp) will be conveyed to the City upon completion. The ramp will be paid for with proceeds of the $2,000,000 tax increment bonds recently issued by the City. In addition, the Agreement provides that Jerry's will pay 20% of the cost of the ramp and that the City may levy a special assessment for that amount. No tax increment bond proceeds will be used to pay for the building. Jerry's will provide non - structural maintenance and repairs for the ramp and can be assessed the cost of such maintenance and repairs if it fails to perform. Neither the City nor the HRA have any obligation to repair or restore the ramp if it is damaged, destroyed or wears out. Jerry's and the HRA will enter into an Assessment Agreement whereby Jerry's agrees that, for tax purposes,. the Jerry's parcel will have a specified minimum assessed market value. Jerry's and the HRA also will enter into an Easement and Parking Ramp Maintenance Agreement which will provide for the maintenance of the ramp as described above and for the creation of construction, driveway, ingress and egress and other necessary easements. TSE /gv GRANDVIEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR JERRY'S SHOPPING CENTER APPROVED. Affidavits of Notice were presented by the Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes recalled that on February 3 and 24 and :larch 17, 1986, the HRA reviewed concept plans concerning the Grandview redevelopment area. Three projects were discussed in those meetings: 1) a public parking ramp /Public Works facility east of Jerry's Shopping Center, 2) an upgrading of Link Road and 3) a redevelopment of the Lewis Engineering /Kunz Oil properties. At that time the HRA gave conceptual approval to the parking ramp /Public Works facility and the upgrading of Link Road with the understanding that staff would return with more detailed information prior to final approval. Since the March 17, 1986 meet- ing staff, consultants for the City and representatives of Jerry's Enterprises have worked together to formulate plans for Jerry's expansion as well as for the public parking ramp /Public Works facility. That plan with regard to Jerry's proposed approximate 40,000 square foot addition has been reviewed by the Develop- ment and Planning Commission and was approved at their last meeting. Planner Craig Larsen advised that the proponent has submitted plans for a 3,650 square foot addition to the hardware store and a 37,475 square foot addition to the main complex. The addition would extend the existing building 60 feet to the north, or to the approximate location of the existing retaining wall. A portion of the expansion would be five stories with the remaining being additions to the existing second story office space. The first floor is proposed as retail space, the second floor as a combination of office and retail, with exclusive office use on the top three floors. Mr. Larson pointed out that the proposed additions require 206 additional parking spaces. The parking would be provided in a new, two level public parking ramp. The ramp would use air rights and be located above a Public Works storage facility. The lower level would be accessed from the Vernon/ Interlachen signalized intersection around the rear of the Edina Liquor Store and the upper level would be accessed from the existing main entrance to the shopping center. The ramp would provide 272 parking spaces, with the 66 surplus spaces in the ramp replacing 36 surface spaces lost due to construction and redesign of existing parking and would provide a 30 space cushion to relieve existing shortages. A more recent count from the consultant has increased the count to 280 ramp park- ing spaces. Additional landscaping would be provided where possible within the limitations of the site and Hennepin County's willingness to allow landscaping on right of way areas. The parking ramp would primarily serve employees of Jerry's and tenants of the office space. Grocery, restaurant and general retail parking would continue to use the surface parking. The parking area in front of the main complex would be regraded, surfaced and reoriented 90 degrees from the present alignment. The northerly end of the lot near the main entrance would be lowered approximately eight feet. A retaining wall would be installed adjacent to the Vernon Avenue right of way. The subject property is part of the Grandview Area Tax Increment District. A public parking ramp designed to serve the commercial uses in the area was anticipated by the Grandview Plan. As proposed the two level ramp would occupy the air rights above the existing Public Works storage buildings which would be removed and the ground level would become the new storage facility. Mr. Larsen concluded that the proposed plan will significantly improve the way the Center functions. The total quantity of parking should be adequate and circulation within the lots will be greatly improved. The construction of the ramp is the key to this proposal. No expansion is possible without the additional parking provided in the ramp. Member Kelly asked what the ordinance requirements were and said that she was concerned that employees will use the surface parking spaces and that the parking problems that now exist will not be solved. Mr. Larsen explained that the ordinance requires 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for shopping centers and that in excess of 600 spaces will be provided by surface and ramp parking. The intent would be to operate the ramp similarly to the ramp at 50th /France whereby parking stickers would be available for employees working in the area. In response to Member Kelly's questions about the par,-�ng, Arthur Dickey- architect for the project, clarified that there are now 403 existing spaces in the shopping center ^omplex; that 280 will be added for a total of 683; that 36 surface spaces will be lost; and that after construction there will be 647 parking spaces for the entire site. He said that congestion will be eliminated because the surface parking area will be regraded on a level plain and the main entrance will be re -done. Member Turner asked if the ramp would be expandable and if there would be a way to control the mix of traffic at the signalized intersection of Vernon /Interlachen which she felt would be important. Mfr. Larsen responded that possible ramp expansion has not been considered-at this point. With regard to traffic control, Engineer Fran Hoffman said that the approach to the signal from the subject property would have to be recoirfigured in total with the addition of islands to make it work better. Mr. Hughes then presented the following details and estimated cost for the parking ramp /Public Works facility: Number of tiers -two tiers above Public Works facility, Number of Parking Spaces -280, Floor Area of Public Works Building- 27,600 square feet. Preliminary Cost Estimate: Demolition $50,000, Ramp $1,336,900, Garage $430,200, Design /Inspection $130,000, Contingency $137,000 for a total cost estimate of $2,084,100. The estimated cost for the Public Works garage is based upon a heated facility equipped with restrooms. This estimate would be reduced by approximately $100,000 if' heat and restrooms were eliminated. sir. Hughes pointed out that Mr. Dickey had estimated that it would cost approximately $175,000 more to construct a free standing building with the same floor area without taking advantage of the structural elements of the ramp. Mr. Hughes commented that staff has been talking with Robert Shaddock, representing Jerry's Enterprises, concerning a redevelopment contract with the HRA. The major element of this contract would be an acceptance by Jerry's Enterprises of a special assessment equal to 20% of construction costs of the parking ramp. Based upon the estimates this assessment would range from approximately $265,000 to $300,000 depending upon the allocation of costs. Staff would propose that this special assessment be used to defray costs of the Public Works garage together with the capital improvement funds budgeted to construct the garage. Other elements of the contract would include an obligation for Jerry's Enterprises to undertake and complete the proposed private improvements to the shopping center and to accept an annual assessment for ramp maintenance similar to that used at 50th and France. From a tax increment financing standpoint, Mr. Hughes stated that an analysis shows that the tax increment district would be able to amoritize bonds issued for con- struction of the Public Works facility. The assumptions used for the analysis were a 2% growth in general in the assessed valuation of the district, plus the valuation of Jerry's addition that is being considered, plus the construct- ion of the Woodhaven project on Summit Avenue. At this point in time, any increments which may be forthcoming from the Biltmore redevelopment have been ignored. As to funding of the Public Works garage, Mr. Hughes summarized that $3,00,000 would come from the City's capital improvement plan (i.e. $75,000 per year). Staff would propose to revise the C.I.P. to fund the garage in 1987 and 1988. These funds, plus the proposed assessment to Jerry's would provide the necessary funds for construction of the garage. If the HRA /Council wishes to proceed with this project, the following actions will be required: 1) Council should grant final development plan approval for Jerry's proposed improvements; 2) A redevelopment contract embodying the terms of the proposed project must be authorized by the HRA; 3) Staff should be authorized to prepare final plans and solicit bids for the ramp /Public Works garage, and 4) A bond sale must be authorized to finance the parking ramp. As to the bond sale, Mr. Hughes noted that the sale of additional bonds for Edinborough as well as temporary improvement bonds are proposed later on this agenda. If the HRA /Council wishes to proceed with this project,'it would be prudent to authorize Grandview bonds at the same time. Staff would recommend that $2,000,000 be provided for Grandview which should cover the parking ramp as well as Link Road improvements in connection with the anticipated Biltmore project. Member Bredesen asked what tax increment would come from Jerry's addition and what the logic was for including the Woodhaven project in the tax increment assumptions. Mr. Hughes said that the addition would have an assessed value of approximately $800,000 which would equate to taxes of about $80,000 annually, assuming a mill rate of 10 %. For purposes of the analysis it was assumed that the entire tax increment district would be pledged to any debt that would be incurred by the district. Member Turner asked if there would be tax increment funds to do the Link Road project if this project is approved. Mr. Hughes replied that staff has always viewed the Link Road project as tied to the Biltmore redevelopment, both from a planning and tax increment standpoint. If the Link Road improvement can be constructed with minimal expenses for land acquisition there would probably be enough tax increment generated to do that project. If large land acquisition is necessary, the Link Road project would have to rely on the Biltmore redevelopment. After further discussion by the Council, Mayor Courtney called for comment from the public. A resident at 6620 Gleason Road commented that she was concerned that the proposed addition to Jerry's would increase the parking congestion. A resident at 6616 Gleason commented that she would like to see the shopping center remain the way it is at present. No further comment being heard, Member Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR JERRY'S SHOPPING CENTER BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the Final Development Plan for Jerry's Shopping Center, 5001 -5125 Vernon Avenue, presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of July 21, 1986, be and is hereby approved. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner who commented that her support of the project was based on: 1) That it would address the traffic and parking concerns in.the area which were identified when the Tax Increment District was established in 1984, 2) That this was an opportunity for a public - private partnership in construction of the ramp, and 3) That because this is the commercial area for the northwestern portion of the City it is important that continued investment occurs to insure quality for the area. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Turner, Courtney Nays: Kelly Resolution adopted. Commissioner Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) that it hereby authorizes and directs the drafting of d Redevelopment Contract between the HRA and Jerry's Enterprises for construction of the addition to Jerry's Shopping Center, embodying the terms of the proposed project as presented. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Turner. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Turner, Courtney Nays: Kelly Resolution adopted. Commissioner Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECT AND DIRECTING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY: 1. The preliminary plans for a public parking ramp and public works garage heretofore presented are hereby approved and preparation of final plans are authorized. 2. The Clerk shall cause to be published in the Edina Sun and Construction Bulletin a notice of bids for construction of the public parking ramp and public works garage. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Turner. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Turner, Courtney Nays: Kelly Resolution adopted. Member Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: j. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BOND SALE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby approves and authorizes the sale of $2,000,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds to finance the Grandview Redevelopment Project heretofore presented and approved. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Turner, Courtney Nays: Kelly Resolution adopted. Commissioner /Member Bredesen then moved adjournment of the joint HRA /Council meeting. Motion was seconded by Commissioner /Member Turner and carried unanimously. HRA IV .A REQUEST FOR PURCHASE -TO: HRA FROM: Gordon Hughes VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: December 15, 1986 Material Description (General Specifications): Courtyard Drains - Edinborough Phase 5 Quotations /Bids: Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Wenzel Mechanical $11,400 2. No other bidders 3. Department Recommendation: Wenzel Mechanical Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not �/_Z& DepartrAent within the amount budget for the purchase. John Wallin, Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Mosland, Manager ' REQUEST FOR PURCHASE I FROM: Bill Bach, Edinborough Park Manager VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: December 9, 1986 Material Description (General Specifications): 1 - Yamaha GIR 5'3 ", Satin Ebony Grand Piano for Edinborough Park -Quotations/Bids: Company 1. Bodine's Music Center 5101 Parkdale Dr. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 2. NOT AVAILABLE 3. NOT AVAILABLE ,Department Recommendation: HRA IV.B Amount of Quote or Bid $7,800 Bodine's Music Center, 5101 Parkdale Dr., St. Louis Park, MN 55416 because this is the only metropolitan Yamaha dealer - Si are Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not within the amount budget for the purchase. John Wallin, Finance Director City M ger's Endorsement: 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: _zeA2j Ken et Rosland, ity Manager �, M E M O R A N D U M December 12, 1986 MEMO TO: Ken Rosiand City Manager FROM: Bill Bach Edinborough Park Manager RE: Purchase of Piano for Edinborough Park After researching several types of pianos, our Music Programmer, Mr. Tom Prin (an expert in his field), has recommended the purchase of a Yamaha Piano because of it's. good tone quality in a public facility and also it's ability to keep the tune longer than any other piano that he researched. Therefore, the recommendation is to purchase the Yamaha Piano from Bodines Music Center because it is the onlv supplier of Yamaha Pianos in the metro area. The following were the pianos researched- Stienwav Piano 5'1" $15,000 Kawai GE1 5'1" $ 6,995 Baldwin 5'2" $ 7,500 Samick $ 5,000 *_ 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL OCTOBER 20, 1986 Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor Courtney. PARAMEDICS JOEL RADJENOVICH AND RON SAMUELSON COMMENDED. Manager Rosland introduced paramedics Joel Radjenovich, who started as a firefighter with the City in 1975 and became a paramedic in July of 1979, and Ron Samuelson, who started as a firefighter in 1975 and became A paramedic in March of 1976. He commended them for their service to the City and especially for their commit- ment to the paramedic program. They were presented with silver pens bearing the Edina Logo. Members of the Council also extended their thanks and appre- ciation. MINUTES of the Regular Meetings of August 18 and September 8, 1986 were approved as submitted by motion of Member Turner, seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED. Motion was made by Member Kelly and seconded by Member Turner to adopt the consent agenda as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 825 -AlO GRANTED FIRST READING; R -1 TO PRD -2 ZONING FOR ROBERT HANSEN. Attorney Erickson advised that the findings of facts that the Council had asked staff to prepare at the meeting of September 15, 1986 have been prepared and were sent out to the developer last week. A response to the findings has been received by Mr. Hansen's attorney which included.a new graphic depicting proposed retaining walls for the project. No comment being heard, Member Turner introduced Ordinance No. 825 -AlO for First Reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 825 -AlO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825) BY ADDING TO THE PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT (PRD -2) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding the following thereto: "The extent of the Planned Residence District (Sub- District PRD -2) is enlarged by the addition of the following property: That part of the NE4 of the NW4 of Section 6, Township 116, Range 21, described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of said NE4 of the NW4; thence South along the West line of said NE4 of the NW4 a distance of 709.1 feet more or less to a point which is distant 814.5 feet North of the SW corner of said NE4 of the NW-4; thence Easterly on a deflection angle to the left of 87 degrees 40 minutes a distance of 676.3 feet; thence running North parallel with the West line of the NE-4 of the NW-4 a distance of 674.9 feet more or less to the North line of said Section 6; thence West along said North line a distance of 678.6 feet more or less to the beginning, which lies Northeasterly of the Northerly line of the County Road. The West One Hundred Fifty (150) feet of that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter. (NE4 of NW-14) and the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW4 of NE4) of Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116) North, Range Twenty -one (21) West, described as follows: Beginning on a point in the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE-4 of NW4) distant 814.5 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence running East and a deflection angle to the right of 920.20' a distance of 676.3 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE-14 of NV-4) a distance of 366 feet to a point which is 283.9 feet South of the North line of said Section Six (6); the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described; thence running East on a deflection angle to the right of 920 20' a distance of 1317.5 feet more or less to the centerline of the Town Road, also known as Gleason Road as now laid out and travelled; thence North- easterly along said centerline a distance of 384.7 feet more or less to its intersection with the North line of said Section Six (6); thence West along said North line a distance of 1426.3 feet more or less to a point which is distant 678.6 feet East of the Northwest corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE-4 of NW-14); thence South parallel with the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (NE4 of NW-14) 182.9 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at the East 1/4 corner of Section Six (6), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty -one (21), thence North 000 09' 27 seconds East along the East line of said Section Six (6) a distance of 1807.59 feet; thence North 780 48' 33 seconds E , 10/20/86 West a distance of 1070.37 feet; thence North 810 13' 33 seconds West a distance of 1031.19 feet; thence North 120 36' 50 seconds East a distance of.49O.O feet; thence South 770 23' 10.seconds East a distance of 100.0 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 770 23' 10 seconds West a distance of 180.30 feet; thence along a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 687.96 feet (delta angle 300 18' 23 seconds, tangent distance 186.31 feet) a distance of 363.89 feet; thence South 720 18' 27 seconds West along tangent to last described curve a distance of 145.43 feet; thence along a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 839.93 feet (delta angle 220 43', tangent distance 168.72 feet) a distance of 333.02 feet; thence North 840 10' 27 seconds West a distance of 600.0 feet and there terminating. Said last described course is not tangent to last described curve; subject to easements, covenants and restrictions of record, if any; it being the intention to convey the westerly 150 feet of said tract measured perpendicularly to the west line of said tract." 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 Bredesen who commented that the findings of fact confirmed his position on the rezoning request. Member Richards reiterated his concern that he felt the subject property should not be developed to the maximum density and that the Council should be responsive to the concerns raised by the neighborhood. Member Kelly commented that she had been the other negative vote when the Council had last considered the rezoning request and that in consideration of the findings of fact, even though the developer has presented.plans for maximum density, that the proposal cannot be denied. She added that her support was-contingent upon all taxes being paid up before a building permit is issued. Member Bredesen said that with regard to this particular property there are a number of factors that would favor this level of density, its location and proximity to the crosstown highway, its proximity to other properties that were allowed to be developed at a similar density and the public open space behind the development. Member Turner said she based her support on the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan in which the Council had looked carefully at the land use plan in determining the most appropriate use for each part of the City. Paul Carson, 6001 Pine Grove Road, suggested a change in the Zoning Ordinance that would put a limit.on the number of units for the various zoning districts instead of the range of density the ordinance now provides. There being no further comment, Mayor Courtney called for a rollcall vote on the motion. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Turner, Courtney Nays: Richards First Reading granted. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR CARROLL ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner Larsen presented the request for preliminary plat approval for property generally located west of Gleason Road and north of Valley View Road. The subject property contains 41,355 square feet and is developed with a single family dwelling. Immediately to the north is St. Albans Episcopal Church; all other surrounding uses are single family dwellings. The owner of the property has submitted a request to subdivide the property in order to create one new buildable lot. The new lot would contain 19,346 square feet and lot for the existing dwelling would contain 22,207 square feet. Both lots would exceed ordinance requirements for lot width, depth.and area. The existing dwelling would maintain the required 10 foot setback from the new property line. Mr. Larsen pointed out that lots along this section of Valley View Road vary significantly in size and shape and range from approximately 13,000 square feet to over 40,000 square feet for this parcel and one other. Lots to the south and east are generally smaller and lots to the west are larger than those proposed here. The proposed lots front on Valley View and should be evaluated in light of conditions on Valley View Road. The Community Development and Planning Commission heard the subject request at its meeting of October 1, 1986 and recommended preliminary plat approval con- ditioned upon: 1) final plat approval, and 2)' subdivision dedication. He noted that John Carroll, the.proponent, was present to answer any questions. No comment being heard, Member Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR CARROLL ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled " CARROLL ADDITION ", platted by John T. Carroll, Jr. and Mary B. Carroll, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of October 20, 1986 be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. t_ a 10/20/86 *PUBLIC HEARING ON EASEMENT VACATION FOR GRANDVIEW PLATEAU CONTINUED TO 11/3/86.1 Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner to continue the public hearing on the easement vacation for Grandview Plateau to November 3, 1986. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR NEW SIDEWALK PLOW. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner to award bid for a new sidewalk plow to recommended low bidder, McQueen Equipment Company, Inc., at $33,870.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR NEW STREET SWEEPER. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner to award bid for a new street sweeper to recommended low bidder, McQueen Equipment Company, Inc., at $63,265.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. HENNEPIN COUNTY BUDGET REPORT GIVEN BY COMMISSIONER KEEFE. Commissioner Keefe stated that he had requested to be on the Council agenda so that he could report on the 1987 Hennepin County Budget which has been adopted. The total budget'for 1987 is $721,000,000 which reflects a slight decrease in the mill rate from 29.688 to 29.457 mills. On a $75,000 home there would be a $10 decrease in the property tax for the county's share and on a $150,000 home it would mean a slight increase from 26.413 to 26.552 mills. Mr. Keefe pointed out that there is a $22,000,000 reduction in state and federal appropriations to be received and that. $10,000,000 was cut from the proposed budget. He reported that the Government Center, the Medical Center and County Road 18 will be off the tax rolls at the end of 1986 because the bonded indebtedness will be paid for those projects. The new matting on Blake Road has been completed and should improve the roadway. He also noted that the hazardous waste pilot program just completed was very success- ful with over 2,000 cars dropping off household hazardous waste, with many of the cars coming from Edina. Mr. Keefe thanked Member Kelly for serving on the CASH Board and in conclusion stated that the current resolution passed.by the Board is to relocate the garbage transfer station somewhere within the City of Eden Prairie. Mr. Keefe then responded to several questions of the Council members. No action was taken. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF 10./1/86 APPROVED. Member Bredesen's motion was seconded by Member Turner to approve the following recommended action as listed in Section A oT the Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of October 14, 1986: 1) That the East Frontage Road-be restriped north of West 69th Street to West 66th Street eastablishing a single lane for traffic, and ease side markings for pedestrians and bicycles, 2) That the Public Works Department be instructed to take action to install the appropriate warnings or barriers along the Northwest and Southeast quadrants of the Benton Avenue Pond area, 3) That a "NO PARKING" sign be installed at 5105 West 49th Street and to acknowledge Sections B and C of the Minutes. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. In response to the recommendation in Section C of the Minutes, Member Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Vernon Avenue between Highway 100 and Gleason Road is County Road 158; and WHEREAS, citizens adjacent to and in nearby residential areas are concerned about the speed of traffic on Vernon Avenue; and WHEREAS, said citizens have appeared before the Edina Community Development and Planning Commission and the Edina City Council with their concerns; and WHEREAS, the current speed limit on C.S.A.H. 158 is 40 MPH on the majority of the roadway; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Edina City Council requests that Hennepin County reduce the speed limit on C.S.A.H. 158,from 40 MPH to a lower limit. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. PROPOSED FEES AND CHARGES FOR 1987 DISCUSSED; FEES BY ORDINANCE APPROVED, FEES BY RESOLUTION CONTINUED TO 11/3/86. Manager Rosland presented a proposed schedule of fees for 1987 that are charged by ordinances. He noted that water rates (with the exception of the Morningside area and the east side of Beard Avenue from West 54th Street to Fuller Street and both sides of Abbott Place from 54th Street to Beard Avenue, which are hooked up to Minneapolis water) were last raised in July of 1980. An increase of 10% is proposed for users of Edina water which reflects inflation that has occured since 1980. Mr. Rosland said that sewer rates were last increased in January of 1982. Since then, the Metropolitan Waste Control fr 10/20/86 Commission has increased its collection /treatment charges by over 31 %. An increase in sewer rates of 25% is proposed. Because the Health Department has become increasingly concerned about the sanitary conditions of Edina restaurants and to encourage voluntary participation by restaurants in the quality assurance programs which are offered by Hennepin County and the Hospitality Institute of Technology & Management in St. Paul, it is proposed to increase the license fee by $50.00 per annum. If the licensed food establishments employ a certified employee the license fee would be reduced by $50.00. The certification would be applicable to licensed facilities in the following categories: food establishment; take -out facility and catering food establishments. If approved the necessary amendments would be prepared for Council adoption at the'next meeting. Member Kelly asked that information be passed on to the citizens on the proposed water /sewer rate increases. Motion of Member Bredesen was seconded by Member Turner approving the proposed fee increases by ordinance and directing.the staff to prepare the necessary ordinance amendments for adoption at the next Council meeting. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. Mr. Rosland then presented a proposed schedule of fees for 1987 that are charged by resolution of the Council. He pointed out that Fee Schedule A contains the fees and charges that the Park Board is recommending for 1987 except for the Art Center Fees which have not been reviewed by the Park Board. Fee Schedule B contains the proposed changes in ambulance fees for 1987 and includes a new fee for specialized medical services performed at the scene with no transportation involved. Member Kelly asked for additional information on resident and non- resident fees for the pool, arena and gun range and what other communities are charging for non - resident use. Mr. Rosland said he would ask staff to prepare the requested information for the next meeting. No formal action was taken. I -494 CORRIDOR STUDY UPDATE GIVEN. Member Turner commented that the I -494 Project Management Team has been meeting monthly and is still in the information gathering stage. At the last meeting the issue statements were refined based on input from the Council, the evaluation criteria and measures to be used in the decision making process have been discussed,.a report has been heard on transit needs assessment and an initial report on land use statistics has been reviewed. She pointed out that the existing actual employment statistics for the corridor area is far higher than the Metropolitan Council's projections. Mr. Hoffman added that the consultant for the I -35W Corridor Study will be giving a report on October 24 with regard to how the Crosstown Highway will be impacted. No action was taken. LMC 1987 PROPOSED POLICIES /PRIORITIES AND AMM PROPOSED.1987 -88 LEGISLATIVE POLICY DICUUSSED. Manager Rosland called the Council's attention to the League of Minn - esota.Cities 1987 Proposed City Policies and Priorities, noting that the policy adoption meeting will be held on November 20. The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will hold its legislative policy adoption meeting on November 6. He asked that the Council review the proposed policies of the LMC and the AMM for discussion at the Council Meeting on November 3. EDINA PARK BOARD MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14 DISCUSSED. Manager Rosland stated that at its meeting of October 14 the Edina Park Board had taken action on three matters for Council approval: 1) That the Park Board objects to the reduction of park maintenance funds by $31,000, that. it is unjust to cover that decrease by an increase in youth fees and would.like the Council to reconsider the cut; 2) that the fees and charges as presented for 1987 be approved, and 3) that a master plan be developed for Arneson Acres that would include the Arneson house, the greenhouse and the acreage within the park and that immediate needs for the greenhouse be attended.to as soon as necessary. With regard to item #3, Mr. Rosland said that a master plan is being drafted.and a report will be given to the Council within the next several months. The Council then discussed item #1 regarding the $31,000 budget reduction for park maintenance which the Council had approved when the 1987 Budget was adopted. The Council reaffirmed their philosophy that users' fees should cover the operating cost of the City's facilities and that the cost of creating facilities should be borne by the general taxpayer. After considerable discussion, Member Kelly made a motion that users should pay a $5.00 fee for field maintenance. Member Turner seconded the motion on the condition that this would allow for creative thinking so that the budget would reflect that field maintenance costs be borne by the users. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Turner, Courtney Nays: Richards Motion carried. Mr. Rosland said he would convey the Council's comments to the Park Board. APPROVAL OF 1987 PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING CONTRACT CONTINUED TO 11/3/86. Manager Rosland recalled that in September of 1985 the Council awarded the public health nursing services contract to Bloomington Division of Public Health for the calendar years 1986 -1987. In April of 1986 the contract for 1986 was amended 10/20/86 to provide services for low income women and children through a. Maternal and Child Health grant funded through the Minnesota Department of Health. For 1987, the City will receive $11,710 in Maternal and Child Health grant funds. Of this $5,200 will be used to provide the additional services through the Bloomington contract with the remaining $6,510 used to offset costs in the 1987 contract. He noted that the City will receive $99,001 in subsidy and grant funds from the state in 1987. Staff would recommend amending the contract with Bloomington by an increase of.$5,200 to bring the 1987 contract up to $91,700. Member Bredesen raised the question of whether the grant funds would be available to the City in subsequent years to enable the City to continue to offer those services. Member Kelly asked for information on the need and number of users for those services. It was informally agreed to continue the matter to the Council Meeting of November 3 so that this information could be available. *CANVASS OF CITY ELECTION RETURNS SCHEDULED FOR 11/6/86. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner setting November 6, 1986 at 5:00 p.m. for the canvass of City Election returns. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WEST 66TH STREET APPROVED. Engineer Hoffman advised that Hennepin County is currently in process of bidding a project involving West 66th Street from York Avenue (Edina) to Sheridan Avenue (Richfield). He recalled that earlier this year the Council gave final plan approval to the project. The project cost is estimated at $942,848.15 and the County if requesting that the City of Edina enter into a construction cooperative agreement with partici- pation estimated at $25,573.85. Staff would recommend approving the agreement with funding being paid by State Aid funds. Mr. Hoffman said that 90% of the estimated share would be paid in 1987 with the balance paid on completion. Motion of Member Turner was seconded by Member Bredesen for approval of the Construction Cooperative Agreement and for adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Agreement for participation in the construction of County State Aid Highway No. 53 (also known as West 66th Street), between York Avenue South and Sheridan Avenue South, Hennepin County Project No. 8056, Agreement No. PW 13 -11 -86 has been prepared and presented to the City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED; That said Agreement be in all things approved; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Mayor and Manager are authorized to sign Agreement No. 13- 11 -86, Hennepin County Project No. 8056. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. CITY EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN COMMENDED. Member Turner commended the participation by_City employees in the United Way Campaign recently conducted noting a 42% increase in giving. POSITIVE COMMENTS ON WEST 50TH STREET IMPROVEMENT NOTED. Member Richards said he has had numerous positive comments on the West 50th Street project completed this past summer. Member Bredesen and Mayor Courtney added that they.too have heard -many such opinions. Member - Richards thereupon moved adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that it hereby commends the staff members and departments who were responsible for the planning, supervising and successful completion of the West 50th Street Improvement. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. COUNCIL PRESENCE AT CITY EMPLOYEE EVENTS URGED. Mayor Courtney urged the Council Members to try to attend events sponsored by the City's Employee Club. Mr. Rosland said that because of the busy schedules each Member has it was understood that not everyone could attend every event and that it was not expected on the part of the employees. CONCERN EXPRESSED ABOUT DELAY IN START OF BILTMORE PROJECT. Member Kelly said she was greatly concerned about.the delay in the start of the proposed project for the Biltmore site because bonds had been sold for that development. She felt that one year should be the maximum time allowed for construction to start on such a project. RESIGNATION OF HEALTH OFFICER ANNOUNCED. Manager Rosland advised the Council that Dr. C. V. Rockwell has tendered his resignation as Health Officer for the City because of health reasons. He said Dr:. Rockwell has served in this capacity since 1958 at minimal cost to the City. Staff is searching for someone to fill the a= �, 10/20/86 the position and the Council is urged to submit names of possible candidates. LMC ACTION ALERT REGARDING CLEAN WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION DISCUSSED. Manager Rosland called the Council's attention to an action alert from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding the possible presidential veto of the Clean Water Act which Congress has approved. The Act would provide Minnesota cities and other communities across the nation with needed grants for sewer and wastewater treatment facilities to aid cities in meeting federal clean water standards. It is doubtful that state funds would be increased to replace federal funds lost if the President vetoes the bill. The LMC also pointed out that important to cities are compromise stormwater management requirements contained in the bill. Regu- lations issued earlier this year by.the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would require all cities to map, identify, monitor and obtain permits for stormwater outfall locations. The compromise requirements have scaled back such unreasonable and costly regulations and provide for stormwater management planning to include participation by local officials. If the bill is vetoed, the original EPA regula- tions will likely go into effect. Member Turner asked what the cost would be to comply with EPA regulations. Mr. Hoffman said it would be very difficult at this point in time to estimate that but compliance would be costly for the City. After discussion, Member Bredesen made a motion that a letter be sent to President Reagan to the effect that the City of Edina does not share the opinion of the majority of cities in the LMC who are urging the President to sign the Clean Water Act reauthor- ization. Motion was seconded by Member Richards Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney *CLAIMS PAID. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner for pay- ment of the following claims as per pre -list of 10/20/86: General Fund $465,940.80, Working Capital Fund $10.00, Art Center $3,601.40, Swimming Pool Fund $4,522.03, Golf Course Fund.$31,167.00, Recreation Center Fund $9,360.48, Gun Range Fund. $472.01, Utility Fund $22,850.63, Liquor Dispensary Fund $90,577.42, Construction Fund $427,235.00, IMP Bond Redemption Fund $306,699.00, IMP Bond Redemption #2 $316.72, Total $1,362,752.49 and for confirmation of payment of the following claims dated 9/30/86: General Fund $781,836.60, Art Center $571.90, Swimming Pool Fund $2,972.19, Golf Course Fund $12,838.92, Recreation Center Fund $6,668.63, Gun Range Fund $349.35, Utility Fund $30,170.87, Liquor Dispensary Fund $281,496.35, Total $1,116,904.81. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. DISCUSSION HELD ON RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Member Kelly introduced the subject by referring to her memorandum to the Council dated September 8, 1986 in which she stated her concern that as the Council considers decisions involving the use of remaining undeveloped land and redevelopment, that there is a conflict with the City's Mission Statement which essentially states that the primary objective is to foster and enhance Edina as a single family community and to protect existing housing and residential neighborhoods. She said this Council and prior Councils realized that as a community we should do something to encourage older people who have lived and contributed to the community to remain here and therefore a movement was made to develop senior housing and thereby opening up some housing for younger families. Member Kelly said that she felt now that the balance has shifted away from the primary objective of enhancement of the single family community and that the City has more than enough multi - family housing to provide housing choices for Edina citizens. She also pointed out that the pressure for more density in housing burdens the City infrastructure, i.e. roads, sewers, drainage, which was designed for single family environment. She said the strength of Edina has been its strong sense of community provided by its permanent resi- dents and that people in apartments do not have the same commitment to community as single family dwellers. She suggested a moratorium on development for one year with creation of a citizen's committee to look at each parcel of vacant land and property that has the potential for redevelopment to see how it can best serve to maintain the ideals that Edina was created with. She noted that the federal tax legislation would also impact development. Member Turner asked two questions of Member Kelly: 1) if she felt that the Comprehensive Plan and its original process for development and the.process for amendment is not adequate to address these concerns, and 2) if sheJ elt there are parts of the land use plan in the Comprehensive Plan on which designations were made that are not appropriate. Member Kelly said she felt the process was all right but that she would like to see more community involvement in decisions on development in addition to the process through the Community Development and Planning Commission; that within the guidelines given the Planning Commission they have do not have the opportunity to be creative in encouraging more single family housing. Member Turner pointed out that with 97% of the land being developed the remaining -land is not suitable for single family housing with the exception of the Carl Hansen property; that most of the remaining parcels are near commercial or industrial areas and are difficult to develop for single family homes. Member Kelly argued that some of those difficult to develop parcels are also restricted by the Zoning Ordinance 10/20/86 which require a 9,000 square foot lot for single family housing. She also suggested that there may be some parkland that could be developed for - single family housing. Member Bredesen said there are several issues which need to be looked at as to how they impact the City. He agreed that people living in multi - family housing do not always have the same commitment to community as single families but that there are many who now live in multi - family housing that have remained active in the community. He said he agreed that most of the property left to be developed is for the most part not suitable for single family dwellings because of location and that he is not surprised that there has been a higher level of multi - family development over the last several years. This does not take away from the City's commitment of being a single family community. He said the City has done alot of things in the nature of services offered that strongly support the single family nature of the community. Member Bredesen said that if in one or more cases we are considering too much density for a piece of property that is a Comprehensive Plan issue and should be discussed thoroughly as to a decision on density. He submitted that the first person developing does not create any more of a traffic problem than the last person and that whatever demands or problems that are created by density are shared equally. He said he believes that the owners of property have the right to use that property as they wish within what is considered to be for the public good, that the zoning laws restrict substantially that right but do so benefically even for the owner. Member Bredesen said he felt a moratorium on development would be unreasonable and that there is no justification for it. Member Kelly clarified that the suggested moratorium was to provide time to study each parcel of vacant land to see if it is suited for single family development. Member Richards commented that the land use plans for the City adopted over the years and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan were adopted after much public input and debate on each parcel as to the zoning classification. He said that if we were to look at the facts in 1960 and to project out as to what the Comprehensive Plan_ would do we.would have come close to the statistics we now see in actuality. This was done in a very rational process and to say that single family housing decreased as a percentage of all housing from 83% to 62% is not a fair char- acterization of that land use planning process. Member Kelly stated that all vacant land along Vernon Avenue now zoned R -1 in the Comprehensive Plan.allows for medium or high density development; that every multi - family development on Vernon is impacting on existing neighborhoods, traffic and the sewer system. She said that there is precious little vacant land left.in the City and urged that the Council again look at allowed land uses in the Comprehensive Plan to see if they could be developed for single families versus multi - family units. Member Turner pointed out that Vernon Avenue was built to the kind of develop- ment that is indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, that the sewers were develop- ed to accommodate the kind of development that was planned for and that she did not see the change as negative or unexpected. Member Kelly said she knew this was not done without careful planning, but she felt the City -'s character is no longer that of a single family community as it was created, that the infra- structure type facilities that were built for a single family community are not being used and there is not the same kind of participation. She said this was the basis for her concern. Manager Rosland said a major factor affecting the City was that the the community is aging and that there are fewer younger families today because there is not affordable single family homes for them. Mayor. Courtney said he agreed that affordable homes was the key to encouraging younger families. Member Turner said she valued the discussion but has enough faith in the Comprehensive Plan and its process as the vehicle for reviewing the land use and density for remaining vacant land on a regular basis and amending the Plan if the Council feels it is necessary. After further discussion, Member Richards summarized that everyone on the Council is committed to perserving the single family housing stock in the community and,that he did see any errosion in the Comprehensive Plan into that land which has been suggested for single family housing. Member Kelly concluded that from the statistics she has looked at our focus should be on plans and methods to increase our affordable single family housing stock and to increase the opportunities for young families to locate in Edina. Mayor Courtney said he felt this has been worthwhile discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. City Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL NOVEMBER 3, 1986 Answering rollcall were Members Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor Courtney. DR. C. V. ROCKWELL COMMENDED FOR SERVICE. Mayor Courtney introduced the following, resolution, and Member Turner moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, Dr. C. V. Rockwell began practicing medicine in Edina in 1948; and WHEREAS, he provided medical support for the Edina Police and Fire Department until 1960; and WHEREAS, he served faithfully as the Edina Health Officer from 1958 to 1968; and WHEREAS, he provided emergency first -aid training for the early Edina Rescue Squad. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that I, C. Wayne Courtney, Mayor of the City of Edina, join with the members of the Council, staff and all the citizens of Edina in expressing our sincere appreciation to: DR. C. V. ROCKWELL for his unselfish and dedicated service to the City and to his fellow citizens. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. Dr. Rockwell accepted the commendation award, and the Council expressed a heart -felt thank -you to him. MINUTES of the Special Budget Meetings of September 9 and 12, 1986, were approved by motion of Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner to adopt the consent agenda, deleting items VI and VIII -C. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 22, BLOCK 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION (5528 -30 MALIBU DRIVE). Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner to adopt the following resolution: RF..gnT.TTTT(TN WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land Lot 22, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION, and WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: Parcel A: That part of Lot 22, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies North of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 22; thence on an assumed bearing of South 10 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East along the west line of said Lot 22 a distance of 93.69 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 78 degrees 07 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 123.55 feet to the East line of said Lot 22 and there terminating. Subject to an easement to allow the use, maintenance and repair of the existing second story dwelling unit by the property adjacent to the south over the following described part thereof: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 22; thence on an assumed bearing of South 10 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East along the west line of said Lot 22 a distance of 93.69 feet; thence North 78 degrees 07 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 92.79 feet to a point which lies 30.76 feet westerly as measured along said line from the east line of said Lot 22 and the point of beginning of the ease- ment to be( described; thence North 11 degrees 52 minutes 22 seconds West a distance of 18.50 feet; thence South 78 degrees 07 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 8.90 feet; thence South 11 degrees 52 minutes 22 seconds East a distance of 5.66 feet; thence South 78 11/3/86 degrees 07 minutes 38 seconds West a distance of 33.93 feet; thence South 11 degrees 52 minutes 22 seconds East a distance of 12.84 feet; thence North 78 degrees 07 mintues 38 seconds East to the point of beginning. and Parcel B: That part of Lot 22, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies South of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 22; thence on an assumed bearing of South 10 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East along the west line of said Lot 22 a distance of 93.69 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 78 degrees 07 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 123.55 feet to the East line of said Lot 22 and there terminating. Together with an easement to allow the use, maintenance and repair of the existing second story dwelling unit which extends over that part of the property adjacent to the north described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 22; thence on an assumed bearing of South 10 degrees 28 minutes 12 seconds East along the west line of said Lot 22 a distance of 93.69 feet; thence North 78 degrees 07 minutes 38 seconds East a distance of 33.93 feet; thence South 11 degrees 52 minutes 22,seconds East a distance of 12.84 feet; thence North 78 degrees 07 minutes 38 seconds East to the point,'of beginning. 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 carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 23, BLOCK A, INTERLACHEN HILLS 3RD ADDITION (5532 -34 MALIBU DRIVE). Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Lot 23, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION, and WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: Parcel A: That part of Lot 23, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County,,Minnesota, which lies North of the following described line: Commencing.at the northwest corner of said Lot 23; thence on an assumed bearing of South 10 degrees 27 minutes 56 seconds West along the west line of said Lot 23 a distance of 93.15 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 83 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 121.12 feet to the East line of said Lot 23 and there terminating. and Parcel B: That part of Lot 23, Block 1, INTERLACHEN HILLS THIRD ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies South of the following described line': Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 23; thence on an assumed bearing of South 10 degrees 27 minutes 56 seconds West along the west line of said Lot 23 a distance of 93.15 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 83 degrees 00 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 121.12 feet to the East line of said Lot 23 and there terminating. 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; 11/3/86 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 carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 6, BLOCK 1, GLEASON COURT (6504 -06 GLEASON COURT). Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Lot 6, Block 1, GLEASON COURT, and WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: Parcel A: That part of Lot 6, Block 1, GLEASON COURT, City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the north line of said Lot 6 distant 62.24 feet east of the northwest corner thereof to a point on the south line of said Lot 6 distant 67.75 feet east of the southwest corner thereof, as measured along said south line, and reserving easements of record. and Parcel B: That part of Lot 6, Block 1, GLEASON COURT, City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly of a line drawn from a point on the north line of said Lot 6 distant 62.24 feet east of the north- west corner thereof to a point on the south line of said Lot 6 distant 67.75 feet east of the southwest corner thereof, as measured along said south line, 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 un unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes of the Sub- division 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 carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, THE HABITAT (6104 -06 WATERFORD COURT). Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner to adopt the following resolution: RRgnT.TTTTnN WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Lot 2, Block 1, THE HABITAT, and WHEREAS, the owners have reauested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: Parcel A: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, THE HABITAT, lying westerly of a line, and its extensions, drawn from a point on the southerly line of said Lot 2 distant 25.23 feet west of the southeast corner thereof, as measured along said southerly line, to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 2 distant 86.67 feet west of the north- east corner thereof, and reserving easements of record. and Parcel B: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, THE HABITAT, lying easterly of a line, and its extensions, drawn from a point on the southerly line of said Lot 2 distant 25.23 feet�'west of the southeast corner thereof, as measured along said southerly line, to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 2 distant 86.67 feet west of the northeast 11/3/86 corner thereof, and reserving easements of record. and Parcel B: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, THE HABITAT, lying easterly of a line, and its extensions, drawn from a point on the southerly line of said Lot 2 distant 25.23 feet west of the southeast corner thereof, as measured along said southerly line, to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 2 distant 86.67 feet west of the north- east 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 Nos. 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 carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *HEARING DATE SET FOR PLANNING MATTER. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner, setting November 17, 1986, as hearing date for Ordinance No. 451 -A5, an Ordinance Establishing Standards for Signage in the Mixed Development Zoning District, MD -3, MD -4 and MD -5. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS CONTINUED TO 11/17/86. Motion of Member Bredesen to continue to November 17, 1986, the vacation of utility easements for Lots 1, 2, 3 and 12, Block 1, Grandview Plateau was seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. LOT 4, BLOCK 2, OAK RIDGE OF EDINA UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION GRANTED. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Acting Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hoffman explained that this was a request to vacate a portion of the utility and drainage easement at 5004 Nob Hill Drive. Approximately eight feet of the foundation of the home encroaches on the utility easement area, and a timber retaining wall is built on this easement area. Staff recommends the vacation of the easement where this approximate eight -foot encroachment exists and the accep- tance of the timber wall. Mr. Barry Willmert, 6630 Normandale Road, indicated that he sold the property to the developer. He objects to staff's recommendation that the easement vacation be granted because of the words in the covenant recorded at Hennepin County which state that no structure, fence, planting or other material shall be placed which may damage or interfere with the maintenance of utilities. Mr. Willmert asks that the easement be cleared and put back in its original state. Mr. Hoffman explained that an easement is something which the staff creates and that there is no code book dictating easement sizes. Mr. Erickson stated that the only issue for the City is whether or not it is an appropriate thing publicly for the City to vacate the easement; if there are some private restrictions, those can be privately enforced. Mr. Richards suggested attaching a "waiver of any harm done," and Mr. Erickson said that this would be appropriate. Mr. Michael Halley, the petitioner, explained that the area of encroachment with regard to the easement is approximately two feet.wide. He feels that the waiver may complicate the title issue. Member Bredesen questioned if it was reasonable to vacate without a waiver, and Mr. Erickson indicated that it was reasonable to do so. With no further discussion being heard, Member Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the sixth day of October, 1986, fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of easement for drainage and utility purposes; and WHEREAS, two weeks' published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on the third day of November, 1986, at which time all persons 11/3/86 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 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 portion of the easement is hereby vacated: That portion of the 7.5 foot Drainage and Utility Easement across the easterly portion of Lot 4, Block 2, OAK RIDGE OF EDINA, described as follows: Commencing at the most southerly corner of said Lot 4; thence on an assumed bearing of North 3 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East along the easterly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 76 feet; thence North 86 degrees 50 minutes 52 seconds West, a distance of 5.50 feet to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence North 86 degrees 50 minutes 52 seconds West, a distance of 2.00 feet; -thence North 3 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds East, parallel with the easterly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 7.00 feet.; thence South 86 degrees 50 minutes 52 seconds East, a distance of 2.00 feet; thence South 3 degrees 09 minutes 08 seconds West, a distance of 7.00 feet to the point of beginning. 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, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Resolution adopted. *ORDINANCE NO. 731 -A7 (TO INCLUDE A LICENSE FEE REDUCTION) ADOPTED; SECOND READING WAIVED. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner, to adopt the following ordinance, waiving Second Reading: ORDINANCE NO. 731 -A7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 731 TO INCLUDE A LICENSE FEE REDUCTION FOR LICENSED FOOD ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYING A CERTIFIED MANAGER OR OPERATOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 5 of Ordinance No. 731 is hereby amended by adding the following paragraph after the listing for license fees: "The fee for a food establishment license or take -out food establishment license or a catering food establishment license shall be reduced by $50.00 where the owner or the operator or the manager is trained and certified by a public or private organization or entity approved by the City in Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Menu Analysis, or similar training approved by the City, and such certification is current at time of issuance of the license and will be valid during the license term." Sec. 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *ORDINANCE NO. 1101 -All (TO PENALIZE LATE PAYMENT OF SEWER SERVICE BILLS) ADOPTED; SECOND READING WAIVED. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner, to adopt the following ordinance, waiving Second Reading: ORDINANCE NO. 1101 -All AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1101 TO DELETE DISCOUNT AND ADD PENALTY FOR LATE PAYMENT OF SEWER SERVICE BILLS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Subparagraph (d) of Sec. l of Ordinance No. 1101 is hereby amended to read as follows: "(d) Terms. All bills will be payable at the Edina City Hall within 21 days of the date rendered. A 10% penalty will be charged if payment is not 11/3/86 received within the 21 -day period. If such rental charge is not paid within 30 days after the billing date, the -City may certify the same to the County Auditor of the County of Hennepin, and, if certified, the same shall be collected and the collection thereof enforced in the same manner, in all respects as County and State taxes, and they shall be added to such taxes, subject to like penalty, costs and interest charges; provided, however, that such certification shall not preclude the City or its agent from recovery of such delinquent accounts and interest under any other available remedy. The County Treasurer of Hennepin County shall, when such sewer rental charges are collected, forthwith pay them over to the City Treasurer." Sec. 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. *ORDINANCE NO. 1111 -A10 (TO PENALIZE LATE PAYMENT OF WATER SERVICE BILLS) ADOPTED; SECOND READING WAIVED. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner, to adopt the following ordinance, waiving Second Reading: ORDINANCE NO. 1111 -A10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1111 TO REFERENCE ORDINANCE NO. 171, DELETE DISCOUNT AND ADD PENALTY FOR LATE PAYMENT OF WATER SERVICE BILLS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Sec. 3 entitled "Rates." of Ordinance No. 1111 is hereby amended to read as follows: "(a) Water consumed will be charged on the basis of meter readings at the rates as set out in Ordinance No. 171. Water consumed in the district described as the East side of Beard Avenue from 54th Street to Fuller Street and both sides of Abbott Place from 54th Street to Beard Avenue will be charged at rates set out in Ordinance No. 171. The aforementioned excepted district is served with water purchased by the City from the City of Minneapolis, and the Council has duly considered all pertinent facts and finds that the higher rate is fair and reasonable. (b) A minimum charge per quarter as set out in Ordinance No. 171 will be made where water consumption amounts to less. (c) Flat annual charges as set out.in Ordinance No. 171 shall be made by the water system for the following: (1) Park Department for water used for sprinkling and skating rinks (2) Street Department for water used in flushing streets" Sec. 2. Subparagraph (b) of Sec. 4 of Ordinance No. 1111 is hereby amended to read as follows: "(b) All bills will be payable at the Edina City Hall within 21 days of date rendered. A 10% penalty will be charged if payment is not received within the 21 -day period." Sec. 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.. *ORDINANCE NO. 171 -A25 (TO INCREASE, ADD AND DELETE CERTAIN FEES) ADOPTED; SECOND READING WAIVED. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner, to adopt the following ordinance, waiving Second Reading: ORDINANCE NO. 171 -A25 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 171 TO INCREASE THE AMOUNTS OF CERTAIN FEES, TO ADD FEES 22.1f AND 22.1g AND TO DELETE 39e AND THE TWO -TIER FEE SYSTEM IN FEES 37a, 37b, 37c, 39a, 39b, 39c THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. The amounts of the following described fee numbers of to Ordinance No. 171 are amended to read as follows, and the two -tier within fees 37a, 37b, 37c, 39a, 39b and 39c is eliminated: ORD. SEC. NO. NO. PURPOSE OF FEE /CHARGE AMOUNT Schedule A fee system 434 27(f) Public of semi - public $220.00 per annum for each pool swimming pool license enclosed part or all of year $120.00 per annum for each outdoor pool 434 28(f) Public or semi - public $45.00 per annum for each bath or whirlpool bath or thera- pool peutic swimming pool license FEE NO. 17a 17b 18 ORD. SEC. NO. NO. PURPOSE OF FEE /.CHARGE 645 4 Sprinkler permit fees: Number of Heads 1- 5 6- 25 26- 50 51 -200 200+ 731 Food establishment Take -out facility 11/3/86 AMOUNT FEE NO. $40.00 (minimum fee) $40.00 for first five, plus $22.00 for each additional ten or fraction thereof $84.00 for first 25, plus $17.00 for each additional ten or fraction thereof $135.00 for first 50, plus $11.00 for each additional ten or fraction thereof $300.00 for first 200, plus $5.00 for each additional ten or fraction thereof $305.00 per annum ($255 if certified pursuant to Ord. 731 -A7), plus $75.00 per annum for each additional facility $205.00 per annum ($155 if certified pursuant to Ord. 731 -A7) Packaged food sales $95.00 per annum Itinerant food establish- $40.00 per event ment Readily perishable food $45.00 per annum vehicle Fleet of 5 or more readily $225.00 per annum perishable food vehicles Perishable food vehicle $45.00 per annum Fleet of 5 or more perish- $225.00 per annum able food vehicles 1101 1(a) Sewer rental Single family dwellings, Based upon water usage during town houses, two - family winter quarter. (Three -month dwellings, apartment period falling between Nov. 1 buildings containing and March 1.) four or less dwelling units: To and including 2,000 $20.50 per quarter cubic feet From 2,001 to and includ- $32.75 per quarter ing 4,000 cubic feet From 4,001 to and includ- $56.25 per quarter ing 7,000 cubic feet From 7,001 cubic feet $1.10 per 100 cubic feet and over 22. la 22. lb 22.1c 22.1d 22. le 25a 25a1 25a2 25b 25d 25e 25h 25i 37a Apartment buildings with $84.50 plus $15.50 for each 37b more than four dwelling unit over four, or $1.10 per units hundred cu. ft. of water used Commercial and indus- trial buildings, includ- ing schools and churches 1111 3(a) Water service during the quarter, whichever is greater $21.00 per water meter or approved sewage metering device on premises, or $1.10 per hundred cu. ft. of water used during the quarter, whichever is greater 1. 33 cents per 100 cubic feet for all areas of City except areas described in 2 and 3 2. $1.10 per 100 cubic feet for Morningside area 3. $1.10 per 100 cubic feet for east side of Beard Ave. from W. 54th St. to Fuller St. and both sides of Abbott P1. from W. 54th St. to Beard Ave. 37c 39a 39b 39c ORD. SEC. NO. NO. 1111 3(b) 1111 3(c) 1232 1303 1331 Sec. following ORD. SEC. PURPOSE OF FEE /CHARGE Parking permit Refund upon return of parking permit sticker Solicitor's permit Taxicab license 11/3/86 AMOUNT I= =Lifi's A minimum charge of $2.20 per month will be made where water consumption amounts to less The following flat annual charges: $2,500.00 - Park Department for water used for sprinkling and skating rinks $2.00 per month, pro -rated $2.00 per month, $15.00 $25.00 per annum 2. Schedule A to Ordinance No. 171 is hereby thereto: pro -rated amended by adding the sya 39f 40 40a 43 46 NO. NO. PURPOSE OF FEE /CHARGE AMOUNT FEE NO. 645 4 Fire pump installation and $45.00 22.1f associated hardware Standpipe installation $45.00 22.1g For each additional standpipe $ 5.00 Sec. 3. Fee number 39e of Schedule A to Ordinance 171 is hereby repealed. Sec. 4. Following publication, the effective date of this Ordinance shall be January 1, 1987. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. DEER IN AREA DISCUSSED. Mrs. Jean Lowe, 6301 Loch Moor Drive, was introduced to share her concerns regarding deer being a great nuisance in her neighborhood. She has lived at her present residence for 17 years and had not seen deer until five years ago. Currently, the deer make paths through the back yards and between the homes, as well as crossing the streets. Occasionally, there are 12 deer at one time. As a result, some landscape damage has resulted. There is a great concern that an automobile accident may occur; Gleason and Valley View are nearby, which account for a great deal of traffic. Mrs. Lowe believes that the time has come for the City Council to work closely with the DNR, the Park Board and the Hennepin County Park Reserve to begin dealing with this problem before it gets worse. Mr. Hughes had already had an opportunity to speak with the DNR, and he learned that Edina's situation is similar to North Oaks, who has practiced a successful but contraversial program to control the deer population in their area. Trapping and tranquiling the animals are methods, but the problem is that the areas of relocation of deer are becoming over - crowded with the animals. Tranquilizing has not been a very successful technique in Minnesota because the deer are very high strung anyway and are not suited to being tranquilized; as a result, the mortality rate for tranquilized deer is quite high. Apparently, there are some effective repellants to keep deer away from personal property; however, these have to be religiously applied in order for them to continue working properly. Mr. Hughes commented that.the deer are very adaptable; they tolerate people very well and are increasing in population in areas of good habitat such as Braemar Park and Bredesen Park. Unfortunately, this will be an ongoing problem, and Mr. Hughes indicated that the DNR is willing to look at different solutions. Member Turner requested additional information from staff in terms of what kind of damage has occurred and the impact on the park property. She wants to find out what suggestions staff has in terms of whether the City ought to do something at this point in time and if the DNR should get involved. Member Kelly agreed that staff should gather together as many facts as possible. Member Richards believes that this will be a highly contraversial issue, and the Park Board in addition to the staff should give the community an opportunity to be heard on the subject. Mr. Rosland indicated that there have been several calls pertaining to this problem as well as an accident reported on the Crosstown Highway. He also agrees that this will be an emotional problem for many people; a staff report will be prepared and brought back onto the agenda in the near future. BID AWARDED FOR COLLECTION OF CITY PROPERTY REFUSE. David Velde, City Sanitarian, reported that he did not anticipate another surcharge on the Landfill Abatement Tax and that the bids submitted for City property refuse collection are approximately at the same level and increase that have occurred for the last three years. One thing that will have an effect is the re- routing of refuse from landfills to the mass burn facility, and that may happen in two to three years. At that point in time, there will be a considerable increase in prices. Member Richards questioned 11/3/86 the tonnage produced a year, and Mr. Velde reported that the amount is represented; in yards at a figure of 1500 yards for City properties. He explained that the bid specification asked for bids for 1987 with an option of extending the contract to 1988. All bids submitted are in conformance with the bid specification, and the lowest bidder for 1987 was Waste Management. However, if the City Council were to exercise their option of awarding the contract for 1987 and 1988, the lowest bidder would be Quality Waste Control, Inc. With no further discussion, Mr. Rosland presented the tabulation of bids for City property refuse collection, showing Waste Management for 1987 at $2.45, 1988 at $2.75, an average of $2.60; Quality Waste Control, Inc. for 1987 at $2.52, 1988 at $2.64, an average of $2.58; BFI Waste Systems for 1987 at $2.75, 1988 at $2.95, an average of $2.85; and Metro Refuse, Inc. for 1987 at $5.00, 1988 at $6.75, an average of $5.89. (Figures are price per cubic yard.) Motion of Member Bredesen was seconded by Member Turner for award of bid for one year to recommended low bidder, Waste Management, at $2.45, and to advertise for bids in the fall of 1987 for the 1988 contract year. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. 1987 PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING CONTRACT AMENDED. Mr. Velde reported that in 1987, the City of Edina will receive $11,710.00 in State Maternal and Child Health activities. He is-proposing to use $5,200.00 of this grant funding to purchase additional services for women and children through the Bloomington Division of Public Health. These funds will be used in the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) Program for increased nutritional consultation, increased outreach efforts for maternal and child health services and for support of the Continuing Education Center. The remaining $6,510.00 will be used to underwrite the existing costs of the 1987 contract with Bloomington. In order to accomplish this, the City Council action approving the 1986 -87 Public Health Nursing Contract must be amended by increasing the 1987 Contract to $91,700.00. With no further discussion, Member Kelly's motion to amend the 1986 -87 Public Health Nursing Contract by increasing the Contract to $91,700.00 was seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. ADVISORY BOARD /COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS APPROVED. As recommended by Mayor Courtney, Member Bredesen's motion was seconded by Member Kelly for appointment of the following individuals to fill unexpired terms on various advisory boards and commissions: Edina Art Center: Peter Spoakes to fill unexpired term to February 1, 1987; and Delores Paul beginning January 1, 1987, to fill unexpired term to February 1, 1989; Edina Heritage Preservation Board: John Metil to fill unexpired term to February 1, 1987; Edina Recycling Commission: Levering Wood to bring Commission to full member- ship of six, term to February 1, 1987; SHHSC: Leslie Olsen to fill unexpired term to February 1, 1987. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. COUNTY -WIDE LEGISLATIVE GOALS COMMITTEE SUPPORTED. Barbara Clayman, a representative of the County Wide Legislative Goals Committee, explained that this committee is one of five public health goal committees which has focused on a specific dimension of public health concern. The committee, comprised of members of each local Community Health Services Board, has worked together to establish a unified approach in prioritizing health care issues for the Legislature. The first issue, Home Health Regulation, is a controversial issue, and the Legislative Committee recommends that the Boards of Health take the following actions to support: 1) statewide licensure rather than registration; 2) establish personnel requirements and training guidelines to assure quality of staff working with volunteer, organizations and agencies with an allowance in the requirements to ensure continuation of care now being provided by family members or volunteer organizations and volunteer chore. services; 3) the appointment of the Commissioner of Health responsible for regula- tion of licensure and services, and the regulation of services should include.: a) standards of care criteria; b) routine inspection of provider facilities with investigation by Commissioner of Health and not by individual counties; c) routine on -site home visits with client approval; d) establishment of a client grievance procedure; e) availability of service and price listing; and f) establishment of Patients Bill of Rights; and 4) establish licensure fee and allocation of funds for licensure process. The second issue, Uninsured- Medically Disadvantaged, questions whether the state or federal government is responsible for the uninsured, whether a program should be jointly funded through state and federal resources, and finally 11/3/86 whether coverage should include all necessary health services or should services be limited. The Legislative Committee recommends that the State establish an Interim Commission comprised of leaders from the private and public sector, the health care industry including insurance companies, as well as members from the legal and financial communities to develop an equitable way of financing and administrating a statewide program for providing services to the uninsured. The third issue, Maternal and Child Health Funding (MCH), addresses the controversy of the allocation and administration of funds. The Legislative Committee recommends that 1) the MCH Block Grant continue to be divided among Community Health Service (CHS) agencies, pre -block grant programs and Minnesota Department of Health, resulting in an.increase in direct service program allocation and a decrease in MDH admin- istrative service funds; 2) the portion of the MCH Block Grant alloted to the CHS agencies continue to be on a formula basis;.and 3) the eligible services be re- defined to include primary health care for low- income children and dental care for children and pregnant women. The fourth issue is AIDS, and the Legislative Committee recommends that the Boards of Health support increased state funding for prevention- oriented activities which include: 1) monitoring the prevalence and incidence of the AIDS virus in Minnesota to determine the characteristics of the disease outbreak and trends; 2) the development of an AIDS educational curriculum for use by local school districts; and 3) the development of standard policies for dealing with situations that pose particular disease management problems, specifically AIDS infection among the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and non - complaint clients. The fifth and final issue is Community Health Services (CHS) Subsidy. The Legislative Committee recommends that the Boards of Health in Hennepin County support the following: 1) allotment of a state -wide subsidy increase of at least 10 percent for CHS agencies; 2) establishment of specific program guidelines for the use of CHS funds by the local boards of health; and 3) allocation of at least 25 percent of the increased funds for preventive health initiatives. With no further discussion, Member Kelly's motion to support the County - Wide Legislative Goals Committee in its focus on public health concerns was seconded by Member Turner. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly_, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. HEARING DATE SET FOR CASCADE LANE FEASIBILITY REPORT. Mr. Rosland explained that the Engineering staff has been developing a new set of plans for the hearing on the Cascade Lane flooding problem. The preliminary construction plans for pro- viding some flood protection to 4609 and 4613 Cascade Lane have been completed, and these residents have been consulted and are in general agreement as to the type of work that should be done. The Engineering staff has been in contact with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District engineers, and the Edina Engineering staff is requesting that the Watershed engineers set a level for berming on the creek. The preliminary estimate of cost for this project is $15,000, and a decision must be reached concerning available funding from the Watershed District. Staff recommends pursuing the construction plans and setting a public hearing on December 1. With no further discussion, Member Turner's motion to set December 1 as the hearing date for the Cascade Lane Feasibility Report was seconded by Member Bredesen. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. AMM POLICY ADOPTION DISCUSSED. Member Turner reported on the Association of Metro- politan Municipalities Proposed 1987 -88 Legislative Policy for the Council's con- sideration. She began with Local Government Aid, stating that the AMM urges the legislature to continue its commitment to all local governments and maintenance of reasonable property taxes by increasing its funding of local government aid pro- grams on as fair and equitable basis as possible. The legislature may need to consider additional new and creative methods of solving unique local funding pro- blems separately from the generalized formulas. Member Turner explained that this is a position which is contrary to what the City's traditional position has been. Member Richards stated he does not support state funding of local government aids. Mr. Rosland suggested that the City approach local government aids with some sanity _.:to gain more accountability in spending as the process itself is slowed down. He _will be preparing a position paper in the near future concerning the issue of local ;government aids. Member Turner believes that in regard to Tax Exempt Property, the °'City's non - profit organizations would incur a huge financial liability if they had to reimburse the City And County for the cost of municipal services. She stated that there would be tremendous controversy around the issue of fiscal disparities. 11/3/86 Member Turner stated that the AMM opposes wine in grocery stores and one class of beer. The only new area in the housing section is Assessment Rates for Rental Property with a focus on the difference in rates between rental housing and owner occupied housing which results in higher property taxes for rental housing. The AMM is very concerned about the affordability of rental housing for lower income persons. Member Turner pointed out that the AMM recommends that the counties assume the responsibilities for all source separation and recycling related activities and projects, and this contradicts the program that the City is presently running. As a result of Member Turner's report, it was determined that there were two policy issues of the AMM which the Council did not support: recycling and local government aids. No action was taken. LMC POLICY ADOPTION DISCUSSED. Mr. Rosland reported on the 1987 Proposed City Policies and Priorities of the League of Minnesota Cities. He indicated that the City should encourage the League to support the policy regarding exposing the cities to civil lawsuits, keeping it as an A- priority. Concerning the area of land use under Policy LUEET -1, Waste Water Treatment, Mr. Rosland stated that the Council may want to take a different reaction to this particular policy, since a letter was recently sent to the President regarding the spending of federal dollars. He pointed out that Edina should support giving public employers the option of requesting arbitration or allowing essential employees to strike. Also, Time and Distance Residency Requirements should be moved from B- priority to A- priority. One class of beer might be raised to an A- priority. Another area of strong recommendation would be to raise the workers compensation law from a C- priority to a B or even A- priority. Again, Mr. Rosland pointed out that on general principles the Council would likely not support local government aids. In regard to federal legislation, he believes that General Revenue Sharing, supported by the League, would not be accepted by Edina. With discussion ending, no action was taken. *STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -262 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERRED FOR LOT 8 AND EAST 25 FEET OF LOT 7, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 176, APPROVED. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner, to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Resolution for Special Assessments Levied on Account of Various Public Improvements, adopted by the Edina City Council'at its Regular Meeting on September 15, 1986, be amended to include the deferrment of the assessment for Street Improvement No. BA -262 against Lot 8 and East 25 feet of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 176 (PIN 28- 117 -21 -21 -0014) in the amount of $1,700.00 with interest on the deferred assessment at the rate of 9.9 %, which is 1% over the rate of interest set out in the Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall prepare and transmit to the County Auditor a copy of this resolution authorizing the deferred assessment. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. PROPOSED FEES AND CHARGES FOR 1987 POSTPONED. Due to questions of the Council Members pertaining to fees and charges for the Art Center, Municipal Pool and the Arena, Mr. Rosland requested that this issue be brought up before the Park Board at another time for a more complete discussion of these fees and charges. .He said he would arrange this meeting for a date in the near future. There was a consensus of the Council Members concerning his request; no action was taken. RESOLUTION ADOPTED REGARDING CHANNEL REALIGNMENT FOR ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS. Mr. Rosland explained that the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission is recommending a resolution for .channel realignment which would authorize Rogers Cablesystems to realign its channels for an experimental period of one year. This realignment consists of bringing some of the major channels off the higher band and placing them on the lower band, as well as placing the access channels into the higher band. It does ensure that Universal Service will be retained for the some 800 customers in the total five -city system. With no further discussion, Member Bredesen introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION OF THE SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION DETERMINING AS A MATTER OF POLICY TO PERMIT ROGERS CABLESYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA TO CHANGE THE CHANNEL LINE -UP CONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission (hereinafter "SWSCC ") is a joint powers commission created by agreement between its Member Cities including Edina, Eden Prairie, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Richfield; and WHEREAS, under the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, the SWSCC is: 11/3/86 "The Commission is established for the purposes of coordinating administration and enforcement of the individual Franchises of the Parties and providing uniformity in that administration and enforcement to ensure that the System of the Grantee is constructed, operated, maintained and upgraded in a manner that will, to the extent possible, to be the maximum benefit of each party. "; and WHEREAS, the SWSCC in the administration of the Cable Communications System Fran- chises of its Member Cities, has received a request from Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota (hereinafter "Grantee ") to change the line -up of the channels based on the Grantee's interpretation that the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, which permits modifications of authorities after the end of 1986, constitutes authority for Grantee to make such modifications and changes in the channel line -up for the cable communications system serving the Member Cities of the SWSCC; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Cable Communications System Franchises of the Member Cities, it provides an Article XII, Section 6: "Applicable Laws and Court Decisions: Severability A. Grantee and City shall, at all times, comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations of federal, state and city government relating to the System and this Franchise. B. Any law, ordinance or regulation shall require or permit Grantee to perform any service or shall prohibit Grantee from performing any service which may be in conflict with the terms of this Franchise, then as soon as possible following knowledge thereof, Grantee shall notify. City of the point of conflict believed to exist between such law, ordinance or regulation. "; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above cited Article XII, Section 6, SWSCC has reviewed the request of Grantee and advised Grantee that it has questions relative to the appli- cation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 to the requested channel line -up change; and WHEREAS, in response to the questions of the SWSCC, Grantee has proposed a one (1) year temporary channel line -up change, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which includes a letter dated October 2, 1986 to Adrian Herbst, Administrator of the SWSCC and an attached Proposed Rogers Cablesystems of Minnesota Southwest Channel Line -up. Exhibit A is a request that the SWSCC act on the proposal without regard to the interpretation of the application of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 based on the need of Grantee to implement the channel line -up change to improve its revenue and to increase the subscriber penetration; and WHEREAS, in response to the proposed modifications based upon the terms and con- ditions set forth in Exhibit A, the SWSCC has undertaken an evaluation of the pro- posed changes in conjunction with the allegations of Grantee that such change will improve its revenue and permit the System to increase the amount of subscribers and in this regard has heard testimony from Grantee as well as others including representatives of the schools serving the Member Cities of the SWSCC; and WHEREAS, the SWSCC finds that the request of Grantee is reasonable and may improve the financial condition of the System and increase the subscribership of the System and based upon this has concluded that as a matter of policy the requested modifi- cation and change of the channel line -up should be permitted for a one (1) year time subject to the exceptions set forth in this Resolution and also subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, under the Joint and Cooperative Agreement entered into by the Member Cities of the SWSCC, the SWSCC is authorized to make policy decisions and recommendations to the Member Cities and under this authority, the SWSCC intends to implement a policy decision based upon the following provision of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement. Article VII, Section 3, Paragraph A,1 provides: "Policy Decisions and Recommendations. The Commission shall make policy decisions and recommendations to parties on the following: la Enforcement of Laws.- Enforcement of laws, regulations and ordinances, related to cable communications, against Grantee and others." NOW, THEREFORE, the SWSCC in a regular meeting resolves as follows: 1. To accept a proposed one (1) year temporary change to the channel line -up as a matter of policy, based on the representations of Grantee that it will increase its revenues and improve subscriber penetration, incorporating herein all of the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A which is incorporated into this Resolution and made part of it, subject to the following exceptions and conditions: A. The Community Access Channels currently using Channel 3 Educationsal Access, Channel 7 Community Access, Channel 8 Educational Access, Channel 12 Government Access will be realigned to higher channel numbers but will be grouped together. B. Channel 6 will be reserved as.the Regional Channel as provided for in the Franchises of the Member Cities and the applicable laws of the State of Minnesota. 11/3/86 Further that during the one (1) year, temporary change in channel line -up programming of Channel 6 may be at the discretion of Grantee; but subject to the obligation of Grantee to implement regional channel programming at such time as the now existing entity created to start programming for such regional purposes 'implements and commences the use of Channel 6 for Regioanl Programming. C. The Grantee shall retain the Universal Service Tier. The services including community programming of all access channels including educational access, community access, government access, lease access and regional channel 6 will be made avail- able to all subscribers without charge. 2. Conditions applicable to the implementation of the changes. A. This Resolution shall become effective two (2) weeks after its passage by the SWSCC subject to: a. Within thirty (30) days after the effective date, Grantee will furnish to SWSCC a written plan that includes a description as to how it intends to inform its sub- scribers of the channel line -up change, incorporate the retention of the Universal Service, and will reflect an inventory or survey of costs and expenses to be reimbursed by Grantee for such expenses as may have been incurred by access users in reliance upon the channel designations now existing. Also, to further under- take to contact the access users with regard to these changes and obtain all such information as necessary to adequately demonstrate to the SWSCC that the costs for changing the channel line -up has been fully evaluated and further that the transition of the channel line -up change will proceed in an orderly and efficient manner, in the sole judgment of the SWSCC. Upon approval of the written plan, Grantee will then be permitted to implement the change in the channel line -up. B. At the end of the one (1) year term, which will begin on the date Grantee is permitted to commence the channel line -up change, Grantee will furnish to the SWSCC evidence to show the impact of the channel line -up changes on its revenues and subscriber penetration and further, Grantee will demonstrate the legal, technical, financial, or other reasons why, and in conformance with Article XII, Section 6 of the Franchises of the Member Cities, the SWSCC should recommend to its Member Cities a permanent modification as requested by the Grantee. C. The Grantee shall indemnify and hold harmless SWSCC and its Member Cities from all cost, expense, claims or charges of any nature incurred or brought by reason of the modifications authorized by this policy decision of the SWSCC. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Turner. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Turner, Courtney Abstained: Richards Resolution adopted. DUMPSTERS AT CONSTRUCTION SITES DISCUSSED. Member Kelly reported that she has had a number of complaints regarding dumpsters at construction sites, particularly in areas of single - family housing. These dumpsters tend to remain at the sites for an unually long period of time and are unsightly. She learned that the residents were told a•dumpster could remain on the site for 180 days for every hour of work done. Mr. Rosland will look into the ordinance and clarify this issue. SFYA REPORT NOTED. Member Kelly commented on the fact that SFYA served 12 Edina property offenders, and she questioned if SFYA served all Edina's property offenders. Chief Swanson explained that some of the offenders are counseled at SFYA and some are sent to Hennepin County Juvenile Court.. He believes that SFYA is a good resource and offers an excellent program. EDINAMITE COUNCIL PARTY SUGGESTED. Member Turner mentioned that the Council might consider another party as a contribution to'Edinamite in February of 1987. This idea was unanimously accepted. STATE OF PAVILION STANDS NOTED. Member Bredesen commented on the stands in the Braemar Pavilion and noted that the top row is likely to rip apart at some point in time. Mr. Kojetin will have this checked. CITY MANAGER'S COMPENSATION FOR 1987 DISCUSSED. Member Bredesen advised that Mr. Rosland's compensation for 1987 be discussed. He requested that Mr. Rosland provide for Council Members before this discussion a survey of the compensation program for all managers in the suburban Hennepin County municipalities. Member Bredesen made a motion to set December 17, either before or after the Council Meeting, as the date for a closed meeting to discuss Mr..Rosland's compensation for 1987. The motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney Motion carried. 11/3/86 AMM LEGISLATIVE POLICY ADOPTION MEETING ANNOUNCED. Mr. Rosland reminded the Council that Thursday, November 6, 6:30 P. M., the AMM Legislative Policy Adoption Meeting would be held at the Fox & Hounds Restaurant. He will be taking reservations for the Council. *CLAIMS PAID. Motion was made by Member Kelly, seconded by Member Turner, for payment of the following claims as per Pre -List dated 11/3/86: General Fund, $90,273.53; Park Fund, $22.50; Art Center, $10,317.37; Swimming Pool Fund, $74.99; Golf Course Fund, $3,701.16; Recreation Center Fund, $1,952.43; Gun Range Fund, $667.80; Utility Fund, $201,248.29; Liquor Dispensary Fund, $4,389.28; Construction Fund, $9,857.40; Total, $322,504.75. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. There being no further business on the agenda, Mayor Courtney declared the meeting adjourned at 9:45 P. M. Acting City Clerk 0 - Alk T i=r4wl- IV DINA PLANNING r M� Subdivision No. S- 9' J ( SUBDIVISION DEDICATION REPORT TO: Planning Commission Park Board Environmental Quality Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBDIVISION NAME: LAND SIZE:/) LAND VALLr4 (BY: The developer of this subdivision has been required to A. grant an easement over part of the land ElB. dedicate % of the land C. donate $ as a fee in lieu of land As a result of applying the following policy: � A. Land Required (no density or intensity may be used for the first 50 of land dedicated) 1. If property is adjacent to an existing park and the addition beneficially expands the park. 2. If property is 6 acres or will be combined with future dedications so that the end result will be a minimum of a 6 acre park. II3. If property ab -ts a natural lake, pond, or stream. 4. If property is necessary for storm water holding or will be dredged or otherwise improved for storm water holding areas or ponds. D5. If the property is a place of significant natural, scenic or his- toric value. 6. B. Cash Required 1. In all other instances than above. 2. ORDINANCE NO. 825 -Al2 GRANTED FIRST READING (R -1 TO R -2 DISTRICT FOR ROBERT KIDD); PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR KIDD ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner Larsen advised that the subject property is generally located South of West 62nd Street and east of Valley View Road and is a through lot with frontage on both streets. The ^ lJ property measures approximately 83 feet in width by 339 feet in depth and contains 28,253 square feet of area. It is presently developed with a single family dwelling unit fronting on West West 62nd Street, the remainder of the property being undeveloped. The proponent is requesting approval of a subdivision which would create a new lot with frontage on Valley View Road and would contain 15,005 square feet, while the lot for the existing dwelling would contain 13,248 square-feet. The propone.t is also requesting that the new lot be rezoned R -2 Double Dwelling Unit District to allow the construction of a new double LO bungalow. The new lot would meet the square footage requirement for.an R -2 lot but would require a variance from the 90 foot lot width requirement. The Com- prehensive Plan illustrates this section of Valley View Road as suitable for low density attached residential. Existing buildings in the vicinity contain Q between 2 and 5 units. The preliminary plat illustrates a location for the new double bungalow. Due to the alignment of Valley View Road a front setback variance would be necessary. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the proposal is similar to one heard by the Council in 1984; the major difference is that the lot on Valley View Road has been increased to meet the 15,000 square foot requirement. Unlike the previous proposal which was to have both lots zoned R -1 District the new lot is proposed to be rezoned to the R -2 District. In 1984 staff suggested that the subject property be combined with two similar parcels adjacent to and east of the property. The proponent and other local developers have attempted to acquire all three properties for a larger development. All efforts have apparently failed. Staff has become convinced that the favored combined deve- lopment will not occur in the foreseeable future. Consequently, staff sees this request as a reasonable alternative that would be compatible with surrounding properties. The subject proposal was heard by the Community Development and Planning Commission at its meeting of September 3, 1986, and recommended pre- liminary rezoning and plat approval, subject to final plat approval and sub - division dedication. Reasons stated in support of the variance from the 90 foot lot width requirement were: 1) City and staff support of the R -2 District zoning in the past, and 2) 82 and 83 foot lots are standard widths for R -2 lots on Valley View Road. Robert Kidd, proponent, commented that two years ago staff recommended that the subject property be tied together with other adjacent lots. However, this did not happen and therefore he is requesting that the new lot be rezoned R -2 District. Dr. Byron Armstrong, 4119 West 62nd Street, stated his objection to the proposed development and that of the neighborhood. No further comment being heard, Member Bredesen introduced Ordinance No. 825 -Al2 for First Reading as follows, subject to final plat approval and subdivision dedication: ORDINANCE NO. 825 -Al2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825) BY ADDING TO THE DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT (R -2) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding the following thereto: "The extent of the Double Dwelling Unit District (Sub- District R -2) is enlarged by the addition of the following property: The south 180 feet of the following described parcel: Lot 3, except the East 95 feet, front and rear thereof, and Lot 20, except the West 75 feet thereof, all in Block 2, Peacedale Acres." 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, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney First Reading granted. Member Bredesen then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: ---------- - 1p . 4Ah /v 0 Az -r/4 NJ T CR 'i LA, I 11 All, flu: Y N 1= M-19% RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR KIDD ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled KIDD ADDITION, platted by Robert J. Kidd and Becky D. Kidd, husband and wife, and Bank Western Federal Savings Bank, a Federal Savings Bank, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of December 15, 1986, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. ADOPTED this 15th day of December, 1986. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of December 15, 1986, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 18th day of February, 1987. City Clerk LOCATION MAP-1z SUBDIVISION NUMBER 5 -86 -8 L O C A T 10 N 604 Blake Road South REQUEST Two lot subdivision EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT V ` 1 \Ul l7"AA icy u�u iIAy 111J VV\.G Vti Vl.{.V UGL 6J, L70U LVL J -OV ?O. II. OLD BUSINESS S-86-3 Preliminary Plat Approval Starita 1st Addition Mr. Larsen asked. the Commission to recall that a subdivision of the subject property was considered and denied at the October 29, 1986 meeting. The proposal called for one new buildable lot containing approximately 19,000 square teet. A lot containing 24,700 square teet would have been retained trom the existing dwelling. A conservation easement extending 40 teet upland trom the pond was proposed. A 100 toot easement is required. Mr. Larsen said the proponents have returned with a moditied subdivision request. The proposed lots remain as initially proposed. However, the revised Preliminary Plat illustrates a larger conservation easement around the pond. The easement area has been increased trom 40 to 70 teet. Mr. Larsen added at its last meeting members of the Commission asked that start investigate the rational for requiring 100 teet around the pond. I could rind nothing in either the Council or Commission minutes explaining the need for 100 teet. According to the DNR the 100 toot requirement is somewhat arbitrary and not based on their standards. In an urban area, with sewer service, the DNR suggests a minimum setback of 50 teet. Beyond 50 teet it becomes a matter of the community standard. Mr. Larsen pointed out it seems obvious that it we insist on a 100 toot easement that the subdivision is not teasible. The Commission may want to consider some lesser setback which would provide a reasonable building area while still attording protection for the pond. 'ihe proposed 70 toot setback seems to address both goals. Mr. Larsen concluded that recommendation for approval should be conditioned on: 1) final Plat Approval 2) Subdivision dedication 3) Curb cut permit trom Hennepin County 4) Utility connection charges The proponents, r,ir. and sirs. Starita and :ir. Harry Johnson, surveyor were present. Mr. Johnson told the Commission he concurred with the Statt report and would answer any questions Commission members may have. Mr. Palmer asked Mr. Larsen how long the Ordinance has been in ettect stipulating the 100 toot easement. Mr. Larsen said the Ordinance has been in ettect since 197. sir. Palmer said he continues to teel uncomfortable with granting a request trom our Ordinance adding he could not rind any legitimate reasons why this request would warrant his support. Mr. Johnson said he has concerns regarding trattic-and teels the tuture homeowner could Lace problems in this area. Mrs. mcClelland stated she telt the proposed 70 toot easement otters a good compromise. ,ylr. William Haertzen of 0400 Interlachen Boulevard spoke in opposition to the proposal adding he telt the 100 toot easement around the pond should be maintained. Mr. Johnson moved to recommend denial of the preliminary plat. mr. Palmer seconded the motion. Mrs. Paulus voted Aye. Mrs. rcClelland, Pir. Sked, Mr. Skagerberg and Mr. Lewis voted Nay. The motion tailed. Mrs. McClelland moved to recommend preliminary plat approval subject to statt conditions and recommending that the developer construct adequate vehicle turn -- around space which would enable the homeowner to enter Interlachen boulevard tront tirst. Mr. Skagerberg seconded the motion. mr. Sked and .-lr. Lewis voted Aye. Mr. Palmer, Mr. Johnson and Mrs. Paulus voted Nay. The motion carried. L l i CO�-1r1U\ITY DT7VE1LOPI F]NT AND PLA[�NING C0'P!ISSIO111 STAi?F REPORT DI;Ci. IB R 3, 1986 S -86 -8 Preliminary Plat Approval Starita Ist :'Addition General Location: West of Blake Road and South of Waternan Avenue extended Refer To: Revised Preliminary Plat and October 29, 193C) staff report. The Comaission will recall that a subdivision of the subject property was considered aria' denied at the October 29, 1986 meeting. The proposal called for one new buildable lot containing approxiaately 19,000 square feet. A lot containing 24,700 square feet would have been retained frog the existing dwelling. A conservation easement extending 40 feet upland frog the pond was proposed. A 170 foot easement is required. `The proponents have returned with a modified subdivision request. The proposed lots regain as initially proposed.' However, the revised Preliminary Plat illustrates a larger conservation easeaent around the pond. The easeaent area ilas been increased frog 40 to 70 feet. At its last meeting rreabers of the Conn ission asked that ' staff investigate the rational for requiring 100 feet around the pond. I could find nothing in either the Council or Comaission ainutes explaining the need for 100 feet. According to the D'.R the 100 foot requirement is somewhat arbitrary and not based on their standards. In an urban area, with sewer service, the DNR suggests a a inirrurr setback of 50 feet. Beyond 50 feet it becomes a :Tatter of the community standard. Recoaaendation It seeas obvious that if we insist on a 190 foot easeaent that the subdivision is not feasible. The Coarrission may want to consider some lesser setback which would provide a reasonable building area while still affording protection for the pond. The proposed 70+ foot setback seeas to address both goals. Recomaendation for approval should be conditioned on: 1) Final Plat Approval 2) Subdivision dedication 3) Curb cut perait frog Hennepin County 4) Utility connection charges 19 • 1•IO•w•r See s 0 0 0 0 s ,=r < a to W AG VNOA Preliminary plat STARITA 1 ST ADDITION .14.1„ IMIW ,i4 IwY.rNN W r�l/i M4 I4t•4 YI rlr/IrY1 r 1•Ilrrl YIIUIN r1 Yr 1.1•nrllw •I • Ilr 4M rx111, .111 W It 1x1 l • IrN •• Yrl/ IIC •1 Ilrl 1 '/ N'Iltr u� �i r••I t• ��Ili xlil tl•11111~•Wrl i. 1 Ix.. �. • x 1. /1xw• •f 41.N 1••1, •/ �••1 fw• ; W/ r ro{ Wr• Y.wr4 •Irf x11 I�•YY• x Iw x/4rx t•l•Ixrx•; ux•/ x11 w ullw Y 111 IN•rlrllr •lu W Ix1•rlt 1 W w•Ixt •1•.; '1'r •1 ... 1 I4N 1 �r•1'1••1 • Ix1t1111 •I� •11 11 tl lr xt xrl•• • • •�1 It . 1. IIr• N•• w• 1.•1x•1 .rr 1• r•1••/ •N 1.11r 1.1 I•rrrt Y iw rurY 1/Ilrrt•• t•u r Itlr Ir ;u YWx4 •I lllr rwll rIN1 n•r rl ••11 •I .YI t• 1•t rt 4 rl 1••tr••••l •1 rrx/ 1. 1•rr1011 •11••11. /• Wl W IrYI rWllllw /f ul/ x•••rt WII C rlr xxr•t Ir •xlt•r1 Ir•r rn•YI. W WW I xr•r•t rIN Yrrlw u 411w1 AxxY NWnI 4 w wWW Wrr •I o iooinorl Wr• IrWntl •Iw W u ur n u�N •nnlN• t. •. .. 1• Ilx .iY nr w Ir wt wY i lu Iru ur •I i.1 N• • l.n •Iw. Yi: N ux 4rw tr m rYl i w •.pwl•M il.ai.� �� . IaY• . p�.� iWl •r r . ro �..1 ...x� rxl r �.IrNr•. / Y 1• •1 • Y•wrll Ilr •.IN / tr••11••N•11••llxxrrllI •rl• I w l•tl Y4 IN 1, IIY 1r •IlliILLIW YIYII'. •11,111 W /xrxrrx•rt 4 YNr •,•W 114 Iy t•rY 11 • •1 IN x r4x 1 / Y V IIN •1 rr1•r MA rot• 4.•rl nlry Irrrr r TI • Y r r rr +urrl.�..��.��.r.N..JJJ/nrrrrrl•Ir Notes Legend 1 N1•N• N /�. W /•N/ N xxN/ uN/ /Wtr/ vN YxIW� ..r.• . NW WutN NtMnWN �a /NY/ Ao ����������� �•�• Y WIt W MWt /•L WNtY/ t /IA/ �/ 41— . HELD ON1 :IEDNFSDAY, OCTOBER 29, l °E6 AT 7:3.. EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHA:SBERS .�`�!"fRERS PRES FN : Cha i ra an , wi 11, i as , John Bailey, Phil Sked, Helen ?cCl , Del Johnson, David Runyan, John and Virginia Shaw MEMBERS ABSENT: Jane Alroerg Gordon Johnson and John STAFF PRESENT: 1401509- Larsen, City Planner Or kie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROV IIJUTES: Del Johnson Roved for approval of the October 3, • V � JIa �'X 'a ?u�� 1 �� �Z4 � {: 1KFl� � C�1 t �d <�.:u�` l�Aii � -� � }V d"4 G. II. NEW . iISI': %SS: S -86 -03 Preli;rinary Plat Approval Starita 1st. Addition General Location: S','est of ;Lake Road and South of Nateraan Avenue extended Mr. Larsen inforaed the Coaaissicn the subject property is a developed single faaily lot containing approxiaately 43,500 square feet of area, exclusive of the pond. The existing dwelling is located in the northeast corner of the property. ',r. Larsen added the proponent has proposed a subdivision of the property which would create one new buildable lot. The new lot would contain a net area of approxiaately 19,000 square feet while the lot for the existing dwelling would contain approxiaately 24,700 square feet. The proposed lots would exceed the size and dirrension standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Ar. Larsen pointed out the City's Subdivision Ordinance, �-'o. 801 -A -4, contains a requireaent that a strip of land at least 100 feet upland frog a pond be either dedicated to the City or subjected to a perpetual conservation easeaent in connection with a subdivision. ;'he Ordinance charges the Planning CoRaission with recoaaending the cost appropriate option. The proposed subdivision provides 40 feet to the deck and 55 feet to the house. Staff has illustrated on the proposed plat where the 100 foot easeaent would fall. No construction or alteration of any kind could occur in the easement area. Except for two dwellings on Prescott Circle existing :.dwellings on this pond maintain at least a 100 foot setback. The Prescott Circle area was platted prior to the adoption of the 101 foot easement requireaents. Mr. Larsen told the Commission the proponent proposed a siTilar subdivision for this property in 1976. The 1976 proposal differed frog the present proposal in two important respects. :First, the existing house was to be removed. Second, the subdivision provided the required 1.00 foot setback from the pond. The subdivision proposal was denied due to traffic concerns and because of the small buildable area, and steep slopes. Mr. Larsen explained the subdivision proposed in 1976 called for a single curb cut and a shared driveway for the two lots. The currently proposed subdivision requires two curb cuts. Blake Road, at this point, carried approximately 6,500 trips per day in 197h. Today, it carries approximately 9,500 trips per day. Hennepin County has reviewed the location of the proposedcurb cuts and have indicated they will. issue the permit if the City approves the :subdivision. I Larsen concluded the proposed subdivision is nearly the same as the one proposed in 1976. In staff's opinion the reasons for denial in 1976 reTain valid today. Traffic levels on Blake Road are greater than in 1976. The proposal. does not provide the required IdO foot conservation easement. A variance from the easement requirement is not warranted since al.l but two homes on the pond maintain at least the required setback. Staff recommends denial of the subdivision. I . and '1rs. Starita, proponent's, tr. Harry Johnson and : ^.r. Dempster, builders were present. Mr. Johnson briefed the Commission on the concerns this proposal presented him and Mr. and Nirs. Starita. He added their main concerns centered with the traffic issue and the visual . impact the proposed dwelling would have on the neighborhood. Using a colored sketch of the preliminary plat ',:r. Johnson pointed out the proposed dwelling would be adequately screened by natural vegetation. He said a decision was made to position the proposed dwelling back from Blake Road, enabling the future homeowner to access Dlake Road front first. .r. Dempster told the Commission he agrees with staff findings of increased traffic levels for the period of 1976 to 1936, but added he found the traffic flows for the period 1981 to 1936 have leveled off. yr. Johnson said this finding l.essenec, their traffic concern making the proposal feasible. xr. Johnson told the Commission he would like to have protective covenants placed on the site to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood. "9rs. "cClelland expressed confusion on the nuaber of square footage required by Edina for the conservation easement. She asked staff to investigate how the City arrived at that nu;rber. Mr. Pal:rer said he felt very uncoafortable granting such a large variance frog the ordinance requireaent. Mr. Palmer moved for denial of the prel is inary plat. 7-1rs. Shaw seconded the motion. Upon row call vote: John Bailey Aye Phil Sked Aye Helen McClelland `day Del Johnson Aye N i l l i am Lewis Aye David Runyan Nay John Palmer Aye Virginia Shaw Ay` The motion carried, 6 - 2 vote. "r. Larsen informed the proponents they have the option to return to the Coaaission with a modified proposal. 05 Mr. Larsen told the Coaaission the present wner's, 'r. and mrs. Caapbel.l petitioned for the re -zonin Mr. and Mrs. Caapbell's intent is to maintain the home i• present condition. Staff recoaaends approval. Mr. Sand reported that the hone gad few alterations, with the exception of a closet add Y Mrs. '•'cClelland roved for oning approval. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All w favor. The ;notion carried. LD -86 -13 538 -5530 '"ialibu Drive 1r. L informed the Coaaission the proponent is requesti� party wall division of an existing double bungalow. Separat ility connections are provided. f recomaends approval. avor. The aotion carried. C014MUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT OCTOBER 29, 1986 S-86 -8 Preliminary Plat Approval Starita 1st. Addition General Location: West of Blake Road and South of Waterman Avenue extended Refer to: Attached preliminary plat, air photo, 1976 staff report and minutes. Letter from Hennepin County Traffic. The subject property is a developed single family lot containing approximately 43,500 square feet of area, exclusive of the pond. The existing dwelling is located in the northeast corner of the property. The proponent has proposed a subdivision of the property which would create one new buildable lot. The new lot would contain a net area of approximately 19,000 square feet while the lot for the existing dwelling would contain approximately 24,700 square feet. The proposed lots would exceed the size and dimension standards set forth in the zoning Ordinance. The City's Subdivision Ordinance, No. 801 -A -4, contains a requirement that a strip of land at least 100 feet upland from a pond be either dedicated to the City or subjected to a perpetual conservation easement in connection with a subdivision. The Ordinance charges the Planning Commission with recommending the most appropriate option. The proposed subdivision provides 40 feet to the deck and 55 feet to the house. Staff has illustrated on the proposed plat where the 100 foot easement would fall. No construction or alteration of any kind could occur in the easement area. Except for two dwellings on Prescott Circle existing dwellings on this pond maintain at least a 100 foot setback. The Prescott Circle area was platted prior to the adoption of the 100 foot easement requirements. The proponent proposed a similar subdivision for this property in 1976. The 1976 proposal differed from the present proposal in two important respects. First, the existing house was to be removed. Second, the subdivision provided the required 100 foot setback from the pond. The subdivision proposal was denied due to traffic concerns and because of the small buildable area, and steep slopes. The subdivision proposed in 1976 called for a single curb cut and a shared driveway for the two lots. The currently proposed subdivision requires two curb cuts. Blake Road, at this point, carried approximately 6,500 trips per day in 1976. Today, it carries approximately 9,500 trips per day. Hennepin County has reviewed the location of the proposed curb cuts and have indicated they will issue the permit if the City approves the subdivision. Recommendation: The proposed subdivision is nearly the same as the one proposed in 1976. In staff's opinion the reasons for denial in 1976 remain valid today. Traffic levels on Blake Road are greater than in 1976. The proposal does not provide the required 100 foot conservation easement. A variance from the easement requirement is not warranted since all but two homes on the pond maintain at least the required setback. Staff recommends denial of the subdivision. O 0 t 1 o _ . U , z- o: N J W E 8 i Preliminary Plat: STARITA 1 ST ADDITION X -4'�GHta MENOE`55GNN NEn a •e Notes / •...w....... N...r. r ....r. w... ` �........rY..�...... r.;. oc-to 56� Z9 Legend Pro p® s,4%-- Ir0 +,J•grr /•w.• lY• •1 /Y•• !, Yl MD[l /,OYN NINIYI/ GATED) I..I� WATERMAN AVENUE w = •'4 runt .......w. u. ,.. bu L ...... .. .. .:' .......... r....,. 1.... I.r •r r,• •...r.. r,Y ru., W r nnr.. arrr w Wwl,�.•. w N .1,'J rYiY��.r.t ... .•I Ir 111 r . I..Y..r •l r.% . u Iu. nr IN Iru 1M,A Iia 1, 1 WuY+ r IYI.. •I .. . r.r.Irr Y1, rrYr 1w...,rr Yr w.ww.r. rrrr r.u�.rir r 1` :J / .fir 1. .:'s^F. �- , .��7. �'!ii•°� y_ r'� , /. ir'y` -- • r r t -i +c• r r+ Y'� - 3F ,yam � w , i '��*' �r�s . �`�. l��St 4�'� t .y ' �t "� 'r ;• , , � �r�i �'ir,�a�'t , ;1Q fir. •� , t ;t.�1^.,� SE� 9Pi e�T "r i -, #,i�, '� Yip �' .s ta. Y'1:`cc s ��1,L1t,� i } ''�*,Aff. , �! ��" ✓s. .I /i �'`r:. #� rrr�'...H,.;^ � "'� TL` '�'^. +�� tir♦�' ,y , �r3,6ir s[i`••K -r�,� 4 s !.'`+! —��`- � �, J `31� � It—sv' f -z �y"j � �' i � r ,.. � i � �! r � ,.r,• r, ,� [t - 1 >! ���v� ''s:d;��"kD` r rat .•. \ii •1 •� ! t,f y"�;r' �•g •� ,rr. '. � ,'S J. �" �t r °F. V�* +��+i%f4- �.. �.7: �' _'o. ' i ', .�'++.. �if r:. -! Ar t y ,aq YYr 13 L: a r lei ; ` ~ f +�if r YhQ�- _ "y }+�'. F• _ ♦ F ,�;.'... te. •:1 t r� 'r T G�. a. t' �' L+1t i ,� i 1 3,. {. rr `•,. f.. [. ;( -:. � .gyp �� Yti �: � �','>.r !f n+-k+ ,r , �l.• � ' it ,. -y � '�" t � ?`rA t'r.... � ir, } •�i- Y,. r•. � x ly 4�'��� ' r . ,i'� •'.f. w t � = r � : f � �� r.• o .fir 0 �� ,.,. ;� �: `�Ir � ,>'1. yy���• arjtr? � . . -P7E ., � � �r �a'k"r�'t' � �t °� }g� '' t"` '� �'t. � x ;Q r4!� %:: js t,7,s�'+:,, ,P�:•i ,:� r} � t 's`C� `C LY � f ` a f >�1 -, t✓ - - Y l� ,% 9 V i J." ��r:� t YY /' °- i4,}r{ :.I �YT� b ��., I �' �,, �•. y� - �N !`2C..',!�'��r>�J� , ��r// /��, s •y r�. '�'��: .. :� k, f � .�' ti!!'.� .•� �r•.l �2,. pr ��' Jr.•.' .r: f�.�,` #� Jg"r `'t . i ^ i a _ .l ,� „!-•. ��� /..*S � _ � j n i '� t ' ` ti-: � i ��.ti, � Lys tt,, '� � �'��1 6''-z f •,r � �� ; °+�,� {a t4 �:�G�ii IT +,, a t 'KC a7ri er' s'�"'it •�fJ. Lr i�.'- A. �, y• _ r .,r.. i� J A ro � �'t.:�- l• .li- _ kI `• ,�C7.. � �rI• •J+ :f� � 1 r✓,[�/ ���r- a '.�.. it .. I '. !-�/ > i , r i , •fir � ^'AKt�?r- �. ,\ y ! Ti .� v y;. �6 ��¢6�._ f,,, �iDiwr ,r,� , •a• \ 7, !mow i�,�, ii - y'C ,q�y�p '}t•jr b' -riyr ♦ A�p k•. .1i "7 77tJ Y r r V 3-3f . •� •:. g. r rpi: .7�{ ,�;y.0 h � }s-ti �•., '�� %` df, ; a`ai' R;^a'�'.. ` � ''`� � b Y''ot S' a♦' �F '*,'.E � !I � } r -V �i J1 .`+� RdF ''.' � �i r,. ^ w+ ! ✓ '+� oy� T�7 ,- 3�?'�' ,xw t. d �,3' � :� �: 11.,• � ;� <4 r. y.; .r,. -. �y�-t i' �����j yq',�'- w�i.�'- i�ie;•.� � '", �i 'it �l r���l%.,J`��j��}'° Ari'`�e'.- 4ir t • s , r+,F7'/ .r'' A 3iR li t J� k^S '�+'� .�y •P.c+ '�' %"'rrti 4.� i�r1. „�flre�t�-y iT� s` t� : y s� ,ice ' i rir ,A ,f .: -, • -.� �.,.:�, _ �u e2 Sri id j�,-. Kwir.. _ .. � ,' '...4 -x•: r><. Z O f f � O 1 x U Z f 6 W E el1 Prellminary Plat: STARITA 1 ST ADDITION X it Y Yam -�i� suu 1 u11 .011 [sUfI.D •DI•CE.1 Moues W A ................ U3 Z / nr WATERMAN AVENUE wrr Yn "� n«u r OnY /uu /. curl« r Y Yu rr�[ W II Y L 1.. • 7 �u �Ir1 r YYIw IW�,wo Ol,rl uIN. Y� Ir 1 • 1_[rrY'I 11.'« ..�/ Iw'4 ilo I, rru lY. rlYll. Ylrl Y «/ter/ I...Iw. w Y Yr'IwM /I cur. rr MI, rte. U Notes Legend 7 gam.' e14 IMP o't'ter .d j. S 7-A 7,49 CIO S eA E 7, _A1,09 .V r,4`6 7-1 09^'0 11*eS7-11,l1JF 119-ly-Z lrOaOaIP CV C-,097-i5 r III.B.1 December 15, 1986 Mayor C. Wayne Courtney City Hall Edina, Minnesota Dear Mayor Courtney: The residents of this area request that you deny the proposed subdivision of Starita 1st Addition. Due to the following reasons, all residents contacted on this matter strongly oppose the subdivision of Mr. Starita's property. 1. Traffic problems on Blake Road - In 1976 Blake Road carried approximately 6,500 trips per day. Today it carries in excess of 9,500 trips per day. In 1976 a similar proposal for said lot was denied, due in part to the reason of excess traffic. 2. Variance of the 100 ft Easement Ordinance - The proposed easement variance is not warranted since all but 2 homes on the pond maintain at least the required set back of 100 feet. The 2 homes were platted prior to the adoption of the 100 ft. easement requirement in 1971. Please find attached petition signed by area residents who strongly reject this proposal. Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Mang I. Haertzen 6400 Interlachen Blvd. Edina, Minnesota Representing area residents opposed to the Starita development. cc: Charles Bredesen, III Frederick S. Richards Leslie -TL&nery, Peggy Kelly t December 14, 1986 We, the undersigned, object to the proposed subdivision of Starita 1st addition, creating a new lot. Traffic levels.on Blake Road are greater now than in 1976 when Mr. Starita made the same proposal. A 100 foot easement is required and we feel there should be no variance from that requirement. The two homes on Prescott Circle were platted prior to the adoption of the 100 foot easement requirement in 1971. c[ o resLo%� G►�c. Vs D -1 V/3 �yP,��,Qv(lss oH� G ��✓.e O 8 GtJQ.CPivYk �...�. AIII ��4- !���/��/ if /O�J�� l/'�C✓, `C December 14, 1986 We, the undersigned, object to the proposed subdivision of Starita 1st Addition, creating a new lot. Traffic levels on Blake Road are greater now than in 1976 when Mr. Starita made the same proposal. A 100 foot easement is required and we feel there should be no variance from that requirement. The two homes on Prescott Circle were platted prior to the adoption of the 100 foot easement requirement in 1971. l fc� 1 C� h 5 J7y n �,� X11 Icy &'11d -�` -MriRP FIX 4W &WUW- dt FOUX rr Foi ZI WmAl 0 1 ilk I I klk UC-IFB S- -86, -9 preliminary Plat Approval White Oaks 8th Addition Generally Located: West of Townes Road and south of Sunnyside Road Mr. Larsen intormed the Commission the subject property is a developed single tamily lot with a dwelling located on the southerly portion of the property. The two parcels which make up the lot contain an area of 35,380 square teet. Two northerly adjacent parcels (Lot 1, White Oaks 3rd Addition and Lot 9, White Oaks 2nd Addition) are owned by the applicant but are not included in the proposed plat. :nr. Larsen added the proponent has submitted a request to subdivide the property to create one, new buildable lot. The new lot would contain 19,100 square teet, and the lot retained for the existing dwelling would contain 16,280 square teet. Lot 1 (existing dwelling) would exceed all Zoning Ordinance requirements for the Rsl district. The new lot (Lot 2) does not meet the Ordinance requirement for lot width. the Ordinance requires a width of 75 teet at a point 50 teet back trom the tront property line. Lot 2 measures 50 teet at this point. Thus, a 15 toot lot width variance is requested. mr. Larsen told the Commission adjacent and north of the subject property is a marshy area which provides a storm water holding area for a portion of the White Oaks neighborhood. '!'here exists a perpetual easement over the northerly parcel for storm water drainage. There is no easement over the southerly parcel. Both lots are owned by the proponent. The southerly parcel (Lot 9 of White Oaks 2nd Addition) meets the detinition of a single tamily lot. As proposed the new lot would share the curb cut and driveway of the existing dwelling. An existing detached garage would be removed. The illustrated development of the new lot would not disturb the marsh, and would meet all Ordinance requirements except for lot width as mentioned earlier. mr. Larsen pointed out lots in this section of White Oaks range in size trom approximately 12,000 square teet to over 20, 000 square teet. The average lot size appears to be approximately 6,000 square teet. It Lot 9 were incorporated into the plat as part of the new lot the proposed lots would then meet all Ordinance requirements. In addition, it lot 9 is made part of the plat we can ask for an easement which will insure adequate storm water capacity and protect the marsh trom tuture development proposals. ;'he illustrated location of the house is sensitive to existin:j conditions. it avoids any tilling or disturbance of the marsh area. The sizes of the proposed lots are compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Larsen concluded Statt recommends approval of the preliminary plat with changes and conditions: 1. The addition of Lot 9 of white Oaks 2nd Addition to the plat as part of Lot 2 White Oaks 8th Addition. 2. The granting of an easement for storm water drainage over the marsh area within the plat. The proponent, : -ir. ,.onroe was present. ,•iembers of the neighborhood were present. Sir. Palmer asked r!.r. Larsen it it is possible to adjust Lot 2's property line, (combine with part of Lot 9) thus eliminating the need for a variance. Larsen responded that the variance would be completely eliminated it lot lines were adjusted. [vir. :Monroe told the Commission he is prepared to add Lot 9 to Lot 2, theretore eliminating all variances. t1r. William r3rady of 6 Bridge Lane spoke in opposition to the proposal citing the following reasons and concerns: 1) Drainage. He telt construction near the marsh area could result in drainage problems. 2) Character of neighborhood. 'ihere is concern that a home may be constructed with a lack of sensitivity for the uniqueness of the :white Oaks neighborhood (ex. the proposal illustrates a shared driveway, in the White Oaks area shared drives are uncommon.). 3) The approval of this subdivision may set a precedent which would allow other property owners to subdivide. mr. Feldman of 4083 Sunnyside Road expressed his concern that visually the terrain of the area would be altered. Avis. Hatch of t702 Townes Road said she is concerned that the water level of the marsh may be altered. She pointed out it the marsh is used as a till site for excavation materials it may not be able to handle storm and water run -otts in the tuture. She asked statt it the excavation materials trom the construction site could be hauled ott site. 10r. Larsen told the Commission it is the intent of statt to protect the marsh area, adding statt teel construction of one single tamily home would not alter the area it done properly. He said it approved, excavation materials would either be hauled away or used as till at the site. mr. :William Laird of 46315 Townes Circle asked Mr. Larsen it the site could be used to develop double or multiply family housing. j�!r. Larsen told io;r. Laird the site is zoned R,!-1, Single Dwelling Unit District and Qnly a single tamily home can be constructed on this site. Sked asked Larsen it architectural restrictions could be placed on the proposed dwelling. j,-ir. Larsen said there is not a mechanism to accomplish this. He added Zoning Ordinance No. 825 does not address architectural compatibility. The Commission was in general agreement that the proposal was sensitive to the area and were favorable to the proponents otter of the addition of Lot 9 to the plat. Mrs. McClelland recommended preliminary plat approval subject to statt conditions, recommending that Lot 9 becomes part of the plat, therefore eliminating the need for variances, granting of the easement for storm water drainage, and to preserve the marsh area according to the westerly high water elevation mark. mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in tavor. The motion carried. CO`I`;UNITY DEV7LOP;1 11:1': VND PLr I "I I NG r'0'li•' I SS ION STAFF REPORT D1�CT::'Ini:R 3, 1.980 S -86 -9 Preliainary Plat Approval White Oaks 8th 'addition Generally Located: West of Townes Road and south of Sunnyside Road Refer to: Attached preliainary plat The subject Property is a developed single fairily lot with a dwelling located on the southerly portion of the property. The two parcels which cake up the lot contain an area of 35,380 square feet. Two northerly adjacent parcels (Lot 1, white Oaks 3rd Addition) and Lot 9, (White Oaks 2nd Addition) are owned by the applicant but are not included in the proposed plat. The proponent has subaitted a request to subdivide the property to create one, new buildable lot. The new lot would contain 19,100 square feet, and the lot retained for the existing dwelling would contain 16,280 square feet. Lot 1 (existing dwelling) would exceed all Zoning Ordinance requireaents for the R -1 district. The new lot (Lot 2) does not aeet the Ordinance requireaent-for lot width. the Ordinance requires a width of 75 feet at a point 50 feet back frog the front property line. Lot 2 aeasures 60 feet at this point. Thus, a 15 foot lot width variance is requested. Adjacent and north of the subject property is a aarshy area which provides a story water holding area for a portion of the White Oaks neighborhood. There exists a perpetual easeaent over the northerly parcel for story water drainage. There is no easeaent over the southerly parcel. Both lots are owned by the proponent. The southerly parcel (Lot 9 of White Oaks 2nd Addition).aeets the definition of a single faaily lot. As proposed the new lot would share the curb cut and driveway of the existing dwelling. An existing detached garage would be reaoved. The illustrated developaent of the new lot would not disturb the aarsh, and wou]C .Teet all Ordinance requireaents except for lot width as aentioned earlier. Lots in this section of tV-hite Oaks range in size frog approxiaately 12,000 square feet to over 20, 000 square feet. Thy average lot size appears to be approxiaately 16,00Co square feet. Recoaaendation: If Lot 9 were incorporated into the plat as part of the new lot the proposed lots would then aeet all Ordinance requireaents. In addition, if lot 9 is wade part of the plat we can ask for an easeaent which will insure adequate story water ca_acity and protect the aarsh frog future develooaent proposals. The illustrated location of the house is sensitive to existing conditions. It avoids any filling or disturbance of the aarsh area. The sizes of the proposed lots are coapatible with the neighborhood. Staff recoaaends approval of the preliainary plat wit'-i changes and conditions: 1. The addition of Lot 9 of ;•;hite Oaks 2nd addition to the plat as part of Lot 2 Iri-hite Oaks oth Addition. 2. The granting of an easeaent for story water drainage over the aarsh area with the plat. W111 %E OAKS 1MY'ROMUT ASSOC14ilON d/t. vonaZd �. Mcl►lalan l ae4Ldent December 12, 1986 City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th. Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Council Members: RE: Lot 17, Auditor's Subdivision 319, and Lot 9, White Oaks Second Addition. 4701 Meadow Road 6dZna, A nne4ota 55424 612 -944 -5252 O,JLce 612 -y22 -0834 #ome The White Oaks Improvement Association is a neighborhood association representing the residents of White Oaks in an area bounded by 50th. Street on the south, Sunnyside on the north, France Ave. on the east and Arden Ave. on the west. This association is opposed to any further subdivision of single family lots in the White Oaks area. We believe that the covenants set down by the original developer regarding future building and development should be honored. Lot 17 was platted by the original developer to be a single family lot in its entirety. Any subdivision or replatting of Lot 17 or Lot 9 will have an adverse affect on the aesthetics of the lots, the ponding area, and the neighborhood area in general. We are concerned about the value of our homes in this area, as well. White Oaks is one of the oldest residential areas in Edina. It was developed close to fifty years ago. The lot sizes and shapes are unique giving the area a very special character. We respectfully request that replatting of Lot 17 and Lot 9 be denied and that any further consideration of the request for replatting be continued for a reasonable period of time. The residents of this area have had notice of proposal and the results of the Planning Commission's hearing for less than two weeks. We feel that a major decision such as this should merit additional time and consideration. Sincerely yours, Donald G. McMillan President M E M O R A N D UM TO: Mayor and Council / FROM: Crai g , Larsen City lanner l G Y SUBJECT: Fairview Southdale Hospital proposal DATE: December 15, 1986 Attached is a graphic which illustrates the elimination of the setback variance for the parking ramp along the easterly property line, adjacent to the Colony. The variance has been eliminated by raising the ground elevation along the length of the ramp.. The variance adjacent to the Crosstown right of way (approximately 7 feet) remains as initially proposed. -05'.L L . Ili I Y� UL I i qua M gas ... .; .... T ..,r.. . r ..,. goo • ;;tea tea_ C ya 04 O • 1 I IL W111 %E OAKS IM ?OVMUl ASSOCIATION = . e). 2 Tin. Dona. d qi. McMillan Neai.dent December 15, 1986 City Council City of Edina 4805 West 50th. Street Edina, MN 55424 Ladies and Gentlemen: 4701 Meadow Road (Sdi.na, lflbmeiota 55424 612- 944 -5252 01ILCe 612- 922 -0834 /Ge Enclosed please find petitions in opposition to the replatting of Lot 17, Auditor's subdivision 319, and Lot 9, White Oaks Second Addition. Some ninty eight (98) individuals have signed these petitions at present. There may be more that will come in just prior to or at the Council Meeting this evening. However this is the vast majority. Thank you very much for your consideration in this matter. Si ely yours, Dr. Donald G. McMillan President T oil kyl*:* Ff's-i :1 WAI I PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO REPLATTING OF LOT 17, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 319, AND LOT 9, WHITE OAKS SECOND ADDITION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA: WHEREAS, the undersigned are residents of the White Oaks area of Edina and have purchased our homes in reasonable reliance on the existing plats of the area; and WHEREAS, we feel strongly that any further subdivision of single family lots in this area on the Townes Road ponding area will not preserve neighborhood character and symmetry in accord with the policies stated in the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edina; and WHEREAS, we believe that any replatting of Lot 17 or Lot 9 will adversely affect both the aesthetics of the lots, ponding area, and the neighborhood area and will significantly diminish the enjoyment, as well as the value, of our own homes and the area, THEREFORE, we respectfully request that replatting of Lot 17 and Lot 9 be denied and that any further consideration of the request for replatting be continued for a reasonable period to permit those additional residents, who are or will be temporarily absent due to seasonal travel, vacation, or the Christmas holi- days, an adequate opportunity to appear or make their positions known by supplemental petition to the City Council. Residence Address `//07 4r t�4< 410 rl GJ. q8th 4-7 2 Y,;ZG f Name 1 Residence Address S tom.' de ►.�.,,Q Zz / s F ---�z 470 .� ...tom C` J �. / 2(o -)C3 �& ey G4 f X113 Ib��s �. e -e s 19Y. L4 600 Qom. (.O D r-D wti e-, �. Name Residence Address q AF T� . z16 /' Ct,�45 M!Imo Residence Address 45y i vulr--rtop,3 R D . 7uA All �� Name Residence Address I ����� SinnntiS�G �� �Gllnq Aw Im N S/ �Iw WEP- Name Residence Address :I _ WI Name Residence Address 0,0_44-ti ��a q7j5 Name Residence Address gl'Oo LEI C&4 X40 t f of as .. 2 Name Residence Address # 7v 7 - l� Name Residence Address c 0 �1 ��,c�..,.y,,,�( _'�a.e...ri.���2 �� .r � o-u— fie. � F JI � ✓�/ � � � � I�l e z�f e .. � d Name Residence Address -MM MAWWA MATIM •y �� ?,56) �9-t�G7- w . 5�p �'` 2 VL o 5 f- f 1 o ir : ■n IN � _ M 'A UM _711 , C x I +/ MERITAGE DR !• SOU LD A B 9.1 dd FINAL DE"A' vs E NUM BERp -86 -5 PLAN LOCATION Fairview Southdale Hospital - 6401 France Avenue REQUEST Construct freestanding medical office building. EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 QJ, i P -86 -5 Fairview Southdale Hospital 6401 France Avenue South Mr. Larsen reported that the subject property is the campus of Fairview Southdale Hospital. The campus contains 13.24 acres and is developed with a 374,000 square foot hospital building, and a 11,469 square toot power plant building. The site contains a total of 824 parking spaces, 3:18 of which are contained in a 2 level parking ramp located along the easterly boundary of the campus. Mr. Larsen told the Commission the hospital has submitted a request for final development plan approval to construct a new medical office building with a Gross floor Area of 84,240 square feet. Medical office buildings are a permitted use in the Regional medical District. The building would be located north of the hospital in an area which is now utilized for surface parking. The building would be 5 stories high. and would be connected to the hospital by tunnel. Parking to support the office building and to replace existing narking lost to construction would be provided by adding a third level to the existing ramp and by adding a new, 4 level ramp to the north of the existing ramp. Total on- campus parking would increase from its present 824 spaces to 1,345 spaces. `ihe new office building would be allocated 492 spaces and hospital parking would increase to 853 spaces. The proposed office building would have an exterior of reflective glass panels and pretinished metal. The proposed materials conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to refer to the memo from Douglas Robinson, administrator of Fairview Southdale which provides information relative to existing conditions and the proposed improvements. The information provided appears to be accurate except for employee count. The employee count of 350 appears to be an average of the 3, 8 hour shifts. According to the Barton Aschinan, study the major shift consists of 430 employees. The Zoning Ordinance refers to the number of employees on the major shift when determining parking demand. Mr. Larsen recommended that the Commission review several issue areas relative to the proposed development and the overall impact on the campus and surrounding streets and properties. Mr. Larsen briefed the Commission on each issue: building Mr. Larsen pointed out the Regional Medical District requires that buildings provide a minimum setback from streets of 35 feet, or the height of the building whichever is greater. The proposed ottice building complies with this requirement. The hospital building maintains a non - conforming setback of approximately 25 feet along West 65th Street. Variances have been granted in the past to continue this setback. Parking Setbacks :ir. Larsen said the Ordinance requires that parking and drive aisles maintain a 20 toot setback from any street right- of -way. ikon - contorming parking setbacks occur along the 'Test 65th Street, France Avenue, and County Road 62 rights-tot-Tway. The non- contorming setbacks for the parking areas west of the hospital are proposed to remain. The non -- contorming surface parking which encroaches on the Crosstown right -ot -way in the northeasterly portion of the campus would be removed by the new ramp. The ordinance requires that accessory parking structures provide a minimum setback of 20 feet or the height of the structure from any interior property line. The existing ramp conforms. However, following the expansion of the ramp its height would range between 25 and 31. te,et. Thus a variance is requested. Floor Area Ratio (1•AR) r(r. Larsen told the Commission the ordinance allows a Fi1R of 1.0 in the Regional medical District. Currently the FAR for the campus is approximately .65. following the addition of the office building the FAR will increase to 0.79. The Power Plant building and parking ramps are not included in FAR calculations. Landscaping Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note that the Ordinance requires that all parking areas located within 50 feet of a street be screened to a height of 4 feet. Less than adequate screening exists around the westerly parking lot. The proposed plan would provide the required screening adjacent to the West 65th Street and France Avenue rights�otrway. However, the proposed screening has not been extended to areas adjacent to the Crosstown highway right of way. Parking :14r. Larsen informed the Commission the Ordinance requirement for a medical office building is based on 5 spaces per thousand square feet plus one space per Coctor. This results in a requirement of 492 spaces for the proposed building. According to information provided 492 spaces will be allocated to the building. The Ordinance requires 1 space per bed plus one space per employee or volunteer on the major shift for hospitals. The hospital contains 390 licensed beds and has 430 employees on the major shift resulting in a parking requirement of 820 spaces. Following construction of the new parking facilities 853 spaces would be allocated to the hospital. 'he Parking and Traffic Analysis prepared by Barton Aschman calculates a demand of 8i0 spaces for the hospital and approximately 380 spaces for the office building. Trattic iv;r. Larsen told the Commission that in support of their request the hospital has submitted a traffic analysis which concludes that the existing traffic situation will not be aggravated by the additional traffic generated by the medical office building. The report does note, however, that sporadic queuing does occur at the on-tramp from north bound Prance Avenue to eastbound Crosstown Highway. mr. Larsen concluded his summary by outlining each issue: Parking: At a recent hearing before the Board of Appeals considering an addition to the Same Day Surgery Center, a parking demand of 859 spaces was established for the campus. 'Phis higher number is the result of the changing function of the hospital, i.e. more out - *patient, clinic type uses and less ins- patient use. Phis trend will probably continue. The Barton Aschman Parking study concludes that the hospital generates a parking demand of 3 0 spaces. Their parking surveys indicate at least 52 vacant spaces at the peak times. ;notwithstanding these conclusions, staff feels the hospital is at or nearly at it parking capacity. The proposal will provide a net increase of 29 spaces, to a total of 853 spaces. This should be sufficient for current conditions but this may change as the hospital changes the way it delivers services to the community. 'she proposed medical office building provides parking that conforms to Ordinance requirements. Based on the Barton Aschman study of Southdale medical Office Building, the new Fairview medical Office Building will need 4.5 spaces per 10450 square feet of floor area or approximately 380 spaces. The proposed allocation of 492 spaces should be adequate. In addition it could provide a cushion for the hospital demand. Trattic: The Trattic Study concludes that the addition of the medical office building to the Fairview Campus would cause "...no significant change in the level of service" at the intersection of 55th Street and France Avenue. The report does note congestion on the Crosstown on- ramps, especially north bound France to east bound Crosstown in the afternoon peak hours. The report suggests that this queuing problem may increase, but would not be significant due to its short duration. Statt remains concerned about potential congestion in the area. The increased traffic may require new or additional traffic control measures in the area. A traffic signal may be warranted at 55th and Drew Avenue, the easterly entrance to the campus. Additional stripping, lane delineation, or improvements to 65th Street may be needed. Statt recommends that the hospital participate to a large degree in the cost of these improvements. Eighty percent of the parking and all emergency vehicles will use the easterly entrance. The entrance as proposed is only a two «lane, 24 toot wide curb cut. Statt believes that this entrance should be redesigned and enlarged. Landscaping and Screening: Statt's main concern here is the screening of the westerly parking area. The proposed screening is acceptable, but should extend to screen the lot trom the Crosstown on- ramp. The landscape plan should be subject to tinal statt approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Landscaping is proposed on County right -ot -way. '!'his is subject to Hennepin County approval. Setback Variance for Parking Ramp: The proposal requests a variance to continue the setback provided for the existing ramp. ':his is necessary to etticiently provide the required amount of parking. Adjacent to the ramp, on Colony property, is a row of parking, a two way drive aisle and then buildings. Distance trom the ramp to the closets building is approximately 6:9 feet. Landscaping materials substantially larger than the Ordinance requires is proposed along the east side of the new ramp. Existing plant materials would be retained adjacent to the old ramp. The ramp could be designed to meet Ordinance setback requirements by stepping back the upper two levels. This would not signiticantly reduce the impact of the structure on the Colony. It would, however, have a signiticant impact on the function and capacity of the ramp. Additional ettorts should be made to screen the lot from the Colony as a condition to this variance. staff recommends approval of the variance. Mr. Douglas Robinson, Vern Knuston and Kurt Hamann of Fairview Southdale Hospital, ,,ir. James Cooperman, Architect, mr. David Kirsch, Landscape Architect, and Mr. David Koske of Barton Aschman were present representing the proponent Fairview Southdale Hospital. Concerned residents were present. mr. Robinson began his presentation by intorming the Commission that 3 major sites were examined for the proposed medical ottice building betore the tinal site was agreed upon. He added the hospital has signiticant parking demands and ramp location was important. he proposed ramp location met hospital needs and was located where minimal setback encroachment would occur. Using graphics Mr. Robinson explained the proposed ramp. Mr. Robinson said he is very aware of the parking and trattic concerns expressed by City Statt and added the hospital has retained the firm of Barton Aschman to conduct trattic studies. Fir. Robinson explained that the hospital is vary conscious of the non- contorining landscaping along France Avenue imr. Robinson indicated the hospital has every intention of raising landscaping levels to ordinance standards. Mr. Cooperman, using graphics explained the proposed medical ottice building. He added the building will consist of 5 stories plus a basement. Due to grade levels a portion of the basement will be exposed allowing window placement. 'fhe basement area will be used for meetings and an employee lunchroom and locker area. The building will be constructed of a concrete system and exterior materials will be reflective glass curtain walls with butt joint connections. iv'ir. Krolick of 6401 Colony Way asked ,Mr. Cooperman it the heating and cooling plant for the hospital would be able to provide utility service for the newly proposed building and ramp. lie also expressed concern over the possibility of the glass windows popping out, causing damage and possible injury. mr. Cooperman said the Hospital's energy plant should be able to provide adequate heating and cooling for the proposed structures. He added the proposed structure would be sate. Mr. Cooperman continued his presentation by intorming the Commission the proposed ramp is located 80 teet trom the Colony. He added materials for the proposed ramp would match materials used on the existing ramp. Mr. Cooperman told the Commission hospital and development start met with the Directors of the Colony and listened to their concerns. A major point of concern was the obstruction of their site lines as a result of this project. Residents of the Colony expressed a need for additional landscaping. i,!r. Kirsh, landscape architect, submitted a revised landscape plan adding the new landscaping would exceed ordinance requirements. ter. Krolick of 6401 Colony 'Way asked mr. Kiish it the proposed landscaping and building construction would interfere with the sunset that is now enjoyed by Colony residents. Mr. Kirsh answered that at a point there may be a reduction in sun levels. his. Judith Dixon commented that she telt the emissions of cars and tume's trom the hospital's energy plant could cause severe damage to all vegetation. ms. Dixon continued adding she has a grave concern that these emissions may be harmtul to the health and well being of the residents of the Colony. She asked that a study be conducted to check the carbon monoxide levels. In answer to Ms. Dixonsconcern over automobile emissions Mr. Robinson said as a result of this proposal emission levels would be increased by under 1 percent. Mr. David Koske of Barton Aschman reported to the Commission his tindings concerning trattic. one of the results of their study round that the intersection of 55th and France does not have a trattic problem, it tunctions satisfactorily. He added the drawback at this intersection is the access to the eastbound ramp for Crosstown Highway 4162 and the lett turn to westbound Crosstown Highway #62. Mr. Koske pointed out ramp lights cause congestion. Mr. !<oske said during peak hours south bound E'rance Avenue operates at around 1,000 vehicles per hour. North bound France Avenue operates at 1,500 vehicles per hour. At the 65th and Prance entrance 456 vehicles enter the lot per hour with 376 vehicles exiting per hour. 'Phis is an increase of around go vehicles entering /exiting or roughly a 20 percent increase. mr. noske concluded no significant negative trattic impact would be generated as a result of this proposal. �Mr. ;:rolick of 6401 Colony 'May expressed concern that trattic levels would be increased in an already severely congested area. He added he was unsure it an emergency vehicle would be able to reach the hospital during peak trattic hours. :!r. ( <oske reported during his study the tound emergency vehicles did not have a problem gaining access to the hospital. He added the recommendation by City Statt to add a lett turn lane would facilitate that process. iw!s. Judith Dixon of 6305 Colony .Nay reported that hospital statt, patients and emergency vehicles already use the residential streets to gain access to the hospital campus. She added this increase in trattic Clow creates congestion on the private and residential streets of the area. N1r. Robinson said to his knowledge he has not tound that emergency vehicles have a problem gaining access to the hospital. He added the hospital would never propose an addition that would be detrimental to them as a whole. Mr. Robinson said he is aware that this proposal will poise changes that will ettect residents of the Colony. He pointed out he met with members of the Colony and revisions have been made in landscaping and in the ramp. Landscaping will be increased and the protile of the ramp will be decreased by berming up the earth around the ramp and planting vegetation on top of the bermed earth. Mr. Robinson concluded that in his opinion the proposal will be a tine addition to the community. tv!r. Del Johnson directed a question to 'Ir. Robinson on the need for constructing a new medical ottice building.. mr. Robinson responded the building is being constructed due to the need to provide additional space for doctors and their statt. He added there is high demand to provide space for medical providers on hospital campuses. Ottice placement directly adjacent to the hospital will best serve the needs of both the medical personal, their patients and the community as a whole. i!r. Robinson commented that it is also more attractive trom a economic standpoint for physicians to own their own ottice rather than rent it. !J!r. Johnson said he is aware of the national trend for low bed demand in hospitals and wondered it it be possible to convert excess hospital bed space to medical ottice space. mr. Robinson said the hospital does not have adequate space to make the project teasible but did look into the possibility of adding a mirror image tower on the east end of the building. It was tound that this space would be inadequate due to design restrictions as medical ottice space and access to this tacility would be a problem. !vir. Robinson pointed out that Fairview Southdale has a higher than average occupancy rate and it is their mope that this addition will be help maintain that high level of occupancy. lie added the occupancy rate runs at around 6i percent and indicated the trend for shorter stays and reached the bottom side of the trend and some stays are increasing. mr. Skagerberg asked hospital start to clarity it the present power tacility would be able to service the new medical ottice building and ramp. :fir. i:urk Hamann, Director of Building and Grounds for Fairview Southdale Campus said at this time the power plant has excess boiler capacity and chiller capacity. Mr. Krolick asked mr. Hamann it the power plant burned PCB's., 1V�ir. Hamann answered that they do not burn PCB's. sirs. •;cClelland recommended that it the public has a concern that the power plant may poise a health problem they should report it to the City Health Otticer, �mr. David Velde. i•irs. icClelland said she is very concerned with the trattic issue and overbuilding on the site. Mrs. Paulus, Mr. Johnson, and ^Ir. Sked expressed agreement that overbuilding may occur on the site as a result of this proposal. Mrs. �imcClelland continued adding that she would like to Lind out it the private road Colony Way is being used by hospital start. She stressed trattic is a major concern and the projected increase of 20 percent in trattic may create impossible conditions at an already congested area. :'ir. Paulus agreed with °firs. McClelland that trattic is a major problem. She added hospital start run double shirts so peak times occur more trequently due to the hospital shift changes. Mr. Paulus said an important concern is public satety. The emissions of automobiles and the ramp itself may poise safety problems. She pointed out it she parked in the ramp at night she would want it to be adequately lighted. She added the lights may impact residents of the Colony. Mr. Robinson said the ramp would be patrolled by security guards and every ettort to ensure satety would be initiated. He added lighting would be constructed to have minimal impact on tenants in the Colony. ms. ;,'tary Alice Reynolds of 6411 Colony Way added she telt their property values would be decreased as a result of this proposal. Mr. Larsen intormed the Commission that the revisions made in the design of the ramp would reduce the variance. mrs. McClelland recommended continuance of this item to the January 7, 1987 Community Development and Planning Commission Meeting to allow additional time to study concerns registered by the residents of the Colony. Mrs. Paulus seconded the motion. Mr. Palmer abstained. All were in tavor. The motion carried. Mr. Robinson asked the Commission it there was a way to proceed with this project to the Council. He was intormed to proceed directly to the Council the Commission would either have to recommend approval or denial. mr. Skagerberg recommended denial based on the variance required to construct anew ottice building and ramp. rIrs. mcClelland seconded the motion. mr. Palmer abstained. 1\11 were in tavor. The motion carried. COMMUNITY DEVELOPKENT AND PLANNING C07MISSION P -86 -5 Lxisting zoning: Request: Refer to: STAFF REPORT DEC MBFR 3 19S6 Fairview Southdale Hospital 6401 France Avenue South Regional medical District Construct freestanding aedical office building. Attached plans, neao frog Douglas Robinson, Barton Aschaan parking and traffic study. The subject property is the caapus of Fairview Southdale Hospital. The caapus contains 13.24 acres and is developed with a 374,000 square foot hospital building, and a 11,459 square foot power plant building. The site contains a total. of 824 parking spaces, 308 of which are contained in a 2 level parking raap located along the easterly boundary of the caapus. The hospital has subaitted a request for final developaent plan approval to construct a new aedical office building with a Gross Floor Area of 84,240 square feet. Zedical office buildings are a peraitted use in the Regional Medical District. The- building would be located north of the hospital in an area which is now utilized for surface parking. The building would be 5 stories high and would be connected to the hospital by tunnel.. Parking to support the office building and to replace existing parking lost to construction would be provided by.adding a third level to the existing rain and by adding a new, 4 level raap to the north of the existing raap. Total on- caapus parking woul-6 increase frog its present 824 spaces to 1,345 spaces. The new office building would be allocated 492 spaces and hospital parking would increase to 553 spaces. The proposed office building would have an exterior of reflective glass panels and prefinished aetal. The proposed aaterials confora to zoning ordinance requireaents. The attached aeao frog Douglas Robinson, adainistrator of Fairview Southdale provides inforaation relative to existing conditions and the proposed iaproveaents. she inforaation provided appears to be accurate except for eaployee count. The eaployee count of 350 appears to be an average of the 3, 8 hour shifts. According to the Barton Aschaan, study the gajor shift consists of 433 eaployees. The Zoning Ordinance refers to the nuaber of eaployees on the aajor shift when deters indng parking degand. Them are several issue areas that warrant Coaaissicn review relative to the proposed development and the overall iapact on the caapus and surrounding streets and properties. A brief discussion of each follows: Building Setbacks The Regional Vedical District requires that buildings provide a ainiaua setback frog streets of 35 feet, or the height of the building whichever is :treater. The proposed office building coaplies with this requireaent. The hospital building aaintains a non - conforming setback of approxiaately 25 feet along West 665th Street. Variances have been granted in the past to continue this setback. Parking Setbacks The Ordinance requires that parking and drive aisles aaintain a 20 foot .setback from any street right- of -way. `_;on- conforming parking setbacks occur along the :-pest 65th Street, Prance Avenue, and County Road 62 rights -of -way. The non - conforming setbacks for the parking areas west of the hospital are proposed to regain. The non - conforming surface parking which encroaches on the Crosstown right -of -way in the northeasterly portion of the caapus would be rezoved by the new raap. The Crdinance requires that accessory parking structures provide a ainiaua setback of 20 feet or the height of the structure frog any interior property line. The existing raap conforas. However, following the expansion of the raap its height would range between 25 and 31 feet. Thus a variance is requested. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The Ordinance allows a PAR of 1.0 in the Regional medical District. Currently the 7AR for the caapus is approxigatel.y .65. Following the addition of the office building the .`'yR will increase to 0.79. The Power Plant building and parking rasps are not included in F=AR calculations. Landscaping T'ne Ordinance requires that all parking areas located within 50 feet of a street be screened to a height of 4 feet. Less than adequate screening, exists around the westerly parking lot. The proposed plan would provide the required screening adjacent to the -,:est 65th Street and France Avenue rights -of -way. However, the proposed screening has riot been extended to areas adjacent to the Crosstown highway right of way. Parking The Ordinance requirerrent.for a _ edical office building is based on 5 spaces per thousand square feet plus one space per doctor. This results in a requirement of 492 spaces for the proposed building. According to information provided 492 spaces will be allocated to the building. The Ordinance requires 1 space per bed plus one space per employee or volunteer on the major shift for hospitals. The hospital. contains 390 licensed beds and has 4301 employees on the major shift resulting in a parking requirement of 820 spaces. Following construction of the new parking facilities 853 spaces would be allocated to the hospital. :,'he Parking and Traffic '?nalysis prepared by Barton Aschrran calculates a demand of 810 spaces for the hospital and approximately 380 spaces for the office building. Traffic In support of their request the hospital has submitted a traffic analysis which concludes that the existing traffic situation will not be aggravated by the additional traffic generated by the medical office building. The report does note, however, that sporadic queuing does occur at the on -rani frorr north bound France Avenue to eastbound Crosstown Highway. Recorrm end ation Parking: At a recent hearing before the Board of Appeals considering an addition to the Sarre Day Surgery --enter, a parking derrand of 859 spaces was established for the campus. This higher number is the result of the changing function of the hospital, i.e. rrore out - patient, clinic type uses and less in- patient use. This trend will probably continue. The Barton Asch:ran Parking study concludes that the hospital generates a parking derrand of 810 spaces. Their parking surveys indicate at least 52 vacant spaces at the peak tirres. Notwithstanding these conclusions, staff feels the hospital is at or nearly at it parking capacity. The proposal will provide a net increase of 29 spaces, to a total of 853 spaces. This should be sufficient for current conditions but this rray change as the hospital changes the way it delivers services to the coarrunity. The proposed rredical office building provides parking that conforms to Ordinance re7uirerrents. Based on the Barton Aschman study of Southdale ,'edical Office uuilding, the new Fairview ''edical Office building will need 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of floor area or approxiaately 380 spaces. The proposed allocation of 492 spaces should be adequate. In addition it could provide a cushion for the hospital deaand. -raffic: :'he i'raffic Study concludes that tho addition of the aedical office building to the Fairview Caapus would cause "...no significant change in the level of service" at the intersection. of 65th Street and France Avenue. The report does note congestion on the Crosstown on- raaps, especially north round France to east bound Crosstown in the afternoon peak hours. The report suggests that this gueuing problea aay increase, but would not be significant due to its short duration. Staff regains concerned about potential congestion i -n the area. The increased traffic aay require new or additional traffic control neasures in the area. A traffic signal Lray be warranted at 65th and Drew Avenue, the easterly entrance to the caapus. Additional stripping, lane delineation, or iaproveaents to 65th Street aay be needed. Staff recoaaends that the hospital. participate to a large degree in the cost of these iaprove7ents. Eighty percent of the parking and all eaergency vehicles will use the easterly entrance. The entrance as proposed is only a two -lane, 24 foot wide curb cut. Staff believes that this entrance should be redesigned and enlarged. Landscaping and Screening: Staff's gain concern here is the screening of the westerly parking area. The proposed screening is acceptable, but should extend to screen the lot fro;r the Crosstown on -raap. -he landscape plan should be .subject to final staff approval prior to issuance of the building perait. Landscaping is proposed on County right -of -way. This is subject to Hennepin County approval. Setback Variance for Parking Raap: The proposal requests a variance to continue the setback provided for the existing raap. This is necessary to efficiently provide the required aaount of parking. Adjacent to the raap, on Colony property, is a row of parking, a two way drive aisle and then buildings. Distance frog the raap to the closest building is approxiaately 60 feet. Landscaping aaterials substantially larger than the Ordinance requires is proposed along the east side of the new raap. Existing plant aateria.ls would be retained adjacent to the old raap. The raap could be designed to reet Ordinance setback requirements by stepping back the upper two levels. This would not significantly reduce tie iapact of the structure on the Colony. It would, however, have a significant iapact on the function and capacity of the raRp. Additional efforts should be wade to screen the lot frog the Colony as a condition to this variance. Staff reconRends approval of the variance. 0 -! .C. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Craig Larsen, City Planner l vJn` SUBJECT: Fairview Southdale Hospital proposal DATE: December 15, 1986 Attached is a graphic which illustrates the elimination of the setback variance for the parking ramp along the easterly property line, adjacent to the Colony. The variance has been eliminated by raising the ground elevation along the length of the ramp.. The variance adjacent to the Crosstown right of way (approximately 7 feet) remains as initially proposed. FAIRVIEW MEDICAL O P P I C A BDILDIRG • d 1 a • mlaauol• 0 JANES M �CXMMNEF7AAN � m .. W G14T 65TM 5TRE6T ,!j%T.M %o NiM6'OeY. KrOfll O.ttlR. �I.Oa10 Mld�p . �.O m OIL w.n Two w/Y MME Me i91 : ��q0 yr IM QTY q- 1� q�qw a� e T. Pnald�QylM A11slMa .�. nntwp wiranw OOH bgK�D• Dill' IIIIII 0111111 0IIII 011111 N111 OVI'II'I Y� �A rill 13 rl c ■ IC A o uq� p � a w b w w V A 0.O• LEGEND GFwar ic, o►uinwcE. MlD unur FLAN 8A IIB Ott itL b ! iC■ DIIILDI Nklc—i • d 1 ■ m, missal PlIvInt Rfintorini Plant Material NOTES, KEY 41 X T TYPICAL EVERGREEN DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL .-k GROUND COVER PLANTING DETAIL sm 'o O ALL W� m 68TH 87. O 01 1 10! I Eli A 1 ... 43 a od in U • Wpm X fr =-1rf fad 0 0 � e.r 011111 ouu� �IIIII 01111 19,111 G11111 ll ait', .404 go m ; V A � A a tea- x B O1 • tea_ aaa a0• i r. - - - - I L T I I 1 4. Tin" -1 f IN rm ou en .40's 44 M; gmw 0 ri ~_---_' show .,.. , oil! nil I Y� — II a �Ao uq� q�+a sae al w ;;tea � W d U.09 MI-81-s ..... .. •�YT• � of it s . \a I •t \.. 0 !. T l,l• 4 1 i.. �j e Q .400 14 m; uQ� p•+e xwB X07■ ;;tea a 16' b o. d a0. LO no Fairview 6401 France AventieSmith Douglas V. Robinson Southdale Hospital Fdipta AIRY 55435 Vice President and 612-924-5000 Administrator A Division of Fairviety Fax 612 -924-5012 Date: November 21, 1986 Memo To: Mr. Craig Larson Director of Planning, City of Edina From: Douglas N. Robinson U. 1� Vice President & Administrator, Fairview Southdale Hospital Subject: Fairvia,7 Southdale Physician Office Building - Fairview Southdale Campus The following information is being submitted to supplement the application for final Development Plan for the Fairview Southdale Physician Office Building. FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL DATA ° Land Area 13.24 acres ° Gross Floor Area - Hospital 374,000 sq.ft. ° Gross Floor Area - Power Plant 11,469 sq.ft. ° Beds 390 ° IIrployees per shift 350 ° Existing Parking 824 PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ° Gross Floor Area 76,620 sq.ft. 5 story - Base Building ° Basement 15,324 sq.ft. ° Total Gross Floor Area 91,944 sq.ft. The proposed building is to be constructed with a 4 -level parking ramp - - one- level sub grade and 3- levels above grade. This ramp will be attached to the existing 2 -level parking ramp and one -level of parking will be added to the existing ramp. -2- PROPOSED PARKING Spaces ° New Ramp (4- level) 616 ° One additional level - existing ramp 182 ° On -Site emergency parking 8 ° Total new parking 806 ° Less: Displaced parking (285) ° Net increase 521 RI)QUIRED PARKING - MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING Spaces ° Gross Floor area (including basement) 91,944 sq.ft. ° Less stairwells, elevators Nyechanicals & electrical area 7,704 sq.ft. ° Adjusted gross floor area Q 5/1,000 GSF) 84,240 sq.ft. 421 ° Physician parking Q 1 /phys.) 71 ° Total additional parking required 492 PARKING SUbR = • Existing hospital parking 824 • Total new parking 806 Sub -total 1,630 • Less displaced parking (285) • Medical office building parking (492) • Resulting hospital parking 853 The above analysis shows an increase of 29 spaces for hospital parking. We feel this should provide adequate parking to meet visitor and patient needs. Our plans for parking during construction are found on the attached two pages. Please refer to them as needed. DR:pb attachments FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT TEMPORARY PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR HOSPITAL STAFF CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Phase 1: Add third level to existing parking ramp with speed ramp access. Completion time: 1 -2 months. Parking spaces "lost" during phase 1 construction: 150. Options to replace 150 parking spaces: 1) Lease-150 spaces from neighboring office buildings on 65th /66th streets. 2) Lease 150 spaces from City of Edina municipal swimming pool parking lot (L. Cornelia Park) and provide shuttle service to the hospital. 3) Lease 150 spaces from Grace Church of Edina and provide shuttle service to the hospital. Phase 2: Begin construction of new Medical Office Building and 4 -level parking ramp. Completion time (ramp): 6 -8 months. Parking spaces "lost" during phase 2 construction (270 - 150 spaces added in existing ramp): 120. Options to replace 120 parking spaces: 1) Lease 120 spaces from neighboring office buildings on 65th /66th streets. 2) Lease 120 spaces from City of Edina municipal swimming pool parking lot (L. Cornelia Park) and provide shuttle service to the hospital. 3) Lease 120 spaces from Grace Church of Edina and provide shuttle service to the hospital. 4) Possible incremental occupancy of new parking ramp. 4 PAGE TWO ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE Phase IA: Begin construction of Meaical Orrice Builaing only. Completion time: 1U -12 months. Parking spaces "lost" during phase lA construction (continue to use east halt of N.E. surrace lot, approximately 12U spaces): 150. Options to replace 150 spaces: same as Phase 1. Phncc IA- Begin construction of new 4 -level parking ramp (phase lA start plus 4 -6 months). Completion time: 6 -8 months. Parking spaces "lost" during phase 2A construction: 120. Options to replace 120 additional spaces: same as Phase 2. Phase 3A: Add third level to existing parking ramp with speed ramp access scheduled to complete with 4th level of new parking ramp. Completion time: 1 -2 months. Parking spaces "lost" during phase 3A construction (second level of existing ramp): 150. The 150 "lost" spaces during phase 3A would be met in the newly completed M.O.B. parking ramp. VK 10/22/86 .r Barton- Aschrnan Associates, Inc. 1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 October 28, 3.986 Mr. Vernon A. 10mtson Director of Facilities Fairview Comm zdt:y Hospitals 2312 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 Re: Estimated Traffic Generation for Proposed Development at Fairview Southdale Hospital Dear Mr. IOutscn: 612 - 332 -0421 In accordance with your telephone conversation with John Mullan, and my recent communication with Mr. Craig Larsen, Director of City of Edina Planning, it is understood that the City of Edina desires a projection on traffic generation for proposed Fairview Southdale Hospital development as indicated in the parking and traffic study prepared for Fairview Southdale by Barton- Aschman. Traffic generation data for medical facilities (hospitals, clinics or medical office buildings) is very sketchy both nationwide, and within this Minneapolis /St. Paul metropolitan region. Consequently, trip generation data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual may not be representative of the actual trip generation characteristics for a medical facility in the Southdale area. Analysis of the data collected as a part of the Fairview Southdale Hospital traffic and parking study confirms that the ITE trip generation data is not representative. It appears that the ITE trip generation factors are substantially higher than those we actually observed at the Southdale Medical Office Building complex. Methodology for Estimating Traffic Generation As part of the Fairview Southdale Hospital traffic study, Barton - Aschman counted all of the vehicular traffic entering and exiting the Southdale Medical Office Building area on West 65th . Street between the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. on December 4 and 5, 1985. Subsequent observations indicate that the Southdale Medical Office Building, complex traffic characteristics are similar to Fairview Southdale Hospital in that the majority of the people entering and exiting come from and go to the north primarily to Hennepin County Crosstown Highway 62 and further that approximately 75 percent of the total ingress and egress to the complex is via West 65th Street. The Southdale Medical Office Building is 215,000 0 Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. Page 2 gross square feet. For purposes of developing trip generation rates for the Southdale Medical Office complex, it was assumed that the medical clinics and office buildings located east of the Southdale Medical Office Building along Drew Avenue South are approximately 15,000 gross square feet. Based on the observed ingress and egress traffic for the Southdale Medical Office Building complex and on the gross square footages of the buildings involved as indicated, a series of trip generation factors for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the Southdale Medical Office Building and rush hours on France Avenue south were developed. These trip generation factors were then applied to the proposed Fairview Southdale Hospital Medical Office Building and outpatient clinic development to determine an estimated traffic generation by the facilities. It was assumed that the observed trip generation factors at the Southdale Medical Office Building complex would apply directly to the proposed Fairview Southdale Hospital development. The estimated new traffic generation from the Fairview Southdale Hospital development is indicated on the attachment to this letter. Conclusion If all of the new traffic generated by the proposed Fairview Southdale Hospital Medical Office Building and outpatient clinic development were imposed on the intersection of France Avenue South and West 65th Street with today's traffic volumes, there would be no significant change in the existing level of service. Sporadic queueing does occur for northbound France Avenue at the on -ramp to Hennepin County Highway 62 due to lack of capacity through the ramp metering device and for the northbound left turn onto Hennepin County Highway 62 due to lack of capacity of the signal at that intersection to accommodate left turns. It is assumed that the traffic characteristics for a new medical office facility on the Fairview Southdale Hospital campus would be the same as the existing Fairview Southdale Hospital with the majority of the traffic entering from and exiting to the north. Thus, there is potential for increased queueing at the northbound ramp intersection. However, that queueing is of short duration and the impact would not be considered to be significant. Please contact me if further information or clarification is required on this estimated traffic generation matter. MR.E. Senior Associate EFT: jkc Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. ESTIMATED TRAFFIC GENERATION FOR PROPOSED FAIRVIEW SOUMMAIE HOSPT'T'AT • DEVELOPMENT' 1. Medical Office Building - 75,000 GSF Time Trips Generated Enter Exit A.M. Peak Hour (France Avenue) 35 8 P.M. Peak Hour (France Avenue) 80 82 A.M. Peak Hour (Fairview MOB) 107 104 P.M. Peak Hour (Fairview MOB) 107 85 2. Radiation Therapy Unit (Existing) - 4,200 GSF Time Trips Generated Enter Exit A.M. Peak Hour (France Avenue) 2 1 P.M. Peak Hour (France Avenue) 4 5 A.M. Peak Hour (Radiation Facility) 6 6 P.M. Peak Hour (Radiation Facility) 6 5 3. Special Treatment Facility - 30,000 GSF Time Trips Generated Enter Exit A.M. Peak Hour (France Avenue) 14 3 P.M. Peak Hour (France Avenue) 32 33 A.M. Peak Hour (Special Treatment Facility) 43 42 P.M. Peak Hour (Special Treatment Facility) 43 34 ir4a! +r 1 'wY,7 ph Lli'SprrJ h�I�L' 2- (y aI 4 N_,..1 n Ij I, Ll j Y I F7 �t,cii �ti -d 1' r 7 + i' Tyr' }I •ii -9'�j }'NIL ,pliF ':t1Y'. ijll elF• .191 .1191, �1) it rE�tP'rtr vl lllti'45.p�JL { Ir� `r' Mum r`. 41 til l! :ii• r l_�'. k,� .Lr 4_ IIS E I i, '"'t' Yrt f. - •r { 91 l J ,ll�.�l Fyr13 J'ICF SitlEt2P'i'fr,E'r - _�iI 4� �r 1�� r!'r- l��Ij+ri Aj1 i j t� f I" ' + i tit +tLd h ,r 1 h rI. 1 r,H� 4f 1 -k1 '! t 1 1. I II [ �' F l [`+r r ti -. Tl r rl' I, j il'! r ,t,r fi, 4� M ; 1 r'� I,sy `. L,'1 `r I h t, ' -k t- � a f ry. t t . r f • 11 1 ,IIR yslal~ �` SI. s li -1 L y II .! L} I I lk. }, , L }' i 14 • E r I 1, - M I �ep ~' 7 pn �1 LITi j.{ y, R. 1 li I:i�' 1 id tvi C H• F•1 [. II 7 -. u, It ?� .n i l ti i .h�4S°�•� VIII C• r Ij `...�: r�� w4� f'{ - 1 p t J2• + d 'I l �'. r i` 1t - I} _:•117' kl n1�j i Y (;� S L I rl. '� f' I'j b tit �'f 7 ti• 1 r SJ y 4- ' t J + 7 n} �rrlunl�i; 71 4t flr l al �r 7;�a�'E yci L� F , f I,�tii�r 4i. iitij ,I:c r [ r: 5�.c �rVl h i } 1 . L `, Iti . i I rni L- I 1 }'. i1 i Y r ❑t 1 # t. ti ;!'iysy,r } tT , r J _ -is' r . Tt..r ' 11 l d 2 1 I J 2 a L:r ,� ,r11 Ylr tilt �Ld ?. 11:.`�'Qf,." t h +ra' 1...{' t' aJ:�y I ;t d' 1�. �aht1 3'��• t I 1 ...I >'t '�+ hi tl r fI Now I I a Z ! (,}taY ' +.i' ,.�c2 'J1"' y °ra �"P �'. k_v �T +'r•" f� { �• y, ' H.6 ,rr.V_� , .,•A �f fit ' n y rK iw I'eu 12 rl 2u lIl It2124 rJlr 11 �' 2 laiVr• �S 1 tK i rti P { It �.r,' Ii. J � '�' - _. IE-D rr4.L��. It'•S 1 Rdti�.r Gl nhl F. lrl i.'r d`I b'. 1 Ip f.- ..'r�,�fi(.h �i9t� et 1' r 1 , edl1 � r�, 1i'4 �'dsl �!!-i u,.ki f�F h +ll`�r yrttr �'J `ti J,J�, 'hell rn h �' -er 1 fl y f+ , 9i I ; +,{ 1 �I - r4 i. PiI j ,."" p, -�t ril N ,If - I I� h I f 2 641i: crrt� iIIY�.,tJ�6 ki �' } T I! j6_vy- a}b 11..J .r""� ref , I�yy.•�„ . °bT:n,•..'�•'{11�' Ilfl.n��i:9 +;1:�>!�a 5 _T trr 1 h S,N r{,�1'' :v '�rr''r I I Li.1 I�7L') Jyl'i� tit? It: 71 ttl ' +'.+ifk l'1• l' t:r aq—. i+ R7�r. 7 $?L J1y5jy -y.t� .lC2 T,�•u�l}�lii[C>r AiCnllr.t.��! 4:{ tiw 7'il:.ati< ,y L_..� �h �y tuS .J ,.6•w.,Wi:.7. B% al�n;4A 11�.'.'l ?si'h> 1� Jrl : i-iarl i J :t 4 sl t� :t.'nE J Ii . 1' t_ , n • _1. `', • �my Y 'iF'�7Ci�i�dt It+ :iPr,S ;I 2 �i 1 , I- +�t1if5'1fL' !'; , �''ic! 'S°. rP, }�I'iF -�•;,��. ^r p'I.i,9Tit.Ri T i" -t' : 7 •r - - - • t •. v 1. ,;�i6�.y� . �.,.t�i '.IP+ Y I �:rtn.. �,_ I!rl r :y, I2 II .' cal;ilFr 1 ?.f h +.�!i gimpF.z,l,ri Jr ..�i:y, r i M It191 cow I r I.,f P �. t Ir I 1 k' 7 k r r i, `t v vq i, b kjit, l l a �T S 4, .* ► In 1� M, . ��.ilC %�,Y y •., t �e j5r Y '. 1.4 v. 1 �2,.� li :lr� 6 t 2 ti- rti.. ! t''rli 2 i nl ...s ( h I�dl b tx.J2,.. i'1'�` jM y llil :nt h. rt q j r 'YI:Y'IvT.' 1" 3'Q• I p)fa. Mae k myna _ Iir o,L li L J 11�' F'� Ia �u.ali.2� Jl.L �: 7'yry ut lJ . 21;127'L �I I I Ytj F�:` t��� ti i r � l i �Cf r h i lyl1^�!;' F�.'';.I� t, �:l� fjf. .M.l�� Irr �4• �!�:.Il 5 1 3`f' �r� J: �,41, ! R j j in t' t .�a {:t,,.' l+J_L `L °�hl[SJ' 8.u.ti 4.'�I N4i rti ��i�7j7 2 ,f��. J C !I CIHh�i tit ,nl �r.Tt�J;�; { 71- ai i •Ii'y JStc' .I I.j e:. v l'xtlfery n: ��' �i1�.F "rPl IRS � 1 °r 9 `` �."':�1 tR r1 [b y i!r Ii �11r r -+ d f'r' 1'f.4 1, d -r,e. yhl .:•drl Fl i('Z`zi l3^J.r Il t'iM'ti +�h {i+..ar{� 1 ,f �`, Y u r t. 1J Tali k •� �'� 8 '' I.' �1,� ". 110117 - 41 Y,', 22! i�1 ' r i � �il i1 f 2 I � .,' � jjjllll���, u ��� • ���a�' 1� �1'E�.� �•11�nr�r�>i � .f' d �� i Y,', !� ®'i 1� -Ili E!•g!ii,,,tlR%'.�,t,��.4�^r_... rr•% �';1 �!^w�. >Rf�L s y.;ir,r' np't..l %r �, �J,i.Oi1 i'r Fi.[fi� �r�.1.hi9, .5� :1 ifi�,'.�'�l?L'in�.'2.. I +�fi Ua }.IIC } I! �I -.� p�;•J,I ant a.� "tir{'. :Z�.I d, ;',1�,. -;i. f.. �rY.;iln ,i.r �11 II'.J it , 1: Ar Ne k1y 1{211 .b1 / I r 01 �ilp 1'Tar r�4 R+. -A h i . ' ''•r!rtl ':IL F _I Bic �'ih'E}.. ��((t; j�rti� rglaLl�. I �I��J: �'�:4� ;h. t) l'734'h'r -y'rt' f �- i�lf�il -� t r e sf•[IST 1; MJ.1 q ! t "r` r � - rti! J re.l •cx,l ?;�� %'..t'I:i ! 1 dh A: ,f4; 1 }t �• r IY.I�if• 1 � '• dA , ,u J # a > � �- � A r Y 4 -. '-. tl . a 1 r ,y , t y : � f. �. >- , f J r it e..• .•,1� 41f 1• ��P���jjy(((��� rel.�� �..._.,P4�2'l.i- .r_.>... Frl"_ - -�,I �..!�,._ „I .. ., ,._._ _ . JI i.a,;..i,ri49G ",r _i.v;,�' - -- ,rk .. r 7 "�Jawi.du.rxi r 9 ,. _. tM� _ L._-s! .ccw�.tik.�dtm.h..• . u.:.',y,� i •r YF ( -. � r v r ,^•'T °CR �••r I+n ar"..:. rr.T.. -u .]c- t,! _.f. ...a,.t # k. Ji. JaISiti W ht' ?'ll!y r.Ji �i.9' a �-Y t� 2 4ii•f. L�"'J�9 �.'�I;g, _. �r,- T'iT`v"• f .} 9�•Tr+ iiy -•`�' iY pr�lJurJ F F s� '?i j r t}rI i.r 1 7! a 1: rr Ust d- sl � !I fil � p .r- 11 +' p� s 'Fy6 r {}� � �. r •t j 4 t, I t , u6 Ja �F •"ri'il i'l v- JiC T7Si 5�, +- '�� T. ,�I�' 1-.{i� Rr•1, iT: t^,I.�J• t�7�' �µY FIM 'n2Y' 1 a %t k3 r Jut 22 pt gI F asr q 1 r r a aI tit` 1 •.. ! e4. i :� i -; f k �1L,1 ruf a'i tiit w.a ti}'�i' ''r`�� -f��,} -�F err d d ,. j i 4 a� � c � .fir � * l' -,..,r Hi r 'r.1 i' ' 1! r •. `• Y•rs'I .F r Y .5 y- �+,u g(« 2-•lyf�J ' " I ,', t r h r+G Y Vii, � 6 - i r - i -- - r p -z f"'t y r a h t .L rx.� 1 i'�i -'' y ���, -Y r r >, 4 !� s r♦ a t; . bk� � i v l ;' r I I r, � t -�/'9• r 9 d fir” I� t i,i', 1 t�:r •�''"" u 1 r FY�•n ,�����t�'r 4K � Y��t f r�'. h�j7Y �i �S 'r '^ >' f�9 t Y 1 Xtid.j. A d ai' 9 5f L♦- I Y i� ,...� 4{ }. _+ r Y 1 r if J. ^ik1 r�4 Yc- Oar ;�r•�, A�s�}�Y li'''&7adf?-r_''3 .if'�-sl ►`. FS.'i�'Y�' •ha, rC *7ra"a..� I f I I I L 12 FARMEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL PARKING AND TRAFFIC STUDY Prepared by: Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. September 1986 i i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Parking and Traffic Findings and Conclusions III. Project Overview IV. Existing Baseline Conditions V. Parking Requirements for the Proposed Fairview Southdale Hospital Development Plan VI. Transit Service VII. Medical Office Building Parking Concepts APPENDIX A. Existing Traffic Volume B. City of Edina Requirements C. Parking Expansion and Configuration Page 1 2 5 9 20 23 24 33 42 44 �r f i i TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Parking and Traffic Findings and Conclusions III. Project Overview IV. Existing Baseline Conditions V. Parking Requirements for the Proposed Fairview Southdale Hospital Development Plan VI. Transit Service VII. Medical Office Building Parking Concepts APPENDIX A. Existing Traffic Volume B. City of Edina Requirements C. Parking Expansion and Configuration Page 1 2 5 9 20 23 24 33 42 44 �I f f I i i i i LIST OF TABLES 1 Fairview Southdale Hospital Existing Parking Space Inventory 2 Total Hourly Parking Accumulation (All Lots and Ramps) Fairview Southdale Hospital 3 Hourly Parking Accumulation - Parking Ramp Fairview Southdale Hospital 4 Hourly Parking Accumulation - Northeast Lot Fairview Southdale Hospital 5 Hourly Parking Accumulation - Emergency Lot Fairview Southdale Hospital 6 Hourly Parking Accumulation - Receiving Dock Fairview Southdale Hospital 7 Hourly Parking Accumulation - Northwest Lot Fairview Southdale Hospital 8 Hourly Parking Accumulation - Doctors Lot Fairview Southdale Hospital 9 Total Medical Office Building Parking Accumulation (Lots and Ramps) - Thursday, December 12, 1985 10 Total Medical Office Building Parking Accumulation (Lots and Ramps) - Tuesday, May 6, 1986 11 Total Medical Office Building Parking Accumulation (Lots) - Tuesday, May 6, 1986 12 Current Peak Hospital Parking Space Requirements Paqe 9 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 15 16 16 19 r r 0 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Existing Parking Layout 2 Parking Ramp 1 Concept A - Expanded View 3 Parking Ramp 1 Concept B - Expanded View 4 Parking Ramp 2 - Site Layout 5 Surface Lot 2A - Site Layout 6 Parking Ramp 3 - Site Layout Appendix Al Hospital and 65th Street Traffic A2 Total Entering /Exiting Hospital Traffic - 65th Street A3 Southdale Medical Office Building (MOB) Traffic - 65th Street A4 Total MOB Entry /Exit Traffic A5 Peak Hour Hospital Traffic A6 Peak Hour MOB Traffic A7 France Avenue South and 65th Street Traffic C1 Parking Concept A C2 Parking Concept B C3 Parking Concept C C4 Parking Concept D C5 Parking Concept E C6 Parking Concept F Paqe 10 25 27 29 30 32 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 46 47 48 49 50 51 ` I. INTRODUCTION In 1965, Fairview Southdale Hospital opened at its present location on the southeast corner of France Avenue South and Hennepin County Highway 62. Community medical needs and delivery of hospital services have changed substantially during the past twenty years. Fairview Southdale is currently constructing a radiation therapy facility and has converted some hospital facilities to provide improved out - patient services. The hospital is contemplating selective expansion in out - patient care in the next ten years utilizing state -of- the -art, specialized treatment facilities and equipment. It is also developing plans and g implementation programs to meet the demand for medical office facilities located close to the hospital. Meanwhile, during the twenty year period, adjacent and residential communities have continued to expand. The Southdale retail and commercial district has grown to be one of the highest dollar volume retail districts in the State of Minnesota. France Avenue South and County Highway 62 traffic volumes have doubled and the area along France Avenue, from County Highway 62 to the Interstate Route 494, is one of the most developable areas in the State of Minnesota. Fairview Southdale is in the process of developing a ten year plan designed to meet the changing medical service demands and to keep pace with a changing economy and the expanding development in the area. A first step in developing this ten year master plan is to establish baseline conditions for existing parking demand and supply, trip generation, and access street traffic volume levels. The second step in developing this master plan is to determine the capacity of the Fairview Southdale Hospital campus to meet the traffic and parking demands for future out - patient facilities and a proposed medical office building. Barton - Aschman was retained to assist the hospital staff in these tasks. I H. PARKING AND TRAFFIC FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Existing Parking, Fairview Southdale Hospital 1. The total parking space supply is 824 spaces. . 2. The total calculated peak parking demand for all existing activities is 810 spaces. 3. The peak parking occupancy occurred at 1:30 P.M. with 772 spaces occupied (94 percent full). 4. A 1978 parking study of the Fairview Southdale Hospital Campus indicated that the peak parking occupancy was 93 percent full at 3:30 P.M. 5. The northeast parking lot peak parking occupancy also occurred at 1:30 P.M. with 290 spaces occupied (full). B. Existing Parking, Southdale Medical Office Building 1. Owners of the Southdale Medical Office Building indicate that they currently have 1,300 parking spaces available. Space studies in May 1986 indicate 1,152 usable parking spaces. 2. In December 1985, the Southdale Medical Office Building parking occupancy peaked at 11:30 A.M. with 919 vehicles (80 percent full), and again at 3:30 P.M. with 795 spaces occupied. In May, 918 spaces (80 percent) were used during the peak period. 3. The observed peak parking demand generated by the Southdale Medical Office Building is 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of building area. 4. Southdale Medical Office Building peak parking occupancy, observed in the 1978 Fairview Southdale Hospital Study, was 748 spaces occupied during the period 3:00 to 4 :00 P.M. C. Existing Traffic, Fairview Southdale Hospital 1. The hospital peak traffic hour (entry plus exit movements) is 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. with a total of 492 vehicles. 2. The hospital peak hour for entry traffic is 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. with 240 vehicles. 3. The hospital peak hour for exit traffic is 3:00 to 4 :00 P.M. with 304 vehicles. However, the 4:00 to 5:00 P.M. period for exit is almost as heavy at 296 vehicles. 4. The hospital entry traffic peaks three times per day: 8:00 to 9:00 A.M. (260 vehicles); 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. (240 vehicles); and 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. (180 vehicles). 5. The hospital west entrance is the primary means of access with total vehicular movements outnumbering east entrance movements by two to one. E r I H. PARKING AND TRAFFIC FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A. Existing Parking, Fairview Southdale Hospital 1. The total parking space supply is 824 spaces. . 2. The total calculated peak parking demand for all existing activities is 810 spaces. 3. The peak parking occupancy occurred at 1:30 P.M. with 772 spaces occupied (94 percent full). 4. A 1978 parking study of the Fairview Southdale Hospital Campus indicated that the peak parking occupancy was 93 percent full at 3:30 P.M. 5. The northeast parking lot peak parking occupancy also occurred at 1:30 P.M. with 290 spaces occupied (full). B. Existing Parking, Southdale Medical Office Building 1. Owners of the Southdale Medical Office Building indicate that they currently have 1,300 parking spaces available. Space studies in May 1986 indicate 1,152 usable parking spaces. 2. In December 1985, the Southdale Medical Office Building parking occupancy peaked at 11:30 A.M. with 919 vehicles (80 percent full), and again at 3:30 P.M. with 795 spaces occupied. In May, 918 spaces (80 percent) were used during the peak period. 3. The observed peak parking demand generated by the Southdale Medical Office Building is 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of building area. 4. Southdale Medical Office Building peak parking occupancy, observed in the 1978 Fairview Southdale Hospital Study, was 748 spaces occupied during the period 3:00 to 4 :00 P.M. C. Existing Traffic, Fairview Southdale Hospital 1. The hospital peak traffic hour (entry plus exit movements) is 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. with a total of 492 vehicles. 2. The hospital peak hour for entry traffic is 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. with 240 vehicles. 3. The hospital peak hour for exit traffic is 3:00 to 4 :00 P.M. with 304 vehicles. However, the 4:00 to 5:00 P.M. period for exit is almost as heavy at 296 vehicles. 4. The hospital entry traffic peaks three times per day: 8:00 to 9:00 A.M. (260 vehicles); 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. (240 vehicles); and 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. (180 vehicles). 5. The hospital west entrance is the primary means of access with total vehicular movements outnumbering east entrance movements by two to one. E b f 7 3 3 7 D. Existing Traffic, Southdale Medical Office Building 1. The peak traffic hour (entry plus exit) occurs between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. with 488 vehicles. A second peak occurs at 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. with 468 vehicles. 2.. Entering traffic to the Southdale Medical Office Building peaks at 10:00 to 11:00 A.M. with 264 vehicles and then peaks again at 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. with ! 264 vehicles. 3. The peak hour for exiting traffic is between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. with 256 vehicles. E. Existing Traffic, France Avenue and 65th Street 1. Total traffic volume on 65th Street, France Avenue to west hospital I entrance, peaks at 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. at 996 vehicles. 2. The France Avenue traffic volume peaks during the period 3:00 to 4 :00 P.M. with 1,328 vehicles northbound and 1,100 vehicles southbound. 3. Approximately 75 percent of the total vehicles entering the Fairview Southdale Hospital /Southdale Medical Office Building area come from southbound on France Avenue. This is probably influenced by the proximity and location of Hennepin County Crosstown Highway 62. 4. Approximately 50 percent of France Avenue southbound traffic during the period 2:00 to 5:00 P.M. is destined for the Fairview Southdale Hospital /Southdale Medical Office Building area. Approximately 30 percent of the France Avenue southbound traffic is destined for this area midday. 5. Sixty to 70 percent of all of the traffic on westbound 65th Street at France Avenue makes a right turn (to the north) during the period 3:00 to 5:00 P.M. 6. Approximately 75 percent of all traf l is entering and exiting Fairview Southdale Hospital /Southdale Medical Office Building comes via 65th Street to France Avenue. 7. No capacity problem was observed at the intersection of France Avenue and 65th Street. Some congestion was observed near 5:00 P.M. at the Hennepin County Highway 62 ramp intersections with France Avenue. This congestion was caused primarily by the ramp metering device for the on -ramp to eastbound Hennepin County Highway 62 and by the left turn from northbound France Avenue to westbound Hennepin County Highway 62. F. Fairview Southdale Hospital Future Parking Requirements 1. The existing parking supply is sufficient to accommodate current hospital in- patient and out - patient care and treatment visitors and staff. 2. A 75,000 gross square foot medical office building constructed on the Fairview Campus would require 450 new parking spaces to meet Edina standards of 6.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 338 new parking spaces if E the current Southdale Medical Office Building parking ratios of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet are utilized. r 3. A 50,000 gross square foot treatment facility installed on the Fairview Southdale Hospital Campus would require an additional 300 parking spaces using the City of Edina standards or 225 parking spaces if the existing Southdale Medical Office Building parking ratios are utilized. 4. Total parking space requirements for proposed Fairview Southdale Hospital development would be 824 (existing) plus 450 plus 300, for a total of 1,574 (Edina requirements) or 824 (existing) plus 338 plus 225 totaling 1,387 using Southdale Medical Office Building observed parking ratios. 5. Current visitor parking to Fairview Southdale Hospital is often remote. This situation should be changed by clearly designating convenient visitor parking controlled by charging a nominal fee (25 to 50 cents) for unlimited parking via a coin operated gate. 6. All staff and doctor parking should be designated in covered areas of t structured parking, and entry should be by card provided at a nominal fee of $5.00 per month. 7. A three level parking ramp should be constructed east of the proposed new Medical Office Building to accommodate this new development. This ramp would be most conveniently constructed at a size containing 698 spaces adjacent to and over the existing two level parking structure. 8. A three level parking structure should be constructed on the westerly side of the hospital to accommodate a new out - patient treatment facility. ' That parking facility should be constructed for expansion to a fourth level at a future date. 4 It has been proposed that a medical office building (75,000 gross square foot, 15,000 square foot footprint five stories high) be constructed in the northeasterly section of the cc,npus. This medical office buic�ing would have its own identity. Additional structured parking spaces would be constructed over the existing at -grade and structure parking located on the east side of the campus. This parking structure would serve both facilities and could provide all parking requirements for the medical office building. It is f anticipated that the medical office building would be' connected to both the parking facility and to the Fairview Southdale Hospital by means of climate controlled skyways and /or tunnels. o Out - Patient Care and Treatment Facilities Expansion General out - patient treatment at Fairview Southdale has increased since the 1978 parking study was conducted on the hospital campus. General out- patient volumes could continue to increase in the next ten years if additional facilities were constructed on the east wing of the hospital, although there are no current plans to expand eastside out - patient clinical services. Improved pick -up and drop -off capability would be required at the east entrance if out - patient development does occur. Parking should be 5 i III. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Existing Baseline Conditions The following parking and traffic items were inventoried or surveyed in this study: 1. A physical inventory of Fairview Southdale Hospital parking areas 2. A parking occupancy survey of Fairview Southdale Hospital parking areas _ (December 4 and 5, 1985) 3. A physical inventory of Southdale Medical Office Building parking areas 4. A parking occupancy survey of the Southdale Medical Office Building parking areas on December 12, 1985. 5. A subsequent survey of parking occupancy at the Southdale Medical Office Building on May 6, 1986. 6. Traffic volume surveys at the Fairview Southdale Hospital entrances on West 65th Street (December 4 and 5, 1985) 7. A traffic volume survey at France Avenue South and West 65th Street (December 12, 1985) 8. An inventory of existing traffic volume data collected by the City of Edina and Hennepin County 9. A parking survey at four medical office buildings along Drew Avenue (south and east of the hospital) on May 6, 1986 B. Fairview Southdale Hospital Development Plan The Fairview Southdale Hospital Ten -Year Master Plan includes the following ' possible developments: 1. East Side o Medical Office Building It has been proposed that a medical office building (75,000 gross square foot, 15,000 square foot footprint five stories high) be constructed in the northeasterly section of the cc,npus. This medical office buic�ing would have its own identity. Additional structured parking spaces would be constructed over the existing at -grade and structure parking located on the east side of the campus. This parking structure would serve both facilities and could provide all parking requirements for the medical office building. It is f anticipated that the medical office building would be' connected to both the parking facility and to the Fairview Southdale Hospital by means of climate controlled skyways and /or tunnels. o Out - Patient Care and Treatment Facilities Expansion General out - patient treatment at Fairview Southdale has increased since the 1978 parking study was conducted on the hospital campus. General out- patient volumes could continue to increase in the next ten years if additional facilities were constructed on the east wing of the hospital, although there are no current plans to expand eastside out - patient clinical services. Improved pick -up and drop -off capability would be required at the east entrance if out - patient development does occur. Parking should be 5 i convenient to the east entrance and pedestrian access from the parking area to an out - patient clinic should be climate controlled if possible, via skyway or tunnel. . o Access and Parking System Design Design of the east side access and parking system must avoid conflict with emergency receiving and utility /service facilities in that area. 2. West Side o Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) f A mobile trailer is presently stationed two days per week at Fairview Southdale to provide magnetic resonance imaging diagnostics. This trailer is located on the west side of the building. It is anticipated that the MRI unit will be transferred into a fixed facility of approximately 3,500 gross square feet, accommodating 10 to 12 patient visits per day. o Radiation Therapy Unit A 4,200 gross square foot radiation therapy facility is currently under construction in the southwest corner of the Fairview Southdale Hospital building.. It is expected to accommodate 30 to 50 patient visits per day at full operation. o Specialty Treatment Facility i It is anticipated that an additional specialty out - patient facility could be constructed in the northwest quadrant of the campus in the next 10 years. The size is estimated to be 30,000 gross square feet with a 10,000 square foot footprint expandable to 50,000 gross square feet. The west side development plan will require patient pick -up and drop -off capability as well as construction of a parking facility to accommodate increased parking demands. Pedestrian access from the parking facility to the three out - patient treatment facilities should be convenient and preferably via climate - controlled skyways or tunnels. C. Zoning and Permits There are presently no plans to expand the Fairview Southdale fifteen acre campus. Therefore, all proposed future development must take place on the existing site. The hospital's strong desire to maintain a sense of green open space on the campus and the affects of current zoning standards on the density of the medical complex make site planning for development a matter of vital importance. o Parking requirements Private automobiles are expected to remain the primary mode of transportation to Fairview Southdale Hospital for the next ten years, although Fairview Southdale is interested in making public transit service a viable transportation alternative for employees and patrons. . Additional structured parking facilities on the hospital campus will be required to 0 accommodate increased parking demand. The City of Edina parking requirements as well as projected parking demand are discussed in this report. o Traffic.Generation With the France Avenue South corridor continuing to develop, increased traffic volumes are anticipated on every major roadway in the area. Both access to Fairview Southdale and traffic generation by the hospital are of vital concern and future development permits will include review of traffic generation circulation by the City of Edina. r D. Future Parking Configuration and Operation Currently, much of the visitor parking for the Fairview Southdale Hospital is far from the hospital main entrance. Employee parking frequently takes the most convenient and accessible locations. Development of visitor /out - patient and employee parking strategies and requirements are necessary. Visitor and out- patient parking areas should be conveniently located and, if possible, accessible via climate controlled skyways or tunnels. As proposed out - patient services and medical office building developments are implemented, parking capacity for the Fairview Southdale Campus will have to be expanded. Constructing appropriately located and sized parking structures is one possible solution. This report provides a preliminary analysis of parking structure requirements as well as an analysis of suitable locations for new structures. An important part of the analysis includes evaluation of alternative methods to separate employee, visitor and out - patient parking using devices such as card operated gates, time clock operated gates, and fees for parking. E. Future Fairview Site Access and Circulation A number of issues require review and analysis in considering a Fairview Southdale Hospital ten -year development plan. Those issues are: L1. Development of access to 65th Street from the northeast area of the campus 2. Development of patient pick -up and drop -off areas on the west side of the hospital building 3. Expansion and improvement of patient pick -up and drop -off facilities on the east side of the hospital building 4. East entry conflict with emergency access 5. Improved access to the Fairview Southdale Hospital Campus by public transit 6. Improved signage and delineation for the entire campus 7. Development of paid parking strategies for hospital employees, staff and visitors. 7 0 F. Landscaping Potential It is the hospital's intent to retain as much open space and greenery as possible, giving the appearance of relatively low development density and creating a sense of continuity and coordination on the campus. The proposed medical office building will have its own identity, developed most effectively through its structural design and coordinated appurtenances, but will retain its place in the campus theme. i t r IV EXISTING BASELINE CONDITIONS A. Fairview Southdale Hospital Parking Inventory Fairview Southdale Hospital presently provides parking for 824 . vehicles as shown on. the existing parking layout (Figure 1). The four parking lots plus a two level parking deck provide the following inventory of space: 7 TABLE 1 FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL EXISTING PARKING SPACE INVENTORY Visitors /Employees: Northwest Lot 133 Northeast Lot 271 (Out - Patient 5 i Handicap 6 Open 260) Garage (Upper Level) 154 Receiving Dock 9 (30 Min Limit) Power /Heating Plant (Visitor 4, Reserved 4) 8 Subtotal 575 Emergency, Short Term 14 (Handicap 3) iEmployees(Reserved)/ Garage (Lower Level) 154 Visitors (Reserved 50, Out - Patient 14, Handicap 2, Visitor 88) Doctors(Open at 2:45 P.M.) Southwest Lot 81 Subtotal 249 ITOTAL 824 I B. Fairview Southdale Hospital Parking Occupancy A parking space occupancy survey of all Fairview Southdale Hospital lots and ramps was conducted on Wednesday, December 4 and Thursday, December 5, 1985, three days after a major (19 -inch) snowstorm. Each lot or parking area was counted on an hourly basis from 6 :30 A.M. through 8:30 P.M. (15 hours). The weather was clear and cold. The parking lots were snow covered but plowed. Some parking stalls were inaccessible due to snow storage. Most of the parking space outlines were covered by packed snow. M Figure 1 FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL EXISTING PARKING LAYOUT TOTAL SPACES - 824 luBarton -Aschman Associates, Inc. -- =y LI 133 = Public - 81-:-:p _ \Doctors — �1 - 0 NORTH IF - -? -- _ - - -271- Public = ro—=�� _- Z OI Q UF _ - Upper- Public 154 14- _ _ u Lower- Staff 50 Emergency T-7 _ Outpatient 14 Handicap 3 =- - Y _ Public 88 � _ - Q - Handicap 2 Public 9 (30 ,min, limit) RIC(i \'ING OOCK 10 111 ATING r PLANT • 4 _ = Public 4 MTC Reserved 4 W Bus Shelter w(s, bsii, SIR((f CC 0 M TABLE 3 HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION - PARKING RAMP Heavy demand for parking begins at approximately 9:30 A.M. and extends beyond 2:30 P.M. The highest total accumulation of parked cars was found at 1:30 P.M., a total of 772 vehicles.' The following accumulation characteristics were noted: (Public) TABLE 2 Total I Out- Patient) TOTAL HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION (ALL LOTS AND RAMPS 32 77 CAPACITY 824 SPACES), FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL - 123 Time Visitors/ Emergency Doctors Total 103 237 Employees 136 143 279 6:30 150 1 3 162 11:30 7:30 393 6 42 441 142 8:30 511 10 72 593 155 9:30 609 10 64 683 280 10 :30 655 9 61 725 4:30 11:30 686 11 52 749 48 12:30 673 11. 58 742 81 1:30 703 10 59 772 (Peak) 99 2:30 650 11 60 721 3:30 583 8 78 669 4 :30 417 9 64 490 5:30 342 7 50 399 6:30 291 7 42 340 7:30 324 10 43 377 8:30 310 9 35 354 TABLE 3 HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION - PARKING RAMP (CAPACITY 308 SPACES), FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Upper Level Grade Level Time (Public) (Employees, Public, Total I Out- Patient) L. 6:30 32 77 109 7:30 123 103 226 8:30 134 103 237 9:30 136 143 279 10:30 140 153 293 11:30 138 169 307 12:30 142 158 300 1:30 146 155 301 2:30 129 151 280 3:30 96 156 252 4:30 51 128 179 5:30 48 104 152 6:30 36 81 117 7 :30 33 66 99 8:30 30 69 99 11 F TABLE 4 HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION - NORTHEAST LOT (CAPACITY 271 SPACES), FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Time Visitors/ Employees 6:30 39 7:30 134 8:30 ,178 9:30 218 10:30 246 11:30 261 12:30 266 1:30 290* 2:30 254 3:30 223 4:30 114 5:30 117 6:30 96 7:30 127 8:30 122 * Cars parking in aisles due to snow conditions. j TABLE 5 I HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION - EMERGENCY LOT (CAPACITY 14 SPACES), FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Time Emergency I 6:30 1 7:30 6 8:30 10 9:30 10 10:30 9 11:30 11 12:30 11 1:30 10 2:30 11 3:30 8 4:30 9 5:30 7• 6:30 7 7:30 10 8:30 9 12 J 1- 9 a I TABLE 6 HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION - RECEIVING DOCK (CAPACITY 9 SPACES), FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Time Visitors /Employees 6:30 3 7:30 6 8:30 7 9:30 10 10:30 9 11:30 26 12:30 16 1:30 8 2:30 3 3:30 4 4:30 4 5:30 6 6:30 6 7:30 5 8:30 6 TABLE 7 HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION - NORTHWEST LOT (CAPACITY 133 SPACES) FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Time Visitors/ Employees 6:30 7 :30 8:30 9:30 10:30 11 :30 12:30 1:30 2:30 3:30 4:30 5:30 6:30 7:30 8:30 10 33 96 112 116 118 107 112 116 108 94 73 78 98 89 13 TABLE 8 HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION - DOCTORS LOT (CAPACITY 81 SPACES), FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Time Doctors (Employees /Visitors After 2:45 P.M.) 6:30 3 7:30 42 8:30 72 9:30 64 10:30 61 11:30 52 12:30 58 1:30 59 2:30 60 3:30 78 4 :30 64 5:30 50 6:30 42 7:30 43 8:30 35 Drivers experienced some difficulty in finding parking spaces during the early afternoon hours. Some drivers "circulated the lot" looking for a suitable space. Although spaces were available, the snow packed conditions and covering of. stall boundary lines led to the perception that all public lots were filled. Poor space utilization was particularly evident in the northeast lot where the area's shape created irregular aisles. The doctors lot was busy during both the early morning and afternoon hours as the lot is available for afternoon shift staff parking and visitors after 2:45 P.M. The small emergency lot on the east side was consistently used throughout the day as were the reserved lower level parking deck spaces. The lower level parking deck spaces and northeast lot spaces reserved for outpatient vehicles had good utilization. The handicap spaces on both east and west sides of the hospital had very low utilization. Two public parking areas and the upper level of the deck serve employees, hospital visitors, patients and outpatients. Parking demand for these areas begins after 9:00 A.M. and drops off after 3:OQ P.M. A second peak of parking occurs during the evening visiting hours; however, use is much lower in the evening than the daytime for these lots. C. Southdale Medical Office Building and Drew Avenue Parking Inventory and Occupancy A parking study was also conducted at the Southdale Medical Building, directly south of Fairview Southdale Hospital, on Thursday, December 12, 1985. Hourly parking accumulation was counted from 8 :30 A.M. through 5:30 P.M. to determine the traffic and parking characteristics for this large medical office building. 14 Information provided by the managers of this facility indicate that 1,300 parking spaces are available, 616 in a two level parking deck and 684 spaces on surface parking lots. Actual 'counts of usable on -site parking spaces indicated 308 leased spaces and 844 public ' spaces, a total of 1,152. Peak accumulation of vehicles at this building occurred at 11:30 A.M. when 919 spaces were occupied. Heavy use of ` this facility occurred from 9:30 A.M. until 4 :30 P.M. as shown on the attached { tabulation. TABLE 9 TOTAL HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION (ALL LOTS AND RAMPS) SOUTHDALE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1985) Time Leased Spaces (Lower level of parking deck) Public Spaces Total 8 :30 137 317 454 9:30 190 588 778 10:30 210 706 ( Peak) 916 11:30 224 (Peak) 695 919 (Peak) 12:30 163 483 646 1:30 170 534 704 2:30 181 606 787 3:30 175 620 (Peak) 795 (Peak) 4:30 148 532 680 5:30 54 190 224 A resurvey of the Southdale Medical Office Complex parking occupancy was conducted on Tuesday, May 6, 1986, between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 5:30 P.M. The total number of automobiles parked was counted every hour for all of the parking lots and ramps serving the Southdale Medical Office Building as well as the four medical office buildings located on the east side of Drew Avenue South. In addition, a reinventory of total parking spaces available for the Southdale Medical Office Buiding and the medical facilities on the east side of Drew Avenue was conducted. Total parking spaces inventoried for the Southdale Medical Office Buiding is 1,152. The total parking spaces inventoried for the medical buildings east of Drew is 158. The total parking spaces inventoried on- street on Drew Avenue is 20. 15 TABLE 10 TOTAL HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION (ALL LOTS AND RAMPS) SOUTHDALE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986) Leased Public Time Spaces Spaces Total Occupied (Lower level of parking deck) Available 308 844 1,152 (TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986) Spaces Time Total - Available 158 8 :30 167 369 536 47 9:30 191 594 785 68 10:30 197 (Peak) 681 (Peak) 878 (Peak) 76 11:30 193 (Peak) 679 872 76 12:30 160 475 635 55 1:30 182 576 758 66 2:30 193 689 882 77 3:30 190 728 (Peak) 918 (Peak) 80 4:30 171 625 796 69 5:30 95 376 471 41 TABLE 11 TOTAL HOURLY PARKING ACCUMULATION (ALL LOTS) SOUTHDALE MEDICAL FACILITIES EAST SIDE, DREW AVENUE (TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1986) Time Total - Available 158 Spaces 1 _ 8:30 43 9:30 84 10:30 114 (Peak) I 11:30 108 12:30 52 1:30 52 2:30 105 3:30 116 (Peak) 4:30 102 5:30 54 16 % Occupied 27 53 72 68 33 33 66 73 65 34 The Southdale Medical Office Building parking occupancy survey produced figures similar to those obtained in the initial survey in December 1985. Peak parking occupancies occurred basically at the same time periods as those determined in the December survey at 10:30111:30 A.M. and again at 2:30/3:30 P.M. The peak occupancy observed in the Southdale Medical Office Building parking lots and ramps was a total of 918 vehicles at 3:30 P.M., 882 vehicles at 2:30 P.M., 878 vehicles at 10:30 A.M. and 872 vehicles at 11:30 A.M. The peak occupancy of the parking lot never exceeded 80 percent of the 1,152 available spaces. The Southdale Medical Office Building is a 215,000 gross square foot, seven story facility, with the ground floor retail and six floors of medical and dental offices serving approximately 100 practices. Approximately 198,000 square feet of space is leasable (92 percent) and the vacancy rate is less than 4 percent. Covered parking in the lower deck area is leased to tenants at $10 per month. All but six of the 308 spaces are currently leased. At a parking ratio of 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, 1,300 spaces are required by city code. The Southdale Medical Office Building actually has a parkign ratio of 5.3 spaces per 1,000 of gross square feet and is utilizing, jduring peak parking periods, only 4.2 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. A conservative approach to medical parking requirements would use 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The total parking inventory for the Medical Office Buildings located on the east side of Drew Avenue South is 158 spaces with 20 on- street spaces on Drew Avenue South. The peak parking periods basically correspond to those measured for the Southdale Medical Office Building. Peak parking occupancy was observed at 3:30 P.M. at 116 spaces resulting in a maximum occupancy rate of 73 percent. D. Parking Demand - Existing Fairview Southdale Hospital Facilities 1. Criteria Parking demand is typically expressed as a number of spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area (medical office buildings), per 'red (hospitals), per employee or per doctor (city codes). At a hospital complex as large and diverse as Fairview Southdale, the actual parking demand is a composite of many elements: o In- patient Parking - This represents the proportion of patients who drive to the hospital and leave their vehicle in the lot during their stay (90 percent of the hospital in- patients do not drive). o Hospital Visitors - This group includes visiting clergy, friends and families. The general public demand for visitor parking grows slowly through the morning hours to a peak in the early afternoon (typically 1:00 to 2:00 P.M.) and falls off during the early evening supper hour. The highest demand for visitor parking appears to coincide with the peak vehicle accumulation at 1:30 P.M. on a weekday. o Medical Staff - The parking lot reserved for doctors was nearly full by 8:30 A.M. and remained 75 percent occupied throughout the day until opened to employee and visitor parking at 2:45 P.M. when it filled again. 17 r o Hospital Employees The peak demand for nursing staff usually occurs after 3:00 P.M., when the first and second shift are transferring responsiL)ilities. Since most of the hospital administrative staff and employees -also use parking spaces at that time, this peak has traditionally represented the design criteria for hospital parking. At Fairview Southdale Hospital, this trend has shifted to an earlier hour due, apparantly, to the diversity of services offered. Parking demand for administrators and employees follow a typical weekday worker pattern, with most arriving at approximately 8:00 A.M. and parking through the day till 4:30 or 5:00 P.M. ' o Out - patient - As out - patient services increase, demand for convenient short -term parking near the out - patient facility becomes an important parking requirement. This demand typically begins around 9:00 A.M. and peaks in the late morning. A second peak occurs immediately after lunch and tapers off slowly through the early afternoon. 2. Peak Parking Requirements for Fairview Southdale Hospital Studies of the parking demand profile at Fairview Southdale Hospital indicate a need for the following parking accommodations (Table 10). Calculations include out - patient and staff parking for the radiation therapy and MRI units. It was assumed that the average hospital bed count is 200 and that the peak bed count will increase by 25 percent. Out - patient activity levels have been forecast based on the hospital's estimate of future clinical visits. M:7 1 i f i TABLE 12 CURRENT PEAK PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Maximum Time Parking User Group Activity Period Spaces Level Required In- Patients and Visitors Average Bed Count 200 10:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M. Maximum Bed Count 250 250 Out - Patients Clinical 20 11:00 A.M. Radiation Therapy 5 2:00 P.M. 30 MRI 5 Emergency 20 Continuous 20 Doctors 80 9:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M. 80 Employees (1st Shift) 430 7 :00 A.M. - 4 :00 P.M. 430 Employees (2nd Shift) 200 0 Employees (3rd Shift) 200 0 Employees (Weekends) 200 0 TOTAL 810 19 i V. PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED FAIRVIEW- SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ' A. Standards and Criteria 3 The City of Edina zoning code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area plus one space per physician for medical or dental office or clinics. This approximates six spaces per 1,000 square feet. American Medical Buildings, Inc., in their report dated September 19, 1985, estimated that 5.8 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet is required. "Parking Generation" (a manual published in 1985 by the Institute of Transportation Engineers) identifies an average ratio of 3.1 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The ITE findings ranged between a low of 1.5 spaces and a high of 5.1 spaces per 1,000 square feet at sites throughout the country. The survey conducted at the Southdale Medical Office Building in conjunction with this study measured an actual parking ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square foot building. The actual measurement of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet is well below the city standard and at the high end of the ITE range. It is felt that parking demand generated by new development on the Fairview - Southdale Hospital campus would be comparable to the 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet observed at the Southdale Medical Building. B. Future Parking Requirements The existing parking spaces on the Fairview - Southdale Hospital campus meet the parking demand for current hospital operations, including the radiation therapy unit (currently under construction with 4,200 gross square feet) and the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) mobile trailer which could be transferred in the future into a fixed facility of approximately 3,500 gross square feet. It is assumed that parking demand generated by this existing total operation will not increase over the next 10 years. Two proposed developments would increase the parking demand over the next 10 years: a medical office building of approximately 75,000 gross square feet on the easterly side and the specialty outpatient treatment facility of up to 50,00(' gross square feet on the westerly side. A maximum of 1,574 spaces would be required to support this development plus the existing operation (based on the City of Edina code requirements of six spaces per 1,000 gross square feet). If the parking ratio observed at the Southdale Medical Office Building of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet is used, a maximum parking supply of 1,387 spaces would be required. These calculations are based on the assumption that the existing 824 parking spaces will continue to support the existing Fariview Southdale Hospital operation. C. Parking Development Recommendation It appears at this time that the City of Edina parking requirements of approximately six spaces per 1,000 gross square feet of facility exceeds the actual demand for the proposed total development of the Fairview - Southdale Hospital campus. It seems reasonable to try to gain from the City of Edina a variance on Zoning Ordinance parking space requirements to provide parking that meets or exceeds the observed parking ratio for the Southdale Medical Office Building with a provision to provide additional parking expansion if demand exceeds parking supply at full development. 20 Consequently, t is recommended that the initial phase in h Y� p the development of the Fairview- Southdale Hospital campus, be configured in accordance with parking Concept A providing for a net parking supply of 1,251 spaces. Second phase development would occur on the westerly side of the campus in,accordance with parking Concepts C or D with the provision that the three level parking ramp be expanded to a fourth level if actual parking demand exceeds parking supply with full development of the Fairview - Southdale Hospital. Parking Concepts A through F are illustrated in Appendix C. D. Parking Development Cost Based on parking facility construction cost surveys conducted by Barton - Aschman from 1982 to 1985, the parking ramp construction cost projected by American Medical Buildings Inc. for the 698 car parking ramp located on the easterly side of Fairview - Southdale (parking Concept A) appears to be reasonable. That cost, estimated at approximately $6,408 per parking space, appears to take into account the extra expense that would be incurred in constructing a third parking level over the existing parking deck while maintaining some parking operation in the existing parking structure. A portion of the parking ramp in Concept A could be allocated for the medical office building with capital funding provided directly by the MOB ownership or provided by Fairview Southdale Hospital and leased to the MOB. In either case, that portion of the parking ramp could be placed on Edina tax roles. It is estimated that the new parking ramps indicated in parking Concepts B through F could be constructed more economically at a cost not to exceed $6,000 per parking space, including design and testing fees. E. Construction Phasing To insure continued smooth operation of the Fairview Southdale Hospital and all of its activities during construction, the parking facility serving the medical office building should be constructed before the medical office building. It is estimated that.a�-:)nstruction of the parking ramp on the east side (parking Concept A) would take approximately eight to 10 months during which time parking could be partially accommodated in the existing parking structure and in many of areas adjacent to the construction zone. If construction of the MOB and parking ramp had to coincide, temporary parking would have to be leased from the Southdale Medical Office Building. F. Future Parking Operation and Management 1. Doctor and staff parking When the parking ramp is constructed and open for service on the easterly side of the hospital (parking Concept A), it is recommended that the ground or second level of the parking ramp be designated.as doctor and staff parking. This would provide convenient doctor and staff parking under cover. 2. Parking Management Fee Currently, the Fairview - Southdale Hospital parking lots and facilities are well managed in that doctor parking is always available, staff is given preference in the 21 ground level parking structure as necessary, parking appears to be available for emergency use, and parking is available for patrons and visitors to the hospital. However, frequently the parking available- to visitors is far from the hospital entrance. Staff parking should actually be located in the remote areas of the Fairview Southdale campus yet under cover in the structured parking facilities. Frequently, visitors to the hospital and the general public feel that open, grade i level parking is preferable to parking in a structure due to the perception that it is more accessible. A convenient tool to manage the various parking demands and insure both that visitor and staff parking is separate and that the visitor parking is always in the .most convenient location, is to charge a nominal fee for parking use. It is recommended that staff parking be located in the remote section of the parking ramp in parking Concept A on the second level and that entry be controlled by card. A nominal fee of $5 to $10 per month could be charged for the privilege of a guaranteed parking space under cover in the parking ramp. The search for a parking space would be eliminated. The doctor parking should also be card controlled at either grade level or second level of the parking structure. The doctor parking would be in the section of the parking ramp closest to the medical office building to facilitate doctor movement in and out of the parking ramp and passage between the hospital /medical office building and the ramp. A nominal fee may also be charged for doctor parking 1 privileges. All of the at -grade parking close to the medical office building and the Fairview Southdale Hospital's main entry would be entered through a coin - operated gate. A nominal fee of 25 to 50 cents could be charged to enter these parking areas for an unlimited amount of time. All visitor parking in remote locations, for instance, on the top level of a parking ramp, would be free with unlimited entry. It is necessary to periodically survey the various parking areas and parking practices to insure that general parking is being managed at an optimum level. 22 VI. SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL TRANSIT SERVICE A. Routes The Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) provides regular route bus service to the Fairview Southdale Hospital and the Southdale Medical Office Bulding area on 65th Street. The lines operating on 65th Street are the No. 6, No. 35J Flyer, No. 36, No. 15 and No. 52. The bus service is primarily oriented to normal rush hour, 7:00 A.M. to 8:30 A.M. and 3:30 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. During these times, 20 minute service is available. Thirty to forty minute service is provided during non -rush hour periods from 6:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. on weekdays. Weekend service is limited to Line No. 6 with 30 minute service. The No. 35J Flyer operates three runs in the morning and the afternoon from 7:00 A.M. to 7:40 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. to 5:15 P.M., respectively. ' A passenger waiting shelter is operated and maintained by the MTC on the northeast corner of the west entrance to Fairview Southdale Hospital. B. Bus Service Extension Bus service extension into the Fairview Southdale Hospital campus was examined. Factors considered by the MTC in determining feasibility of the extension are: 1. Projected patronage 2. Access road width, geometrics, and construction 3. Access road level of maintenance 4. Access road length 5. Time to traverse the access road and level of congestion 6. Passenger loading and unloading facilities. The Fairview Southdale Hospital access road is capable of accommodating the regular MTC bus. The bus would have to enter via the west entrance and circulate clockwise past the main hospital entrance. It appears that suitable space and facilities ace available to pick up and drop off passengers. The level of maintenance on the access road exceeds standards required by MTC. The level of patronage and the extra time required are factors that limit MTC interest in extending the service into Fairview Southdale. In addition, there is concern that similar service would be requested for the Southdale Medical Office Building complex. It is concluded the extension of bus service through the Fairview Southdale Hospital campus is not feasible at this time. 23 f VII. FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING PARKING CONCEPTS (Plan Sheet 1) A supplemental parking concept study was developed for the proposed Fairview Southdale Medical Building to be located on the northeast side of the campus. The MOB would have a 15,000 square foot footprint and gross square footage ranging from 50,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet. The objective of the supplemental parking concepts is to determine the most economical and practical means to provide parking for the new Fairview Southdale MOB. A. Parking Requirements for a Future Fairview Southdale Medical Office Building The actual peak parking occupancy for the Southdale Medical Office Building was measured at 4.2 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider providing parking spaces at the rate of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet. Using 4.5 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet, 225 parking spaces are required for a 50,000 square foot building and 338 parking spaces are required for a 75,000 square foot building. The City of Edina currently has a requirement for approximately six spaces per 1,000 gross square feet resulting in a parking requirement of 300 spaces for a 50,000 square foot building and 450 spaces for a 75,000 square foot building. B. Parking Concepts 1. Expansion of the Existing East Side Parking Ramp With the topography available in the northeast parking lot sloping down to Hennepin County Highway 62 grade level, it appears highly practical to excavate to develop a lower level of parking, one level below the grade of the existing ground level parking ramp. The ground level and the first level of the existing parking ramp could then be extended north to the north Fairview - Southdale property line and constructed over the below -grade level parking. A variation of this suggested in the report by the American Medical Buildings Inc. would be to construct the second level over the entire existing parking ramp complex plus the new parking ramp resulting in a four level parking ramp adjacent to the medical office building. The total number of parking spaces available in this northeast parking ramp expansion concept varies based on number of levels, speed ramp access requirements, and floor -to -floor access. These parking space concepts are discussed below: o Three Level Flat Bay, No Floor -to -Floor Access (Figure 2) Total new parking spaces constructed - 573 Total net gain of new parking spaces - 292 Estimated cost - $4,000 per car space I Advantages: - Separation of levels by class of parker - Doesn't close development options on the west side Convenient lower level access to the medical office building - - Most convenient parking to the medical office building - Total net gain in parking spaces would be sufficient to accommodate a 50,000 square foot medical office building at a ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. - Relatively low construction cost 24 r i 292 EXISTING SPACES 573 NEW SPACES 865 TOTAL SPACES FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Parking Ramp 1 Parking & Traffic Evaluation 865 Total Spaces Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Figure 2 L L Disadvantages: - The facility would encroach in to the Hennepin County right -of -way - Access would to obscure since it would use the existing at -grade and speed ramp ent-ances at the south end of the parking ramp. (Access to the below - grade level would be at the north side of the MOB and Fairview- Southdiale property.) - Potential objections by the adjacent neighborhood Possible setback variance requirements. The City of Edina requires a 20 foot setback for interior yards. The current setback appears to be 15 feet. The net gain in parking spaces would be insufficient to accommodate a 75,000 square foot medical office building. o Three Level With Slo .ping Bay Floor -to -Floor Access (Figure 3) Total new parking spaces constructed - 505 Total net gain in new parking spaces - 223 Estimated cost - $4,500 per car space Advantages: - Floor -to -floor circulation - Convenient lower level access to the medical office building - Most convenient parking to the medical office building - Doesn't close development options on the west side - The expansion could be dedicated to the MOB with cost of construction clearly defined Disadvantages: - Higher cost - Basically does not provide sufficient parking to accommodate either a 50,000 or 75,000 square foot medical office building - Potential objections by neighborhood - Encroaches into Hennepin County right -of -way - Potential for requiring a variance to existing setback requirements o Four Level Sloping Bay Floor -to -Floor Access (Figure 3) Total new parking spaces constructed - 775 Total net gain in new parking spaces - 493 Estimated cost - $4,800 per car space Advantages: - Provides sufficient parking to accomodate a 50,000 or 75,000 square foot at either 4.5 or 6.0 spaces per 1,000 - Allows for parking expansion on the north and west sides to accommodate future development - Provides lower level access to the medical office building - Most convenient parking to the medical office building - Provides floor -to -floor circulation - The expansion could be dedicated strictly to the MOB with cost of construction clearly defined 26 ti i O �. R � 292 EXISTING SPACES 505 NEW SPACES 797 TOTAL SPACES + 270 FUTURE SPACES 1067 SPACES W /FUTURE FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Parking & Traffic Evaluation Parking Ramp 1 1067 Spaces with Future luBarton-Aschman Associates, Inc. Figure 3 Disadvantages: - Higher cost per space Higher total cost - Potential objections by neighborhood = Potential requirement to get variance of setback requirement Encroaches into the Hennepin County right -of -way o Two Level Parking Ramp - North Side (Figure 4) Total new parking spaces constructed - 156 Total net gain in new parking spaces - 156 Estimated cost - $3,600 per car space Advantages: Provides most convenient parking to serve both Fairview - Southdale Hospital and Fairview - Southdale Medical Office Building - Relatively low cost Can be constructed so that the upper level conforms to the existing grade of the Fairview - Southdale Hospital entrance and service road area - Can be conveniently accessed from either the Fairview - Southdale f Hospital or the Fairview - Southdal Medical Office Building - Lower level could be dedicated to the MOB Disadvantages: - Disturbs existing aesthetics of Fairview - Southdale Hospital entry and north frontage - Below -grade and at -grade levels have to be accessed at different locations (no internal circulation) - Total space provided does not provide sufficient parking to accommodate a 50,000 or 75,000 square foot medical office building - Encroaches into existing Hennepin County right -of -way o North Surface Parking Lot (Figure 5) Total new parking spaces constructed - 135 Total net gain in new parking spaces - 135 Estimated cost - $900 per car space Advantages: - Lowest cost - Can be conveniently cut into the north slope area to preserve the hospital view lines - Convenient location to both Fairview - Southdale Hospital and Fairview - Southdale Medical Office Bulding - A parking level (on structure) could be added in the future 28 f t 77\ \ 1 � 'oZ r �I � FAIRVIEW SOUTH OA LE HOSPITAL Parkin Ram 2 -- Parking & Traffic Evaluation 9 p 156 Spaces Barton- Aschman Associates Inc. Figure 4 w C) FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Parking & Traffic Evaluation IQBarton - Aschman Associates, Inc. O Surface Lot 2A 135 Spaces Figure 5 I Disadvantages: - Disturbs mature vegitation and aesthetics of Fairview: Southdale north frontage and entry areas - Encroaches into Hennepin County right -of -way _ - Provides insufficient parking to accommodate a new 50,000 or 75,000 square foot medical office building o West Parking Ramp - Two Level (Figure 6) Total new parking spaces constructed - 126 Total net gain in new parking spaces - 50 Estimated cost - $3,600 per car space Advantages: - Reduced structure costs - Utilizes existing unused air space over west parking area Provide additional prime visitor parking to Fairview - Southdale Hospital Disadvantages: Precludes future development on west side 35 foot setback required along France Avenue South and West 65th - Street resulting in inefficient parking space Basically does not accommodate any medical office building parking 31 M I 30 29 FPANCE AVE. /9 0 �L N FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Parking Ramp 3 Parking & Traffic Evaluation 126 New Spaces (Level 2) Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. Figure 6 I APPENDIX A Existing Traffic Volume 1. Traffic Survey Traffic volume counts were conducted on 65th Street at the west and east entrances to Fairview Southdale Hospital on December 4 and 5, 1985, to coincide with the Fairview Southdale Hospital parking occupancy and inventory survey. All traffic movements at the west and east intersections were counted for a 15 minute period each hour from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. and then factored to hourly traffic volumes. A subsequent traffic volume count was conducted on December 12, 1985, at the intersection of France Avenue and 65th Street from 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. in conjunction with the parking inventory and occupancy survey conducted at the Southdale Medical Office Building. These traffic volumes were also counted for a 15 minute period each hour and then factored to produce hourly traffic volumes. Traffic volume statistics are illustrated in the following Figures Al to A7. 2. Fairview Southdale Hospital Traffic The west entrance is the primary entry and exit to Fairview Southdale Hospital. As indicated in Figure A2, the peak periods of traffic entry to the Fairview Southdale Hospital are between 8:00 and 9:00 A.M., 2:00 to 3:00 P.M., and 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. Peak exiting volumes were noted between the hours of 3:00 to 5:00 P.M. It is determined that approximately 50 percent of the traffic volume on 65th Street is generated by Fairview Southdale Hospital. No capacity or congestion problems were observed at the west and east entrances on 65th Street. 3. Southdale Medical Office Building Traffic The traffic generated by the Southdale Medical Office Building complex approximately equals that generated by Fairview Southdale Hospital. The primary entry to the medical office building tends to be later, commencing at 9:00 A.M. Tree west entrance is the primary entry and exit point for the Southdale Medical Office Building complex. The peak traffic volume hour for the Southdale Medical 1_ Office Building occurs at 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. with a secondary peak occurring at 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. No capacity or congestion problems were observed at the west and east entrances on 65th Street. 4. France Avenue at 65th Street Together the Southdale Medical Office Building and Fairview Southdale Hospital generate a significant amount of traffic volume on France Avenue. Approximately 30 to 50 percent of the southbound traffic on France Avenue enters in the Fairview Southdale /Southdale Medical Office Building area. The hospital and medical office building complex appears to advance the peak traffic hour on France Avenue to between 3:00 and 4:00 P.M. versus 4:00 to 5:00 P.M. for a normal street. No particular capacity or congestion problem was noted at the intersection throughout the survey with one exception: the right turn movement from France Avenue northbound to Hennepin County Highway 62 eastbound was congested immediately after 5:00 P.M. because ramp metering 33 F L L I caused long delays for traffic entering the Crosstown. This congestion was not caused by lack of capacity at the France and 65th Street intersection but by the pack of capacity through t`e ramp meter. Slight congestion was also noted at the north Hennepin County Highway 62 ramp intersection on France Avenue due to northbound left turns onto riestbound Highway 62. 34 i •11 500 Ito E 400 > 300 0 200 2 100 9 ON ON N (p O N Ow 'tI, M N O O to I- r IN I-- M M E N 0 N r 0 M M N M M M M "T "T N N M r z I� COO 0 O r N M M O f\ O O AM z PM Time of Day 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 *Ik co N E 400 O T 300 = 200 100 1 J �t (,O O 0 N 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 N CO Lb r CO LO O N O O o r- N m I� p to N0IN 0INO0M N,;f MN Ipliill•!„ IH; j�lllli!:I;I il;a ji'I I iljji;�l � ; i:•ijl ��: III11I•j!I i::•�, L� liiil il�• :,Ijr•lili!ai'i iii : �� .. . IIli III! I il!II' . !!ii I III ;I glllll Iri'II'Ii;l!la:,.;;:�: i .,.,::;f.;• „', .. � I I ! III i II I'. : � '! i�;il.•... II �i l;� III bill III .� I! I j I'I III lillil I j' it I ; r I , III�IIII! .Ili I�il III II III�I . lill'I II {i� ! I' I z h 00 O O AM z PM Time of Day Hospital Traffic Volume West 65th St. Traffic Volume (Total Entry and Exit) France Av. to West Hospital Entrance (Total East and West Directions) FAIRVIEW SOUThIDALE HOSPITAL December 4 -5, 1985 PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION Barton- Ascfiman Associates, In C35 9 Fi ure Al 300 a� S 200 0 0 IT 100 El 0 O .t "t It M NO ON O N O M M CO �p cO M N ti � M M cD Q1 CO � N N T T T N T N T T T z f- MO 0 r OTNMItt 0 CO MM AM z PM Time of Day Total Entering Hospital Traffic Volume from West 65th St. 300 m 5 200 0 0 s 100 9 �t N N CO CO CO M N V 0 CD N p ccrnT�o�oLnorn oMM N T T T •— N N M N N r— *— *— z f� COO O f O T N M I LO 0 I- CO CA AM z PM Time of Day Total Exiting Hospital Traffic Volume to West 65th St. FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL December 4 -5, 1985 PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION Barton- Aschrnan Associates, Inc. 36 Figure A2 rn 00 et 00 O, O (D (D O CO N V OD RT (D (D Co O M Co N Lr) r tt M C7 et M @7 . Cr) r •-- • Peak Volume ♦ Secondary Peak Volume 10 11012 1 2♦ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PM , and Exit Traffic Volumes West 65th St. zl Southdale Medical n Office Building December 4 & 5, 1985 i Associates, Inc. FI g u r e A3 37 11 300 200 1 100 300 200 100 O Co Co ":r (D � (D -* N O Co Co O N NC O CD UI N LO Oh- 0 00 CDC) N N r N— N N 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 AM 0 PM 0 AM 0 PM L Entering MOB Traffic Exiting MOB Traffic J Total Entry and Exit Traffic Volumes *Peak Volume Fairview Southdale Hospital Southd ale Medical Parking & Traffic Evaluation Office Building December 4 & 5, 1985 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Figure A4 38 r r t i i i i 260 112 CO co (D ^' N (D .- W co v East Entrance Drew Avenue'South C L � 2a }, 104 E_ 12 (°D W ap N Imo- 4 0 c *' 12 ____/ (D i m 24 _� i--' 80 (n as � C/) —� W FAIRVIEW co ° (D o v SOUTHDALE N HOSPITAL N � v West Entrance � 2a L 136 E 4 a Cr W M m 40 _/ L /_ 9 2 co 4-1 to 12 CO f 184 � 116 -� o0 Cb 0 0 Cv 500 •11 N FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL Peak Hour Hospital Traffic PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION 2:00 -3:00 PM, December 4 & 5, 1985 Barton- Aschrnan Associates, Inc. Figure A g 5 39 r r r i i 232 108 W v co T CO CD U CY East Entrance Drew Avenue South � 16 84 C to +r �- 32 Co W 0) _/ CD 36 00 _ 44 -� 84 ''- ' (n T 56 �o LLi FAIRVIEW � � N SOUTHDALE 0 0 00 Cl) 0) C-) — 24 "' 52 ' 0 52 N U West' Entrance C Cz 16 .L- E 100 E— 0 w r 156 4 _%� Lr) �_ T O 8 CO 64 _—\A � • O ry O 332 752 N 148 0 M 11:00 AM — 12:00 Noon N® L Fairview Southdale Hospital Southdale Medical Parking & Traffic Evaluation Office Building i_ Peak Hour Traffic Volumes December 4 & 5, 1985 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Figure A6 40 U 996 a N C„ (0 CO I WEST CO uU. a (D a a 65TH ST. i I 1-244 CO 172 ,•48 c le 6 N 120 - ?� 36-- 308 36--- � + CO I N C LO CO W CO U 31 1 i 1 960 N CD (D CD N WEST a cD CO 65TH ST. �� L� r 12:00 - 1:00 PM t-2so X192 32 r- 84 i 76J8 — c 36--- 456 4�N 111 Ln a v 0 W 1150 } I T 00 00 U I j N CO CO (D (o WEST 1328 Cl) a' v o 11 CO N 65TH ST. 3:0 0 - 4:00 PM i _...I L► � L3 2 8 c . x-176 —100 co r— 1 3 2 80 —� 8— 440— 8-4 CO CO CO (D N (D (/y ao 952 4:00 - 5:00 PM N® !_ Fairview Southdale Hospital Traffic Volumes Parking 8( Traffic Evaluation France Avenue South and West 65th Street December 12, 1985 Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. Figure A7 41 APPENDIX B City of Edina Requirements 1. Site Density ' For parcels zoned Regional Medical District (RMD) in the City of Edina, development density is limited by space available to fulfill parking requirements. Multi -level parking structures offer the potential increases in building densities if the plan satisfies several planning commission concerns, including: Front, side and rear yard setbacks conform with the zoning code. The structure is not deemed detrimental to surrounding properties. The increased site density is not an overly intensive land use (defined on a case -by -case basis by the Planning Commission). 2. Parking Requirements The current Edina zoning ordinance requires one parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area plus one space per physician for a medical office building. Hospitals must provide one space per bed plus one space per employee or volunteer on the major shift. Design requirements for full size and compact car size spaces are detailed in the zoning ordinance. Parking structures used to fulfill total space requirements are subject to setback distances as follows: Front Street 35 feet or the building height, if greater Side Street 35 feet or the building height, if greater t Interior Side Yard 20 feet or the building height, if greater l Rear Yard 20 feet or the building height, if greater Structure setbacks apply to right -of -way lines if the structure abuts a street, or to I lot lines of adjacent properties if it does not. A special requirement that applies in this case is that no parking structure may be located within 50 feet of the nearest lot line of an adjacent residential property. The adequacy of any proposed traffic circulation system is subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 3. Development Approval Process Fulfillment of parking requirements and approval of parking structure design are part of the total development approval process. The development project is subject to the approval of the City Planning Commission and should include review and informal approval by the city planning staff in order to streamline the approval process. The following steps are necessary for city approval and issuance of the appropriate permit: • Final circulation system approval by City Engineer. • Submission of the Final Development Plan package for the project to the City Planner along with appropriate application documents and fees. 42 r o Planning Commission Project Review. The parking system and any planned parking structure are considered part of the total development project and must meet the' following requirements for Planning Commission approval. - Must be consistent with the .city's Comprehensive Plan - Must be consistent with the Preliminary Development Plan initially approved - Must not be judged detrimental to properties surrounding the tract - Must not be judged an overly intensive land use - Must not result in undue traffic congestion or hazards - Must conform to applicable city ordinances - Must provide proper relationships between proposed and existing structures, open space and natural features Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and anyone affected by the project may present evidence for consideration. o City Council Hearing and Decision. Normally, projects approved by the Planning Commission are approved by the City Council. This hearing, like the previous Planning Commission meetings, is open to the public. It must be adequately announced (as outlined in the zoning ordinance) and provide further opportunity for discussion of the project's merits. 43 V APPENDIX C Parking Expansion and Configuration 1. Parking Concept A It is anticipated that a 75,000 square foot medical office building (MOB) would be constructed on the easterly side of the hospital in a location as noted in Concept A. The "Preliminary Site and Size Report" prepared by American Medical Buildings Inc. for Fairview - Southdale Hospital in September, 1985, proposed expansion of the existing parking ramp by constructing a new three level parking ramp adjacent to and immediately north of the existing ramp. The third level of the new ramp would extend over the existing parking deck. A review of that plan indicates that it is a reasonable and feasible approach. This concept would add 698 parking spaces to the Fairview - Southdale parking supply while removing 271 spaces for construction 3 of the parking ramp and the medical office building. The net available parking spaces under this concept would be 1,251 spaces. The total parking supply requirement for Fairview Southdale Hospital with the MOB, using City of Edina standards (six spaces per 1,000 square feet), would be 1,274 spaces. Utilizing the observed ratio at the Southdale Medical Office Building of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the parking supply should be 1,162 spaces. 2. Parking Concept B Parking Concept B places the proposed MOB where the existing parking deck is located. With the existing parking deck removed, approximately 86 parking spaces could be retained at grade level to the rear of the medical office building. A new three level parking ramp would be constructed immediately adjacent to the northerly property line along County Highway 62 providing - approximately 1,200 parking spaces. This parking configuration would remove 493 parking spaces and add 1,200 parking spaces resulting in a net total parking supply of 1,531 spaces. This parking supply would come close to meeting the City of Edina standards for anticipated full development on both easterly and westerly sides of 1,574 spaces and, of course would exceed the estimated actual total demand of 1,387 spaces. Concept B is included as an alternative that would develop basically all of the anticipated parking supply required for future Fairview - Southdale Hospital expansion. The plan would require increased initial capital for construction and for demolition of the existing parking deck. 3. Parking Concept C Parking Concept C, Phase II of Concept A, anticipates development of a 50,000 gross square foot out - patient treatment facility to be located in the northwesterly corner of the Fairview Southdale campus adjacent to County Highway 62 and France Avenue South. In this configuration, a three level parking ramp would be constructed in the southwesterly quadrant of the campus providing approximately 387 spaces. This configuration provides.a net 1,475 parking spaces to serve the fully proposed development of the Fairview - Southdale Hospital campus. The 1,475 spaces falls in the middle of the parking spaces required utilizing the City of Edina ratio at 1,574 and the actual observed ratio at the Southdale Medical Office Building at 1,387. 44 0 4. Parking Concept D Parking Concept D, Phase II of Concept A, is the reverse of parking Concept C in that the 50,000 gross square foot out - patient treatment facility i4 southwest of the campus and the parking ramp is in the northwest quadrant adjacent to County Highway 62 and France Avenue South. A three level parking ramp containing approximately 378 spaces would be constructed. In this configuration, the parking ramp would be slightly smaller than that indicated in Concept C and fewer at grade parking spaces could be retained than in Concept C. The net total parking spaces available under this concept is 1,415 spaces. 5. Parking Concepts E and F Parking Concepts E and F are similar to parking Concepts C and D, respectively, but add a fourth level to the parking ramps. All four levels of the parking ramps could be constructed with the new 50,000 square foot out - patient treatment facility or three levels could be built with design to accommodate a fourth level in the event of need. Net total Fairview Southdale parking spaces realized in Concepts E and F are approximately 1,604 and 1,541 respectively. Similarly it would be highly desirable to construct the three level parking ramp on the westerly side before beginning construction of the 50,000 square foot out- patient treatment facility. However, the construction phasing of these two facilities is not as critical as separating the construction of the facilities on the easterly side since the total parking spaces removed from service (163) could likely be leased from the Southdale Medical Office Building. 45 o. • i Ii Parking .i r elf =i HOSPITAL f / w ";tom • �. IIIATIN 00 PLANT TCl �r , Figure C1 ' FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION !. • PARKING CONCEPT A. ,�r► BASE LINE 824 Parking Spaces A -FRemove 271 Add 698 L Construct - New 3 -Level — - -. = Parking Ramp Total 1251 spaces O Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc. MOB c 698 Spaces NORTH _— Retain Existing Parking Deck IIVIV( 3G8 Spaces - -- _ � = • -�r. - t N I N � N l l _ - Construct New JfsU • i Ii Parking .i r elf =i HOSPITAL f / w ";tom • �. IIIATIN 00 PLANT TCl �r . � �--- -- r- • ,- -•-• -. .w..�..a. ....,•,,..4„ ,,..w....I �......... ...,.w./y ....wry ....w..+ ..�.._ Figure C2 FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION PARKING CONCEPT B BASE LINE 824 Parking Spaces l !- Remove 271 Add 1200 B — Remove 222 _____.._...._..___.._.._...... New 3 —Level Total 1531 spaces Parking Ramp .. IQBarton- Aschman Associates, Inc. NORTH L -_ _ a - 7 ", im -� a.1�I VJrr+�nult�kr4Wryiey; 1200 Spaces =_ 0 "IL" c'. �IIIIUIIIiIl,llil�i Remove Existin(. Parking Deck Ce MOB Retain At —Grade u- _ Parking 4L ' — = 86 Spaces a - 0I1'11YINC. I1()t K 2 0 U IfkM'Sij�f � .�I�,ri� ►��+ 1_r , Ifs ,. f1� N Figure C3 FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION 'I a PARKING CONCEPT C ,�► BASE LINE 824 Parking Spaces Remove 271 A Add 698 Remove 163 \ Add 387 \ L Total 1475 spaces �\ c Bw-ton_A,dtona, A"ochtt ", kw. ® MOB 698 Space s NORTH i W Outpatient _ _ _ 308 Spaces Treatment _ INIw +NCI _ (Existing j Parking Deck " Below 3rd Level) L; 3 Level 387 Spaces I — �: I. DOCK . IN ATINC; ILANT r • .k,• g: <I Figure C4 FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION -� PARKING CONCEPT D ,IH BASE LINE 824 Parking - Spaces A�Remove 271 — Add 698 Remove 214 \\ \ D {— Add .17R Total 1415 spaces aBaYion- Atichman Aasociatet, tine. NORTH 3 Level 378 Spaces Outpatient Treatment ; • 'Roo L \\ c MOB 698 Spaces I ir q I F r;1 Who - I - 308 Spaces — _ (Existing Parking Deck Below 3rd Level) RIC(rvINC DOCK flikATING n• ' i PLANT } a } Z O J O U IL- CD �I d Figure C5 FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION PARKING CONCEPT E �► BASE LINE 824 Parking Spaces Remove 271 A `— Add 698 Remove 163 Add 516 L i r � Total 1604 spaces \ 698 Spaces — Owton- Aschman Associates, Ina. MOB c NORTH _ t .k- — 308 Spaces • :1 "4 +- r` Parking Deck F •r' •�h`w• apjf'- 1 Below 3rd 4 Level tint • •r •t 516 Spaces W PLANT 11 /M r_ S � Figure C6 FAIRVIEW SOUTHDALE HOSPITAL PARKING & TRAFFIC EVALUATION + ' PARKING CONCEPT F BASE LINE 824 Parking Spaces A -�Remove 271 Add 698 F Remove 214 F Add 504. \ Total 1541 spaces INOwton- Aschnun AssociM*s, Inc. 0 NORTH 4 Level 504 Spaces Outpatient Treatment 1 w� �\ MOB 698 Spaces 111l....J -- = 308 Spaces _ (Existina Parking Deck Below 3rd Level) a a Doc[ z O J O !11Cl,1V1N.r- t(ATINC ; U PLANT a M FAIRVIEW HOSR r ' W W GC F-- .tA s Ln •o F- N 3 . °a og Q g M logo- COLONY WAY a a O r u N N ER COLONY WAY o a swWMIwD Pm O o� O 6324 N 6e T u KEY: i 0 CONDOMINIUMS E3 GARAGES 05 6312 , - d�/ Expa® OAD ss ® O ® ' d 4 . b by b� �cs0 END uj ce 0 W Q H W T IL 19=]?JlZ wS9 Zt�A1 •e-n'. •foaw. Oil 4.4.2 a� /. {i /I . 1 7W Oftf ci>y 4PUN41 4 "iNA AV hX%-L Y o / war fD fm,&r-r E70I4 , AN, let 4r>r7cE7H t?y I •> w�4�AN� NrZlf"/Ny 7w /tvEZ,&P,4f&rr )C;FA- rRIW w f0a1A ^f IfW® /Tat 7a wfn" "-r * Nk'p /em er7orf4E '81011-01114 . .r *w .4 RE3i atX r OF 7710 Darr O< 0 /Nof ~ ,POMNIOM 4W##etX 4p Til'ee,i7' fo ?V f' SOKM#* ^,F IAW#01 ^ AMP14t. aCoa:" IM14,WWO I evor Two n;w1c4t A?taws &aW 2 Rf -clorwe 77wr 7VV5 N1o,* Wmd,wr r1*oAp yor 8E eu -vwr-P , N40pZy I. TAF /NcRME N 7W,"C- 70 6.i *` S/><t 'LY . 7*- 64171 or ,O&Pf79,1Y /S 4W/ 404*t9 w'M OvnwI AWP PfrWrIOW A 1141Tt9 Tb 6J 15 S/IkbT. of ?d'E' /m3OYT T vir rAoNe- /S ".o 7mv j mootam-4 6 A!`r= mfiwc F-s,o w wlcc uifir emc- ocy use' of 7w fIf//7d - PUIXOr4 4WA(9in1V4 7O&A -5. ,�. 71}'l� i�YlE�flrioN OF -/w wrp/ctt- o�Fftt` ,8k�cl�N! �t'tit'�- o�cn -S IS 70 USE 2W Mfr46 010 WA /t&T o/y 6s 21 O&Wr ic.E TAk W&*jj cot jgu 1cy1#6 . hr rW oflC&Vr 77A(e Mf #ft wtr+- Sir /f /W- GF VW *W /TX & POW & 7W /D'''aft 1OAA Vr AVAS 7w Oz L ^ w E7G/ /r QfQ*,k3 Illy /N ?kdr1WA- AWI-/ fy . %fir! 4NW60 /f 4 O*A;Y 7b JW &W#14 AIv S ALWAI J. Ak 94 L /K BRUCE C. NYDAHL, M. D. 6939 MARK TERRACE CIRCLE EDINA. MINNESOTA 55435 L44. +eIAA VAW rAJI RICHARD J. FREY, M.D. CHARLES P. KOLARS, M.D. W. DANIEL FLORY, M.D. GARY L. BRUNKOW, M.D. PRACTICE LIMITED TO INTERNAL MEDICINE 1102 METROPOLITAN MEDICAL BLDG. 424 SOUTHDALE MEDICAL BLDG. 825 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET 6545 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55404 10 SECOND STREET N.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 PHONE: 333 -0519 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 PHONE: 927.7079 December 10 , 1906 Fred Richards 7225 Fleetwood Drive Edina, D,114 55435 Dear Fred: I am writing you at this time regarding the matter of a building permit application being submitted to the Edina City Council on December 15th by Fairview Southdale Hospital and a group of Fairview Southdale physicians. The building application is for a physicians office complex and parking, ramp. As along -time Edina resident and physician in the Southdale area, I have a direct interest in this project. I feel that it will strengthen the medical community in the area and also further increase the viability of Fairview Southdale Hospital. I would urge that you vote for this building permit at your upcoming City Council meeting. Si ce ely, W. Daniel Flory, M.D. UDF /AS /raj ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES, LTD. 490 S.outhdale Medical Building • 6545 France Avenue. South • Edina, MN 55435 • 925 -2535 201 Ridge Point Medical Building . 14050 Nicollet Ave. • Burnsville, MN 55337 • 435 -4135 684 Excelsior Boulevard s. Excelsior, MN 55331 SHELDON M. LAGAARD, M.D. Pediatric V Adult Orthopaedics JAMES E. JOHANSON, "M.D. Surgery of the Hand 9 Foot RICHARD D. SCHMIDT, M.D. Sports Medicine V Trauma THOMAS J. RAIH, M.D. Joint Replacement, WILLIAM T. SIMONET,.M.D. Arthroscopic Surgery and Spinal "Surgery December 11, 1986 Fred Richards 7225 Fleetwood Drive Edina, Minnesota 55435 Dear Mr. Richards: Just a note to inform you that as a resident of Edina I have become aware.. of. the considerations for building a medical office building and additional parking on the Fairview Southdale Hospital Campus. After reviewing the 'needs of the hospital and its doctors and the importance of that facil -ity to the City of Edina, .I am strongly in favor of the'Edina City Council approving this project. TJR /src Sincerely yours, J. Thomas J. Raih,M.D Please reply to: _'.gxEdina Office, ❑Burnsville Office Roster of Physicians, who reside in the City of Edina, which have indicated support and interest to become either an owner /tenant or tenant within the proposed medical office building project on the Fairview Hospital Campus. Ekrem Gozum, M.D. Richard R. Lund, M.D. Craig Nystrom, M.D. Sheldon M. Lagaard, M.D. Thomas J. Raih, M.D. Richard D. Schmidt, M.D. William T. Simonet, M.D. Sheldon R. Burns, M.D. E. Duane Engstrom, M.D. Mumtaz Kazim, M.D. Freeman Kovack, M.D. Ronald J. Peterson, M.D. Richard J. Stafford, M.D. Richard J. Aadalen, M.D. Gordon M. Aamoth, M.D. James Breitenbucher, M.D. Lester W. Carlander, M.D. David A. Fischer, M.D. Mark E. Friedland, M.D. William Maierhofer, M.D. J. Patrick Smith, M.D. James Somerville, M.D. Thomas F. Carroll, M.D. Robert J. Fink, M.D. Martin B. Kaplan, M.D. John Nilsen, M.D. Paul O. Sanderson, M.D. Robert D. Wohlrabe, M.D. Richard E. Golden, M.D. Harrison Farley, M.D. John B. Muldowney, M.D. Charles A. Haislet, M.D. Russell Wavrin, M.D. Carlos A. Fernandez, M.D. Allen Van Beek, M.D. David Grube, M.D. Kenneth Hodges, M.D. Gary Brunkow, M.D. William Flory, M.D. Richard J. Frey, M.D. Charles Kolars, M.D. Richard Larson, M.D. Paul Benn, M.D. Louis C. Lick, M.D. Howard Saylor, M.D. Donald Bell, M.D. Robert Burmaster, M.D. Harry Rogers, M.D. Bruce Sundberg, M.D. Stephen Sundberg, M.D. Elmer Salovich, M.D. Jan Tanghe, M.D. Bruce Nydahl, M.D. Wayne Hoseth, M.D. Henry Meeker, M.D. Rodger Lundblad, M.D. Bruce Linderholm, M.D. Thomas Rivers, M.D. Ronald DeCesare, M.D. Richard Carlson, M.D. William Chandler, M.D. Dwight Hager, M.D. Robert S. Lund, M.D. James D. MacGibbon, M.D. Frederick Drill, M.D. Joseph Tambornino, M.D. Gene Hartmann, M.D. Jeanette Lowry, M.D. Paul Lowry, M.D. George Morrison, M.D. I LOCATION MAP �xseMT LOT DIVISJOV NUMBER LD -86 -15 L O C A T 10 N 6541 -43 McCauley Trail EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LD -86 -15 Gustafson and Tyson 6541 -6543 McCauley Trail Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proponents are re- questing a party wall lot division of a newly constructed double bungalow. Separate utility connections are provided. Mr. Larsen concluded that staff recommends approval. Mrs. McClelland recommended approval. Mrs. Paulus seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 3, 1986 LD -86 -15 Gustafson and Tyson 6541 -6543 McCauley Trail Refer to: Attached survey. The proponents are requesting a party wall lot division of a newly constructed double dungalow. Separate utility connections are provided. Recommendation Staff recommends approval. .i.�..ti �► ;.,won Nruegerw. =. . mumv • W Associates, Inc. ' 1 ':WW Wallace Road- -1= . Eden.Prairie. Mwpe=a 55344 :.(612)234.4242 . Fit d Engineering Land Sun•eyinn Planning 13urvey for Assoej,•TES Job No. 73 y,- Z 1 Bk. pg. �ilcc -'4 UG E i . Al 1 7• • SQ, -r y l� 1 •• 'i Q P4oPagiO� ZS tc Co • , ORkK r / / �° o . M q i v O2AI"A E ANO [-r L /TY Ei45EME/VT 1 �^ M 'i : /O.' a "V t� QO �\ h0 M Q� 14.57 3o scAcE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A S:JRVEY OF TILE BJU:JDARIES OF �Er . SUR EYED BY ME_1'HI9 (7� DAY OF /U6 UE•••1 g,E 19 a6. COUNTY, MINNESOTA. STATL REGLSTRATLON- N0.- 14374•Mi• _ �o F I rD, . E. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Community Development and Planning Commission FROM: Craig Larsen, City Planner 44v--- SUBJECT: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to add Day Care as a permitted use in the Planned Office District. DATE: November 24, 1986 Staff has received a request to permit day care in the Office District. Day care is currently allowed in all residential districts, and in all commercial districts. This amendment would add day care to the office and industrial districts. Recommendation: Staff supports the proposed amendment. The amendment would allow the placement of day care facilities near large em- ployment concentrations. Individual centers are inspected and licensed by the state to insure adequate facilities, play areas and safety of the children. QC-)- COSD Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 825 Add Day Care to Office District as Principal Use. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission staff has received a request to permit day care in the Office District. He added day care is currently allowed in all residential districts, and in all commercial districts. This amendment would add day care to the office and industrial districts. Mr. Larsen concluded staff supports the proposed amendment. Mr. Marshall Everson was present. Commission Members were in agreement that this was an excellent idea and met the current trend to locate day care facilities in office locations. Mrs. Paulus recommended amendment approval. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. ACAOEMY November 21, 1986 Mr. Craig Larson City Planner City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: 6515 Barrie Road, Edina, MN 55435 Change in zoning from POD -1 to include child care as a permissable use. Dear Craig: The captioned property is currently zoned POD -1, planned office district, and although we have operated a center in this building for many years with your knowledge, we request a change in the classification to specifically include child care and schools as a permitted use. Expeditious handling will be greatly appreciated inasmuch as we plan to re -open our infant section on January 5, 1987. It should be pointed out we will maintain an office in this building as before, and please call me if you encounter any problems or desire further information. Thanks. S' erely, Marshall Everson President MHE /jb cc: Sharon Perwien, State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services MONTESSORI ACADEMY, INC. AND LA PEPINIERE MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. MONTESSORI DAY CARE CENTER INC. OFFICE: 5601 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 TELEPHONE: 612 - 829 -5929 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Lot 6, Block 1, INDIAN HILLS 2ND ADDITION WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: That part of Lot 6, Block 1, Indian Hills 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the North line of said Lot 6 distant 64.57 feet south- easterly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 6 to a point on the South line of said Lot 6 distant 41.63 feet southeasterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 6 and said line there terminating. and That part of Lot 6, Block 1, Indian Hills 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northwesterly of a line and its south- westerly extension drawn from a point on the North line of said Lot 6 distant 64.57 feet southeasterly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 6 to a point on the South line of said Lot 6 distant 41.63 feet southeasterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 6 and said line there terminating. 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 Nos. 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 prupose 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 15th day of December, 1986. STATE OF MINNESOTA ). COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ), SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of December 15th, 1986 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 14th day of January, 1987. City Clerk M E M O R A N D U M TO: Community Development and Planning Commission FROM: Craig Larsen, City Planner 6 SUBJECT: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance to add Day Care as a permitted use in the Planned Office District. DATE: November 24, 1986 Staff has received a request to permit day care in the Office District. Day care is currently allowed in all residential districts, and in all commercial districts. This amendment would add day care to the office and industrial districts. Recommendation: Staff supports the proposed amendment. The amendment would allow the placement of day care facilities near large em- ployment concentrations. Individual centers are inspected and licensed by the state to insure adequate facilities, play areas and safety of the children. QQ)-�� , � - iI Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 825 Add Day Care to Office District as Principal Use. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission staff has received a request to permit day care in the Office District. He added day care is currently allowed in all residential districts, and in all commercial districts. This amendment would add day care to the office and industrial districts. Mr. Larsen concluded staff supports the proposed amendment. Mr. Marshall Everson was present. Commission Members were in agreement that this was an excellent idea and met the current trend to locate day care facilities in office locations. Mrs. Paulus recommended amendment approval. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. r pNTESSp R ACADEMY � November 21, 1986 Mr. Craig Larson City Planner City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: 6515 Barrie Road, Edina, MN 55435 Change in zoning from POD-1 to include child care as a permissable use. Dear Craig: The captioned property is currently zoned POD -1, planned office district, and although we have operated a center in this building for many years with your knowledge, we request a change in the classification to specifically include child care and schools as a permitted use. Expeditious handling will be greatly appreciated inasmuch as we plan to re -open our infant section on January 5, 1987. It should be pointed out we will maintain an office in this building as before, and please call me if you encounter any problems or desire further information. Thanks. SUITerely, � E � Marshall Everson President MHE /jb cc: Sharon Perwien, State of Minnesota, Department of Human Services MONTESSORI ACADEMY, INC. AND LA PEPINIERE MONTESSORI SCHOOL, INC. MONTESSORI DAY CARE CENTER INC. OFFICE: 5601 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 TELEPHONE: 612 -829 -5929 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE -TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: December 15, 1986 -Irl. Material Description (General Specifications): (On West 50th St.) Sanitary Sewer Pipe Relining from Jay Place to Halifax Avenue; Arden Avenue from W. 50th to 430' South; Bruce..Avenue from W. 50th St. to 500' South - Quotations /Bids: Company 1. Insituform Central, Inc. Only bidder doing this type of work locally. Department Recommendation: Insituform Central, Inc. (Recommend only W. 50th Street portion of work) Amount of Quote or Bid $102,618.00 $25,428.00 ` Plibl it Works - Utility Signa re Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid is is not City nager's Endorsement: within the amount budget for the purchase. John Wallin, Finance Director 1. I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenn h Rosland, City-Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: December 10, 1986 Material Description (General Specifications): Renovation of Sewer Jet Machine Quotations /Bids: Company 1. LaHa.ss Mfg. & Sales 2. Flexible Tool Company 3. Minnesota Warmer Company Department Recommendation: La Hass Mfg. & Sales Finance Director's End- sement. The recommended bi is is not V.2 Amount of Quote or Bid $6,875.00 $7,345.00 $6,875.00 _ ubl i s WorkG- 1 i l i l -tom_ Sign ture Department within the amount budget for the purchase. W John Wallin, Finance Director City Manager's Endorsement: concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE T0: Mayor and City Council . ROM: CRAIG SWANSON, CHIEF OF POLICE VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEtYt IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: December 12, 1986 Material Description (General Specifications): Six'(6) 1987 Full -size Police Pursi±it Vehicles (Re- lacements) Quotations /Bids: Company 1. Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet 1801 East Co. Rd. "F" White Bear Lake, MN 55110 2. V.3 Amount of Quote or Bid $67,763.00 (Per Hennenin County Cooperative Purchasing Contract No. 7505) Department Recommendation: Low Bidder - Polar Chevrolet PO '/1 Signature Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid a is not within the amount budget for the purchase. Finance Director City Manaaer's Endorsement: fI concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. PP ve 2. I recommend as an alternative: nneth Rosland, Ci nager v.4 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: CRAIG SWANSON, CHIEF OF POLICE VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ITEM IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: December.12, 1986 . Material Description (General Specifications): (1) Chevrolet S -10 Pick -un Truck (Replacement) (Animal Control) Quotations /Bids: Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet $9,929.00 1801 East Co. Rd. "F" White Bear Lake, MN 55110 2. (Per Hennenin County Coo - erative Purchasing Contract No. 7504) 3. Department Recommendation: Low-Bidder - Polar Chevrolet Signature P©/ e*- -4f- Department Finance Director's Endorsement: The recommended bid (32- is not within the amount budget for the purchase. John Wallin, Finance Director City Ma ager's Endorsement: I concur with the recommendation of the Department and recommend Council approve the purchase. 2. I recommend as an alternative: Kenneth Rosl nd, it _anager MINUTES TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE DECEMBER 9, 1986 9:00 A. M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Fran Hoffman, Chairman Alison Fuhr Gordon Hughes Lois Coon Craig Swanson MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Leonard Kleven, Edina Police Department Joan, Waterstreet, Edina Police Department Dave and Mary Jane Nelson, 6504 Warren Avenue John Kistle, 6101 Wooddale Avenue Arlan Winikoff, 6328 Warren Avenue John and Fran Magoffin, 6340 Warren Avenue Harry Lundquist, 6355 Warren Avenue H. Gerald Floren, 6316 Warren Avenue Gretchen Latterell, 6341 Warren Avenue Doug Johnson, 5701 Normandale Road Roberta Castellano, 4854 France Avenue SECTION A Requests on which the Committee recommends approval as requested or modified, and the Council's authorization of recommended action. (1) Discuss traffic safety concerns on Warren Avenue at West 64th Street. Continued from November meeting. ACTION TAKEN: Since last month's meeting, the neighbors in the area had drawn up a questionnaire which was sent to all concerned parties in the immediate area outlining the options discussed at the November meeting. Also, Mr. Hoffman in turn sent a letter to Mrs. Magoffin and asked her to circulate it among the area residents. This letter proposed several improvements and changes for the Warren Avenue and West 66th Street problems. The following improvements were outlined in Mr. Hoffman's letter of December 5, 1986: (a) Relocation of school bus stops away from restricted visibility locations. (This had already been accomplished by this meeting date.) VI.1 TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES December 9, 1986 Page 2 (Continued) (b) Installation of an additional stop sign for eastbound West 64th Street at Warren Avenue, with signing on each corner indicating that three legs stop only. This would be similar to West 70th Street and Antrim Road. (c) The installation of warning signs on northbound Warren Avenue to slow down at the crest of the hill with a slight reduction of the pavement elevation at the crest by Public Works Department in the spring. (d) Speed enforcement by the Police Department to create an awareness of the road users both at the north and south end of Warren Avenue in the study area, to begin January of 1987 with the Traffic Enforcement Unit. (e) Trimming of shrubbery on the southeast corner to enhance the view of those stopped on westbound West 64th Street. (f) Experimental installation of "rumble strips" to go up the hill before the crest of the hill and also down the hill before reaching the playground area. Mr. Hoffman also offered that both a Police and an Engineering survey had been completed since the November meeting. The Engineering survey showed that 350 vehicles per day were recorded on Warren Avenue with 1100 vehicles crossing Wyman Bridge. There were also 209 vehicles in the Normandale Park area. Particular attention was paid to see the numbers of students using this route at school dismissal time. The southbound observation was no students, and the northbound observation was 10 students. Captain Kleven also reported that five speed surveys had been taken between November 17, 1986 and December 6, 1986; one during school dismissal periods and four between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 PM. These surveys showed that of the 12 vehicles observed during the 45 minute school dismissal period, there was a 92% speed compliance. In the additional four surveys, there was a mid -80% compliance figure. Mrs. Magoffin stated that the neighborhood was very impressed with some or all of the above suggestions mentioned in Mr. Hoffman's letter and was questioning the timing of these improvements. Mr. Hoffman stated that, with the exception of the slight reduction in the pavement eleva- tion at the crest of the hill, the other improvements could be completed in the near future. Gordon Hughes moved that the above six items be implemented, with the modification of Item FfT to read one rumble strip at the crest of the hill only. Craig Swanson seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 -0. I TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES December 6, 1986 Page 3 (Continued) (2) Request for pedestrian crossing on Cahill Road at Amundson Avenue. Request received from Lt. Jay Brask, Edina Police Department. ACTION TAKEN: Captain Kleven stated that this request was most probably prompted by the number of pre - schoolers on Oak Glen who frequent the Kenney's Supermarket combined with the new construction projects which are now growing on the west side. Mr. John Kistle commented that, although he was not present at the meeting to represent this particular issue, he was there to voice a concern regarding the apparent lack of respect drivers have for pedestrians in crosswalks. Mrs. Coon also expressed concern as to how the crosswalk would be marked or signed so as not to give the pedestrians a false sense of security when crossing. She was advised that there would be both crosswalk signing and also "Crosswalk Ahead" painting of the street. Mrs. Fuhr moved that a pedestrian crosswalk be installed near the entrance to Oak Glen based on recommendations by the Police Department for the proper placement. Mrs. Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. (3) Request to change parking signs on East Frontage Road in front of Edina Community Center from 1'2 HOUR PARKING" to "BUS PARKING ONLY ". Request received from Doug Johnson, Director, Edina Community Center. ACTION TAKEN: Mr. Johnson appeared before the Committee to express concern as to the number of children who will be attending kindergarten at the Community Center this coming school year and the traffic patterns involved with both bus usage and private individuals who will be dropping their young children at school. He would like to have the bused children dropped as close to the north entrance on Normandale as possible. As this is presently a 2 hour parking area, there is a large amount of traffic not only before and after school, but throughout the day. He inquired as to the feasibility of having a "NO PARKING, MONDAY - FRIDAY, 8 AM TO 4 PM" zone to replace the 2 -hour parking zone to make it legal for buses to drop the children but illegal for long term parking. The question was raised as to what parking problems could be anticipated due to this lack of on- street parking, and Mr. Johnson seemed to think that once the public was educated to using the main lot and the overflow lot that there would be no major parking problem. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES December 9, 1986 Page 4 (Continued) Mr. Swanson moved that "BUS PARKING ONLY, MON - FRI, 8 AM - 4 PM" signs be installed along the east Normandale Frontage Road, effective August 1, 1987. Mrs. Coon seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 -0. (4) Request for "NO PARKING" signs on north side of West 49th Street in 3900 block. Request received from Mrs. Richard Johnston, 3901 West 49th Street. ACTION TAKEN: Ms. Castellano appeared before the Committee to express her concern that northbound traffic turning left from France Avenue onto West 49th Street and then left again into the White Oaks Apartment driveway must actually swing wide and into the oncoming traffic lane due to persons parking on on the north side of West 49th Street. Mr. Hughes moved that "NO PARKING" signs be placed on the north side of West 49th Street on the west side of France from the corner and to incorporate three parking spaces to allow for adequate clearance when making the left hand turn onto West 49th Street from northbound France Avenue. Mr. Swanson seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 -0. SECTION B Requests on which .the Committee recommends denial of request. NONE. SECTION C Requests which are deferred to a later date or referred to others. NONE. Respectfully submitted, EDINA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE VI.3 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Courtney & Council Members FROM: Ken Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: FEES APPROVED BY RESOLUTION DATE: November 12, 1986 The approval of the proposed changes in fees contained in the following two schedules requires a resolution from the Council. One schedule contains the fees and charges that the Park Board is recommending for 1987. The second schedule contains the proposed changes in Ambulance fees for 1987. These fees are based on a relationship to the Level I services. The proposed changes are comparable to Hennepin County's rates and Medicare remibursement. The additional charge noted is a new fee. In the past, charges were tied strictly to whether a victim was transported. The new fee is not for a medical procedure performed even though the individual is not transported. (i.e. administer drugs) VI.3 M E M O R A N D U M December 12, 1986 MEMO TO: Ken Rosland City /)Manager P, -0 FROM: 40b Kojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department RE: Fees and Charges Enciosed is the final tees and charges for 1987. Both the Art Center and the Edina Park Board have approved the recommended fees and charges. Also attached is a copy of the October 31, 1986 memo giving comparisons of fees and charges in other communities. EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FEES AND CHARGES/OTHER THAN BY ORDINANCE Park and Recreation 1987 Fees Participants Income Projected Revenue Revenue Increase 1986 1985 1986 1986 1987 1987 Playground $ Dramatics and Theatre 7.00 20.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 619 $ 3,714.00 $ 4,333.00 $ 619.00 T Bawl 20.00 18.00 18.00 17.00 17.00 32 170 576.00 640.00 64.00 Tennis Instruction 20.00 18.00 17.00 176 3,060.00 3,400.00 340.00 3,168.00 3,520.00 352.00 Art Center Memberships: Family Individual $ 35.00 35.00 $32.00 36 $ 1,260.00 $ 1,368.00 $ 108.00 25.00 25.00 20.00 280 7,000.00 7,840.00 840.00 Class Fees: (8 weeks) Adult Members $ 60.00 48.00 $46.00 Adult Non - members 66.00 56.00 54.00 Child Member Child Non - Members 40.00 32.00 30.00 1,600 $58,500.00 $65,000.00 $6,500.00 44.00 38.00 36.00 Art Center Rental $ 30.00 /group Arena Single Hour Rate As of September Contract Rate (10 or more hours) $ 80.00 70.00 70.00\ *$220,000.00 $245,000.00 $ 25,000.00 75.00 67.50 65.00 Late Night - midnight or later 60.00 55.00 50.00 Open Skating Skate Rental 2.25 2.25 2.25 2,622 * 5,900.00 8,000.00 2,100.00 Skate Sharpen 1.06 1.50 1.06 1.06 873 * 925.00 1,000.00 75.00 Summer Rental Pavilion: 1.50 500 /day 1.50 2,252 * 3,378.50 3,300.00 (78.50) Season Tickets (Eff. 10/1/87) Resident Family Resident Individual $ 52.00 52.00 50.00�pprox. *$ 27,000.00 $11,600.00 $(15,400.00) Non Resident Family 32.00 62.00 32.00 62.00 30.00 60.00 800 Non Resident Individual 37.00 37.00 35.00 Classes (as of January 1,1987) 40.00 35.00 35.00 --467 * 16,320.00 18,650.00 2,333.00 Gun Range Pistol 1/2 hour 25 rounds trap $ 4.00 3.75 3.75 * 704 *$ 2,640.00 $ 2,816.00 $ 176.00 Building - per hour 4.50 45.00 4.00 40.00 4.00 40.00 *1,367 *3.75hrs. * 5,468.00 * 6,151.50 683.50 150.00 168.75 18.75 Pool Season Tickets: Resident Family Resident Individual $ 44.00 40.00 37.00 988 $39,520.00 $43,472.00 $ 3, Non - resident Family 28.00 50.00 25.00 45.00 22.00 42.00 173 214 4,325.00 4,844.00 519.00 Non - resident Individual 33.00 30.00 27.00 9,630.00 10,700.00 1,070.00 31 930.00 1,023.00 93.00 Daily Admission: r Adult Youth $ 2.75 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 7,236 $18,092.00 $19,899.00 $ 1,807.00 2.25 2.00 2.00 Aquatic Instruction $ 20.00 18.00 $ 17.00 922 $16,596.00 $18,440.00 $ 1,844.00 Golf Course Patron Cards Individual Additional Family Member $ 45.00 40.00 40.00 1,617 $64,690.00 $72,500.00 $ 7.810.00 r 40.00 35.00 35.00 Computer Handicapps $ 10.00 8.00 6.25 333 666.00 600.00 (66.00) Lockers Mens' 72" 42" 30.00 30.00 30.00 Ladies Ladies 20.00 18.00 18.00 �0 p $ 1,250.00 $ 1,250.00 12.00 12.00 12.0 0/ Club rental Pull -carts 4.50 4.50 4.50 235 $ 1,058.00 $ 42.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 4,656 6.984.00 6,400.00 (584.00) Golf -cars 18 -holes 17.00 16.00 16.00 9 holes 9.00 8.50 8.50 18 holes Senior Citizen 14.00 13.00 12.00 6,391 9 holes Senior Citizen 7.5U 7.00 6.0 Group lessons - Golf course receives $3.00 per lesson - Balance to club pros Adult 42.00 40.00 38.00 Junior 22.00 20.00 20.00 1,002 Golf -Range Large Bucket of Balls 3.25 3.25 3.00 Small " 2.25 2.25 2.00> 46,766.00 Green fees 18 hole non patron $12.00 $11.50 $11.00 18 hole patron 9.00 8.50 8.00 9 hole non patron 8.00 7.00 6.50 9 hole patron 6.00 5.50 5.00 Seniors 54,510.00 18 hole non patron $11.00 $10.50 $10.00 18 hole patron 8.00 7.50 7.00 9 hole non patron 7.00 6.50 6.00 9 hole patron 5.50 5.00 4.50 Executive Course Adult non patron $ 6.00 - 3.75 Adult patron 5.00 - 2.75 Senior & Junior non patron 5.00 - 2.50 Senior & Junior patron 4.00 - 1.75 Golf Car- everyone 6.00 - 0 Pull Carts 1.50 - _ .75 Clubhouse Grill Braemar Room Rental RENTALS Braemar Ballfields: $35 /hr - no lights $55 /hr - with lights General Park Areas: $50 /hr - commercial use (i.e.,TV Commercials) Picnic Shelters: $35 up to 50 people Showmobile: $550 /day $65 over 50 people (Lake Cornelia Park ) Rental of Athletic Field: $30 /game $50 /game with lights Portable Bleachers: $100 /day or $50 /hr. + Delivery Charge. Recreational Picnic Equipment - free usage Tupa Park $125 /day * =1985 figures (1986 figures not available at this time) ss 10 -30 -86 $82,504.00 $90,000.00 $ 7,496.00 $ 3,007.00 $ 3,000.00 $140,298.00 $135,000.00 (7.00) (5,298.00) $426,411.00 $467,000.00 $ 13,589.00 0 $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 $108,949.00 $120,000.00 $ 11,051.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 VIII.B M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ken Rosland FROM: Bob Kojetin SUBJECT: Fees and Charges DATE: October 31, 1986 Enclosed is a condensed version of the Fees and Charges schedule which has been presented to the Park Board but the area of the Art Center has not been approved or recommended by the Art Center Board. Non - Resident fees by the Swimming Pool and Braemar Arena. There were some 200 non - resident season tickets sold by the Municipal Pool. These residents were from the South Minneapolis area and Richfield. The Arena sold 50 non - resident season tickets. Edina is the only pool and skating facility which sell non - resident tickets at an increased charge. (Except for Eden Prairie which sells skating tickets, but Edina's fee is twice theirs.) FACILITY USAGE FEES which are proposed to be presented to the Edina Athletic Associations. The fee would be a $5.00 assessment per participant. The Associations that would be charged are the ones with the direct use of the park field areas. Other Cities charge the adults for field use but the youth are not given a direct field use charge. EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL POOL FEE COMPARISONS Anticipated New Hope 87 $32.00 $32.00 $20.00 $20.00 $2.00 $2.00 *Crystal 87 32.00 32.00 18.00 18.00 1.75 1.75 St. Louis Park 32.00 or 35.00 20.00/19.00 35.00 1.50 1.50 $25.00 preseason Under 12 18.00/16.00 *Crystal offers a coupon book $15.00 for 10 swims and a dollar day on Thursday from 1-4 pm. Resident Non Res. Resident Non Res. Daily Daily CITY Family Family Individual Individual Adult Youth Edina 86 $40.00 $45.00 $25.00 $30.00 $2.50 $2.00 Edina 87 44.00 50.00 28.00 33.00 2.75 2.25 Richfield 87 $36.00/2 same as 25.00 25.00 2.00 2.00 people. $ 6.00 resident per person thereafter. Bloomington 87 $13.00 + same as None 17.00 2.00 2.00 $7.00 /swimmer +Tax resident Anticipated New Hope 87 $32.00 $32.00 $20.00 $20.00 $2.00 $2.00 *Crystal 87 32.00 32.00 18.00 18.00 1.75 1.75 St. Louis Park 32.00 or 35.00 20.00/19.00 35.00 1.50 1.50 $25.00 preseason Under 12 18.00/16.00 *Crystal offers a coupon book $15.00 for 10 swims and a dollar day on Thursday from 1-4 pm. GOLF COURSE COMPARATIVE FEES & CHARGES 1986 1987 BROOKVIEW $10.50 $12.00 MINNEAPOLIS $ 9.50 $10.00 (5,COURSES) DWAN $12.00 $12.00 4. - 2 COMPARISONS OF ART CENTER FEES AND CHARGES CLASS RATES Facility Non - Member Hourly Rate Member Hourly Rate Non- Member 8 week 3 Fir. Class Bloomington $2.55 $2.00 $61.20 Art Center of MN $3.52 $2.85 $74.00 Minn. Museum $3.00 $2.60 $72.00 EDINA ART CENTER (1987 - 88) $2.75 $2.50 $66.00 MEMBERSHIP FEES Individual Family Discount Facility Rate I Rate on Classes Bloomington $10 $20 2001 Art Center of MN $30 NA 20`' Minn. Museum $20 $30 15% EDINA ART CENTER $25 $35 IOp HISTORY OF FEES AND CHARGES - EDINA ART CENTER MEMBERSHIP FEES YEAR INDIVIDUAL FAMILY 1977 -1979 $15.00 $25.00 1980 -1983 $17.00 $27.00 1984 -1985 $20.00 $32.00 1986 $25.00 $35.00 (proposed) 1987 -1988 $28.00 $38.00 CLASS FEES YEAR HOURLY RATES (NON - MEMBER FEES) 1977 $1.66 $2.08 1988 $1.66 $2.08 1979 $1.75 $1.75 1980 $1.87 $1.87 1981 $2.00 $2.00 1982 $2.08 $2.00 1983 $2.08 $2.00 1984 $2.25 $2.25 1985 $2.29 $2.50 1986 $2.50 $2.50 (proposed) 1987 -1988 $2.75 $2.75 RECOMMENDED FEES FOR 1986 -87 ICE RENTAL PRIME TIME NON -PRIME LATE NIGHT(llpm -6ai Braemar $75.00 (67.50) $80.00 (70.00) $60.00 (50.00) Augsburg $85.00 $75.00 Bloomington $70.00 $75.00 Burnsville $79.50 $78.90 Eden Prairie $76.80 Richfield $79.50 $42.40 Minnetonka $74.20 St. Louis Park $70.00 PUBLIC SKATING PER SESSION SEASON PASSES Adult Youth Family Ind. Braemar Braemar $2.25 Resident $52.00 $32.00 Augsburg $3.50 Non - Resident $62.00 $37.00 Bloomington $1.50 $1.25 Eden Prairie Burnsville $1.50 Resident $31.30 $18.80 Eden Prairie $2.00 $1.00 Non - Resident $46.25 $28.20 Richfield $1.50 $1.00 Minnetonka $1.25 St. Louis Park $1.50 $1.25 EHA ICE CREDIT By mutual agreement between the EHA and Park Dept., we have decided to disolve the ice credit. Every person was required to purchase a season ticket for open skating. In return we credited the Edina Hockey Association 10 hours of ice for every 40 boys in the program. Example: 760 boys in the program 1 4 = 190 hours 190 hours x $67.50/hr = $12,825.00 of credit 760 boys = approx. $24,320.00 of season tickets We give them - $12,825.00 back in credit leaving us with $11,495.00 net profit If we sell 200 individual tickets at $32.00 we will make $6400.00 and 100 family tickets at $52.00 will bring us $5200.00 or $11,600.00 on 300 out of 760 people. ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION REGISTRATION FEES COLLECTED BY ASSOCIATIONS TOTAL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION AGE /GRADE 1986 Fee PARTICIP. EDINA BASEBALL ASSOCIATION 9 -10 yr. olds $ 35 11 -13 yr. olds 40 14 -18 yr. olds 45 (Legion Surcharge) 16 -18 yr olds (Sr. Babe Ruth Surcharge) 16 -18 yr. olds (Mickey Mantle Surcharge) 16 yr. olds EDINA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION 4th -8th Grades 40 1st -2nd Grades 25 EDINA YOUTH SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION (E.Y.S.A.) Slow Pitch 3rd -12th Grade Fast Pitch 7th -12th Grade EDINA SOCCER ASSOCIATION House league 1st -12th Grade Traveling league EDINA GIRLS ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (E.G.A.A.) Flag Football 5th -12th Gr. Team Tennis 7th -12th Grade Volleyball 5th -12th Gr. Basketball 4th -12th Gr. Traveling Team Basketball 6th -8th Grade Fall Basketball Clinic Summer Basketball Clinic 3rd -4th Grade 5th -7th Grade 7th -9th Grade 18 35 27 693 X $5 = $3,465 521 x $5 =$ 2,605 312 x $5 =$ 1,560 1,551 x $5 = $7,755 22 161 x $5 =$ 805 18 75 x $5 =$ 375 18 32 50 15 12.50 15.00 25.00 ADULT SPORTS Adult Softball (slow - pitch) Regular season 175 /team 135 x $75= $10,125 Baseball (Edina "Scots" Town Team) Bandy 225 - 250 /team Co -Rec Broomball 250 /team Adult Volleyball 35 /team Adult Basketball 235 /team Adult Hockey - 4 man team new program 35 /team Total $26,690 EDINA BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION House 3rd -8th Grades 50 1st -2nd Grades 40 After School 30 EDINA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION A team 75 Squirts Mites 7 -8 yr. olds 55 Squirts 9 -10 yr. olds 105 Pee Wees 11 -12 yr. olds 105 Bantams 13 -14 yr. olds 105 Midgets 15 -16 yr. olds 105 Juveniles 35 Midgets A 105 Jr. B's 17 -18 yr. olds 105 Required Traveline Team Surcharee Squirts A team 75 Squirts B team 65 Pee Wees A team 115 Pee Wees B team 80 Pee Wees B2 team 35 Bantams A team 120 Bantams B team 85 Bantams B2 team 35 Midgets A team 140 Midgets B team 105 Juveniles 105 City Hockey School 50 -60 Traveling Hockey School 70 -80 Goalie Shooting School& Defensemen School 55 Skating Techniques School 45 -55 EDINA SWIM CLUB HIGH SCHOOL (Sept.- March) Swimmers FULL SEASON BOYS GIRLS Stroke $ 42 White 140 Green 210 $127 $140 Gold 245 148 163 Senior 333 200 220 Swim meet 1 per splash *$24 goes directly to MN. swimming (insurance) BRAEMAR CITY OF LAKES FIGURE SKATING CLUB Memberships 1/2 year club member Patch and Free Style Time Pro's Time EDINA GYMNASTICS ASSOCIATION 1 hour per week $ 78 1 1/2 hour per week 107 2 hours per week 137 2 1/2 hour per week 166 3 hours per week 193 3 1/2 hours per week 222 4 hours per week 249 4 1/2 hours per week 272 5 hours per week 294 EDINA WRESTLING ASSOCIATION 0 SC 4 du 1e- -- AMBULANCE FEES Ambulance Service, including medical treatment and /or transportation to a medical facility, Service Level Fees: Level I -- Basic Life Support (BLS) Vital Signs Oxygen Splinting Backboard Bandaging Etc. Level II -- Advanced Life Support (ALS) I. V. Set -ups Drug Therapy E. K. G. Monitoring Mast Trousers Extrication Etc. Level III -- Code 3 Transports (ALS) Cardiac Arrest Any problem needing Code 3 Transport to hospital Additional Charge for transportation to downtown hospitals: Abbott /Northwestern Minneapolis Children's Medical Center Mt. Sinai Fairview (Lutheran) Deaconess Hennepin County Medical Center Metropolitan Medical Center Fairview Riverside /St. Mary's University of Minnesota North Memorial Medial Center Veteran's Administration Additional Charge for specialized medical services performed at scene with no transportation involved: Proposed 1987 1986 $225.00 $195:00 $275.00 $325.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $245.00 $295.00 $ 50.00 VI.3 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor Courtney & Council Members FROM: Ken Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: FEES APPROVED BY RESOLUTION DATE: November 12, 1986 The approval of the proposed changes in fees contained in the following two schedules requires a resolution from the Council. One schedule contains the fees and charges that the Park Board is recommending for 1987. The second schedule contains the proposed changes in Ambulance fees for 1987. These fees are based on a relationship to the Level I services. The proposed changes are comparable to Hennepin County's rates and Medicare remibursement. The additional charge noted is a new fee. In the past, charges were tied strictly to whether a victim was transported. The new fee is not for a medical procedure performed even though the individual is not transported. (i.e. administer drugs) M E M O R A N D U M December 12, 1986 MEMO TO: Ken Rosland City anager FROM: VoibKojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department RE: Fees and Charges Enciosed is the final tees and charges for 1987. Both the Art Center and the Edina Park Board have approved the recommended fees and charges. Also attached is a copy of the October 31, 1986 memo giving comparisons of tees and charges in other communities. VI.3 SChedw1e I EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FEES AND CHARGES /OTHER THAN BY ORDINANCE 70.00 70.00\ Contract Rate (10 or more hours) 75.00 67.50 65.00 Late Night - midnight or later 60.00 55.00 50.00 Open Skating 2.25 Projected Revenue Park and Recreation 1987 Fees 1986 1985 Participants 1986 Income Revenue Increase Summer Rental Pavilion: 500 /day 50.00 Season Tickets (Eff. 10/1/87) 42.00 1986 1987 1987 Playground Dramatics and Theatre $ 7.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 619 $ 3,714.00 $ 4,333.00 $ 619.00 T Ball 20.00 18.00 17.00 32 576.00 640.00 64.00 Tennis Instruction 20.00 20.00 18.00 18.00 17.00 17.00 170 3,060.00 3,400.00 340.00 2.25 2.00 2.00 176 3,168.00 3,520.00 352.00 Art Center 922 Golf Course Memberships: Individual $ Family Individual $ 35.00 35.00 $32.00 36 $ 1,260.00 $ 1,368.00 $ 108.00 35.00 25.00 25.00 20.00 280 7,000.00 7,840.00 840.00 Class Fees: (8 weeks) Mens' 72" Mens' 42" Adult Members $ 60.00 48.00 $46.00 20.00 18.00 18.00 Adult Non - members 66.00 56.00 54.00 12.00 12.0 Club rental Child Member Child Non - Members 40.00 32.00 30.00 1,600 $58,500.00 $65,000.00 $6,500.00 1.50 44.00 38.00 36.00 Art Center Rental $ 30.00 /group Arena Single Hour Rate As of September $ 80.00 70.00 70.00\ Contract Rate (10 or more hours) 75.00 67.50 65.00 Late Night - midnight or later 60.00 55.00 50.00 Open Skating 2.25 2.25 2.25 2,622 Skate Rental 1.06 1.06 1.06 873 Skate Sharpen 1.50 1.50 1.50 2,252 Summer Rental Pavilion: 500 /day 50.00 Season Tickets (Eff. 10/1/87) 42.00 214 Non - resident Individual Resident Family $ 52.00 52.00 50.00pprox. Resident Individual 32.00 32.00 30.00-_,, 800 Non Resident Family 62.00 62.00 60.00 Non Resident Individual 37.00 37.00 35.00 Classes (as of January 1,1987) 40.00 35.00 35.00 --467 Gun Range $ 2.50 7,236 Youth 2.25 2.00 2.00 *$220,000.00 $245,000.00 $ 25,000.00 * 5,900.00 8,000.00 2,100.00 * 925.00 1,000.00 75.00 * 3,378.50 3,300.00 (78.50) *$ 27,000.00 $11,600.00 $(15,400.00) * 16,320.00 18,650.00 is o our $ 4.00 3.75 3.75 * 704 *$ 2,640.00 $ 2,816:00 25 rounds trap 4.50 4.00 4.00 *1,367 * 5,468.00 6,151.50 Building - per hour 45.00 40.00 40.00 *3.75hrs. * 150.00 168.75 Pool $43,472.00 4,325.00 4,844.00 9,630.00 10,700.00 Season Tickets: 1,023.00 Resident Family $ 44.00 40.00 37.00 988 Resident Individual 28.00 25.00 22.00 173 Non - resident Family 50.00 45.00 42.00 214 Non - resident Individual 33.00 30.00 27.00 31 Daily Admission: r Adult $ 2.75 $ 2.50 $ 2.50 7,236 Youth 2.25 2.00 2.00 Aquatic Instruction $ 20.00 18.00 $ 17.00 922 Golf Course Patron Cards Individual $ 45.00 40.00 40.00 1,617 Additional Family Member 40.00 35.00 35.00 Computer Handicapps $ 10.00 8.00 6.25 333 Lockers Mens' 72" Mens' 42" 30.00 30.00 30.00 Ladies 20.00 18.00 18.00 12.00 12.00 12.0 Club rental 4.50 4.50 4.50 235 Pull -carts 1.50 1.50 1.50 4,656 $39,520.00 $43,472.00 4,325.00 4,844.00 9,630.00 10,700.00 930.00 1,023.00 $18,092.00 $19,899.00 $16,596.00 $18,440.00 $64,690.00 $72,500.00 666.00 600.00 0 $ 1,250.00 $ 1,058.00 $ 11100.00 6,984.00 6,400.00 2,333.00 $ 176.00 683.50 18.75 $ 3,952.00 519.00 1,070.00 93.00 $ 1,807.00 $ 1,844.00 $ 7,810.00 (66.00) $ 1,250.00 42.00 (584.00) Golf -cars 18 -holes 17.00 16.00 16.00 9 holes 9.00 8.50 8.50 18 holes Senior Citizen 14.00 13.00 12.00 6,391 9 holes Senior Citizen 7.50 7.00 6.0 Group lessons - Golf course receives $3.00 per lesson - Balance to club pros Adult 42.00 40.00 38.00 Junior 22.00 20.00 20.00 1,002 Golf -Range Large Bucket of Balls 3.25 3.25 3.00 Small " 2.25 2.25 2.00 46,766.00 Green fees 18 hole non patron $12.00 $11.50 $11.00 18 hole patron 9.00 8.50 8.00 9 hole non patron 8.00 7.00 6.50 9 hole patron 6.00 5.50 5.00 Seniors 54,510.00 18 hole non patron $11.00 $10.50 $10.00 18 hole patron 8.00 7.50 7.00 9 hole non patron 7.00 6.50 6.00 9 hole patron 5.50 5.00 4.50 Executive Course Adult non patron $ 6.00 - 3.75 Adult patron 5.00 - 2.75 Senior & Junior non patron 5.00 - 2.50 Senior & Junior patron 4.00 - 1.75 0 Golf Car- everyone 6.00 - - Pull Carts 1.50 - .75 /Clubhouse r Grill \ Braemar Room Rental �Z RENTALS Braemar Ballfields: $35 /hr - no lights $55 /hr - with lights General Park Areas: $50 /hr - commercial use (i.e.,TV Commercials) Picnic Shelters: $35 up to 50 people $65 over 50 people (Lake Cornelia Park ) Showmobile: $550 /day Rental of Athletic Field: $30 /game $50 /game with lights Portable Bleachers: $100 /day or $50 /hr. + Delivery Charge. Recreational Picnic Equipment - free usage Tupa Park $125 /day * =1985 figures (1986 figures not available at this time) ss 10 -30 -86 $82,504.00 $90,000.00 $ 7,496.00 $ 3,007.00 $ 3,000.00 (7.00) $140,298.00 $135,000.00 (5,298.00) $426,411.00 $467,000.00 $ 13,589.00 0 $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 $108,949.00 $120,000.00 $ 11,051.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 VIII.B M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ken Rosland FROM: Bob Kojetin SUBJECT: Fees and Charges DATE: October 31, 1986 Enclosed is a condensed version of the Fees and Charges schedule which has been presented to the Park Board but the area of the Art Center has not been approved or recommended by the Art Center Board. Non - Resident fees by the Swimming Pool and Braemar Arena. There were some 200 non- resident season tickets sold by the Municipal Pool. These residents were from the South Minneapolis area and Richfield. The Arena sold 50 non - resident season tickets. Edina is the only pool and skating facility which sell non - resident tickets at an increased charge. (Except for Eden Prairie which sells skating tickets, but Edina's fee is twice theirs.) FACILITY USAGE FEES which are proposed to be presented to the Edina Athletic Associations. The fee would be a $5.00 assessment per participant. The Associations that would be charged are the ones with the direct use of the park field areas. Other Cities charge the adults for field use but the youth are not given a direct field use charge. EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL POOL FEE COMPARISONS Anticipated New Hope 87 $32.00 $32.00 $20.00 $20.00 $2.00 $2.00 *Crystal 87 32.00 32.00 18.00 18.00 1.75 1.75 St. Louis Park 32.00 or 35.00 20.00/19.00 35.00 1.50 1.50 $25.00 preseason Under 12 18.00/16.00 *Crystal offers a coupon book $15.00 for 10 swims and a dollar day on Thursday from 1 -4 pm. Resident Non Res. Resident Non Res. Daily Daily CITY Family Family Individual Individual Adult Youth Edina 86 $40.00 $45.00 $25.00 $30.00 $2.50 $2.00 Edina 87 44.00 50.00 28.00 33.00 2.75 2.25 Richfield 87 $36.00/2 same as 25.00 25.00 2.00 2.00 people. $ 6.00 resident per person thereafter. Bloomington 87 $13.00 + same as None 17.00 2.00 2.00 $7.00 /swimmer +Tax resident Anticipated New Hope 87 $32.00 $32.00 $20.00 $20.00 $2.00 $2.00 *Crystal 87 32.00 32.00 18.00 18.00 1.75 1.75 St. Louis Park 32.00 or 35.00 20.00/19.00 35.00 1.50 1.50 $25.00 preseason Under 12 18.00/16.00 *Crystal offers a coupon book $15.00 for 10 swims and a dollar day on Thursday from 1 -4 pm. GOLF COURSE COMPARATIVE FEES & CHARGES 1986 1987 BROOKVIEW $10.50 $12.00 MINNEAPOLIS $ 9.50 $10.00 (5,COURSES) DWAN $12.00 $12.00 2 COMPARISONS OF ART CENTER FEES AND.CHARGES CLASS RATES Facility Non - Member Hourly Rate Member Hourly Rate Non- Member 8 week 3 Hr. Class Bloomington $2.55 $2.00 $61.20 Art Center of MN $3.52 $2.85 $74.00 Minn. Museum $3.00 $2.60 $72.00 EDINA ART CENTER (1987 - 88) $2.75 $2.50 $66.00 MEMBERSHIP FEES I Individual Facility Rate FamlIy Rate Discount on Classes Bloomington $10 $20 20' Art Center of MN $30 NA 20% Minn. Museum $20 $30 15% EDINA ART CENTER $25 $35 IOp HISTORY OF FEES AND CHARGES - EDINA ART CENTER MEMBERSHIP FEES YEAR INDIVIDUAL FAMILY- 1977-1979 $15.00 $25.00 1980 -1983 $17.00 $27.00 1984 -1985 $20.00 $32.00 1986 $25.00 $35.00 (proposed) 1987 -1988 $28.00 $38.00 CLASS FEES YEAR HOURLY RATES (NON- MFMC3ER FEES) A 1977 $1.66 $2.08 1988 $1.66 $2.08 1979 $1.75 $1.75 1980 $1.87 $1.87 1981 $2.00 $2.00 1982 $2.08 $2.00 1983 $2.08 $2.00 1984 $2.25 $2.25 1985 $2.29 $2.50 1986 $2.50 $2.50 (proposed) 1987 -1988 $2.75 $2.75 RECOMMENDED FEES FOR 1986 -87 ICE RENTAL PRIME TIME NON -PRIME LATE NIGHT(llpm -6ar Braemar $75.00 (67.50) $80.00 (70.00) $60.00 (50.00) Augsburg $85.00 $75.00 Bloomington $70.00 $75.00 Burnsville $79.50 $78.90 Eden Prairie $76.80 Richfield $79.50 $42.40 Minnetonka $74.20 St. Louis Park $70.00 PUBLIC SKATING PER SESSION SEASON PASSES Adult Youth Family Ind. Braemar Braemar $2.25 Resident $52.00 $32.00 Augsburg $3.50 Non - Resident $62.00 $37.00 Bloomington $1.50 $1.25 Eden Prairie Burnsville $1.50 Resident $31.30 $18.80 Eden Prairie $2.00 $1.00 Non - Resident $46.25 $28.20 Richfield $1.50 $1.00 Minnetonka $1.25 St. Louis Park $1.50 $1.25 EHA ICE CREDIT By mutual agreement between the EHA and Park Dept., we have decided to disolve the ice credit. Every person was required to purchase a season ticket for open skating. In return we credited the Edina Hockey Association 10 hours of ice for every 40 boys in the program. Example: 760 boys in the program : 4 = 190 hours 190 hours x $67.50/hr = $12,825.00 of credit 760 boys = approx. $24,320.00 of season tickets We give them - $12,825.00 back in credit leaving us with $11,495.00 net profit If we sell 200 individual tickets at $32.00 we will make $6400.00 and 100 family tickets.at $52.00 will bring us $5200.00 or $11,600.00 on 300 out of 760 people. ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION REGISTRATION FEES COLLECTED BY ASSOCIATIONS TOTAL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION AGE /GRADE 1986 Fee PARTICIP. EDINA BASEBALL ASSOCIATION Volleyball 5th -12th Gr. Basketball 4th -12th Gr. 9 -10 yr. olds $ 35 ' 11 -13 yr. olds 40 5th -7th Grade 14 -18 yr. olds 45 (Legion Surcharge) 16 -18 yr olds (Sr. Babe Ruth Surcharge) 16 -18 yr. olds (Mickey Mantle Surcharge) 16 yr. olds EDINA FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION 4th -8th Grades 40 1st -2nd Grades 25 EDINA YOUTH SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION (E.Y.S.A.) Slow Pitch 3rd -12th Grade Fast Pitch 7th -12th Grade EDINA SOCCER ASSOCIATION House league 1st -12th Grade Traveling league EDINA GIRLS ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (E.G.A.A.) Flag Football 5th -12th Gr. Team Tennis 7th -12th Grade Volleyball 5th -12th Gr. Basketball 4th -12th Gr. Traveling Team Basketball 6th -8th Grade Fall Basketball Clinic Summer Basketball Clinic 3rd -4th Grade 5th -7th Grade 7th -9th Grade 18 35 27 693 X $5 = $3,465 521 x $5 =$ 2,605 312 x $5 =$ 1,560 1,551 x $5 = $7,755 22 161 x $5 =$ 805 18 75 x $5 =$ 375 18 32 50 15 12.50 15.00 25.00 ADULT SPORTS Adult Softball (slow - pitch) Regular season 175 /team 135 x $75= $10,125 Baseball (Edina "Scots" Town Team) Bandy 225 - 250 /team Co -Rec Broomball 250 /team Adult Volleyball 35 /team Adult Basketball 235 /team Adult Hockey - 4 man team new program 35 /team Total $26,690 EDINA BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION House 3rd -8th Grades 50 1st -2nd Grades 40 After School 30 EDINA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION GYMNASTICS ASSOCIATION Mites 7 -8 yr. olds 55 Squirts 9 -10 yr. olds 105 Pee Wees 11 -12 yr. olds 105 Bantams 13 -14 yr. olds 105 Midgets 15 -16 yr. olds 105 Juveniles 1/2 hours per week 105 Jr. B's 17 -18 yr. olds 105 Required Traveling Team Surcharge 1/2 hours per week 272 Squirts A team week 75 Squirts B team 65 Pee Wees A team 115 Pee Wees B team 80 Pee Wees B2 team 35 Bantams A team 120 Bantams B team 85 Bantams B2 team 35 Midgets A team 140 Midgets B team 105 Juveniles 105 City Hockey School 50 -60 Traveling Hockey School 70 -80 Goalie Shooting School& Defensemen School 55 Skating Techniques School 45 -55 EDINA SWIM CLUB HIGH SCHOOL (Sept.- March) Swimmers FULL SEASON BOYS GIRLS Stroke $ 42 White 140 Green 210 $127 $140 Gold 245 148 163 Senior 333 200 220 Swim meet 1 per splash ^"$24 goes directly to MN. swimming (insurance) BRAEMAR CITY OF LAKES FIGURE SKATING CLUB Memberships 1/2 year club member Patch and Free Style Time Pro's Time EDINA GYMNASTICS ASSOCIATION 1 hour per week $ 78 1 1/2 hour per week 107 2 hours per week 137 2 1/2 hour per week 166 3 hours per week 193 3 1/2 hours per week 222 4 hours per week 249 4 1/2 hours per week 272 5 hours per week 294 EDINA WRESTLING ASSOCIATION AMBULANCE FEES Ambulance Service, including medical treatment and /or transportation to a medical facility, Service Level Fees: Level I -- Basic Life Support (BLS) Vital Signs Oxygen Splinting Backboard Bandaging Etc. Level II -- Advanced Life Support (ALS) I. V. Set -ups Drug Therapy E. K. G. Monitoring Mast Trousers Extrication Etc. Level III -- Code 3 Transports (ALS) Cardiac Arrest Any problem needing Code 3 Transport to hospital Additional Charge for transportation to downtown hospitals: Abbott /Northwestern Minneapolis Children's Medical Center Mt. Sinai Fairview (Lutheran) Deaconess Hennepin County Medical Center Metropolitan Medical Center Fairview Riverside /St. Mary's University of Minnesota North Memorial Medial Center Veteran's Administration Additional Charge for specialized medical services performed at scene with no transportation involved: Proposed 1987 1986 $225.00 $195.00 $275.00 $245.00 $325.00 $295.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 TO: Bob Kojetin, Director, Edina Park and Recreation and Edina Park Board FROM: John Valliere, Manager, Braemar Golf Course DATE: March 11, 1986 RE: BRAEMAR CLUB HOUSE POLICY ON BANQUET ROOM RENTAL AND FEES The Banquet Room addition to the Braemar Club House will be beautiful. It was very much needed. Therefore, I believe all resident groups who enjoy its benefits should also share in its cost and upkeep. Resident golfers and golf leagues who play Braemar on a regular basis support the facility through daily green fees and patron card purchases, and many have done so for years. They should be responsible for routine clean up costs and overhead for the use of this fine addition, however because of their continuing support should not be charged the maximum rental fees which an outside group would be charged. These guidelines are included in the basic fee schedule. In as much as we would like to begin bookings and advertising for the Banquet Room May 1st, it is essential that we establish a policy on fees at this time. Actual -rental of the Banquet Room will not begin until July. FOUR BASIC GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS AND PROPOSED FEES 17 I. PARK AND GOLF COURSE RELATED EVENTS A.- Small Groups C B. Large Groups Examples: 90 160 Ath - (60 or less) $1.00 /person - (61 or more) $60.00 (Clean up fee) ladies for their Guest Day men for their tournaments letic Associations II. NORMAL RENTALS BY BUSINESSES GROUPS, NON RESIDENTS, INCLUDING SUCH THINGS AS WEDDING RECEPTIONS, ETC. $400 (1986) - RESIDENT $450 (1986) - NON RESIDENT III. EDINA SERVICE AND CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS Jaycees, Optimists, Chamber, etc. $75 Note: this fee pays for clean up and allows for overhead. IV. OUTSIDE GROUPS - NOON RENTAL $100 CO -ED LOUNGE The downstairs Co -ed lounge may be rented from time to time, small groups (under 35) who do not need the Banquet Room or food may rent this room. The fee may vary with size of group and time needed. A general rule of thumb will be $15.00 /hour. No damage deposit is necessary. Additional classifications and fee charges should be arrived at. These can, and should be worked out by management, for example, small groups on an afternoon rental which do not create substantial overhead costs. These will vary in size and scope and would be charged accordingly. A one hour set -up time is permitted at no charge, additional time may be granted by management provided that no other scheduled events conflict. The formal renting of the Banquet Room will be by contract and shall cover in detail such things as: 1. Fee structure C 2. Damage deposit 3. Initial booking deposits and fee payment schedules 4. Refunds for cancellations S. Responsibilities of clean up 6. State and city ordinances 7. Rules & Regulations of use A. Supervision B. Hours of use C. Damage Liability D. Areas of use E. Holidays F. Alcoholic Beverages G. Bands and Equipment H. Priority of Use (enclosed) A list of these policy regulations will be provided for approval at a later date. The proposed fees are equal to, or slightly less than, other hall rental fees. 1987 should bring an increase. 1986 being a promotional year which would allow us to iron out any details or problems. In order to avoid schedule conflicts a priority of use shall be as follows: 1. Braemar Golf and Park & Recreation functions. 2. Civic groups or organizations originating in and serving Edina -- - 3.- -- Non - prof. i. t_ .or.ganizat ions- .or.iginating. outside-of _ Edina _which -are conducting____. activities /events for residents of Edina. 4. Individual residents for private parties 5. Private industry or commercial groups whose location is in Edina 6. Clubs organized for financial profit of individual members who are residents of Edina. 7. Non - profit organizations originating outside of Edina 8. Non - resident individuals for private parties 9. Private industry or commercial organizations outside of Edina I suggest that the room not be booked more than one year in advance. This would allow course events to be given their proper priorities. ,7V : mk VI.4 M E M O R A N D U M TO: KENNETH ROSLAND, CITY MANAGER D FROM: MARCELLA DAEHN, CITY CLERK -fit' SUBJECT: OPTECH III -P VOTING SYSTEM Acquisition of the OPTECH III -P voting system was considered by the Council at its last meeting and the matter was continued to the meeting of December 15. During the discussion, Member Richards asked what protection the City would have if the price on the OPTECH III -P should come down between now and the time of delivery in mid -1988. I have received a reply to that question and - and a copy of Geoffrey Ryan's letter is attached. He has assured Edina that should their company offer the OPTECH III -P for a lower selling price in the same quantities prior to the time Edina makes its purchase, the lower selling price will be offered to Edina. Also attached is additional information regarding the proposal made to Hennepin County for the cooperative purchase by the cities within the.county of the optical scan voting system. ACTION RECOMMENDED (Memorandum of November 26, 1986) Authorization of the use of the optical scan voting system and purchase from Business Records Corporation of 23 OPTECH III -P units and approximately 176 voting booths, plus needed ancillary equipment for a total expenditure of not more than $143,000. i *1 Business Records Corporation Election Services Division 328 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 -5614 December 2, 1986 Marcella Daehn City Clerk 4801 West 50th Edina, Minnesota 55424 Dear Ms. Daehn, (312) 454 -1475 In a conversation with Jace Beckstrand, he indicated the meeting in Edina last Monday night went very well. He did say there was a concern with regard to pricing however. Please be assured that should Business Records Corporation offer the OPTECH III -P for a lower selling price in the same quantities prior to the time Edina make its purchase, the lower selling price will be offered to Edina. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me toll free 1- 800/621 -1181. GRR /jp Sincerely, Geo ey yan Vice Pre dent - Sales } k DATE: October 10, 1986 TO: Dan Decowski, Manager, Property I.D. & Election HENNEPIN Division FROM: Dale G. Folstad, Director, Property Tax & Public n Records I I SUBJECT: County -wide Optical Scan voting System During the 1987 County budget hearings, we had an opportunity to discuss the County -wide Optical Scan System. The County Board indicated a great deal of interest in seeing the implementation of this new technology. In doing so, they approved the purchase of all of the support equipment necessary to meet the needs of the municipalities that choose to use the optical scan equipment. In addition, the County Board indicated strong support for encouraging all municipalities to adopt the new optical scan technology as quickly as possible. To that end they passed the attached Resolution encouraging all municipalities to find funds to acquire the new equipment. They further indicated a willingness to seek legislation for bonding authority or other financial assistance for those municipalities that simply cannot find funds or financing on their own. It was clear that this would be considered a last resort, given the budget constraints of the County, but would be considered if requested. It's clear that the County Board is enthusiastic about the Optical Scan voting System on a County -wide basis. Their support and encouragement is a significant step towards achieving that end. I am hopeful that the municipalities will be able to use their own budget resources or the vendor financing plan to make this transition. The County does stand ready to assist in any way that it can. DGF:ajs '. cc: —Marge Christianson Forward.e For Your i n f lco. —Y °� ti, HENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTION SECTION RESOLUTION N0. R /D -11A The following resolution was offered by Commissioners Robb and Derus WHEREAS, Hennepin County has statutory responsibility for the preparation of ballots and supporting materials for four different voting systems presently in use for all state -wide and national elections, and WHEREAS, It is financially beneficial for both Hennepin County and its municipalities to utilize the newly developed optical scan technology, and WHEREAS, The most effective way for Hennepin County to provide leadership in the replacement of the four existing voting systems to a single county -wide optical scan system is to assist the municipalities in the estimated $2,500,000 funding for the initial purchase of equipment. WHEREAS, Hennepin County's objective is to assist municipalities in obtaining funds necessary to purchase the optical scan voting equipment with all responsibility for ownership, storage, maintenance and operation remaining with each municipality. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That Hennepin County work with equipment vendors, municipalities and other appropriate parties in order to insure adequate funding for the necessary equipment, including seeking legislation for bonding authority and to otherwise assist municipalities requesting assistance in acquiring the new optical scan voting equipment thus insuring that a single system can be available throughout Hennepin County as quickly as possible. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were YEAS and NAYS, as follows: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YEA NAY OTHER Jeff Spartz Randy Johnson John Keefe John E. Derus E. F. Robb, Jr. Mark Andrew Sam S. Sivanich, Chairman ATTEST: Clerk of the County Board *1, Business Records Corporation Election Services Division 328 SOUTH JEFFERSOP:,STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 -5614 (312) 454.1475 October 8, 1986 Mr. Dale Folstad, Director Property Tax and Public Records A -609 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 Dear Mr. Folstad, This letter is to confirm my conversation of October 7, 1986 with Joyce Mercil, Director of Elections, City of Minneapolis and Marge Christianson. Business Records Corporation ballot tabulation, accumulation and set -up software for the OPTECH III -P optical scan voting system offered to Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis will meet or exceed performance standards as established by the Federal Election Commission. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call toll free 1- 800/621 -1181. GRR /jp Sincerely Geoffrey -R.'7fyan Vick President Central Region r BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL TO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 3, 1986 . Business Records Corporation Election Services Division RICHARO H. McKAY President 328 SOUTH JEFFERSON STREET - CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 -5614 (312) 454 -1475 October 3, 1986 Dale G. Folstad Director of Property Tax and Public Records A609 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Mr. Folstad, As a result of our several meetings and conversations with the Hennepin County Task Force on Voting Equipment, we are pleased to present the enclosed proposal. The document addresses the purchase and installation of the Optech III -P optical scan Voting System in Hennepin County. The proposed voting system utilizes the combined talents of Business Records Corporation Election Services Division Companies, each of which is widely recognized as an expert in providing the finest products and services to governmental entities. An attachment describes the various companies relationship and the concept by which BRC is able to offer this outstanding combination of people and products. Installation of the proposed system will involve many persons, each able to expertly accomplish an assigned task. Our Minnesota company, Government Business Systems of Minneapolis, will serve as the coordinator for the project. To clearly put into perspective the implementation of the proposal we have developed a preliminary master timetable, portions of which are included in the proposal. Working in concert with the Hennepin County Election Office, the Minneapolis Director of Elections, and the various municipal Election Authorities and following this timetable will guide us in reaching the objectives desired in changing systems. The plan as detailed is designed to provide the most cost effective and efficient transition possible. This plan calls for using the system countywide at the September, 1987 election and then again on November 3. As with any new procedure, extensive training and education of the internal staff and the precinct pollworkers is the most important factor in successfully implementing the new system. The best concept is to train staff and the pollworkers and allow them to use that training at the lower volume September election thereby giving them actual experience prior to November. Retention of the learning is thereby reinforced and more meaningful when used 2 months later. Dale G. Folstad October 3, 1986 Page 2 of 2 Introduction of the Optech III -P System on a countywide basis will prove to have distinct advantages. Media publicity and voter education programs will be easier to coordinate and far more effective if they apply to all rather than selected areas. Having only one rather than two systems in use will be more efficient during election preparation, much more cost effective in ballot printing, and allows for easier and more timely reporting of accumulated results. We are prepared to commence with the project immediately upon your acceptance and to that end Business Records Corporation will be ready to present a contract for consideration and approval at the appropriate time. We look forward to working with Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis on this project. RHM /jp Sincerely, (X-Richard HJMay BUSINESS RECORDS-CORPORATION, A DIVISION OF CRONUS INDUSTRIES, INC. CRONUS INDUSTRIES, INC. (NASDAQ:CRNS), headquartered in Dallas, is Business Records Corporation's parent company which consists of two major business segments: heat transfer equipment for electric utilities; and data processing systems and services for local governments. BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION (BRC), Cronus' $86 million growth division specializing in automating county government functions, was established for the purpose of helping local governments micrographically record and electronically index property transactions. Pursuing an aggressive acquisition policy BRC now serves over half of the 3,400 US counties with their computer based systems used in one or more of the following areas: Elections Land Record Indexing and Recording Record Re- Creation Tax Appraisal Tax Collection Jury Selection Motor Vehicle Registration Voter Registration Circuit Court State's Attorney Accounting and Finance BRC's selective acquisitions in the election services market have been aimed at providing capability to assure state -of- the -art equipment combined with professional service support to the full extent required. The BRC Election Services Division offices are located at 328 S. Jefferson Street, Chicago, IL 60606, Richard H. McKay, President - National WATS 1- 800/621 -1181. Business Records Corporation Election Services Division will coordinate the following to serve Hennepin County: Election Services - Manufacturing & Production is responsible for the development and production of vote tabulation systems and equipment. The division is an amalgamation of Computer Election Systems (CES), hardware specialists and Governmental Data Systems (GDS), software specialists. These systems are used by 1,035 voting jurisdictions in 40 states comprising over 44% of the total ballots cast in the United States. An Optech voting system counted over 1 million ballots in the 1984 Federal Election with high acceptance and accuracy. Further, technological advancements have resulted in refinements to improve the Optech III -P optical scan ballot tabulation system. GDS is the nationally acclaimed developer of election system integrators and software. Special competency is directed toward the 81 voting jurisdictions having voter registrations in excess of 100,000. Election Central reporting is one of GDS's outstanding specialties. Business Records Corporation "Home State" Companies are a national network of BRC election service and printing companies which inter- relate to provide field support in 9 states including Minnesota. The functions of the Home State Companies include: - Coordination of widely varied election printing, supply and service capabilities. - Development of all strategic election support plans within the region. - Provision of election system and election administration specialists and /or consultants to major jurisdictions. - Centralized accounting for including accounts payable, financial reporting. BRC's "Home State" Companies customer records and full The "Home State" Company which serves Hennepin County is Government Businss Systems, located in Minneapolis, Otto Johannes, President - Minnesota WATS 1- 800/247 -1153• Characteristic of all BRC "Home State" Companies, Government Business Systems (GBS) is the principal county government supplier in the state. Formerly the County Division of Miller /Davis, GBS regularly contacts and sells to all 87 counties in the State of Minnesota. In addition to county record books, court supplies and forms, GBS specializes in providing election materials and services to Minnesota jurisdictions. Its employees and sales consultants have wide knowledge and experience in Minnesota election procedures, ballot production, training and election support in order to conduct successful elections. INTRODUCTION TO OPTECH III -P The advantages of an optical scan system become readily apparent in administration environment. Most OPTECH III -P UNITS REQUIRED: 500 OPTECH III -P 5,000 Voting Booths* 500 Voting Supply Carriers STORAGE: Each OPTECH III -P requires 2.36 square feet. Units may be stacked 3 high further reducing storage space. As an option, the OPTECH III -P units could also be stored' inside the Voting Supply Carriers. Storage space required for 5,000 voting booths would be approximately 1,900 square feet if stacked j0 high. C {�cllot bo�(es C<.. bt sizcKcd z l�,'l�� TRANSPORTATION: Each OPTECH III -P weighs 20 pounds. Each voting booth 20 pounds. The number of OPTECH III -P units and booths required to service an equivalent number of lever machines weighs 10 TIMES LESS, resulting in shorter delivery time with fewer personnel. system compared to a mechanical today's complex election significant are: LEVER MACHINE 1,394 Lever Machines Each lever machine square feet. The required for 1,394 is 12,685.4 square is no space at all machines. occupies 9.1 total space lever machines feet if there between Each lever machine weighs 740 pounds, requiring considerable manpower to transport to each polling place. SET -UP AND PROGRAMMING: OPTECH III -P units are programmed by the election department staff or by our local company, Government Business Systems. Since normally only one OPTECH III -P is required per polling place the programming may be accomplished in substantially less time. BALLOT FORMAT: A two -sided variable length, single, double or triple column ballot may be used; format may be easily tailored for each election's requirements. AUDIT TRAIL: Marked ballots provide assurance of visual confirmation. PRINTING: The OPTECH III -P utilizes the same ballot for both absentee and regular ballots, reducing set -up time and costs. NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION: The OPTECH III -P ballot is vertical and may have both sides printed on one page. Each lever machine must be set -up and programmed individually. Since several machines are used in each poll this set -up time often lasts several weeks. Horizontal /vertical rows and lock -out requirements are very restrictive due to large number of parties and candidates. None in the event of mechanical malfunctions. Lever machines must have strips and paper absentee ballots printed separately, which substantially increases production time and charges. Due to the nature of the machine ballot the publications are often two pages wide resulting in a higher cost. t� •- t. POLL WORKERS: A complete precinct totals report is automatically generated by the single OPTECH III -P at each poll. Only Write -in's are manually tallied. Poll workers must manually add together the totals from the machines in -their polling place in addition to manually counting the absent voter ballots. Write - in votes must also be counted. Voting booths may be stacked in a manner which most cost effectively utilizes vertical space. One booth requires only 3.$ square feet of floor space. �Cuh b� , �4� K� io H, jk ) The security container of one OPTECH III -P system will be designed to accommodate up to 4,000 voters depending upon the ballot size, and will replace the two or three mechanical voting machines on which voters previously cast their ballots. It is recommended voting booths be placed in the precincts in a ratio of one voting booth for every 100 to 150 voters. A typical polling place will have 6 -10 voting booths to conveniently accommodate the voters on election day. Poll workers will perform basically the same duties in the polling places as always with the exception that they will issue the voter a ballot and a marking pen. A demonstration on the correct method of properly marking the ballot will be continuously performed as the voters enter the polling place. Upon proper qualification and required check -in procedures, a voter would be issued a ballot and marking pen and directed to go to any of the available voting booths. When the voters have successfully completed marking their ballot they are instructed to place their ballot in the secrecy sleeve provided and insert the ballot into the OPTECH III -P ballot tabulator. As the voter inserts the ballot from the secrecy sleeve, it is scaned on both sides of the ballot for marked votes, count all valid votes, advance the public counter and deposit the counted ballot in the appropriate compartment of the ballot box. There will be an attendant stationed at the OPTECH III -P ballot tabulator. Detailed procedures for closing the polls and obtaining the results will be addressed in the training program. It is sufficient to say that precinct results will be obtained quickly and easily from the OPTECH III -P print out. An added feature of the OPTECH III -P system is that three audit trails are available: one is the voted ballots; two is the printout and the third is the memory pack.' PRECINCT EQUIPMENT 500 OPTECH III -P (quantities of 500 +) includes data cartridge, metal ballot box, and freight 3,000 Self- contained Voting Booths accommodates optical scan, voting cases can be plastic, aluminum or blow molded 500 Data Cartridges 500 EPROMS U NIT PRICE EXTENSION $4,176.00 $2,088,000 @ 163.00 @ 225.00 @ 7.00 489,000 112,500 3,500 I . CENTRAL ACCUMULATION SOFTWARE & HARDWARE Listed below is the recommended equipment and software necessary for Hennepin County to prepare election parameters (coding), program chips (proms) and interface to the County's mainframe computer system. This configuration assumes utilization of the County's computer to accumulate precinct totals. Hardware: 4 Data Cartridge Programming Systems each consisting of: IBM PC -AT (3270PC -CPU 512K) (30Meg Disk) IBM KB /PRT Adapter IBM Color CRT TI Printer (220 CPS) GDS D/C Programmer (6 Pack -DCP) Software and Training:* System Operating Software (DOS) Election Management System a. Election Preparation (coding) Module b. Data Cartridge Programming Module c. AERO PC d. Mainframe Interface Module to IBM 3081 Training will be provided in a manner allowing the designated Hennepin County personnel to complete requirements for the 1987 municipal primary and general elections. This includes BRC on -site support personnel for both elections. See Training Section. TOTAL CENTRAL ACCUMULATION SYSTEM $247,500 TOTAL PRECINCT EQUIPMENT AND CENTRAL ACCUMULATION SYSTEM $2,940,500 *Annual software maintenance and license fee of $5,000 due January 1st of each year starting in 1988. I . PRINTER CERTIFICATION & LICENSING As a protection to Business Records Corporation and its customers, a printer certification and licensing program has been establi -shed as a prerequisite to ensure that the production of ballots will adhere to the quality standards and exacting tolerances required for accurate election results. Hennepin County will be licensed, will be certified by BRC and shall have full access to information and other supplies necessary to print optical- scan ballots acceptable to OPTECH III -P products. Business Records Corporation cannot be held accountable for election results based upon ballots provided by non - certified processors or by unauthorized printers. Accordingly, Hennepin County officials and their designated employees will be licensed and trained to the degree enabling them to develop their own printer certification program. Thereafter, Hennepin County officials will build a quality assurance system for OPTECH III -P ballots and will be solely responsible for determining whether local printers have appropriate expertise and equipment to'qualify for a sub - licensing program. Such sub - license must restrict any such printer to OPTECH III -P ballot printing for Hennepin County only. BRC will conveniently schedule a training school at a Hennepin County printer's location. Hennepin County must make available at least two employees for up to eight hours of training on the scheduled day of that training. OPTECH III -P Printing Kit materials will be delivered at that time. Once certified, Hennepin County will receive a license and will be authorized to sub - license and to purchase and stock all OPTECH III -P supplies necessary to support the ballot production process in Hennepin County. a` .1 TRAINING The successful implementation of any system is directly proportionate to the training of those persons involved in its operation. This includes the Election Office staff, the precinct officers and.the voters. All training is done on -site and is aimed at making Hennepin County, the City of Minneapolis and the individual municipalities self- sufficient in the operation and general maintenance of the system. To accomplish this extensive training, BRC provides a planned education program which addresses the three major categories. The training effort begins with the establishment of a timetable that includes a week -by -week list of duties to be performed along with responsibility assignments. Staff Training: The entire staff is trained in general operation of the system, to become proficient in performing its required routines and answering questions relating thereto. Specific training is provided for: 1. System operation 2. Ballot layout and preparation /printing 3. Voter Education procedures 4. Precinct official training procedures 5. Absentee voter procedures 6. Balldt.control procedures 7. Precinct operation 8. Vote total receiving and accumulation 9. Equipment. delivery and retrieval 10. Maintenance, storage, repair routines Precinct Official Training: 1. System operation 2. Poll arrangement and preparation 3. Poll opening routines 4. Voting procedures 5. Ballot issuing 6. Voter demonstrations and assistance 7. Ballot control 8. Poll closing routines 9. Reporting routines (Election Central) 1` 1 i . Voter Education: 1. Media conferences planning 2. Publicity planning 3• Public demonstration planning To assist in the training and continued proficiency of staff, manuals are provided: - Ballot Printing Manual - Operators Manual - provides basic training - Service Manual - test and repair procedures BRC will provide on -site personnel for assistance and direction in all phases of installation and training. BRC personnel will be on -site during the first and second elections at which the system is used. For subsequent elections BRC support personnel are available on a per diem basis. 1° . e, OPTECH WARRANTY TERMS AND CONDITIONS Business Records Corporation warrants this equipment to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a period of ninety days after the date of installation or through the first election, whichever comes last. BRC agrees to correct any defect which may develop during proper and normal usage during the term of the warranty. BRC reserves the right to repair or replace defective parts as BRC deems appropriate. Repaired or replaced parts shall be warranted only for the unexpired term of the original warranty. If authorized in writing to do so, Purchaser shall ship the defective component to BRC or to a place designated by BRC by prepaid freight. BRC will return component by prepaid land transportation. EXCLUSIONS FROM WARRANTY The foregoing Warranty does not extend to any item of equipment which BRC determines has been subjected to misuse, neglect, accident, vandalism, abuse, improper installation, improper storage or use not in accordance with instructions furnished by BRC. Neither this Warranty nor any other warranty, express or implied shall extend beyond the warranty period. No responsibility assumed for any incidental or consequential damages. The Warranty does not apply to ribbons or other supplies which are subject to normal wear. The Warranty does not extend to or apply to any equipment which has been repaired or altered at any place other than the appropriate factory designated by BRC or by persons not expressly approved by BRC, or to any equipment from which the following serial numbers have been removed, defaced or changed: Warranty expires EQUIPMENT SERIAL NUMBERS: (Indicate if Attached Sheet) PAGE 2 The Warranty is not transferable and applies strictly to the following customer: JURISDICTION ADDRESS CITY /STATE /ZIP DATED: BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION BY: Election Services Division 328 S. Jefferson Street Chicago, IL 60606 J. BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION SELF - CONTAINED VOTING BOOTH LIMITED WARRANTY This product, except the fluorescent tube, is warranted by Business Records Corporation to the original purchaser to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use for a period of one year from the date of purchase. During the warranty period, the product will be repaired or replaced at our option, without charge for either parts or labor, if a defect is identified. The purchaser shall bear all shipping, packing and insurance costs and all other costs to the designated repair center. The warranty will not apply if this product has been misused, abused or altered. Neither this warranty nor any other warranty express or implied, including implied warranties of merchantability, shall extend beyond the warranty period. No responsibility is assumed for any incidental or consequential damages. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Ken Rosland FROM: Bob Kojetin SUBJECT: Total Smoking Ban at Braemar Arena DATE: December 12, 1986 The survey initiated by Hockey Moms and represented by Kathy Stattine and proposed by Joan Lonsbury was mailed to the Park Board members on December 9, 1986. A copy of that mailing is attached. The question put to the members was "Do you favor or oppose a total smoking ban at Braemar Arena ?" The results are as follows: Seven (7) voted in favor *. Two (2) opposed. One absent. *One member wished to be counted as the majority voted. The Park Board supports a total smoking ban at Braemar Arena. The Park and Recreation Staff recommend the total ban start in September 1987. Since the hockey season is already in progress the enforcement of this policy would be difficult. The smoking ban could be enforce this year (1986) only during the hockey associations invitational tournaments where the Hockey Mom's run the concessions and could be the enforcers of the ban. A similar ban was done by the Upper Great Lakes Figure Skating Championship hosted by the Braemar Figure Skating Club and enforced by them. In September 1987, the beginning of the season, we would begin the smoking ban at Braemar Arena and Pavilion with the cooperation of the Police Department by issuing citations to the offenders in the 1987 -88 season. VI .5 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Bob Kojetin FROM: Larry Thayer SUBJECT: No Smoking at Braemar Arena DATE: December 11, 1986 It has come to my attention that there is some interest in banning smoking at Braemar Arena, immediately. I agree with this concept; however, I would delay the enforcement of such a policy until September 1, 1987. Our Season is well under way and to change policy in mid - stream would be awkward and very difficult to police. I would recommend that the Hockey Association set whatever policy they would like for their tournaments during the 1986 -87 season.. The Figure Skating Club had very good success in banning smoking during the Upper Great Lakes Figure Skating Championships, November 1 -8 at Braemar. However, enforcing the policy was their biggest headache. For our day to day business and High School hockey season, it would probably make more sense to start this policy September 1, 1987. At this time we could have uniformed officers write citations and help enforce this policy for a period of time until word of mouth spreads the news. This method worked well for Bloomington Ice Garden. Again, I am in favor of a smoke free Braemar Arena. LT /ss M E M O R A N D U M TO: The Edina Park Board FROM: Joan Lonsbury SUBJECT: Smoking at Braemar Arena DATE: December 10, 1986 Kathy Statine, representing the Hocky Moms, called me on Tuesday, December 9th with a request to ban smoking at Braemar Arena. (See attached). Since our meeting was scheduled on Monday and the Council Meeting is next Monday, I agreed to expedite the request. The office will begin polling you on Friday, December 12th, as to your vote concerning a Smoke Free Braemar Arena. Thank you. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and all good things in the New Year. Please Note: Present policy permits smoking in the balcony area and the lower level office at Braemar Arena. No Smoking is permitted in general skating and bleacher area of the Arena. (This request is to ban smoking completely in Braemar Arena). JL /ss VI.5 f '% e, Joan, I left out the possibility of temporarily making Braemar Smoke -free for specific hockey tournaments due to the fact that it may not have enough punch behind it to make it workable. If you and your committee feel that enough authority could be given to make it work, and there is no chance that the total smoke -free issue will be a go, I have included the tournament dates for you. Edina International Invitational Reimann Bob O'Connor (not all indoor) Squirt December 26 - 29 January 22 - 25 January 19 - 31 February 13 - 15 Thank you for your efforts. I will call you Saturday morning, if you are available, to find out the outcome from your board. Sincerely, Kathy Stattine i, .'w December 10, 1986 Chairperson Joan Lonsbury Edina Park and Recreation Board Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Joan Lonsbury and Members of the Board; We represent the Edina Hockey Moms in an effort to have Braemar Ice Arena and Pavillion declared a smoke -free environment. Reasons are summarized: I. The Minnesota Clean Indoor Air Act prohibits smoking in most common areas. 4620.1400 COMMON. AREAS Entry or exit areas, ticket areas, registration areas, common traffic areas, or similar sections of public places shall not be designated in their entirety as a smoking- permitted area if non- smokers would be required to use the area to participate in activities for which the public place is intended. These rules shall not be construed to prevent designation of a smoking - permitted area in a portion of the establishment which non- smokers must briefly cross to reach the intended activity. MS s 144.415; 144.417 The smoking permitted areas in Braemar and the Pavillion include those areas where the concession, ticket stand, bathrooms, vending machines, skate changing and lounge spaces are located. Non- smokers cannot be expected to only "briefly cross" those areas. 2. Because the arena and pavillion are used primarily by young people, it is inappropriate to allow smoking there. Every effort should be made to encourage young people to remain non - smokers. 3. If smoking is eliminated in the facility, maintenance costs can be reduced. Smoking is a dirty habit. Workers must spend many hours picking up butts and ashes. 4. Secondhand smoke is harmful. Smoking is incompatible with athletics. For those with medical problems (allergies, asthma), smoking is more than a nuisance; it is an acute health hazard. 'r , 'i There are already a number of ice arenas in the Twin Cities which prohibit all smoking. They include: Bloomington, Maplewood and all nine Ramsey County arenas, and the North St. Paul Polar Ice Arena. Minnetonka parents are working to have smoking banned from their arena. Bloomington Ice Garden's Director, Jim Truax, approached Bloomington's Environmental Services Division a. year and a half ago to help him find an effective way to enforce the MCIAA in the arena. Signs were posted on the front door and ignored. So the Bloomington Environmental Services Division appeared on a.busy day and ticketed ($25.00 fines) violators. A flurry of calls and letters, pro and con, ensued for a few months. But they rode out the "storm ", and since March of last year there haven't been any problems. We are anxious to get this implemented immediately because the largest Edina Hockey Tournament (Edina International Invitational) begins December 2 6th. As a progressive community, Edina's declaration to make Braemar a smoke -free environment would demonstrate our commitment to youth and athletics. Sincerely, Kathy Stattine Jean Amundsen Linda Boelter Edina Hockey Moms' Committee for a Smoke -Free Braemar RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of t John C. Wallin is hereby designated to Rate Authority, and James L. Knutson is Director of the Suburban Rate Authority successors are appointed. VII. A he City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: serve as a Director of the Suburban hereby designated to serve as Alternate for the year 1987 and until their ADOPTED this 15th day_of December, 1986. VII. B -RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR'TO'LOGIS BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota as follows: John C. Wallin is hereby designated as a Director of LOGIS and Kenneth E. Rosland is hereby designated as Alternate Director of LOGIS for the year 1987 and until their successors are appointed. ADOPTED this 15th day,of December, 1986. V11. C RF.gnT.TTTT(1N BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Edina Sun - Current be and is hereby designated as the Official Newspaper for the City of Edina for the year 1987. ADOPTED this 15th day of December, 1986. 4ft MINNESOTA SUBURBPN NEWSPAPERS. INC. December 5, 1986 City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Council Members: We would appreciate your designation of the Edina Sun - Current to be your official newspaper for the year 1987. Our rate for legal publications as permitted by Minnesota law will be 38� per line for the first insertion and 154� per line for each additional insertion. All items to be published should reach this office by Thursday noon preceding your Wednesday publication. To assist us in providing the best possible service, we request that you direct your publications to the attention of Meridel Hedblom, Legal Publications, 7401 Bush Lake Road, Edina, MN 55435. Two notarized affidavits will be provided of each of your publi- cations. Additional notarized affidavits, on request, will be furnished at 254 each. Thank you for considering us as the official newspaper for the City of Edina for the forthcoming year. Very truly yours, MINN TA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. L.J Canning P' lisher Publishers of Current Newspapers, Sailor Newspapers, Sun - Current Newspapers and Focus Newspapers 7401 Bush Lake Road • Edina, Minnesota 55435 • (612) 831 -1200 MINNESOTA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. December 9, 1985 City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Dear Council Members: We would appreciate your designation of the Edina Sun - Current to be your official newspaper for the year 1986. The rate for legal publications as set by Minnesota law is 35� per line for the first insertion and 15C per line for each subsequent insertion. All publications should reach this office by Thursday a.m. preceding i your Wednesday publication. In order to expedite our services to you, it is requested that you direct your publications to the attention of Meridel Hedblom, Legal Publications, 7401 Bush Lake Riad, Edina, MN 55435. We will provide at no additional charge, two notarized affidavits on each of your publications. Additional notarized affidavits, on request, will be furnished at 25C each. We appreciate being considered as the official newspaper for the City of Edina for the ensuing year and thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, MINN TA SUBURBAN NEWSPAPERS, INC. C c G" S L. J Canning Pu isher Publishers of Current Newspapers, Sailor Newspapers, Sun - Current Newspapers and Focus Newspapers 7401 Bush Lake Road • Edina, Minnesota 55435 • (612) 831 -1200 i rt 1986 OF EDINA CHECK .ISTER 12 -15 -8e eAGE 1 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. M MESSAGE 336198 12/10/86 6,395.12 GROUP HEALTH HOSP PREM 10 -4156- 510 -51 MANUAL rrs -CKS i336368 12/10/86 2,501.27 — MUTUAL BENEFIT — DISABILITY -- 10- 4158- 51D -51 - MANUAL 2,501.27 * rsssss - - _ --- __ - - - - -- .— .--- --- ------ ------ - - - --- _ ---- --- - -- rss -CKS 336415 12/10/86 8,184.40 MED CENTER HOSP PREM 10 -4156- 510 -51 MANUAL � 8,184.40 * - -- - - -- - ---- - - - - -- - ----_ _ _. rrr *ss rss -CKS . 336706 12/10/86 42.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 10- 4290 - 510 -51 MANUAL 336706 12/10/86 42.00 POSTMASTER —_ _ _POSTAGE 10 -4290- 510 -51 MANUAL 84.00 • _ - r *r *rs —` -- rrr 338251 12/10/86 260,000.00 EDINA HRA DUE HRA 10- 1145 - 000 -00 MANUAL 260,000.00 r rsrsss rrr -CKS 338442 12/10/86 12,241.44 PHP HOSP PREM 10 -4156- 510 -51 MANUAL 12,241.44 * ** -CKS -- 343251 — 12/10/86_ -- 58,000.00 HRA OF EDINA _— _ _ PAYMENT - -_ 1145 - 000_00 MANUAL —10 -- — _ *rsrsr r** -CKS 343767 12/10/86 2,000.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE DUE 10- 4290 - 510 -51 MANUAL 2,000.00 - - -- --- -- -- - -- I *sr -CKS s. - 349003 - - -- - -- — — 12/10/86 -- 60.33 - --- ALBINSON- "- CONSTRUCTION - 10 -1444- 000 -00 60.33 - - 349004 -- -- 12/05/8b -- - -- - 124.41 .. _ AMERICAN LINEN —_ -...._ - LAUNDRY 10 -4262- 440 -44 349004 12/05/86 6.01 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 10 -4262- 482 -48 349004___ 12/OS/86 22.70 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY___ 10- 4262- 520 -52 349004 12 %OS % 86 104.83 AMERICAN LINE N _ — ' LAUNDRY _ 10 -4262- 520 -52 ' 349004 12/08/86 11.40 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 10- 4262- 628 -62 __ 349004 ___12/05/86 - - -_— 34.54 _ - -- AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 50- 4262 - 821 -82__ 349004- 12 /0586 46.76 AMERICAN LINEN —_ — -- LAUNDRY — - 50- 4262 - 841 -84 - - - — _ •, 349004 12/05/86 41.01 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 50- 4262 - 861 -86 391.66 r i I 349005 12/05/86 37.25 AUDIO GROUP ADVERTISING 50 -4214- 822 -82 '.;�, 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 2 .r CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. $ P.O. 9 MESSAGE 349005 12/05/86 37.25 AUDIO GROUP ADVERTISING 50 -4214- 862 -66 74.50 • , tit -CKS 349015 12%10%86 72.00 - AT d T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 510 -51 349015 12/10/86 52.34 AT & T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 23 -4256- 611 -61 .� - - - -- - - - -- -- - - -- 124.34 i - s*#s #s *** -CKS 349016 12/10/86 13.50 AT & T INFO SYSTEM - TELEPHONE '- 40- 4256 - 801 -80 349018 12/10/86 6.75 AT & T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 50 -4256- 821 -82 349018 12/10/86 12.25 AT 6 T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 50- 4256 - 841 -84 349018 _ _ 12/10/86 _ 13.50 _ AT 4 T -INFO SYSTEM - TELEPHONE - - - 50- 4256 - 861 -86 46.00 ' 349019 '— i2;ea8 %$b . 175.00 ----'ACME WINDOW CLEANING - SERVICES---- 10 -4200- 390 -30 653 175.00 * O ti* -CKS 349025 12/08/86 28.00 ALFONS ANDERSSON CONT SERV 27- 4200- 661 -66 28.00 i - - - -_ -. - - - - -- -- *** * ** tt* -CKS 349028 12/09/86 640.50 BEER WHOLESALERS INVENTORY 50- 4630- 822 -82 a 349028 12/09/86 2,094.40 BEER WHOLESALERS INVENTORY 50- 4630- 842 -84 3490287--_ _ 12/09/86 - _ -- 2,067.45 _ - BEER WHOLESALERS -- INVENTORY---- _ 4,802.35 t - - -- -- - -- - * ** -CKS 349031 12/10/86 9.15 BERTELSON BROS INC GEN SUPPLY 10- 4504- 440 -44 251495 349031 i2/10/86 15.38 _ BERTELSON BROS INC GEN SUPPLY 10- 4504 - 440 -44 251547 349031 12/10/66 37.06 BERTELSON BROS INC GEN SUPPLY 10- 4504-440 -44 251496 349031 12/08/86 235.15 BERTELSON BROS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 10- 4516 - 510 -51 296.74 t - -- - - - -- ._ ...- - -- -- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- -- • ###*# * ** -CKS a 349033 12/08/86 288.50 BERGFORD TRUCKING INVENTORY 50 -4626- 822 -82 Q 349033 12/08/86 586.30 BERGFORD TRUCKING INVENTORY 50- 46267842 -84 349033 12/08/86 448.50 _ BERGFORD TRUCKING - INVENTORY -- _ 50- 4626 - 862 -86 1,323.30 _�...--- - -.. -- --- ..^. -_ - - -- -- -_..._ -- -- - --- - iti -CKS ; 349038 12/10/86 100.00 GEORGE BUTLER POLICE SERVICES 10- 4100 - 420 -42 -.� 100.00 t - -- - - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - **i -CKS ! 349046 12/05/86 286.08 BLUMBERG PHOTO CABLE TV 10- 2149 - 000 -00 849956 i'° v 7o << 1 1986 ! OF EDINA CHECK .ISTER 12 -15 -8, ,AGE 3 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. # P.O. 11 MESSAGE 286.08 s 349047 12/05/86 .60 BROWN PHOTO GEN SUPPLY 10- 4504 - 180 -18 638328 349047 12/05/86 16.50 BROWN PHOTO PHOTO SUPPLY 10 -4508- 440 -44 455151 349047 12/05/86 99.95 BROWN PHOTO TRAINING AIDS 10- 4608- 440 -44 455152 1 17.05 s _ --- - -- 349048 12/05/86 412.13 BRISSMAN KENNEDY INC GENERAL SUPPLY-,-.... -,_.. 54069 412.13 s _.....--- sssss* sss -CKS 349053 12/08/86 141.39 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 10- 4250 - 301 -30 349053 12/08/86 51.49 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 10- 4250 - 446 -44 349053 12/08/86 92.45- BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 10 -4250- 520 -52 349053 12/08/86 92.45 BROWNING FERRIS CORRECTION 10- 4250-520 -52 349053 12/08/86 92.45 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 10- 4250 - 520 -52 349053 12/08/86 141.39 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 10 -4250- 540 -54 349053 12/08/86 82.52 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 10 -4250- 628 -62 349053 12/10/86 48.07 BROWNING FERRIS RUBBISH RENOVAAL 10 -4250- 644 -64 349053 12/08/86 108.72 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 10- 4250 - 646 -64 349053 12/08/86 65.73 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 10 -4250- 646 -64 349053 12/08/86 18.08 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 23- 4250 - 611 -61 349053 12/68/86 70.07 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 26- 4250 - 689 -68 349053 12/08/86 250.50 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 27- 4250 - 661 -66 349053 12/08/86 55.28 BROWNING FERRIS _ _ REFUSE COLLECTION 27 -4250- 662 -66 349053 12/08/86 120.72 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 28- 4250 - 708 -70 349053 12/08/86 276.60 BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 50 -4250- 841 -84 349053 12/08/86 - ..__..- -- 206.19 - - - - -- BROWNING FERRIS REFUSE COLLECTION 50 -4250- 861 -86_ ssss ** sss- CKS 349055 12/10/86 30.45 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27 -4120- 663 -66 349055 12/10/86 239.85 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27 -4120- 664 -66 349055 12/10%86 35.70 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27- 4120 - 671 -66 349055 12/10/86 40.00 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27- 4204 - 660 -66 349054 12/10/86 84.10 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27- 4224 - 661 -66 349055 12/10/86 15.20 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27- 4226- 661 -66 349055 12/10/86 30.00 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27- 4248 - 661 -66 349055 12/10/86 30.64 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27- 4508 - 660 -66 349055 12/10/86 23.50 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27 -4574- 660 -66 349055 12/10/86 61.41 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27 -4620- 661 -66 349055 12/10/86 _. 75.59 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY ,C PETTY CASH 27- 4624- 664 -66 349055 12/10/86 31.67 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY C PETTY CASH 27- 4628- 664 -66 " 698.11 s ssssss ---------- . ------ . _ ..... . .......___..... -. _.... _....___ _ _.. _ _ _._._ -.__.. sss- CKS 349058 12/1101/816.11 100.00 WAYNE BENNETT POLICE SERVICES 10- 4100 - 420 -4P 100.00 s __.. ..._... -. ssssss sss -CKS , 349060 12/05/86 194.85 AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE CONCESSIONS 28- 4624- 704 -70 03035 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 4 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE 194.85 » * ** -CKS 349065 12/10/86 10.50 CULLIGAN CONT SERV 10- 4200 - 482 -48 10.50 * * * * ** * ** -CKS - 349072 12/08/86 74.00 DAILY CONST REPORTS ADVERTISING 10- 4210 - 140 -14 74.00 » _ 349073 12/09/86 41.30 CITY BEER INVENTORY 50- 4630- 822 -82 349073 12/09/86 167.60 CITY BEER INVENTORY 50- 4630- 842 -84 _ 349073 12/09/86 112.35 CITY BEER INVENTORY 50- 4630 - 862 -86 321.25 - * ** -CKS 349075 12/08/86 4.78 CLANCY DRUG INC CABLE TV 10- 2149 - 000 -00 349075 12/08/86 39.79 CLANCY DRUG INC GEN SUPPLIES 10- 4504- 133 -12 349075 12/08/86 10.99 CLANCY DRUG INC PHOTO SUPP 10- 4508 - 120 -12 349075 12/08/86 23.76 CLANCY DRUG INC PHOTO SUPP 10- 4508- 200 -20 _ 79.32 s * * * » ** * ** -CKS 349078 12/09/86 249.50 COCA COLA BOTTLING INVENTORY 50- 4632- 822 -82 349078 12/09/86 670.15 COCA COLA BOTTLING INVENTORY 50- 4632- 842 -84 _ - 919.6S * * * * * ** * ** -CKS 349082 12/05/86 41.00 CONWAY FIRE S SAFETY EQUIP MAINT 10 -4274- 440 -44 87791 41.00 * - * * * * *k * ** -CKS 349091 12/10/86 89,522.00 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 10- 4200 - 509 -50 349091 12/10/86 5,000.00 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 10- 4283 - 420 -42 349091 12/10/86 2,400.00 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 10- 4283- 420 -42 _ 349091 12/10/86 225,000.00 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 12 -2490- 000 -00 349091 12/10/86 129.50 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 40 -2050- 000 -00 349091 12/10/86 333.22 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 50- 2050- 000 -00 _ 349091 12/10/86 450,000.00 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 50- 2490 - 000 -00 349091 12/10/86 45,000.00- CITY OF EDINA CORRECTION 50- 2490 - 000 -00 349091 12/10/86 45,000.00 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 50- 2490 - 000 -00 349091 12/10/86 260,999.14 CITY OF EDINA - INTER FUND TRANF 60- 2050 - 000 -00 349091 12/10/86 7,020.64 CITY OF EDINA INTER FUND TRANF 66- 2050 - 000 -00 1,040,404.50 » r * *k •k *.k * * *- KS C 349097 _- ._.- ._- _._12%05%86 - -- - - - -- -- 36.22 - - - -- COURTNEY C WAYNE - ' - - - -- MILEAGE 36.22 ------------- -- - - - - - -- -° 1981 'Y OF EDINA CHECi dISTER 12 -15 -. PAGE 5 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. M P.O. N MESSAGE + + +* -CKS 349106 12/10/86 100.00 DAHL- MR HILDING POLICE SERVICES 10- 4100- 420 -42 ' 100.00 *** -CKS ' 349110 12%08/86 195.30 DAVIDSEN DIST INC INVENTORY 50- 4630- 842 -54 195.30 - *** -CKS 349125 -- 12/05/86 - 80.10 -_ MERIT SUPPLY_ GEN SUPPLIES 4504 - 647 -64 15668 ' 349125 12/10/86 251.30 MERIT SUPPLY — CLEANING SPLY _10- 28 -4512- 708 -70 15717 349125 12/05/86 472.70 MERIT SUPPLY GEN SUPPLY 40- 4504 - 812 -80 15656 ' - -- --- ----- �- - - - - -- 804.1 0 • *** -CKS 349130 12/05/86 161.99 DUNE BUGGY SUPPLY EQUIP MAINT 27- 4274 - 662 -66 161.99 i 349131 12ifW86- _- 63.00 — - ASPLUND COFFEE - CONCESSIONS - 28 -4624- 704 -70 05505 63.00 s * ** -CKS 349143 12/08/86 - 13.60 EMRICH BAKING CO - - - - -- - CONCESSINS 27 -4624- 664 -66 - 13.60 i - -28- *** -CKS 349183 12/05/86 30.00 BEST LOCKING SYSTEMS CONT REPAIRS 4248 - 705 -70 68885 30.00 *** -CKS 349194 12/05/86 24.80 GENERAL COMMUNICATNS RADIO SERV 10- 4294 - 440 -44 70843 24.80 * ** -CKS 349206 12/09/86 _ 523.20 - -- - - - -- G & K SERVICES LAUNDRY 10- 4262 - 301 -30 349206 12/09/86 256.15 G & K SERVICES _ LAUNDRY _________'10-4262-560-56 _ 349206 12/09/86 255.04 G 6 K SERVICES LAUNDRY 10- 4262- 646 -64 r 349206 —_- 12/09/86 113.60 G_d K SERVICES LAUNDRY____ 4512- 540 -54 349206 12/09/86 240.35 G & K SERVICES _ __10- LAUNDRY - - 40 -4262- 801 -80 1,391.34 * ** -CKS __ 349230 12/08/86 9 .23 HOFF UILLIAMSON GEN SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 100 -10 229212 I » ..I 9.23 * ,7" ., , _ 349231" __12/08/56_ "•___.__ -- -. -..- 87.20 - - HOPPERS. INC PAINT___ _ 10 -4544- 646 -64 34124, I,�Ic 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 6 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE v 87.20 s »ss -CKS 349234 12/05/86 74.75 HOOTEN CLEANERS LAUNDRY 10 -4262- 420 -42 + 74.75 t -- I 349242 12/10/86 32.00 HYDRAULIC SERV CONT REPAIRS 28 -4248- 707 -70 23863 32.00 » * »s -CKS 349245 12%05/86 37.20 ROBERT'S HILL -.. GEN SUPPLY - 10- 4504 - 446 -44 349245 12/05/86 79.20 ROBERT B HILL GEN SUPPLY 27- 4504 - 661 -66 116.40 » » » »* »» * ** -CKS 349249 12%10%86 100.00 - WILLIAM HOFFMAN POLICE SERVICES - - 10 -4100- 420 -42 100.00 » • - - - - -- - -- --- -- --- -._ -- --- - -- - ___._ _ .. ii* -CKS 349278 12/10/86 2.69 JERRYS FOODS GEN SUPPLY 10 -4504- 440 -44 349278 12/10/86 15.08 JERRYS FOODS CLEANING SUPPLY 10 -4512- 440 -44 349278 12/05/86 65.02 JERRYS FOODS CONCESSIONS 27- 4624-664 -66 82.79 s *s* -CKS 349289 1210%86 - 100.00 WALTER'JOHNSON POLICE SERVICES 10 -4100- 420 -42 100.00 • - ss* #» * - - -- - - - - - -- -- —... - *** -CKS 349292 12/05/86 1,667.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO INSURANCE 10 -4260- 510 -51 1,667.00 - - - -- - » » » * »* * ** -CKS 349295 12/08/86 22.08 TRIARCO ARTS b CRAFT INVENTORY SUPPLIES 23 -1209- 000 -00 213842 22.08 » ** *-CKS 349302 12%09/86 - 3,593.40 - KUETHER DIST CO —�- INVENTORY — - -^ - 50- 4630- 822 -82 - 349302 12/09/86 4,766.68 KUETHER DIST CO INVENTORY 50- 4630- 842 -84 8.360.08 » i »s * * *» s ** -CKS • 344304 12/10/86 10.15 KNOX LUMBER CO - LUMBER - �- ` -10- 4604 - 646 -64 486548 349304 12/08/86 51.93 KNOX LUMBER CO LUMBER 10- 4604- 646 -64 486420 I; ' O 1986 OF EDINA CHECK ISTER 12 -15 -b. 'AGE 7 J CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. S P.O. N MESSAGE - 349304 12/08/86 50.19 KNOX LUMBER CO PAINT 27 -4544- 661 -66 486609 349304 31.01 KNOX LUMBER CO PARTS 27 -4620- 661 -66 486640 349304 12/05/86 — — 27.12 KNOX LUMBER CO GEN SUPPLY 28 -4504- 708 -70 486723 170.40 s *** -CKS - 349307 12/10/86 5,289.46 KOCH ASPHALT ROAD OIL 10- 4526 - 314 -30 5,289.46 eseses * ** -CKS 349311 12/08/86 3,059.20 EASTSIDE BEVERAGE INVENTORY 50- 4630- 822 -82 349311 12/08/86 4,809.00 EASTSIDE BEVERAGE INVENTORY 349311 12/08/86 5,223.80 EASTSIDE BEVERAGE INVENTORY 50- 4630 - 862 -86 13,092.00 sss * ** * ** -CKS 349318 12/10/86 87.80 LEEF BROS INC LAUNDRY 10- 4262- 440 -44 349318 12/10/86 14.85 LEEF BROS INC SERVICES 23- 4100 - 614 -61 349318 12/10/86 20.00 LEEF BROS INC LAUNDRY 27 -4262- 662 -66 sssss* * ** -CKS 349323 - -- 12/05/86 - - -- - - - -~ 3.54 - - LINHOFF �- _. PHOTO SUPPLY - - - - -- - 10 -4508- 440 -44 3.54 sseses — *** -CKS 349344 12/05/86 71.00 MED OXYGEN S EQUIP EQUIP MAINT 10- 4274- 449 -44 349344 12/10/86 8.40 MED OXYGEN 6 EQUIP EQUIP MAINT 10- 4274- 449 -44 349344 12/05/86 45.41 MED OXYGEN 6 EQUIP 1ST AID SUPPLY 10- 4510 - 440 -44 124.81 » * *ss ** * ** -CKS :. 349346 12/05/86 21,631.50 MET N WASTE C L COMM BLDG PERMITS 10 -3095- 000 -00 21,631.50 * ;; ssssss * ** -CKS 349360 12/08/86 18.50 MINNESOTA WANNER GEN SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 646 -64 v r 18.50 s ' ss *sss * ** -CKS V 349365 12/10/86 100.00 BURT MERFELD POLICE SERVICES 10- 4100- 420 -42 100.00 » 349366 12/09/86 120.50 MINNESOTA BAR PAPER SUPPLY 50- 4514 - 822 -82 349366 12/09/86 158.14 MINNESOTA_BAR INVENTORY 50- 4632 - 822 -82 i _ �. 349366 12/ W86 4.68 33 _ MINNESOTA BAR __ INVENTORY -50 -4632- 842 -84 lit 349366 12/09/86 542.34 MINNESOTA BAR INVENTORY 50- 4632 - 862 -86 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 8 • CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. # MESSAGE 1,164.66 s # # # ## * ** -CKS 349370 12/05/86 272.46 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSIONS 28- 4624 - 704 -70 83851 349370 12/10/86 5.50- MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO_. - CREDIT --28 -4624- 704 -70 17009 349370 12/10/86 26.44 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO CONCESSIONS 28- 4624- 704 -70 16791 293.40 * ** -CKS � 349378 12/08/86 4,100.00 MARK VII-SALES INVENTORY 50- 4630- 822 -82 349378 12/08/86 6,737.65 MARK VII SALES INVENTORY 50- 4630- 842 -84 349378 12/08/86 4,992.60 MARK VII SALES INVENTORY 5074630 - 862 -86 15,830.25 _. .. * # * * ** * ** -CKS 349380 12/08/86 12,023.57 THOMSEN NYBECK SERICES 10 -4100- 220 -22 12,023.57 • s # # # ## * ** -CKS � 349388_ '12/08%86 - 9.25 NATL AUTO PARTS CO REPAIR PARTAS 10 -4540- 560 -56 305686 9.25 * ** -CKS 349429 12/08/86 151.20 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING INVENTORY 50- 4632- 822 -82 349429 12%08/86 287.05 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING INVENTORY 50- 4632- 842 -84 349429 12/08/86 337.40 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING INVENTORY 50- 4632- 862-86 775.65 * * # # # *# * ** -CKS • 349434 12/10/86 _. -- 123.20 PRINTERS SERVICE INC EQUIP MAINT 28- 4274- 707 -70 8387 123.20 * * ** -CKS 349439 12/09/86 7,167.47 PRIOR LAKE AG BLACKTOP 10 -4524- 318 -30 v 349439 12/09/86 348.46 PRIOR LAKE AG SAND GRAVEL 40 -4522- 801 -80 7,515.93 4W * ** -CKS 349441 _ 12/08/86 190.70 THE PRINT SHOP PRINTING 10- 4600 - 628 -62 67636 349441 12/08/86 169.00 THE PRINT SHOP .- _- .- ----- - -...- PRINTING 40- 4600- 800 -80 67734 359.70 s a * ** -CKS 349457 -- 12/05/86 - -- -- - -- - -- 56.90 - -- R.L.GOULD d CO.INC. REPAIR PARATS 27- 4540 - 662 -66 86813 a 56. 90_.y.._.__.. - - -- - - - -- -- - - - - --- _... -_.._ _. .._.- _... * * *- S 1986 Y OF EDINA CHECK ISTER 12 -15 -z 'AGE 9 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV._ M P.O. N MESSAGE 349460 12/09/86 227.36 ROYAL CROWN BEV INVENTORY 50- 4630 - 862 -86 349460 12/09/86 143.85 ROYAL CROWN BEV INVENTORY 50- 4632- 822 -82 349460 12/09/86 288.08 ROYAL CROWN BEV INVENTORY 50- 4632 - 842 -84 659.29 • - -- •--- ---- -- - ------ -- - - -- - - -- - -. - -- -- -- -- -- * * * -CKS 349463 12/09/86 1,788.00 REX DIST _ INVENTORY 50 -4630- 822 -82 349463 12/09/86 3,121.70 REX DIST INVENTORY 50- 4630 - 842 -84 • 4,909.70 * ** * * ** * ** -CKS 349479 12/05/86 9.00 R 6 R SPECIALTIES CONT REPAIRS 28 -4248- 707 -70 7776 349479 12/05/86 224.60 R 6 R SPECIALTIES CONT REPAIRS 28- 4248 - 707 -70 7766 233.60 ** * * ** *** -CKS 349485 - 12/05/86 5,548.85 STATE BLDG INSP BLDG PERMITS 10 -3095- 000 -00 ' 349485 12/05/86 99.00 STATE BLDG INSP SUR CHG TAX 10- 3113- 000 -00 •_ 5,647.85 * *s **s *** -CKS • 349490 12/08/86 20.38 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 27 -4544- 661 -66 20.38 * • *sss * ** -CKS • 349493 12/08/86 1,869.70 SOUTHSIDE DIST COINC INVENTORY 50- 4630 - 822 -82 349493 12/09/86 4,968.85 SOUTHSIDE DIST COINC INVENTORY 50- 4630 - 842 -84 6,838.55 * • ** *-CKS V 349505 12/08/8G 52.04 SUN ADVERTISING - 10- 4210- 140 -14 349505 12/10/86 13.05 SUN ADVERTISING 10- 4210 - 140 -141 349505 12/10/86 2,390.00 SUN PRINTING 10 -4600- 500 -50 2,455.09 * ** **s* *** -CKS Q 349508 12/05/86 7.56 ST PAUL BOOK OFFICE SUPPLY 27 -4516- 660 -66 39700 7.56 s *,riss * ** -CKS - - -- - - - - -- 349516_______ 12/10/86 244.45 SEARS ROEBUCK TOOLS 10- 4580 - 440 -44 349516 12/05/86 199.99 SEARS ROEBUCK GEN SUPPLIES 28- 4504 - 708 -70 444.44 *** -CKS - 349526 r 12/10/86 650.89 TRACY OIL HEAT 10- 4254 - 520 -52 � 1986 CITY OF EDINA 2,308.30 CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 10 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT -- _ , VENDOR - ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. # MESSAGE 349526 12/05/86 3,023.60 TRACY OIL GASOLINE 10 -4612- 560 -56 424690 **r -CKS 349526 12/05/86 2,700.00 —_.. - -- TRACY OIL GASOLINE 10- 4612 - 560 -56 ' 12/08/86 16.00 6,374.49 r -- _ _._ - -- - - - - - -- 10- 4202 - 140 -14 _ srssss 16.00 s CKS 349541 12/10/86 24.60 TARGET INVENTORY 10 -2149- 000 -00 349569 349541 12/10/86 9.99 TARGET GEN SUPP 10 -4504- 520 -S2 349541 12/10/86 53.88 _ TARGET _ PHOTO SUPPLY 10- 4508 - 440 -44 i 88.47 349573 349542 - - - -- 12/08/86----- - - - - -- 13,643.45 -------- THORPE DIST - - - -- INVENTORY---------- - - - - -- 50- 4630- 862 -86 223.86 13,643.45 r * ** -CKS 12/05/86 349548 12/08/86 -- 44.00 CITY WEST PRINTING 23- 4600- 610 -61. 514.84 -- 44.00 r - - - -- - -- - - - # #s # #s ', ss * * #s rrr -CKS 349551 12/08/86 2,308.30 • UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOW 10- 4266- 420 -42 349551 12/08/86 - - 328.75 * ** -CKS UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOW 10 -4266- 440 -44 * ** -CKS - -' -- 2,637.05 M- - **r -CKS s *s # #s ,: t 349560 12/08/86 16.00 MAMA CONF SCHOOLS 10- 4202 - 140 -14 16.00 s rsssss 349569 12%10/86 739.60 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL GASOLINE � - -28 -4612- 707 -70 739.60 r i 349573 12/08/86 223.86 VOSS GEN SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 647 -64 10983 223.86 349583 12/05/86 514.84 WALDOR PUMP 6 EQUIP REPAIR PARTS 40- 4540 - 801 -80 87388 514.84 # #s # #s 349590 12%10/86' - — 100.00 - HENRY WROBLESKI T -'- — POLICE SERVICES - ---"- 10 -4106- 420 -42' 100.00 r 349541 I 12/10/86 56.49 CECELIA SMITH MILEAGE - 10 -4208- 140 -14 56.49 349593 12/08/86 31.15 MINNESOTA CLAY CRAFT SUPPLIES 23 -4588- 616 -61 09397 1 * ** -CKS v • • • • • • • * ** -CKS s • * ** -CKS • • * ** -CKS • * ** -CKS • • • **r -CKS ,: t ` ^ 1986 /OF EDIwA CHECK ISTER 12-15-6 'AGE 11 uosox NO. DATE Amouwr vswDon zTsw osecozprzow ACCOUNT NO. zwv. 0 P.O. w mseuAns ' --------`---------' -------- ---------------`--------- `- ----------- ----------` - -- ` ***-uxo ***-cwo - ~ ^ ° ° = ° � ~ � ° � ° = ' ~ � ~ � � ~ ^ >^ --c �c .` ' � ::95**:7-------12/0s/86 MEDICAL IaT' AID 10-*510-6e0-62 ' , _es».s» 230.30 --_-__ZEE _SERVICE * -SUPPLY -'- ****** | 1 s*yror 1e/os/86 51*.92 wnAsmsn m ouwu INC CLASS v MATERIALS 10-453e-301-3* s ���ye * / �*yro8 1e/os/86 60.00 z«rc nsmBsna*zp 10-4swe-**0-4+ 60.00 �__- _-- -'- -- ----'-_-__-.___------__- ' - / 3*9709 1e/05/86 1*7.4e pnso m *wosnaom msw auppLY 10-*su*-646-6* �. 349710 1e/os/e6 e10.00 JseoYa LAwoaoAps Cuwr nspAzno 50-42*8-841-e* *aos - 210.00 3*9711 1e/os/86 97.00 000Iwsua ,sLLuu AovsnTIozwo so-4e1*-8ee-82 3*971 12/05/86 97.00 ,sLLow AovsmrzwImo 50-4el4-84e-e4 o�1 1-----T yf ��os/n 97. 00 BUSINESS _ _ ounzwsSa ,sLLow _ AovsnTzozmm - 50-4214-e62-86 � 291.00 * 349712------12/os/86----------174.75 -----�eTu INC --------------CONTRACT osnv'--------vw-4aVo-s10-s1 - i �r� rs � * - 349713 ------12/Os/e6 ! ------------- ss ow- � ICmA --------'000wd-----'---------�--10-4swi-14o-14 01127e ss.00 * � 349714-----12,08/86 ------------7e.00 -----Tu HOME JUICE cu------ INVENTORY -------------so-4a3e-u4e-e*-- - 3*971* 12/05/86 52.32 Tc *oms xozcs CO zmvsmronr so-463e-862-86 124'3e"�_____ � 3*971s 1e/os/86 eos.ss coIT osnvzusa 50-4e36-8e1-8e . 34971S_ ��e�oo ______ cOIT__ __ ______ --- - asnvIcsa -'-- so-4236-8*1-e4 34971S 12/05/86 1e/os/ea- 128 .80 cozT ------- asnvzcsa 50-4236-861-86 444 15 * a*y�so-------mzo CswTnAL� INC --- ---smuzp m*xwr -- 10-*e7+-*+9-** 000484 ' 349716 12/os/86 4ss.sw MID csmrnAL INC CLmTozwm REPLACE 10-4s7*-440-4* 000*3* 1^10s.00 ` o*yrvr ' �e�vs�oa 4s2.92 nsmw urr msuzuAL Imr AID ooppLv 10-*510-440-+4 4696 �se.ya � * 3*9718 1e/05/e6 s'ooa.os osmw orY rnsAo Room u eoAno 10-4286-ee0-ee 1+613 ,08e`05�_---_- 349719 1e/ws/86 soo.wo L*wsLAwn FLORIST oup cowT osnv 10-*200-180-18 soo.'-00-��____--�__ - '--___-'-- _---_- --�- ' .� 3497e0 12/os/e6 25.00 nsmA ouca 10-4e04-*64-46 ***-uxo ***-cwo - ~ ^ ° ° = ° � ~ � ° � ° = ' ~ � ~ � � ~ ^ >^ --c �c .` ' � ~ 1986 CITY OF soIwA CHECK REGISTER 1e-15-86 PAGE 12 - ~ -- CHEC^LNo. -oArs AMOUNT -----___-___---VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO._zwv. * p�o� w nsew�os Q 25.00 * ~^| `| � �^ 34A7ei-----12-/'05/86 ------- -13.00 ----umIvsmaIrr' OF mw -----osw auppLzso ---------10-450*�6 �7-62 107954 - - ` ���wo * � ' * ' - 3497e2----- ---'------'-*1r.sa------o*snIrr8' DEPT --'------ROOM m aowRo ^ *v7.3a * ~/ � � 3497e3 -- 12/05/86 ' ss.ow -Am uuozsrr FOR ousa- '-- - io-*eo4-4ao-+e - - | ss.ov * ~ � --3497e4---'-l2/os/86 -- - --'-- oo ----psnaowwsL oscIa/owa- ----SERVICES---.--.---- --10-4ee4-4e0-4e 01e380 ' ` ess�oo * -' * - 3*972S '-12/05/86 --'- ' 690.00 - AovAwcs aunvsvzwn cowwTnucrIow ---' ---60-1300-275-06 690.00 * w 3407e6------1 -4s.00 --- amAEm«mozrr OF LAKE -' ousa ' --' - --ea-*e0*-708-70 �s�nn * � � | �*y7a7 '--� \e�os�e��— --- �vy � oo - - '-- - - zoz� p nzwrzwm - ---- - e8-4600-706-70 � 119.00 * ~ � -349728----te/os/e6'----------870.00 ---- comm oTzLzrIsn INC oomT nsp*zmo 40-4248-803-80 1Is6 ~ o*yren 12/05/86 87.00- COMM urILzrIsa INC nonnscrzow *0-4248-8*3-80 IIsa � o*y?ea 12/05/86___ _ 87.00 COMM. INC. - cowr nspwInm �*-*e*m-m*3-on 1156 � 870.00 -' '-'-- - - ~ ***-cue � � 3*9730 12/os/86 182.00 BARRsNGzwEEnING SERVICES 10-4220-260-26 e ' �oa � wo * 3*9731 1e/05/86 s36.e3 zmrsnwATzuwAL SALT SALT 10-*s3e-318-30 638340 m sso�eo � * � 3*973e 1e/08/86 1e3.s7 XEROX oopR osnvzCs cowTnAcTo 10-4288-s,*-si 4 3*9733 1e/0e/e6 306.00 smzu xwosnoow asnvzcsa 10-*e00-soo-50 4 ^ _3*973312/08/86 33.00 snIo ANDsowom mz�s�cs 10-*e08-500-50 ' 339.00 _ _ ~ - '-- -- ' ~ 3*9734 _ _1e/08/86 46.ys _ mnAsmAn_mozow pRzwr_ pmIwrzwoo er*awo-o�w-aa assw� � 46.9s _ * _ ' - - _� 34973S12/08/8631.00 JOE GREUPNoRnsnc*Awozas e7-*srw-aa1-a� 31.0* * - ' ' - � 349736 _ 12/08/86 436.00 _zcmA ouso � ) � +oa oo _ * - .10-42047140-.14... - qw � 349737 1e/08/86 88.84 TAmosr cAo�s TV 1w-e�*y-woo-oo . - ----'-------------- --------- -- - �/ o4eZs8, --- '_-1��ow�aa_-_1Y�,�� �-m�S-PzST-zmu_ INVENTORY SUPPLIES a��euy-�»»-uw040910 ' ' ,. 1986 Y OF EDINA CHECK iISTER 12 -15 PAGE 13 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. M MESSAGE ..i 101.93 349739 12/08/86 430.65 STERLING ELECTRIC GEN SUPPLIES 40 -4504- 807 -80 349739 12/08/86 9.72 STERLING ELECTRIC GEN SUPPLIES 40- 4504 - 807 -80 440.37 s 349740 12/08/86 138.12 MINVALCO INC REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540- S40 -S4 138.12 s id 349741 12/08/86 450.00 CRESCENT ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION 60- 1300 - 264 -04 450.00 349742 12/08/86 152.45 VECTOR ONE DUES 10- 4204 - 140 -14 349742 12/08/86 - _ 121.77_ _• VECTOR ONE EQUIP RENAL 10 -4226- 420 -42 349742 12/08/86 _- 55.59 VECTOR ONE EQUIP RENAL 10 -4226- 420 -42 329.81 349743 32.00 NATIONAL AUTO DUES - 10- 4204 - 280 -28 12%0886 -I 32.00 349744 12/08/86 15.00 RANDY BASTYR DUES 10- 4204 - 280 -28 15.00 349745- 12%OB�$6 - - 1,200.00 - E H RENNER CONT REPAIRS 40- 4248 - 801 -80 1,200.00 • 349746 12/08/86 25.00 JVC PRO CABLE 10 -2148- 000 -00 25.00 349747 12%08%86 50.00 ATOM ATOM DUES -- 10 -4204- 420 -42 50.00 s 349748 12/08/86 15.00 NATL REGISTRY OF EMT - - -- 10 -4202- 420 -42 - 15.00 s - - -- - - -- 349749 -- - - - - -- 12/08/66 -- 195.00 - - --- - -- - - -- - -- -- - - -- PTAC -- - SCHOOL 10- 4202 - 420 -42 195.00 s 349756 12/08/86 212.94 ROBBINSDALE FARM GEN SUPPLY- 10 -4504- 470 -47 212.94 e 349751 12/08/86 532.30 EDINA PET HOSPITAL- KENNEL SERV 10- 4278 - 470 -47 532.30 349752 12/08/86 119.92 A PLUS PRESORT POSTAGE f0- 4290 - 510 -51 "- 119.92 + 349753 - - - -- - ----- - 12/08/86 -- 20.00 -- - -•- -- MPLS JAYCEES ADVERTISING - 50- 4214 - 820 -82 349753 12/08/86 20.00 MPLS JAYCEES ADVERTISING 50 -4214- 840 -84 349753 12/08/86 20.00 MPLS JAYCEES ADVERTISING 50 -4214- 860 -86 60.00 s -- -- 349754 12/08/86 46.54 TWIN CITY ELEVATOR CONT REPAIRS 10- 4248 - 520 -52 09255 46.54 - - -- 349755 12/08/86 28.24 SYSTEM SUPPLY INC GEN SUPPLY 10- 4504 - 510 -51 810109 • e E la • 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 14 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 8 P.O. M MESSAGE _ 28.24 • ` i 349756 - - 12/08/86 134.50 -� - - NS ICE - - INVENTORY- - -.� - -- 50- 4632 - 822 -82 349756 12/08/86 195.00 NS ICE INVENTORY 50- 4632 - 842 -84 349756 12/08/86 269.50 NS ICE INVENTORY 50- 4632 - 862 -86 _ -.. 599.00..* -_.- - - - - -- -- _ n 349757 12/08/86 130.00 LITIN PAPER COMP LIGHT 6 FIXTURE 27- 4606- 661 -66 „I 130.00 349758 12/08/86 5,639.83 ROGER CABLE SYSTEM CABLE TV 10 -2148- 000 -00 S,639.83 + - -- - - -- - - - -- 349759 12/08/86 1,467.75 BARRETT MOVING CONT SERV 10- 4200 - 180 -18 1,467.75 + __ - -- - -- - -- - -- - - 349760 12/08/86 62.40 THE PRINT SHOP PRINTING 23- 4600- 610 -61 02410 62.40 + - - - 349761 12/08/86 15.00 A 0 S INC INSP CERTIFICATION 10 -4202- 600 -60 15.00 + - - -- - -- -- ,I 349762 -- 12/08/86 - --- - - - - -- 100.00 MIDWESTERN CHAPTER CONFERENCE 10 -4202- 600 -60 -- -- 100.00 s 349763 12/08/86 195.00 RAY MORGAN AMBULANCE REFUND 10- 3180- 000 -00 195.00 + - - - - -. _. ' 349764 12/08/86 195.00 HOWARD MICKUS AMBULANCE REFUND 10- 3180- 000 -00 a 195.00 + - - -- 349765 12/08/86 - -_ - -- 39.99 DOUG LAS BADLEY WORK SHOES 10- 4266- 440 -44 e � 39.99 + - -- _ .. - - -- - -. -- - - - - ' 349766 12/08/86 30.00 MN CHIEFS OF POLICE DUES 10- 4204 - 420 -42 e + ++ -CKS 349768 12/09/86 80.00 HEATHER HENKEL CONT CLEANING 23- 4504 - 611 -61 80.00 + 349769 12/09/86 90.00 LYLE HOOFNAGLE CONT CLEANING 23- 4504 - 611 -61 90.00 s 349770 12/09/86 14.00 ROBERT BRISCOE ART WORK SOLD 23 -3625- 000 -00 349770 12/09/86 _ 14.00 - ROBERT BRISCOE CORRECTION 23- 3635- 000 -00 ` 349770 1 -714. 00 _ - - ROBERT BRISCOE ` - -` ------ART WORK SOLD -' - - 23- 3635- 000 -00 14.00 + } 349771 12/09/86 16.80 MARTYE ALLEN ART WORK SOLD - 23- 3625 - 000 -00 16.80 + I- 349772 X2/09%87- 26.00 LINDA MADDEN ARTWORK SOLD _23 -3625- 000 -00 26.00 s 198E Y OF EDINA CHEC► ;ISTER 12 -15 -.. PAGE 15 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. N MESSAGE I I 349773_ - - 12/09/86 - 122.94 - - MOLLIE_PAULSON _-- _ - ----- -_ -___ ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625 - 0.00-- 00 122.94 s 349774 12/09/86 28.00 ART WHITE ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 ' I 28.00 349775 - 12/09/86 _ _ _. 37.80 _ . - -__ _.LOIS_ WILLS ART ,.,WORK SOLD -- __ -_ -23- 3625- 000 -00 • 37.80 s 349776 12/09/86 14.00 HELEN ZABEL ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 14.00 s - - - -- - _. 349777 12/09/86 - 16.10 MARION WARD ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000- 00__ -__ I_ 349778 -- 12/09/86 -_ -1 0 - 50 BETTY THOMPSON ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 ' 10.50 s - -- 349779 12/09/86 11.20 MOSEDALE KAUFMAN ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625 - 000 -00 349780 12/09/86 175.00 BRYAN MOON ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 , 175.00 349781 12/09/86 30.10 MARY RIESGRAF ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 30.10 s -- - - - . 34978212/09/86 12.60 MARJORIE MADSEN ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 , 12.60 s - - ° -- - -- -- - - 349783 12/09/86 87 -50 BETTY PEDDIE ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 87.50 -- -- - - - - -- -- -- 349784 12/09/86 21.70 BARBARA LUNDGREN ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 • 21.70 s 349785 _ 12/09/86 - - 33.60 - BARB_HANSON ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625 - 000 -00 • 33.60 s - -- - -- - 349786 12/09/86 84.00 NORMA HANLON ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 84.00 s - - -- s � 349787 12/09/86_ -_ - -__ -_ -9. 10 - . - -_•__ MAUREEN BROCKWAY _ -_- ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 9.10 s -.- _ y 4 349788 12/09/86 16.80 ROGNHILD BERGSTOL ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 _ ^.16.80 _ - -. --- " i 349789____ ____12/09/86_- _____-- _-- _ -_17. 15 - --JEAN _ADAMS _ - -_ ART WORK SOLD 23 -3625- 000 -00 17.15 s - .._ . _._..- - -- -- -- ,4 349790 12/09/86 70.70 JEAN HAEFLE ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625 - 000 -00 -' 349791 _ _- 12/09/86__ _ _ 34.30_.._,__. - ___DEBBIE GUSTAFSON ART WORK SOLD 23 -3625- 000 -00 � 4 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 16 _ CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. N MESSAGE .I 34.30 s 349792 12/09/86 _ 52.50 - BETTY HOOD ANDERSON—— ART WORK SOLD �- 23 -3625- 000 -00 52.50 s 349793 26.25 - -'- -'PAT GREER --- ART WORK SOLD------'-- 23 -3625- 000 -00 26.25 s 349794 12%09/66• 10.50 KATHY GUSTAFSON ART WORK SOLD -_ - 23- 3625- 000 -00 10.50 s -_ 3d9795 -- 12/09/86 - - -- - - 12.60 SUSAN FRAME -- -ART WORK SOLD 23 -3625- 000 -00 _ v 12.60 s 349796 - 12/09/86 - 14.00 PAM BONZELET ART WORK SOLD _ ^ 23- 3625 - 000 -00 ` 14.00 s 349797 12/09%8b - _- -14.50 - -- EDINA -HISTORICAL------------- ART WORK SOLD -23 -3625- 000 -00 14.50 s 349798 -�- - - 12/09/$6•- _-- _____ - -- - - 21.70 _ - _ NANCY HAMMER - _ _ - -- - ART WORK SOLD '- __.- -_. -.- - -_ 23- 3625 - 000 -00 -- _ 21.70 s - 349799 12/09%$6 ---- ---- '� -"14. 00 -` � MARGARET MCDOWELL " ART WORK SOLD 23- 3625- 000 -00 .. 14.00 s 349800 12%1 0/86 - - 117.00 KAY SCHLOSSER ---- ._. -_ -SALARY __ -. _ - -- -_ - - -- 'L>3-4100-614-61 - 117.00 s 349801 12/1 0/86- __- - --' -- 260.00 - - -. -- KATHY GUSTAFSON - 260.00 s 349802 12/1086 - -- 128.00 - - BERNADETTE DALY SALARY - - - -- - - 23 -4100- 614 -61 128.00 s -- 349803 -- -- 12/10/8b - - -- - -- -- 120.00 BETSY BRYANT - SALARY - 23 -4100- 614 -61 120.00 s 349804 12/10/86 -- - - - 156.00 -PAM BONZELET SALARY _- 23- 4100 - 614 -61 156.00 s 349805 -- 12/10/86 -- - - - - -` -90.00 _ BETTY PEDDIE SALARY 23- 4100 - 614 -61 90.00 s 349806 12Y-1 0/66 156.60 MAUREEN BROCKWAY SALARY _ 23- 4100 - 614 -61 v 156.00 s - -- 349807 12/10/86 - -•- - -- _156.00 - • - BILL COLE - ' - CORRECTION 23- 4100 - 614 -61 349807 12/10/86 156.00 BILL COLE SALARY 23- 4100-614 -61 349807 12/10/86 96.00 BILL COLE---.----- SALARY 23 -4100- 614 -61 96.00 s - - - e 349808 12/10/86 568.00 SUSAN FRAME SALARY 23- 4100 - 614 -61 568.00 ^L 349809 12/10/86 156.00 _ _- PHYLLIS HAYWA - SALARY 23- 4100 - 614 -61 �. . ...... .... ........... ................ ._. q ' 1986 / or soIwA uoscw zaTsn 1e-Is-L 'Aos 17 � CHECK NO. DATE VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT _NO. _Im*._# P.O. w msoeAos ^| 156.00 * `a ' '349810------12/10/86 ----------5e8.00 ------ mAei*wALar«o -' ---' -�SALARY ---------------�23-41o0-614-61--- | � seo ww * � L / 349811 12/10/86 iue. SALARY ---- 23-4100-614-61 '| 182.00 * - 349812 12/10/86 -'------ e*o.*o --' - JsAw'onApp -----� -'- SALARY ----'---------23-4100-61*-61-- � e40.00 * � -3448-13-----'- i ��i 6'6 34a.00-----oIL[-ozsTnzcouom'----'-'SALARY 348.00 * � 34§61* �----��/��/e�---- --- '- 1o*.00 -- mAeo^msr�mconusLL -- SALARY ------'------'--ao-41oo-a14-a1'- 1 104.00 * � | --�*y§���-----�7l�7a �a�.vw--------pn�m� __-_- ------ cxmv�- --' ------ o»LAnr ' '� e3-*100-614-61 123.00 * � 349816'--- 1e710i86 - '------'--188.00 - -- iTnonAw NELSON --'--'---SALARY ''--------------es-4fow-a14-a1- � 188.00 * e --34y61f--'---ia7ToT8 e0.06-------svzs noLmouIar - --- SALARY -- -- 23-4100-614-61 � 20.00 * i s*yo18 � --1e/10/oa--- -- � 1e4 oo - mAnm«nsT uuu7 ---- - oxL«eY------�-------- e3-*100-61*-61 ' � 1e4.00 * � 34y619-----1 2/y6?86- 52.00 PATTER xsLLureom ---- mALAnr-----'-------�--a3-4luo-61*-6, 52.00 * ` i 3*9820-----12/10i86 ------------180.00 -----MONICA -nunooIar�----- SALARY 23-4100-614-61 '--�'- 180.00 * � --34962 1------i�iFOia ---15.00 ------HELEN oAasi- ----------- o*LAnr '---' ---- - - e3-4100-61*-61 s*ynae --12/09/86 50 .00 - -pLowxsTTa INC --- -- msw oupp------------eo-*s*4-rue-ro � ] 50 .00 * ' ���oei-----l�7i �7o�-'----'------�e.3e -----Am oAwsnzso oo - '-' uomoseozwwo ae-waew-ro+-rn � ee.38 * � / s*yee* ---1 o/o6---'----------' -oo -----ws*A----------'------ ouso '-- -------------'10-4204-480-4e ' *s.00 * � � 3*062 S------ 47. 31-------'xEwmY'mnzLEO aMFG ------cuwT' REPAIRS �-----------aa-424a-7oa-Tw 71992 ' ! 147.31 * � so-oo �--- -w^YZAr* *zo* oc*ooL----pnoon*m coaT ------'-e8-3+80-'000-*0 ' 50.00 ° 349827 Ss3.0w------- LAKE -CONFERENCE -AaSo----' PERCENTAGE -RECEIPTS ---28-3480-000-*0 --'� � - -� e^553.00 * / �� . � 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 18 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. B MESSAGE 349828 12/10/86 50.00 BRUCE GATES SCHOOL 10 -4202- 440 -44 349829 12/10/86 50.00 GREATER MPLS AREA OFFICE SUPPLIES 10 -4516- 200 -20 - - -- - - - -- 50 -.00 -s 349830 12/10/86 20.00 MN GFOA DUES 10- 4204 - 160 -16 20.00 - -- - - -- -- - 349831 12/10/86 150.72 VIKING ID PRODUCTS PRINTING 10 -4600- 510 -51 161054 150.72 * -- - - - - - -- - - -- . 349832 12/10/86 59.98 DON ENGER REIMBURSEMENT 10 -4266- 420 -42 ` _I - 59.98 * ._ _- - --... --- 349833 12/10/86 20.00 MN ASSO OF CIVIL DUES 10- 4202 - 420 -42 ` 20.00 * 349834 12/10/86 275.00- IMPRINTERS CORRECTION 10- 4600 - 800 -80 ` 349834 12/10/86 275.00 IMPRINTERS PRINTING 10-4600- 800 -80 349834 12/10/86 275.00 IMPRINTERS PRINTING 40- 4600- 800 -80 275.00 349835 12/10/86 15.00 JIMMY JINGLE LICENSE REFUND 10- 2035 - 000 -00 15.00 349836 12/10/86 8.80 KB ART MATERIALS CRAFT SUPPLY 23- 4588 - 616 -61 8.80 349837 12/10/86 21990.00 SW SUB CABLE COMM CABLE TV 10- 2148 - 000 -00 2,990.00 * 349838 12/10/86 5.00 MAMA MEMBERSHIP 10- 4204 - 140 -14 5.00 349839 12/10/86 75.00 DARLYNE EDMAN SERVICES 27- 4236- 661 -66 9156 75.00 s 349840 12/10/86 3,570.60 CHUCK GANNOTT MENS CLUB 27 -2237- 000 -00 3,S70.60_* 349841 12/10/86 66.00 SUSAN HANFLIK REFUND 10- 2240 - 000 -00 - 66.00 349842 12/10/86 550.00 ARPS TREE SERVICE TREE REMOVAL 10- 4200 - 353 -30 550.00 349843 12/10/86 100.00 HAROLD SWANSON POLICE SERV 10- 4100-420 -42 100.00 349844 12/10/86 300.00 MARK HEINZ EQUIPMENT 10 -4914- 420 -42 300.00 349845 12/10/86 1.53 AT & T TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 510 -51 ;'I� 198, .Y OF EDINA CHEC LISTER 12 -15- PAGE 19 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 1i P.O. N MESSAGE 349845 12/10/86 31.18 AT d T TELEPHONE 10 -4256- 510 -51 -.- ... - - - - - - - -- -... - 32.71 - 349846 12/10/86 810.00 JAMES ROBIN CONST 10- 1444 - 000 -00 810.00 j 349847 12/10/86 7.20 EDINA POLICE DEPT CABLE 10- 2149- 000 -00 349847 122/10/86 30.75 EDINA POLICE DEPT_,._ INVESTIGATION 10- 3038 - 000 -00 349847 12/10/86 2.95 EDINA POLICE DEPT SCH d CONF - 10- 4202 - 420 -42 349847 12/10/86 3.00 EDINA POLICE DEPT PARKING 10 -4206- 420 -42 __349847 ___12/10/86 _ 13.40 EDINA POLICE DEPT MILEAGE 10- 4208-420 -42 349847 12/10/86 14.49 __ ___ _ EDINA POLICE DEPT PRISIONER MEALS -� 10- 4286- 220 -22 349847 12/10/86 20.00 EDINA POLICE DEPT PUBLICATION 10 -4502- 420 -42 349847 _ 1.90 EDINA POLICE DEPT _ _..- -- AMMUNITION - -. 4572- 420 742 93.69 * _ - -_10- 349848 12/10/86 100.98 JOYCES BAKERY FIRE PREVENTION 10 -4650- 440 -44 100.98 349849 12/10/86 4 600.00 HENN TECHNICAL CTR CONF d SCHOOLS 4202 - 440 -44 10393 i 349849 12/10/86 480.00 _ -_ HENN TECHNICAL CTR __- CONF d SCHOOLS _10- 10 -4202- 440 -44 10393 _ 11080.00 * ,� 349850 12/10%86 ' ' - 198.00 PHYSIO CONTROL 1ST AID SPLY - 10- 4510 - 440 -44 A01276 198.00 349851 12/10/86 459.69 FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL 1ST AID SPLY 10 -4510- 440 -44 286415 459.69 349852 12%10%86 69.90 '-----H L MOORS DRILL ' 1ST AID SPLY 10- 4510 - 440 -44 -.. 69.90 349853 12/10/86 110.00 EMS MGMT CONF CONFERENCE 10 -4202- 440 -44 - 110.00 * - 349654 - - - - - - -- 12/10/86 15.75 - - -- -- FIRE CHIEF MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION 10- 4204 - 440 -44 15.75 * 349855 12/10/86 25.00 PAT LIONA BOOKS 10- 4504 - 504 -50 25.00 349856 12/10/86 74.50 NFPA - - DUES 10- 4204 - 440 -44 74.50 349857 12/10/86 23,766.65 BURY d CARLSON _ PAYMENTS 60- 2040 - 000 -00 23,766.65 349858 12/10%86 22,922.21 - D.L.R.CONSTRUCTION - - PAYMENTS - - - 60- 2040 - 000 -00 22,922.21 * 349859 12/10/86 9,489.80 MCNAMARA PAYMENTS 60- 2040 - 000 -00 9,489.80 - - - i 349860 - - - 12/10/86 --- - - - 800,000.00 -- - -- FIRST TRUST CENTER BONDS-PAYABLE 66- 2060 - 000 -00 - . - . _ .. i• . "'; ( 349860 12/10/86 179,075.00 FIRST TRUST CENTER UNAPR SURPLUES 66 -2490- 000 -00 'i 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 12 -15 -86 PAGE 20 CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. M MESSAGE 'I 979,075.00 w 349861 — - 12/10/86 - -- 47,625.00 FIRST TRUST CENTER--' INTEREST BONDS — —27 -4600- 660 -66 47,625.00 w 34986x - - - - - -- 12/10/86 - -- - 513, 862.50' - -' FIRST TRUST CENTER- - - -.-- DUE FROM HRA - - -- —1 0- 1145- 000 -00 ` 513,862.50 w 349863 12/10/86 �. 812.94 DAIN BOSWORTH INVEST TRANSACTION 10 -2090- 000 -00 812.94 w 349864----12/10/86------------29.95 - - -- NATL INFO DATA CTR - - POSTAGE --_. - --10- 4290 - 510 -51 ` 29.95 • 34966t'___ 12/1 0/86 -- 300. 00 - POSTMASTER — POSTAGE 10- 4290 - 510 -51 300.00 w 1,059,964.29 FUND 10 TOTAL GENERAL FUND www -CKS 225,000.00 FUND 12 TOTAL REVENUE SHARING FUND___ 5,532.57 _ FUND 23 TOTAL ART CENTER - 70.07 FUND 26 TOTAL SWIMMING POOL FUND 53, 016.29 5,295.47 _ -" FUND 27 TOTAL " FUND 28 GOLF COURSE FUND Hand typed checks: 73462, 73465, 74517 TOTAL RECREATION CENTER FUND 74519 plus 74540 4,673.72 FUND 40 TOTAL UTILITY FUND 525,609.27 318,317.80 FUND 50 TOTAL LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND Computer checks: 74961 thru 75204 FUND 60 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION FUND 986,095.64 FUND 66 TOTAL IMP BOND REDEMPTION 82 -- - -- - -- 1. 183, 575.12 TOTAL .__ ._---- ---- -.A�`— - - - - --- - - - - -- - Fr / - - -T...- _-- --- -- -- - - - - --- - -- -- - - - - ',41 .J+l� 1986 l OF EDINA CHECK NO. DATE T 12/03/86 - -- - - 12/03/86 12/03/86 AMOUNT-,.-----.--.--, .13 .13- _._. 13.42 12/03/86 13.42- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL .00 + CHECK aTER 11 -30 -86 GE 1 VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. 0 MESSAGE TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL swss5s5s 12/03/86 14.75- CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 3700 - 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 138.98 / _ 1111 14/86 - _. __ ._ CITY GOLF PETTY CASH ACCT - - Z 308555 / 1 1 1.55 DISTRI SO- 4628- 822 -82 PETTY CASH ACCT 27-4120-664-66 ., 308055 11/14/86 26.25 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY CASH ACCT 27- 4120 - 671 -66 308055 11/14/86 405.00 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY CASH ACCT 27- 4200 - 661 -66 308055 _ 11/14/86 58.23 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY CASH ACCT 27 -4226- 661 -66 308055 11/14/86 29.81 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY CASH ACCT 27 -4274- 660 -66 308055 11/14/86 22.00 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY CASH ACCT 27 -4290- 660 -66 308055 11/14/86 32.81 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY CASH ACCT 27- 4516- 660 -66 308055 11/14/66 71.35 BRAEMAR GOLF PETTY CASH ACCT 27 -4628- 664 -66 CITY r - 454--0-0-' 314067 12/03/86 _ 48.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 842 -84 - 769.00---- __ -___ .. - -- - -- --- -- ..- _-- .�- ._- - - - - -- DISTRI 50- 4628 - 842 -84 314067 „ siittw 165.71 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 110.12 308415 11/14/86 8,254.05 MED CENTER CITY PORTION HOSP 10 -4156- 510 -51 yr M r M i °9 I il] 8,254.05 tiitts 308743 11/14/86 72.00 72.00 t ttiitw MN STATE_ -TREAS __ ____,_._ _ .- CERTIFICATES 314067 12/03/86 14.75- CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 3700 - 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 138.98 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI _ - _ 50 -4628- 822 -82 314067 12/03/86 359.10 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI SO- 4628- 822 -82 314067 12/03/86 5.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628 - 822 -82 314067 12/03/86 138.98 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 822 -52 314067 12/03/86 12.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 822 -82 314067 12/03/86 1.20 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 822 -82 314067 12/03/86 138.98- CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 822 -82 314067 12/03/86 802.44 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 822 -82 314067 12/03/86 1.20- CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 822 -52 314067 12/03/86 1.20 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 822 -82 314067 _ _ 12/03/86 2,154.60 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 842 -84 314067 12/03/86 2,780.73 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 842 -84 314067 12/03/86 _ 48.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 842 -84 314067 12/03/86 30.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628 - 842 -84 314067 12/03/86 165.71 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 110.12 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 947.99 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628 - 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 .00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628 - 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 13.50 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 3.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 862 -86 314067 12/03/86 5.40 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 862 -86 314067 11/14/86 56.25 CAPITAL CITY INVENTORY 50- 4632- 822 -82 _. 7,619.27 * *** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL 1 m MANUAL 1 MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL 1 MANUAL .1 * ** -CKS 1 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 11 -30 -86 PAGE 2 _ _- CHECK_N0. -DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM - DESCRIPTION - - - _,_ACCOUNT NO- ._INV..M P.O. N MESSAGE _ 314129 - -_. 12/03/86 . - ---. ...- _ _ -...- 1,689.50 _.._ BELLBOY _ --- _ --- - -__ -- -. -- -- _ - - -- . - - -- - -_ -_- 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 314129 12/03/86 1,528.40 BELLBOY - 50- 4626- 822 -82 -- MANUAL 314129 12/03/86 2,348.50 BELLBOY 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL !- x_314129- 12/03/86 4,S78.05. BELLBOY .- .. ^.-- - ----- - -- -- -..-� . - -- - -- -_ -- 50 -4626- 862 -86 MANUAL I 10,144.4S r * * * * ** - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - -- -- - - - - - -- * ** -CKS r 314135 12/03/86 16.64- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 .12 ___ -___ EAGLE WINE ._____. _ -_._ _ _ _ - ^ 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 12.80- EAGLE WINE _ 50- 3710 - 822 -82 _ MANUAL r 314135 12/03/86 .21 EAGLE WINE SO -3710- 822 -82 MANUAL , �. 314135 12/03/86 _ _. _._ -__ ., . 1 .70- __. EAGLE WINE .__._ __ .. __ - 50 -3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 1.68- EAGLE WINE SO- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 52.23- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 MANUAL __- 314135 12/03/86 1 .80- EAGLE WINE _ __- _ - - 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 18.57- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 9 314135 12/03/86 79.37- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314135 - - _ 12/03/86 _ .28 , EAGLE WINE . _ - - -___ 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 640.19 EAGLE WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL r 314135 12/03/86 2,611.72 EAGLE WINE 50 -4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 1 314135 _ ._ !_3,968.34 EAGLE WINE . -__ - ._. -- 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 21.37- EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL y 314135 12/03/86 12.06- EAGLE WINE S0- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 1 314135 12/03/86 _ _ .. _ 831.75 EAGLE WINE _ -_ _.._ ... _.- - _ - -. 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL "1 314135 12/03/86 84.86 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 6.83- EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 1 314135 - _ _ _.. 12/03/86 83.90 _ EAGLE WINE - - 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 89.85 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 314135 12/03/86 14.09- EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL Y 314135__ . __- __12/03/86- _ .928.67 - EAGLE _WINE. -_ _ -_ _ _ _ -- __ -SO- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 9,000.75 - r . * ** -CKS u 314138 12/03/86 2.50- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL / 314138 - -- - ED PHILLIPS _.__._. - _ ... _- - - -- .. .._ -- _. _ SO-3710-822-82 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 2.11- ED PHILLIPS _... __... 50- 3710 - 822 -82 - MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 42.57- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 314138 -. - 12/03/86 - - - - - -- -- - - - - -- 21.68- - _ ED PHILLIPS .. SO-3710-842-84 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 83.96- -_ ED PHILLIPS - 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL _ 314138 12/03/86 1.52- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 4.80- ED PHILLIPS _ _ _ 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314139 12/03%86 26.75- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL v 314138 12/03/86 77.90- ED PHILLIPS 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 1 314138 12/03/86_ �- _ ______ 4.68 - ED PHILLIPS _- _ _ _ w - 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 2,128.40 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 0 314138 12/03/86 2,348.50 BELLBOY 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL / 314138 ._ _ 4,198.20 ED PHILLIPS _ _ _ SO -4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 2,348.50- BELLBOY _ 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL r 314138 12/03/86 3,895.09 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 1 314138 621.11 . ED PHILLIPS -- 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 105.30 ED PHILLIPS _ 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 125.00 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL ° e Lm D> 7 D)• 1986 ( OF EDINA CHECK 3TER 11 -30 -86 GE 3 r CHECK NO. DATE _ —_ AMOUNT _ — — VENDOR — _ — _ITEM - DESCRIPTION _ ACCOUNT NO..INV._ N P.O. N MESSAGE 314138 12/03/86 1,084.16 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 _ -_ _ 240.00 ED PHILLIPS _ ___... .- .__._._ __.__.._. 50- 4628 - 862-86 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 76.00 ED PHILLIPS _ 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 314138 12/03/86 233.84 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL / 314138 12/03_/86 _ _ _ 1,337.25 ED PHILLIPS __ .----- .-__ -- _ .._.- -462A- 862 -86 MANUAL 13,763.46 s R__50 sss «ss sss —CKS ,314190 11/14/86 23.11 GRIGGS COOPER INVENTORY 50- 4632- 842 -84 MANUAL -- - -.. 23.11 s ssss «« sss —CKS / 314378 12/03/86 240.00 MARK VII SALES INC 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 1 240.00 • sss —CKS Y 314433 12/03/86 237.72 PAUSTIS & SONS _ 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL / 314433 11/14/86 48.00 PAUSTIS & SONS INVENTORY 50- 4632 - 842 -84 MANUAL 285.72 + sss «ss — - - - -- -- -- — -- - - -- _ . s «« —CKS 314435 12/03/86 8.80 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80 PRIOR WINE CO 50 -3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80— _.. PRIOR WINE CO _ 50- 3710 - 822-82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710-822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80— PRIOR WINE CO _ 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80— _ _ PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL „ 314435 12/03/86 8.80— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710-822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80 PRIOR WINE CO _ 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL ! 314435 12/03/86 8.80— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80— PRIOR WINE CO Z 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 8.80— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 6.84— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710- 842-84 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 7.52— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68 PRIOR WINE CO __- 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86_ _ 404.68 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL ' 314435 12/03/86 404.68 PRIOR WINE CO _ _ _ 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68 PRIOR WINE CO 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68 PRIOR WINE CO 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 _ _12/03/86 -404.68---.-- PRIOR WINE CO_ 50 -4628- 822 -82_ MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68 _ _ PRIOR WINE CO 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68— PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628-822 -82 MANUAL Lm D> 7 D)• 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 11 -30 -86 PAGE 4 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. N MESSAGE 314435 12/03/86 404.68- PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL ` 314435 12/03/86 _..._ 404.68 PRIOR WINE CO _.. -. 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 11/14/86 35.16 PRIOR WINE INVENTORY 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 _ 404.68- PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 822-82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68- PRIOR WINE CO SO- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 404.68- PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314435 _- 12/03/86 342.00 PRIOR WINE CO _..._ _ _ _ 50- 4628- 842 -84 - MANUAL 314435 12/03/86 375.75 PRIOR WINE CO 50-4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 1,134.43 • + + » » » »» +»+ -CKS ' 314451 12/03/86 _ 1.87- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 17.12- QUALITY WINE 50 -3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 .96- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL • 314451 12/03/86 7.11- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 69.97- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL _ 314451 12/03/86 1.04- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL • 314451 12/03/86 26.87- QUALITY WINE _ 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 9.98- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 3.75 -- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314451_ 12/03/86 _ 87.11 -v QUALITY WINE 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 .18 QUALITY WINE 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL ' 314451 12/03/86 10.70 -- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 857.21 _- QUALITY WINE _ _._._. -. 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 3,497.26 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL e 314451 12/03/86 4,357.68 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 96.18 QUALITY WINE SO- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 718.18 QUALITY WINE SO- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 187.50 QUALITY WINE 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 998.75 QUALITY WINE _. 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 105.90 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 2,700.51 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 18.18- QUALITY WINE 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 375.00 QUALITY WINE SO- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314451 12/03/86 1,078.96 • QUALITY WINE , 50- 4628 - 862-86 MANUAL 314451 11/14/86 13.25 QUALITY WINE INVENTORY _50- 4632- 842 -84 _ MANUAL 14,731.90 + + » » » »» + ++ -CKS 314504 11/14/86 191.20 TWIN CITY WINE COST OF GOODS 50 -4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 314504 11/14/86 469.60 TWIN CITY WINE COST OF GOODS 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314SO4 11/14/86 394.00 TWIN CITY WINE COST OF GOODS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314504 11/14/86 591.60 TWIN CITY WINE COST OF GOODS 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314504 __ -- - 11/14/86 -_ . -_ _ .1,174.80 .- _•.TWIN CITY WINE _ _ COST OF GOODS _ 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314504 11/14/86 876.00 TWIN CITY WINE COST OF GOODS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314504 11/14/86 10.00 TWIN CITY WINE COST OF GOODS 50- 4630- 822 -82 MANUAL f 3,707.20 + + » » » »» + »» -CKS 314540 12/03/86 6.04- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 8.14- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL ! i s 314700 11/14/86 870.39 -- - --- - - - - -- - - - - -- — 870.39 s _.. 314701_ 11/14/86 ___95.00 DAIN BOSWORTH BAL PUR INVEST POSTMASDTER -_ 10- 1090 - 000-00 __ ____ 10- 4290 - 510 -51 * * * -CKS MANUAL MANUAL ! f 1986 ( OF EDINA CHECK 3TER 11 -30 -86 GE 5 r CHECK NO. DATE_ ____ _AMOUNT _ _ VENDOR- _ _ ITEM_DESCR -I PTION__ - -_ -- ACCOUNT NO._.INV. A P.O. M MESSAGE 314540 12/03/86 3.25- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 - _ _ _ _._ _ 2.76- TWIN CITY WINE __- ,- _ _ _ 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL :{ 314540 12/03/86 12.90- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 .08 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 314540..--- _ 12/03/86_ _— _ .01 TWIN CITY WINE _ _ _ 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 2.82- TWIN CITY _ WINE - 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 1.47- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 _ 10.54- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 .24 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL y 314540 12/03/86 .02 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 39.20- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 1.31- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 1.99- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 5.53- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 .04 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 6.70- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 _ ____12/03/86 _ .06 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 2.73- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 6.41- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 3.49- TWIN CITY WINE _ 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 38.74- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL r 314540 12/03/86 13.50- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 ^_ 1.99- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 644.99 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 73.65 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 1,960.13 TWIN CITY WINE _ 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 1,937.19 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 603.88 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 8.17- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 325.45 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 275.89 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 1.95- TWIN CITY WINE _ 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 812.70 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 282.33 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 _ 2.87- _ TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 670.41 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 131.30 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 1,053.86 TWIN CITY WINE _ 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 24.54- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 199.00 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 _555.03 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 4.99- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL r 314540 12/03/86 273.92 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 640.70 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 199.00 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 349.57 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 _ 12/03/86 6.04- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 314540 12/03/86 1,349.55 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 12,120.93 * i s 314700 11/14/86 870.39 -- - --- - - - - -- - - - - -- — 870.39 s _.. 314701_ 11/14/86 ___95.00 DAIN BOSWORTH BAL PUR INVEST POSTMASDTER -_ 10- 1090 - 000-00 __ ____ 10- 4290 - 510 -51 * * * -CKS MANUAL MANUAL ! f 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 11 -30 -86 PAGE 6 _CHECK_ N0. _DATE_ _AMOUNT. — _VENDOR,_._ __ ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO.-INV. A P.O. M MESSAGE * ** —CKS MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL *** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL 95.00 314805 12/.03/86 175.70 SALUD.AMERICA,.INC.__ -__ 50- 4628- 862 -86 ' 175.70 * 11bb11 33161�7T 1111 LL gg66 1 1 %'A6 1pq p 50, 000'00 SST azkk MM 11SS 1137$ tl'ANKP 1'IPLS gvl�E �R E S�ONDS �ATAOBLE gQ 6 p b 110042006060060 -00 316167 _ 11/14/86 1,750.00 91,790.00 1ST BANK MPLS___ INTEREST BONDS _ 10- 4300 - 660 -66 51,850.00 317396 11/14/86 EBELL TELEPHONE 11004426416604 = 11/14/86 6025 NORTHWESTERN 16 317396 - _ _ -_ 11/14/86 _ 7.85 -NORTHWESTERN BELL _. _ _ TELEPHONE 10-4256-460-46 317396 11/14/86 3,799.47 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 510 -51 317396 11/14/86 121.99 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 622 -62 317396 11/14/86 111.02 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 10- 4256 - 628 -62 317396 11/14/86 155.72 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 23 -4256- 611 -61 317396 11/14/86 49.80 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 26 -4256- 689 -68 317396 11/14/86_____ 313.86 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 27- 4256- 661 -66 317396 11/14/86 238.38 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 28- 4256 - 708 -70 317396 11/14/86 39.64 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 29- 4256 - 721 -72 317396 11/14/86 109.29 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 40- 4256 - 801 -80 317396 11/14/86 268.80 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 40- 4256- 803 -80 317396 11/14/86 154.66 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 50- 4256 - 821 -82 317396 _ 11/14/86 .... __.._ -. 184.04 NORTHWESTERN BELL _ TELEPHONE 50 -4256- 841 -84 317396 11/14/86 130.20 NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE 50 -4256- 861 -86 317702 11/14/86. _ _397.95 _ CADDYLAK SYS MAGNETIC BOARD 10- 4504 - 133 -12 317702 11/14/86 39.95 CADDYLAK SYS SUPPLIES 10 -4504- 133 -12 317702 11/14/86 39.95 CADDYLAK SYS SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 133 -12 _ 477.85 317703 11/14/86 13.50 LINDA SHIRK CLASS REFUND 23- 3500 - 000 -00 r 317704 11/14/86 13.50 PAT GISLASON CLASS REFUND 23- 3500 - 000 -00 13.50 .� 316095 11/14/86 41.77 COMM OF REVENUE GASOLINE 10- 4612 - 560 -56 41.77 + 318174 ___ 11/14/86-----.___ _ 175,000._00- -. 1ST BANK SOUTHDALE BANK TRANSFER 50- 1010 - 000 -00 1318174 11/14/86 175,000.00 1ST BANK SOUTHDALE BANK TRANSFER _ 50- 1010 - 000 -00 .00 * ** —CKS MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL *** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL 1986 1 OF EDINA CHECK 3TER 11 -30 -8E GE 7 ~ _ CHECK N0._- DATE- _ „ ^,___. AMOUNT _ _. _. , VENDOR _ ITEM_DESCRIPTION._ -. _ . ACCOUNT_ NO.,__ -INV.. ., _.- _ N P.O. IF MESSAGE rrrrrr - rr• -CKS 318430 12/02/86 20,557.05 PERA CITY CONT 10- 4145 - 510 -S1 MANUAL 20,557.05 r rrrrrr rrr -CKS 318705 12/02/86 121.08 DOER CITY CONT 10 -4162- 510 -51 MANUAL 121.08 r 318706 12/02/86 9,889.40 SOCIAL SECURITY CITY PORTION 10- 4149 - 510 -51 MANUAL 9,889.40 r rrrrrr rrr -CKS • 322067 12/03/86 9.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322067 12/03/86 514.64 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322067 12/03/86 6.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 322067 12/03/86 737.40 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 322067 12/03/86 16.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 322067 12/03/86 1,127.29 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322067 12/02/86 _ 28.00 CAPITAL CITY INVENTORY SO- 4630- 822 -82 MANUAL 2,438.33 + •rrrrr rrr -CKS 322129 12/03/86 1,428.65 BELLBOY 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 322129 12/03/86 1,252.90 BELLBOY _ SO- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 322129 12/03/86 1,432.20 BELLBOY SO- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 322129 12/03/86 2,687.40 BELLBOY 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 6,801.15 r rrrrrr rrr -CKS 322135 12/03/86 12.29- EAGLE WINE SO- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 322135 12/03/86 67.16- EAGLE WINE 50 -3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 322135 12/03/86 .- 66.50- EAGLE WINE SO- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 322135 12/03/86 124.46- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL r 322135 12/03/86 82.36— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322135 12/03/86_ ___ ______ _____ 23.82— EAGLE WINE _ 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 322135 12/03/86 3,357.77 EAGLE WINE SO- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL > 322135 12/03/86 6,222.91 EAGLE WINE SO- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 322135 12/03/86 4,117.99 EAGLE WINE __. 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 322135 12/03/86 614.28 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL v 322135 12/03/86 3,324.93 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 322135 _ 12/03/86 11191.00 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL N322135 12/02/86 _ 39.89 f ,_ EAGLE WINE _ INVENTORY SO -4632- 822 -82 MANUAL s 18,492.18 r rrrrrr rrr —CKS r _ 322138 _12/03/86 9.89- ._______- ED PHILLIPS _ _ - 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 99.86— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 47.21— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 1 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO_ DATE_______- __- AMOUNT_ VENDOR 11 -30 -86 PAGE 8 ITEM DESCRIPTION___. -__ -_ _ACCOUNT NO.-INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE - 322138 12/03/86 2.28- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 _- 91.87- ED PHILLIPS _ __.. 50- 3710-842 -84 _ MANUAL _ 322138 12/03/86 107.07- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 26.94- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 _ -_ _ 3.80 -_ ED PHILLIPS __. _ 50 -3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 14.31- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 130.16- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 39.73- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 14.33- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 4,993.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86-..- 5,353.68 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 6,508.03 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 715.50 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 _ 494.25 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322138 ' 12/03/86 2,360.70 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 114.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 _ 4,593.44 ED PHILLIPS - 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 1,346.75 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 190.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 716.63 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 322138 12/03/86 1,986.45 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 322138 12/02/86 37.95 ED PHILLIPS INVENTORY 50- 4630 - 842 -84 MANUAL -- -- - - 28,822.93 w sswwrr rrs -CKS 322251 12/02/86 600,000.00 EDINA HRA DUE HRA 10 -1145- 000 -00 MANUAL • 600,000.00 w rrrsws rrr -CKS 322433 12/03/86 200.00 PAUSTIS 6 SONS . 322433 12/03/86 5.00 PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 9.60- PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 480.00- PAUSTIS & SONS 322433 12/03/86 9.60 PAUSTIS 6 SONS - 322433 12/03/86 480.00- PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 9.60 PAUSTIS 6 SONS _ -- 322433 12/03/86 9.60- PAUSTIS d SONS - 322433 12/03/86 9.60 PAUSTIS & SONS 322433 12/03/86 2.20 PAUSTIS d SONS 322433 12/03/86 9.60- PAUSTIS & SONS 322433 12/03/86 288.92 PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 477.00 PAUSTIS d SONS_ _ 322433 12/03/86 480.00 PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 477.00- PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 9.60 -- _ PAUSTIS 6 SONS q 322433 12/03/86 480.00 PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 480.00- PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 _. _ _ 480.00 _ PAUSTIS & SONS 322433 12/03/86 9.60- PAUSTIS 6 SONS ' 322433 12/03/86 9.60 PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 1.2/03/86 ! 480.00 -. ___ _ -_ PAUSTIS 6 SONS 322433 12/03/86 200.00 PAUSTIS d SONS 322433 12/03/86 5.00 PAUSTIS d SONS * . 50- 4628- 822 -82 50- 4628- 822 -82 50- 4628- 842 -84 50- 4628 - 842 -84 50- 4628 - 842 -84 50 -4628- 842 -84 50 -4628- 842 -84 50- 4628- 842 -84 50- 4628- 842 -84 50- 4628- 842 -84 50- 4628 - 842 -84 50 -4628- 842 -84 50 -4628- 842 -84 50- 4628 - 842 -84 50- 4628 - 842 -84 50- 4628- 842 -84 . 50 -4628- 842 -84 50- 4628 - 842 -84 _. 50- 4628- 842 -84 50- 4628- 842 -84 50 -4628- 842 -84 50 -4628- 842 -84 _ 50- 4628- 862 -86 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL • • e 3TER 11 -30 -86 GE 9 _ -_ __ITEM_ - DESCRIPTION___- ._ _ ACCOUNT- NO,_INV. M P.O. N MESSAGE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 50- 3710 - 842 -84 50 -3710- 862 -86 50 -3710- 862 -86 SO -3710- 862 -86 SO -3710- 862 -86 50- 3710 - 862 -86 50- 4628- 822 -82 50 -4628- 842 -84 _ 50- 4628- 862 -86 50 -4628- 862 -86 50- 4628 - 862 -86 50- 4628 - 862 -86 -- - - — 50- 4628- 862 -86 ssssss r 322451 1986 1 OF EDINA QUALITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 322451 CHECK CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR 12/03/86 2.39— QUALITY WINE 211.52 * 322451 12/03/86 _ 2.39— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710-842 -84 322451 12/03/86 41.46— QUALITY WINE 322435 12/03/86 11.43- PRIOR WINE CO ,322435 12/03/86 15.16- PRIOR WINE CO r 322435 12/03/86 13.52- PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 .88- PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 .88 PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 5.00 PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 .88 -- PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 571.44 PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 757.80 PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 43.78- PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 675.84 PRIOR WINE CO •r 322435 12/03/86 43.78 -' PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 _ 26.30- PRIOR WINE CO 322435 12/03/86 43.78 _ PRIOR WINE CO TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3700 - 842 -84 1,900.77 * 12/03/86 _ _ _— _ 5.76— TWIN CITY WINE 3TER 11 -30 -86 GE 9 _ -_ __ITEM_ - DESCRIPTION___- ._ _ ACCOUNT- NO,_INV. M P.O. N MESSAGE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 50- 3710 - 842 -84 50 -3710- 862 -86 50 -3710- 862 -86 SO -3710- 862 -86 SO -3710- 862 -86 50- 3710 - 862 -86 50- 4628- 822 -82 50 -4628- 842 -84 _ 50- 4628- 862 -86 50 -4628- 862 -86 50- 4628 - 862 -86 50- 4628 - 862 -86 -- - - — 50- 4628- 862 -86 ssssss r 322451 12/03/86 `— 14.28— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 322451 12/03/86 50.92— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 ,. 322451 12/03/86 2.39— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 322451 12/03/86 _ 2.39— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710-842 -84 322451 12/03/86 41.46— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 y 322451 12/03/86 160.86— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 322451 12/03/86 _ 4.79— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 322451 12/03/86 19.74— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710- 862 -86 322451 12/03/86 78.52— QUALITY WINE SO- 3710- 862 -86 322451 12/03/86 2,547.25 QUALITY WINE _- SO- 4626- 822 -82 322451 12/03/86 8,047.85 QUALITY WINE SO- 4626- 842 -84 s 322451 12/03/86 3,928.81 QUALITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 322451 _ 12/03/86 _ 1,435.52 QUALITY WINE _ 50- 4628 - 822 -82 322451 12/03/86 239.75 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 322451 12/03/86 4,157.40 QUALITY WINE 50 -4628- 842 -84 322451 12/03/86 239.75 QUALITY WINE _ _ _ SO- 4628- 842 -84 322451 12/03/86 479.50 QUALITY WINE _ _. 50 -4628- 862 -86 322451 12/03/86 1,989.25 QUALITY WINE 50 -4628- 862 -86 22,689.73 + 322540 12/03/86 63.36— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3700 - 822 -82 322540 12/03/86 2.86— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3700 - 842 -84 322540 12/03/86 _ _ _— _ 5.76— TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3700- 842 -84 322540 12/03/86 4.58— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 322540 12/03/86 4.84— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 322540 _ 12/03/86 -_ 1.21— TWIN CITY WINE SO- 3710- 822 -82 322540 12/03/86 .60— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 s 322540 12/03/86 6.27— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 322540 12/03/86____ —_ __ _,83— _ _ TWIN CITY .WINE _' - ---------- �— _— ._------- -- SO-3710-822-82 322540 12/03/86 1.54— TWIN CITY WINE - -. 50- 3710 - 822 -82 i 322540 12/03/86 56.06— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 •s *** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL e MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL e MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL + MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL *** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL * ** —CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL e e e / 1 / 1 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 11 -30 -86 PAGE 10 CHECK NO.... DATE _ : AMOUNT. _ VENDOR _ - ITEM DESCRIPTION_. __ -_ _- ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. N MESSAGE o 322540 12/03/86 22.70- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 21.82- TWIN CITY WINE _.. _ _ 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 112.07- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 12.14- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 _- 2.97- TWIN CITY WINE __- _ - 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 29.88- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 3.48- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 322540 12/03/86 12/03/86 52- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 2.06- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 81.78- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 .13 TWIN CITY WINE _ 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL p 322540 12/03/86 3.10- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 1.00- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL ` 322540 12/03/86 - 2,803.14 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 .00 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 5,603.85 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 _. 1,493.80 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 4,058.83 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 152.88 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 484.41 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 120.96 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 628.10 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 4 322540 12/03/86 59.85 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 458.27 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 83.00 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL a 322540 12/03/86 .00 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 296.32 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 2,271.93 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 0 322540 12/03/86 _ .00 TWIN CITY WINE _ _- _ 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 2,178.25 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 1,213.55 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL a 322540 12/03/86 310.74 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 99.75 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/02/86 237.85 TWIN CITY INVENTORY 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL ~ 322540 _12/03/86 52.35 TWIN CITY WINE _ 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 13.42- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 322540 12/03/86 206.20 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL .322540 12/03/86 347.64 TWIN.CITY.WINE _ _ _ _ _50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 22,706.95 + - - -- . -._. -- -- - - * ** -CKS 322707 12/02/86 1,200.00 PETER VRETTOS VCR 27 -2237- 000 -00 MANUAL 1,200.00 * 322708 12/02/86 99.25 AMERICAN AUTO LIC PLATE RENEWAL 10- 4310 - 560 -56 MANUAL 99.25 *s * * *• * ** -CKS 49 325354 12/02/86 168.39 MINNEGASCO HEATING 10- 4254 - 446 -44 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 339.56 MINNEGASCO HEATING 10- 4254 - 520 -52 MANUAL s 325354 12/02/86 , 1 , 314. 04 .__ MINNEGASCO__ _ _ __ HEATING __ 1 0 -4254- 540 -54 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 9.51 MINNEGASCO HEATING 10- 4254 - 629 -62 _ MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 367.88 MINNEGASCO HEATING 10- 4254- 646 -64 MANUAL e , ,j_ 1986 l OF EDINA CHECK 3TER 11 -30 -86 GE 11 CHECK N0. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE 325354 12/02/86 130.40 MINNEGASCO HEATING 23- 4254 - 611 -61 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 2.96 MINNEGASCO -. HEATING. _ 26- 4254 - 689 -68 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 951.69 MINNEGASCO HEATING 27 -4254- 661 -66 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 18.36 MINNEGASCO HEATING 27- 4254- 662 -66 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 _ 2,057.39 ._ MINNEGASCO _ _ _- . -. HEATING 28 -4254- 708 -70 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 247.89 MINNEGASCO HEATING 40- 4254 - 801 -80 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 1,623.66 MINNEGASCO HEATING 40- 4254 - 803 -80 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 128.57 MINNEGASCO HEATING 50- 4254 - 841 -84 MANUAL 325354 12/02/86 185.59 MINNEGASCO HEATING 50- 4254 - 861 -86 MANUAL ' 7,545.89 * ** -CKS 329067 12/03/86 .50- CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 329067 12/03/86 5.00 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329067 12/03/86 179.90 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329067 12/03/86 10.50 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329067 12/03/86 771.70 CAPITAL CITY DISTRI 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 329067 12/02/86 78.75 CAPITAL CITY INVENTORY 50- 4630- 862 -86 MANUAL 1,045.35 * « * * «« I * ** -CKS 329095 12/02/86 75.16 COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX 10- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 329095 12/02/86 170.11 COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX 23- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 329095 12/02/86 3,048.71 _ COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX _ 27- 3357 - 000 -00 MANUAL 329095 12/02/86 241.77 COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX 28 -3357- 000 -00 MANUAL 329095 12/02/86 94.88 COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX 29 -3357- 000 -00 MANUAL 329095 12/02/86 _ _ _ 1,890.63 _ COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX 40- 3357- 000 -00 MANUAL 329095 12/02/86 7,873.85 COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX 50 -3357- 001 -00 MANUAL a 329095 12/02/86 14,557.19 COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX 50- 3357 - 002 -00 MANUAL N329095 12/02/86 13,276.02 COMM OF REVENUE STATE SALES TAX 50 -3357- 003 -00 MANUAL 41,228.32 * * « « «* *** -CKS 329129 12/03/86 2,209.95 BELLBOY 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL %329129 12/03/86 __11999.00 BELLBOY_ _ _ _ 50-4626-862-86 4,208.95 * ** -CKS :29135 12/03/86 30.61- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 329135 12/03/86 30.52- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 329135 12/03/86 76.34- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 329135 12/03/86 14.55- EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 329135 12/03/86_ 83.25- EAGLE WINE MANUAL 329135 12/03/86 36.00- EAGLE WINE, 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL v 329135 12/03/86 1,530.74 EAGLE WINE 50- 4626 - 822 -82 MANUAL 329135 _12/03/86 -_,.- 4,162.29 EAGLE WINE _ 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 329135 12/03/86 11525.82 EAGLE WINE 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 329135 12/03/86 3,817.17 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL 329135_ 91.49- WINE SO-4628-842-84 _ 329135 _12/03/8691 12/03/86 727.60 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL �. 329135 12/03/86 1,799.91 EAGLE WINE 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 11 -30 -86 PAGE 12 CHECK NO_,_ DATE __AMOUNT ---- VENDOR _.___ - __, -.___ ITEM DESCRIPTION _ ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. N MESSAGE 329135 12/02/86 24.25 EAGLE WINE INVENTORY 50- 4632- 822 -82 MANUAL 329135 _ 132.89 EAGLE WINE _ INVENTORY .- _._.____ -_ 50 -4632- 862 -86 MANUAL 13,357.91 s ssF*Mi sss -CKS 329138 12/03/86 2.53- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710-822 -82 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 22.76- ED PHILLIPS 50 -3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 53.76- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 .82- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 _ 38.54- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 12.65- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 37.04- ED PHILLIPS 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 166.30- ED PHILLIPS _ 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 21.35- ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 126.30 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 _ 2,687.92 - ED PHILLIPS _ -_ . _ 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 329138 _ 12/03/86 1,927.22 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 8,315.03 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL r 329138 12/03/86 1,137.75 ED PHILLIPS - __ - 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 632.72 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 41.10 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 __1,067.35 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329138 12/03/86 1,851.85 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 329138 12/02/86 33.32 ED PHILLIPS INVENTORY 50- 4630- 862 -86 MANUAL 17,464.81 s ' sss �RS sss -CKS • . 329433 12/03/86 150.00 PAUSTIS 6 SONS 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL ' 150.00 s ssssss _ sss -CKS • 329435 12/03/86 2.00-"' PRIOR WINE CO _ 50- 3710- 822 -82 MANUAL _ 329435 12/03/86 506.00 PRIOR WINE CO 50 -3710- 822 -82 MANUAL 329435 12/03/86 1.20 -`, PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 329435 12/03/86 7.37- ✓ PRIOR WINE CO __ _ 50- 3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 329435 12/03/86 1.20 -`' PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL e329435 12/03/86 6.85 -v PRIOR WINE CO 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL ; \329435 12/03/86 99.95 PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 12/03/86 , -.- 25,290.00- PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL ]329435 n 329435 12/03/86 59.97 ✓ PRIOR WINE CO 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL y�329435 12/03/86 368.63 ✓ PRIOR WINE CO _ _. _ 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL '329435 12/03/86 342.29 PRIOR WINE CO 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329435 12/03/86 59.97 ✓ PRIOR WINE CO 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL - -- - - -- - - --- — 23,871 .81 —* ssssss sss -CKS ! 329451 12/03/86 81.25- QUALITY WINE 50 -3700- 842 -84 MANUAL 329451 12/03/86 6.24- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL f 329451 __ —_ 47. 90- -QUALITY WINE _ —,_ 50-3710-822-82 _. - MANUAL —12/03/86 329451 _� 12/03/86 -- ----47. 6.68- QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL _ 329451 12/03/86 .28 QUALITY WINE 50- 3710-842 -84 MANUAL 11-30-8, iGE 13 ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 3710- 842 -84 _ MANUAL 50- 3710 - 842 -84 1986 OF EDINA MANUAL _ 50- 3710 - 862 -86 CHECK STER CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 329451 12/03/86 .28- QUALITY WINE 329451 _ 12/03/86 27.54- QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 3.81- QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 6.69- QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 28.04- QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 _ 3.34- QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 92.96- QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 _ _ _ 16.59- QUALITY WINE _ 329451 12/03/86 2,398.31 QUALITY WINE ' 329451 12/03/86 335.40 QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 28.50 QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 _ .00 QUALITY WINE _ 329451 12/03/86 28.50- QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 1,377.30 QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 4,651.85 QUALITY WINE - 329451 12/03/86 1,402.82 QUALITY WINE 329451 _12/03/86 625.45 QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 41.54- QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 669.50 QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 _- - 385.34 QUALITY WINE 329451 12/03/86 334.75 QUALITY WINE - 329451 12/03/86 1,675.79 QUALITY WINE y 329451 12/02/86 28.22 QUALITY WINE INVENTORY TWIN CITY 13,522.15 + 50- 3710 - 862 -86 329540 - •wsrrt� 16.16- TWIN CITY WINE 11-30-8, iGE 13 ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 3710- 842 -84 _ MANUAL 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL _ 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 50- 3710 - 862-86 MANUAL 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL - SO -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 50 -4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4626 - 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 50 -4626- 862 -86 MANUAL SO- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL SO- 4628 - 842 -84 MANUAL SO- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 50 -4632- 842 -84 MANUAL m 329540 12/03/86 41.06- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 329540 12/03/86 _ _ 9.77- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 329540 12/03/86 3.49- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 329540 12/03/86 1.86- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 822 -82 329540 12/03/86 1.92- TWIN CITY WINE _ 50- 3710- 822 -82 329540 12/03/86 3.93- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 822 -82 r 329540 12/03/86 3.84- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 842 -84 329540 12/03/86 5.52- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 329540 12/03/86 3.46- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 842 -84 y 329540 12/03/86 .61- TWIN CITY WINE 50-3710- 842 -84 329540 12/03/86 45.34- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 329540 12/03/86 6.95- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 - 329540 12/03/86 7.18- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 329540 12/03/86__ 5.35- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 329540 _ - ___ 12/03/86 __ 5.69- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 842 -84 329540 12/03/86 1.90- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 9.21- _ TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 1.92- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 105.45- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 16.16- TWIN CITY WINE 50 -3710- 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 10.97- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 .55 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 6.56- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 15.88- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 329540 12/03/86 2,055.46 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4626- 822 -82 329540 -- 12/03/86___ 359.20 __TWIN CITY WINE - --- - - - -�- - -� -_- 50 -4626- 842 -84 329540 12/03/86 2,267.25 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4626- 842 -84 329540 --I 12/03/86 5,272.02 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4626- 862 -86 • +• -CKS MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 11 -30 -86 PAGE 14 CHECK__NO.__DATE_ -_ __._____. ____AMOUNT VENDOR - _ ITEM DESCRIPTION._____ ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. M MESSAGE 329540 12/03/86 192.15 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628 - 822 -82 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 _. 393.71 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 185.92 TWIN CITY WINE SO- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 329540 !, 12/03/86 348.05 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 329540 _ 12/03/86 977.85 _ TWIN CITY WINE _ _ - 50- 4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 534.57 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 61.24 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 384.30 TWIN CITY WINE _ 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 694.60 TWIN CITY WINE SO- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 552.43 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 346.00 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 569.25 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 1,588.21 TWIN CITY WINE 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 192.15 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 918.94 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 1,096.95 TWIN CITY WINE SO- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 _ 654.77 TWIN CITY WINE _ 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 1,615.50 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 27.56- TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 329540 12/03/86 189.75 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628-862 -86 MANUAL 329540 12/02/86 199.67 TWIN CITY INVENTORY 50- 4630- 822 -82 MANUAL 21,308.91 * ** -CKS 329700 12/03/86_ 1.70- BRW ENTERPRISES 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 329700 12/03/86 1.58- BRW ENTERPRISES 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 329700 12/03/86 .63- BRW ENTERPRISES 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 329700 12/03/86 113.14 BRW ENTERPRISES 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 329700 12/03/86 105.66 BRW ENTERPRISES 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329700 12/03/86 42.08 BRW ENTERPRISES 50 -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL 256.97 • 329701 12/03/86 3.00 WORLD CLASS WINES 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 329701 _ 12/03/86__ 144.00 WORLD CLASS WINES _ 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 147.00 * * * * ** 330174 12/02/86 182,000.00 1ST SOUTHDALE BANK TRANSFER 50 -1010- 000 -00 330174, _ _____ 12 /02/86 _____182,000.00 - 1ST SOUTHDALE _ BANK TRANSFER 50 -1010- 000 -00 .00 + * * * * ** 330430 12/02/86 330523 12/02/86 330702 12/02/86 • *.. t I , 20,906.25 PERA CITY PORTION 10- 4145 - 510 -51 906.25__ * - . 9,842.91 SOCIAL SECURITY EMP PORTION 10- 4149 - 510 -51 9,842.91 124.38 D.O.E.R CITY PORTION 10 -4162- 510 -51 * ** -CKS MANUAL MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL * ** -CKS MANUAL e z w 1986 OF EDINA CHECK STER 11 -30 -8 AGE 15 CHECK_ NO_ DATE _ r_ __ -- AMOUNT VENDOR---..--- _ __` -- _ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0, INV. Y P.O. N MESSAGE 124.38 + 330703 12/02/86 186.30 COMMERCIAL LIFE CITY PD PREM 10 -4157- 510 -51 MANUAL 186.30 + rsssss -- -- - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- -- - -- -- - -- - _ _ - +s+ —CKS 336135 12/03/86 24.04— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 40.80— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842-84 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 17.89— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 7.48— EAGLE WINE 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 1.16— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 8.99— EAGLE WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 15.37— EAGLE WINE SO- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 1,202.14 EAGLE WINE 50- 4626- 822 -82 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 2,039.96` EAGLE WINE 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 768.49 EAGLE WINE 50 -4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 894.60 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 449.25 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 57.90 EAGLE WINE 50- 4628 - 862 -86 MANUAL 336135 12/03/86 373.75 EAGLE WINE SO -4628- 862 -86 MANUAL ` 336135 12/02/86 86.14 EAGLE WINE INVENTORY 50- 4632- 842 -84 MANUAL 5,756.50 + +sss ++ ss+ —CKS 336138 12/03/86 6.50— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 822 -82 MANUAL r 336138 12/03/86 1S.13— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 336138 12/03/86 19.50— ED PHILLIPS 50 -3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 336138 12/03/86 15.93— ED PHILLIPS 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 336138 12/03/86 6.50— ED PHILLIPS 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 336138 12/03/86 756.30 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 336138 12/03/86 325.00 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL r 336138 12/03/86 796.40 ED PHILLIPS 50- 4626 - 862 -86 MANUAL 336138 12/03/86 325.00 ED PHILLIPS 50 -4628- 822 -82 MANUAL 336138 12/03/86 975.00 ED PHILLIPS SO -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 3,114.14 + sss—CKS 336190 12/02/86 — 3.24— GREGG COOPER CREDIT 50 -3710- 001 -00 MANUAL 336190 12/02/86 8.64— GREGG COOPER CREDIT 50- 3710 - 002 -00 MANUAL 336190 12/02/86 10.39— GREGG COOPER CREDIT 50 -3710- 003 -00 MANUAL 336190 12/02/86 49.88 GREGG COOPER INVENTORY 50- 4632- 842 -84 MANUAL 27.61 + r +ss ++ +s+ —CKS ,. 336451 12/03/86 43.49— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 336451 12/03/86 - _- _. - 15.09 - -_, QUALITY WINE _. ._. 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 336451 12/03/86 .22 QUALITY WINE 50 -3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 336451 12/03/86 12.06— QUALITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 336451 _ _ 12/03/86 2,177.54 _ QUALITY WINE _ _ — 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 336451 12/03/86 22.95— QUALITY WINE — 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 336451 12/03/86 1,511.15 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL w 1986 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 11 -30 -86 PAGE 16 J CHECK N0._- _DATE_ - ____,_.,- ..AMOUNT_, _ _ VENDOR _ ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. N P.O. N MESSAGE 336451 12/03/86 1,213.15 QUALITY WINE 50- 4628- 862 -86 MANUAL _ _ _ . --.. _._4, 808.47 • ••s�i� •ts —CKS 336540 12/03/86 35.38— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 1.40 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710- 842 -84 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 .96 TWIN CITY WINE _ 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 1.51— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 842 -84 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 8.94— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 3710 - 862 -86 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 _ 1.47— TWIN CITY WINE _ 50 -3710- 862 -86 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 1,769.18 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 842 -84 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 73.65 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 446.62 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4626- 862 -86 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 150.50 TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 336540 12/03/86 70.50— TWIN CITY WINE 50- 4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 336540 - -- 12/03/86 - - - — 96.15— TWIN CITY WINE _ 50 -4628- 842 -84 MANUAL 2,228.S6 • •�ys�• - tyr —CKS 7.29,816.85 7x4,4 2—.80- FUND 10 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 483.23 FUND 23 TOTAL ART CENTER 52.76 FUND 26 TOTAL SWIMMING POOL FUND 6,289.62 FUND 27 TOTAL GOLF COURSE FUND r 2,537.54 FUND 28 TOTAL RECREATION CENTER FUND 134.52 FUND 29 TOTAL _. GUN RANGE FUND 4,140.27 FUND 40 TOTAL UTILITY FUND w 302,057.96 a7�.7 026 - t_� FUND 50 TOTAL LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND 1 Hand typed checks: 73387 thru 73461 0o TOTAL ' 1,045,512.75 / � 1 - — APPROVED-TOR; PAYKNI' i w 1 CHECK RMISTER;DATEO, /i /S-(- PAGES — THMUGH,. �G ' w _. 1 C7TY'Tfi 7CF1— ff UAW' qo 1 `r 1 • � f