HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-02_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 2, 1990
7:00 P.M.
ROLLCALL
I. APPROVAL OF JOINT HRA /COUNCIL MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 1990
II. ADJOURNMENT
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
PROCLAMATION - Volunteers Recognition Week - April 15 - 21, 1990
I. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All agenda items marked with an asterisk ( *)
and in bold print 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of the Regular Meeting of March 5 and Joint HRA /Council
Meeting of March 19, 1990.
III. PUBLIC HEARING - DESIGNATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVAL'OF TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS -
A. West 44th Street and France Avenue
B. Wooddale Avenue and Valley View Road
C. West 70th Street and Cahill Road
IV. 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. Final Development Plan Approval of Property
Zoned Planned District: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass.
* A.
Final Development Plan - 7101 -13 Amundson Avenue - George Rosmides -
Generally located at southeast corner of Cahill Rd and Amundson Av. (Contd
from 3/19/90) (Continue to 4/16/90)
B.
Release of Restrictive Covenants - South Harriet Park Steiner Addition
C.
Lot Divisions
1. 7021 Wexford Rd and 7028 and 7100 Down Road
2. 6124 and 6128 Ewing Av So
D.
Appeal of Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision - Sideyard setback
variances - 4420 Vandervork Av
E.
Set Hearing Dates (4/16/90)
*
1. Final Rezoning - R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2 - Ron
Clark Construction - Generally located south of West 70th St and west
of Cahill Rd
*
2. Final Plat Approval - Highcroft Addition - Ron Clark Construction -
Generally located south of West 70th St. and west of Cahill Rd
*
3. Preliminary Rezoning Approval - PCD -4, Planned Commercial District to
PCD -2, Planned Commercial District. Walgreen's by Semper Holdings,
Inc., 4916 France Avenue South
Agenda 4/2/90
Edina City Council
Page Two
* 4.
* 5.
* 6.
Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval - R -2, Double
Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2, Planned Residence District. Schaefer
Development. Preliminary Plat Approval Shadow Hill. (Vernon Court).
Final Development Plan - Opus Corporation - Western National Mutual
Insurance. 5350 West 78th St - 5309 Industrial Boulevard - Building
Expansion.
Final Development Plan - Gabbert and Beck - 6969 France Av So -
Building Expansion for the Galleria
V. ORDINANCES First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading:
Favorable rollcall vote of majority of all members of Council required to pass.
Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council
required to pass.
A. First Reading - On -Sale Wine License Ordinance Amendment
VI. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. Walnut Ridge Park (Continue to 4/16/90)
VII. AWE
A.
* B.
* C.
* D.
* E.
* F.
iRD OF BIDS
Tow Truck with Recovery Unit (Contd from 3/5/90)
Sand, Rock, Bituminous Material, Concrete
Snow Plow and Wing
Aerial Bucket
Braemar Parking Lot
Braemar Soccer Field Renovation
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. I -494 EIS Update
B. Report on Regulation of Private Parking Lots (Contd from 3/5/90)
C. Vacancy on Recycling Commission
D. Report on Dog License Process
E. Feasibility Report - Storm Sewer Improvements
IX. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
A. MWCC General Advisory Committee Nomination
B. AMM - Nomination to Board of Directors
X. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
XI. POST AGENDA AND MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
A. Joint Council Recycling Commission Meeting - 4/16/90 - 6 :00 P.M.
B. Closed Meeting to Discuss Labor Negotiations
XII. FINANCE
* A. Payment of Claims as per Check Register dated 4/2/90: Total $512,409.53,
and Confirmation of payment of Claims as per Check Register dated 2/28/90:
Total $$651,235.75.
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS
Mon
Apr
16
Regular Council Meeting
7:00
P.M.
Council
Room -
Tues
Apr
17
Volunteers Recognition Reception
5:00
P.M.
Braemar
Clubhouse
Mon
Apr
23
Board of Review
5:00
P.M.
Council
Room
Sat
May
5
Council Study Session
8:00
A.M.
Braemar
Clubhouse
Mon
May
7
Regular Council Meeting
7:00
P.M.
Council
Room
Mon
May
21
Regular Council Meeting
7:00
P.M.
Council
Room
Poor Quality Document
Disclaimer
The original or copy of a document or page of a document
presented at the time of digital scanning contained within this
digital file may be of substandard quality for viewing, printing or
faxing needs.
MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING OF THE
EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY /CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT EDINA CITY HALL
MARCH 19, 1990 '
A joint meeting of the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City
Council was convened to consider concurrently: 1) Preliminary Report on Tax
Increment Districts and 2) Extension of Resolution - Acquisition of Kunz Oil /Lewis
Engineering Properties. Action was taken by the HRA and Council as .recorded.
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners /Members Rice, Smith, Richards.
Commissioner /Member Paulus entered the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
MINUTES of the Joint HRA /Council Meeting of March 5, 1990 were approved as
submitted by motion of Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Rice.
Ayes: Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY REPORT PRESENTED ON TAR INCREMENT DISTRICTS; PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD
ON 412/90 HRA Executive Director Gordon Hughes stated that in accordance with the
Council's request, staff has prepared draft plans supporting the establishment of
tax increment financing districts at Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue, 44th
Street and France Avenue, and 70th Street and Cahill Road. These preliminary
plans have been prepared with the assistance of the Hoisington Group, planning
consultant. J. Peter Meyers has also assisted staff in discussions with the
business community. The plans are in the draft stage and the staff and
consultant seek comment and direction concerning them from the HRA Commissioners.
Plan Preparation and Review Process - Prior to commencing plan preparation, staff
and the consultant met individually with the five or six key business persons from
each of the three retail area. The purpose was to obtain their comments and
recommendations concerning the area"and to determine if they had particular plans
relating to their businesses. Subsequently, the consultant prepared preliminary
land use and public improvement plans.
On February 27, 1990 staff and the consultant conducted an open meeting with each
of the three retail areas. The preliminary plans were presented and comments and
recommendations were received from those in attendance. On February 28, 1990 the
preliminary plans were presented to the Community Development and Planning
Commission for informal review. Following these meetings, the consultant revised
and refined the land use plans. At the same time, staff has drafted the narrative
that will accompany the plans. The City's legal counsel is presently in the
process of preparing the legal documents necessary for district establishment.
Executive Director Hughes said that the purpose of the preliminary report at this
meeting is to obtain comments and recommendations so that any revisions to these
plans can be made prior to the public hearing on April 2, 1990. Individuals who
were in attendance at the February 27, 1990 meeting have been invited as well as
other individuals who have called to inquire about the plans. The Community
Development and Planning Commission will again review the plans on March 28, 1990
and, hopefully, will pass a recommendation on to the Council.
Status of Tax Increment Financing Legislation - Legislation adverse to tax
increment financing has been introduced in both houses of the Legislature.
Adoption of this legislation would likely restrict the City's ability to create
these proposed tax increment financing districts. It would be important to
establish these districts prior to April 30, 1990, when the proposed legislation
would be effective.
Preliminary Plans - Certain portions of the proposed legislation may affect
districts that are created prior to April 30. In particular, it may affect the
City's ability to amend existing tax increment financing plans at a later date.
Therefore, the proposed retail plans provide for a wide range of public
involvement based on the reasoning that it may be difficult to expand the scope of
these plans in the future. The adoption of the tax increment financing plans and
districts does not commit the City to implement the plans. Establishment of the
districts would provide the financial basis for future City or HRA participation.
Therefore, the plans should be viewed as schematic in nature.
Finance Plans - Finance plans will be incorporated into the legal documents
presented on April 2. As with the land use plans, a wide range of potential
public expenditures is included, e.g. possible public acquisition of properties to
facilitate development /redevelopment. These possible acquisitions include single
family homes particularly at 44th and France. The strategy has been to include
all possibilities recognizing that legislation may restrict the ability to expand
plans in the future.
Preliminary public cost budgets have been prepared, but staff has not attempted to
determine if adequate tax increments will exist to support such expenditures. In
staff's view, such analyses are best performed at the time specific projects are
proposed.
Summary - Executive Director Hughes reiterated that staff is anxious to hear the
Council's reaction to the concepts in the land use plans, and secondly, some
direction as to the amount of public involvement in the districts, particularly as
it relates to the potential acquisition of private property for development or
redevelopment. All three proposed districts are affected to some degree, at least
in the draft stage, by the potential acquisition of property by the City to
facilitate development /redevelopment. That is a policy question as to whether the
City should be involved in that role or merely should be involved in the
traditional public right of way type improvements such as was done at 50th and
France. Tax increment financing is-more difficult under the present environment
with the very short duration of districts that the City is faced with today,
compared with the 50th and France District. Two of the proposed districts, e.g.
Valley View /Wooddale and 70th /Cahill have at most an eight year life making it
much more difficult to repay public costs. It is hoped that 44th /France can be
established as a redevelopment district with a 25 -year life and, therefore, a
greater ability to finance public cost.
Executive Director Hughes then introduced Fred Hoisington,-Hoisington Group,
noting that he was a former Edina City Planner and is very familiar with the three
areas that are being studied.
(Commissioner /Member Paulus entered the meeting at this point.)
Fred Hoisington, consultant, then presented graphics of the three retail areas
proposed for tax increment districts.. The graphics included the plan area,'
existing conditions, analysis, redevelopment plan and public improvement plans.
Mr. Hoisington presented the draft plans in some detail, which are summarized as
follows:
44th and France Redevelopment Plan - The 44th and France area is a neighborhood
scale commercial district. It was developed as "Downtown Morningside" in the
1930's and has maintained its original flavor. The 44th and France Redevelopment
Plan area is generally bounded by 44th Street on the north, France Avenue on the
east, 46th Street on the south and Eton Avenue extended on the west.
The Plan Area contains a variety of residential and non - residential land uses.
There are no vacant parcels within the Plan Area. The Plan Area is anchored by
the retail uses on France Avenue. Non - residential buildings along West 44th
Street and Sunnyside Road are primarily office uses.
The character of the Plan Area is that of an urban, neighborhood scale retail
district. All of the parcels have been developed. Portions of certain developed
parcels contain steep slopes and low areas which provide ponding areas and open
space. Some properties within the Plan Area receive water from Minneapolis.
Electric utilities are above ground throughout the Plan Area.
Parking for office and retail uses is provided in private parking lots and public
on- street parking. The amount of off - street parking does not comply with current
zoning requirements. Convenient parking is lacking for many businesses in the
central part of the Plan Area.
Most buildings in the Plan Area were constructed in the 1930's and 1940's. Most
remain structurally sound but a significant percentage suffer from structural and
life- safety code problems requiring substantial renovation or complete
redevelopment.
Much of the charm of 44th and France is its eclectic and somewhat haphazard
development pattern. However, this has created some problems. The commercial
area is not clearly defined and this has resulted in the conversion of some single
family homes to non- residential'uses. It has also resulted in disinvestment in
single family homes because they are isolated and relate only to non - residential
uses. The lack of a clear definition of the retail center and transitional
buffers is a blighting influence on single family homes nearby.
The Edina Cleaners, located at France Avenue and Sunnyside Road, in addition to
its original structure occupies what was originally the Westgate Theatre. In
addition to its retail function it operates a large -scale dry cleaning plant.
This industrial use is inappropriate in a neighborhood scale retail center.
Parcels to the south contain inappropriate and obsolete land uses. Building
conditions range from substandard to fairly good.
The central portion of the business district is served by a relatively large
surface parking area accessed from Sunnyside Road. The shared parking area is
owned by a number of property owners. Poor access, grade differentials and no
organization of the spaces and drive aisles makes this very inefficient parking.
The office uses along 44th Street have an adverse effect on residential properties
on the north side of 44th Street. This has resulted in a lack of maintenance and
reinvestment resulting in substandard buildings.
The Redevelopment Plan showed redevelopment in the area south of Sunnyside Road
with office to the south and 15,000- 20,000 square feet of retail on the corner of
Sunnyside /France. An entry feature on the corner would identify the area as a
retail center. The large surfacing parking area would be improved and
reorganized. Potential retail development could occur in the Linhoff building
area, with possible expansion by Durr, Ltd. Low to medium density multi - family
housing could occur on the north side of 44th Street to eliminate the existing
conflict. Undergrounding of electric utilities and street landscaping would be
included in public improvements to correct problems with public streets /sidewalks.
Wooddale and Valley View Road Development Plan - The Wooddale and Valley View Road
Plan Area is primarily a neighborhood scale commercial area. The area developed
in the late 1950's and early 1960's. There has been some redevelopment in the
area but it has maintained its original flavor. Deficiencies in the area are
primarily related to serious traffic and parking problems. In addition, there
exists at least one significant inappropriate use and some incompatibility
between residential and commercial uses. Physical development is now outdated and
is gradually deteriorating and is in need of upgrading.
The Plan Area in general includes the tracts adjacent to the north side of Valley
View Road from the Valley View Center west of Wooddale Avenue, extending to
Oaklawn Avenue. The Plan Area is completely developed with urban, neighborhood
retail features. All private utilities, except natural gas, are above ground.
Parking conditions vary throughout the Plan Area. To the west of Wooddale at the
Valley View Center a surplus of parking exists. All uses east of Wooddale have
insufficient parking. Cars are often double parked or parked onto the City right
of way. Parking lots are privately owned and some sharing does occur.
Circulation within the area is difficult. In many instances there is not
separation between sidewalk and street and /or parking and street. Numerous large
access /egress points also exist.
An analysis of the Plan Area showed general problems as:
Broad expanses of pavement; no greenspace
Poor signage; no continuity of architecture
Too many driveways; to wide and undefined
Disorganized parking area
Lack of commercial district identify
Limited expansion potential.
Within the commercial area, activities at the Conoco Station are inappropriate and
do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Land use conflicts also
exist between the commercial area and the adjacent residential properties to the
north, particularly east of Kellogg.
The public improvements project would include activities intended to correct
non - conforming conditions in the boulevard area and to correct parking and
circulation problems in the district. It would provide an identity for the
commercial area as well as improving the appearance by providing landscaped
boulevards and parking areas. Replacing above ground utilities with underground
utilities is also included.
The development project would remove the Conoco Station and replace it with
off - street parking for the Clinic /Drug Store building and for the Sports
Shop /Baskins Robbins building. Kellogg Avenue would no longer connect to Valley
View Road to help isolate the residential area from the commercial district. The
additional parking would allow the elimination of non - conforming and hazardous
parking along the east and south side of the Clinic /Drug Store. These areas as
well as others along the perimeter of the development would be landscaped and
screened. Wooddale Avenue would be widened with the addition of a third lane for
right and left hand turns.
The Development Plan includes an addition of approximately 6,000 square feet to
the southwest end of the existing Valley View Center. The site is under utilized
and present parking would accommodate the additional floor space. The Plan also
anticipates remodeling and upgrading of the present center concurrent with the
expansion.
70th Street and Cahill Road Development Plan - The 70th Street and Cahill Road
Plan Area is a diverse mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. The
area developed primarily between 1950 and 1975. The Plan Area is bounded by 70th
Street to the north, the railroad right of way to the east, the northern boundary
(from east to west) of the Gabberts building, Village Drive extended and the City
of Edina park open space property to the south, and the rear lot lines of the
single family homes fronting on Lanham Lane and Lee Valley Circle to the west.
Land use in the Plan Area covers a full spectrum of uses. Five zoning districts
are spread across the 17 parcels in the Plan Area which in total comprises
approximately 27 acres. The Plan Area is essentially completely developed,
however, land to building ratios are relatively high particularly west of Cahill
Road. Open space is comprised of woods and steep slopes. There is also a grade
separation which divides the commercial land east of Cahill into north and south
components. The Plan Area is a part of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.
Drainage from the area flows to the south along Cahill Road and east along West
70th Street. All private utilities, except natural gas, are routed above ground.
In general, the broad land use categories of the Plan Area are appropriate. As
currently utilized, however, the following land use problems exist: 1) Land Use
Relationships - The transition between single family residential uses and higher
intensity uses could be improved. 2) Under Utilized Parcels - Parcels in the Plan
Area are of adequate size to accommodate reasonable development. However, land to
building ratios are high and buildings are located in a manner which prevents
infill development. Specifically, a) the former Edina School building, b) the old
,St. Patrick Church, and c) the commercial area between Amundson and Cahill Road.
An analysis of the Retail Center identified the following problems:
Buildings are disconnected
Lacks unified orientation
Lacks proper fit with market area
General lack of evergreen and shrub plantings
Access to shopping center is awkward and unclear
Center building is on slope; rear of building faces Cahill Road and is
difficult to lease
Amundson Avenue no longer needed.
Land Use related components of the Development Plan emphasize elimination of uses
inconsistent with the Land Use Plan designations and encourage appropriate
redevelopment, particularly west of Cahill Road. In addition, redevelopment of
functionally obsolete buildings is anticipated, particularly in the retail portion
of the Plan Area. Reestablishment of an appropriate portion of the Plan Area as a
historical feature is also anticipated. Development and redevelopment should be
principally accomplished privately with public acquisition for development kept to
a minimum.
Physical Development components of the Development Plan emphasize the upgrading of
site and building features to meet contemporary user standards. As to relocation,
it is the intent of the H.R.A. that current owners of properties designated for
redevelopment be party to efforts to redevelop their properties.
The Development Plan illustrates a number of projects in the Plan Area which
encompass both public and private property:
Public Improvements - This project would eliminate unnecessary streets, improve
sidewalks and other public and private utility systems and would designate the
historical significance of the Plan Area.
Residential Project - This project would encourage development consistent with the
land use designations of the Land Use Plan as amended in 1990. The project area
is west of Cahill Road and south of 70th Street. Development may include single
family residential to the far west of possibly 13 homes and as many as 21 attached
dwellings on the east portion.
Retail Project - This project is sensitive to immediate service area needs. The
project would upgrade and /or create facilities which meet current user demands. A
high priority would be to encourage the establishment of businesses to better
serve the market area. It is anticipated that the retail project may take one of
two possible directions:
Alternative A - This alternative would involve the complete development of
the commercial area. It would call for the elimination of.the five buildings
in the existing commercial area, plus the 7075 Amundson building and the
construction of two new buildings totaling 66,000 square feet. A greater
number of tenants is also anticipated including potentially upscale
convenience retailers. Public activities may include those in Alternative B
as well as the following:
- Soil correction and preparation
- Street vacation
- Land acquisition
- Relocation of individuals and businesses
- Land writedowns
- Low interest loans
- Sale of land to private developer.
Alternative B - This alternative would involve the refurbishing of the
existing commercial area. Retail floor areas and tenant users will not
change significantly. Public activities may include the following:
- Interest assistance for rehabilitation
- Pedestrian /sidewalk improvements
- Landscaping /streetscape improvements
- Clearance and demolition
- Identification and directional signage.
Following the conclusion of the presentations by Mr. Hoisington, Mayor Richards
called for public comment.
Dr. Frank Sidell stated that he has owned the building at 3920 Sunnyside Road for
30 years, in which his practice is:focated, together with the parking lot. The
Redevelopment Plan for the 44th and France Area would confiscate his parking lot
and devalue his property. He said his son has joined his practice and future
plans include expansion of the building. The Redevelopment Plan would be a large
negative and would seriously jeopardize their building plans.
Steve Soltau, 6100 Oaklawn Avenue, said the proposed closing of Kellogg would
increase the traffic problems which now exist at the Oaklawn /Valley View
triangular intersection. He objected to reorienting the parking for the
clinic /drug store building towards the residential area. As a bus rider, he said
he would like to see some parking included for bus riders.
James Van Valkenburg stated that he represented the Edina Cleaners & Launderers at
4500 France Avenue South. He said that his clients are concerned that the removal
of their existing building will put them out of business. Currently, they have
approximately 2,000 customers per week, most of whom use the drop -off area in
front of their facility. Also, because they are one of very few commercial
cleaners in the metropolitan area they are concerned that they will lose that
business.
Sam Thorpe, owner of the Convention Grill
property is under lease for 8 more years.
believed that taking away the parking for
value of the property. He said one of the
Convention Grill is that they can usually
at 3912 Sunnyside Road, stated that the
Not knowing the financial setup, he
that property would severely damage the
advantages for customers coming to the
find a parking place.
Bill Schlink stated that he is the owner of the Unocal station at 5415 W. 70th
Street. The development plan for the 70th Street and Cahill Road area does not
show a service station. He said his station does serve a lot of customers in that
neighborhood, is a good location and that there are other ways of accomplishing
those projects that would be less costly. He cautioned against rushing into the
r
project. He said several of his customers who know of the plan are upset with the
idea.
Dr. Phillip Sidell said he had several concerns for the 44th and France
Redevelopment Plan. First, he objected to the 4 -6 homes that would be lost and
the affect on the remaining adjacent homes. Secondly, once this is passed it was
his impression that the plan is the ideal or goal for the area and that future
plans must fit into this mold. If someone would like to do remodeling or
rebuilding that does not fit into the mold they would have a difficult time to get
a variance or some other way to achieve that.
Bob Roster stated he was a partner with his father in Roster's Conoco on Valley
View Road. He said at times the U -haul trucks at their station may be unsightly
but it appears that services stations of that type are marked territory for
redevelopment. He mentioned that they are the oldest established U -haul
dealership in Minnesota and have been providing this service for 32 years for the
Edina community. They have adequate parking for their business but that the real
problem was inadequate parking for Baskins Robbins and the bike shop. He
mentioned when that corner was developed the last building built was the house
next to the bike shop which lot should have been parking for that retail area. He
He felt that house should also be included to provide future parking for that
corner rather than acquiring his property. Also, that the houses to the north
would not have to be removed if the parking could be addressed for the problem
location. Mr. Roster pointed out that there is another house behind Best
Reflections that has easement right's through the parking lot behind Baskins
Robbins. He said that has not been addressed in the plans.
Kathy Reckie stated she was the owner of Best Reflections at 4400 Valley View
Road. She said they renovated the building about eight years ago and added
parking for their customers. She said if the building is taken it would be
devastating to lose her business and for those that work for her to lose their
jobs.
No further public comment being heard, Mayor Richards clarified that at this time
no development or redevelopment project is being proposed to be undertaken. What
the Council is doing is to make sure that any future Council has all the tools
available to it to do whatever is reasonable, right and necessary to make sure
that these areas can accomplish the objectives not only from the public side
but what the private sector wants. The Council is not advocating any position as
to taking of any businesses, demolishing of parking, etc. What the Council is
trying to do is give itself the opportunity to look at all those issues if and
when they might come before the Council.
Mayor Richards said the tax increment financing districts are being considered
because there is a window of opportunity that exists today that might not exist in
the future, e.g. the use of financing mechanisms for public participation. If the
Council decides on April 2 to establish these tax increment districts it does not
mean that any of the plans presented would be implemented. That is yet to be
decided. This is one step in the process that if not taken may preclude the
Council from using one of the alternative tools that might otherwise be available
to the public sector in dealing with some of these development and redevelopment
issues that may come up in the future.
Mayor Richards said this community has not seen a great deal of exercise by the
Council in the taking of private property. This is a policy issue that needs to
be discussed and debated as to: the Council exercising that power if the proper
public purpose were found. He concluded by saying that it is important for the
public to understand the process and what the Council is trying to accomplish.
He said that just because a plan has been proposed he did not want anyone to think
that it was a given that the plan would be implemented. He encouraged the
audience to return on April 2 for the public hearing on whether to establish the
proposed tax increment districts.
Member Smith made a motion setting April 2, 1990, as the public hearing date on
designation of the development district and approval of tag increment financing
plans.
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Jan Salto, 6100 Oaklawn Avenue, said she was concerned because only one plan has
been presented for each of the three areas. Mr. Hoisington explained that in
talking with a number of the business people involved, they have gone through two
or three iterations of the plans to get to this point. There has been a lot of
consideration given to alternatives already and that would be an ongoing process.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACQUISITION OF KURA OIL112KEIS ENGINEERING EXTENDED TO
8/1190 Executive Director Hughes recalled that on October 2, 1989 the HRA adopted
a resolution concerning the acquisition of the Kunz Oil /Lewis Engineering
properties for redevelopment purposes. The resolution was valid and effective
only until December 31, 1989 and was further conditioned that acquisition could
not occur until the HRA had received a signed and delivered redevelopment
agreement for the property. On December 18, 1989 the HRA extended the resolution
until March 30, 1990.
Director Hughes advised that on March 15, 1990 staff received a proposal for tax
increment financing assistance from Jerry's Enterprises and Opus Corporation
regarding the subject property. No other proposals have been received to date.
Based upon staff's estimate of the time needed to process the proposal for tax
increment assistance as well as a rezoning of the property, staff would recommend
extension of the resolution until August 1, 1990.
Following some discussion on why this has been dragging on with no positive action
indicated by Jerry's and Opus, Commissioner Smith moved adoption of the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority that it hereby
extends the provisions of the resolution adopted on October 2, 1989 and extended
on December 18, 1990 relating to acquisition of certain property within the
Grandview redevelopment area to August 1, 1990.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Smith, Richards
Nays: Rice
Resolution adopted.
Motion was made by Commissioner Smith and was seconded by Commissioner Paulus for
adjournment of the H.R.A. Motion was carried unanimously.
HRA Executive Director
City Clerk
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, votuntems have enxiched the t i.6e o6 ouA community through ,the ilc
concern, commitment, and generozity ob zpitit; and
WHEREAS, votuwteelus aice a vitae resource to provide 6or the weU -being o6
our community and its c it,i.zenz; and
WHEREAS, votunieeAizm embodLez a zpitit o6 giving and .bpixit o6 growth; and
WHEREAS, the City o6 Edina ,cis proud o6 the e6 6ort6 o6 ouA vo.eu.nteeu and
whzhes to thank them for thei,% dedicated service;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FredeA ck S. Richardb, Mayon of Edina, Minnesota, do hereby
proctaim the week o6 Apr,,ii 15 - 21, 1990 ass:
VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK
ADOPTED this 2nd day o6 ApAit, 1990.
Mayor
c
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
MARCH 5, 1990
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus; Rice, Smith and Mayor
Richards.
FLAG CEREMONY CONDUCTED BY BROWNIE SCOUT TROOP NO. 1231: GIRL SCOUT WEEK
PROCLAIMED: BOY SCOUT TROOP NO. 6 WELCOMED Members of Brownie Scout Troop No.
1231 opened the meeting by presenting the colors and leading the Pledge of
Allegiance. Mayor Richards welcomed the members of the troop and thanked them for
the flag ceremony.
Mayor Richards then presented the following proclamation which was unanimously
adopted by motion of Member Kelly, seconded by Member Paulus:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, Girl Scouts of the United States of America recognizes that today's girls
will be tomorrow's leaders; and
WHEREAS, Girl Scouts of the United States of America is the largest voluntary
organization for girls in the world and draws upon a large resource of positive
adult role models; and
WHEREAS, the Girl Scout Movement continues to emphasize leadership and personal
and career development for girls; and
WHEREAS, our community and world will be the direct beneficiaries of the skilled
young women who are Girl Scouts;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor of the City of Edina, do hereby
proclaim the week of March 11 -17, 1990, to be GIRL SCOUT WEEK in the City of
Edina, Minnesota.
Mayor Richards 'also welcomed the members of Boy Scout Troop No. 6 from Lutheran
Church of the Good Shepherd who said they were attending the Council Meeting
because they are working on community badges.
1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS PROCLAMATION ADOPTED Mayor Richards presented the following
proclamation which was adopted unanimously by motion of Member Kelly, seconded by
Member Smith:
PROCLAMATION - 1990 DECENNIAL CENSUS
WHEREAS, the Decennial Census is mandated by Article 1, Section 2, of the United
States Constitution for the purpose of apportioning the number of representatives
each state shall receive to the U.S. House of Representatives;
WHEREAS, population data obtained from the Decennial Census will be the basis for
apportioning the Minnesota State Legislature;
WHEREAS, funding for many essential state and federal programs is directly related
to information gathered from the Decennial Census;
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, its counties and cities will use census data as a
vehicle for planning in many vital areas for our society and communities;
WHEREAS, many organization and businesses consider data derived from the census
when determining investments, future expansion and relocation plans;
WHEREAS, it is important for everyone to promptly complete the questionnaire,
including all persons who usually live in their household, and return it by
April 1, 1990;
WHEREAS, under protection of law, answers given on the census questionnaire remain
completely private and confidential, and no one's individual identity and address
will be released to any person, agency, department, or organization whatsoever;
WHEREAS, the Decennial Census is required to count everyone regardless of their
age, race, sex, color, place of birth, status of citizenship, and nature of
domicile;
WHEREAS, answering the census is safe, easy, and vital, and will help determine
the manner in which we meet the challenges of the 21st century;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor of the City of Edina, do urge the
citizens of Edina to participate in the 1990 Decennial Census by completing and
returning the census questionnaires by April 1, 1990.
Accepting the proclamation was Janice Peak, Manager of the District Office for
Western Hennepin County, located at 4444 West 76th Street. She said in this area
the census is being completed by questionnaires which will be mailed on March 23
with the request that they be returned by April 1. Ms. Peak commented that they
are also looking for individuals to fill temporary positions.
JOHN REPRIOS COMMENDED UPON RECEIVING MRPA AWARD Manager Rosland introduced John
Keprios, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, advising that he came to the
City in 1977 and has done an outstanding job. At the Minnesota Recreation & Park
Association Annual Conference banquet on March 1, John was the 1990 recipient of
the Jack Niles Award. This award is made to a male member of MRPA with fifteen or
less years of professional experience and outstanding service to the recreation
and park field and MRPA. The Council joined in commending Mr. Keprios and
expressed their appreciation for his dedication and service to the City.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by,Member Rice and was seconded by
Member Smith to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented with the
exception of the removal of item V.C. - Tow Truck with Recovery Unit.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR 7101 -13 AMUNDSON AV CONTINUED TO 3/19/90
Planner Craig Larsen recalled that the public hearing on the final development
plan for 7101 -13 Amundson Avenue, generally located at the southeast corner of
Cahill Road and Amundson Avenue, had been continued from the Council meeting of
February 20. The proposal is for construction of a single story, 15,000 square
Y
foot office - warehouse building on the westerly portion of the site, south of
Amundson Avenue. The request was heard before the Community Development and
Planning Commission on January 3, 1990 and approval was recommended subject to
certain modifications. He explained that in the interim, the proponent has agreed
to allow the request to be withheld from Council consideration pending the outcome
of a study as to the feasibility of creating a tax increment district in the
Cahill /Amundson commercial area. That study is still under way and the proponent
has been offered the opportunity to have the Council consider the original
proposal even although ultimately it may be changed by the outcome of the study.
Planner Larsen stated that the subject property measures approximately 3.5 acres
in area and is developed with a single story warehouse building on the easterly
portion of the site containing 37,500 square feet of floor area. The proponent is
requesting permission to construct an additional building which would contain
15,000 square feet. The property is zoned PID, Planned Industrial District.
Office and office - warehouse buildings are permitted uses in the PID District.
In terms of zoning compliance, Planner Larsen said that the proposed site
including the existing building and the new building would comply with the floor
area ratio requirements and building coverage. The building side street setback
was initially proposed at 65 feet from Cahill Road. That setback was increased to
75 feet which was one of the conditions of the Planning Commission for approval.
All other setbacks comply with the exception of the parking setback from Amundson
Avenue immediately north of the building. Planner Larsen pointed out that
essentially there is no setback provided from Amundson Avenue. As to parking
quantity, the PID District requires one space per 400 square feet of gross floor
area; the proposal provides one space per 314 square feet of gross floor area.
The proposal would comply with PID District requirements which encompass the
entire site.
Planner Larsen stated that the proposed building materials comply with ordinance
requirements. At the time of application there was some outdoor storage occurring
on the site which is not allowed in the PID District. The owner has taken steps
to correct that. Additionally, the storm water drainage plan as initially
submitted was not satisfactory to the City Engineer. Since that time the
proponent's architect has met with,the Engineering Department and the grading plan
as modified does meet the requirements of the City Engineer.
Planner Larsen explained that the variances that remain on the property are those
that relate to the setback from Amundson Avenue. Staff has supported those
variances considering that the uses to the immediate north are commercial in
nature and there is no negative impact on the residential areas to the west. The
Planning Commission has recommended approval of those variances. He concluded
that with the changes the proponent has made, in response to the Planning
Commission, staff would recommend approval. Planner Larsen reiterated that the
study relative to a tax increment district for the Cahill /Amundson commercial area
is not complete and it is uncertain at this time whether this should remain an
industrial site or should be incorporated somehow with the commercial areas to the
north.
In response to Member Rice, Planner Larsen said that the traffic to the building
would flow one -way and that if this were divided from the main site there would be
approximately 42 parking spaces on the subject property.
Member Smith asked for a review of uses allowed in the commercial district versus
industrial district. Planner,Larsen said that in the industrial use category
there would be a wide range of office uses (service use, office use, industrial
use, warehouse use). The parking qualities related to those uses are wide ranging
from one per 2,000 square feet for a warehouse to one per 200 square feet for
office. The commercial categorys include general retail in addition to office
uses and the parking quantities would be much greater. Member Smith asked what
retail uses could be put in place here, if any. Planner Larsen said none under
the present zoning but there would be some service uses that would approximate
retail such as doctor /dentist offices, travel /insurance agencies that could go in
under the industrial use. Member Smith then asked if the subject parcel were
severed from the other would the parking meet ordinance requirements. Planner
Larsen said that the parking is being evaluated on an entire site basis at this
time. If the sites were proposed for separation at a later date, at a minimum a
parking easement would be required over both sites so that parking could be
exchanged which could pose some problems. Member Smith said he was concerned
about the parking and questioned if that is something that should be handled now.
Planner Larsen said that would be addressed if there was a proposal to split the
site at some future date.
Mayor Richards called for comment from the proponent, George Kosmides.
Mr. Kosmides responded that Planner Larsen had presented the case perfectly and
basically had stated his intent. Mayor Richards asked the proponent if he owned
the property to the east and if he had developed it - also what he proposed as the
use for the new building. Mr. Kosmides said that he had purchased the property to
the east about 12 years and that the new building was basically for speculation as
he has had a lot of requests for rental of small areas, e.g. 2,000 or 5,000 square
feet and that encouraged him to proceed with the project.
Member Paulus commented that in theory she did not have a problem with what is
proposed but would be hesitant to approve the proposal until the Council has made
a decision regarding a tax increment district for this area.
Member Rice stated that he felt the plan was woefully inadequate on parking
considering the likelihood that the property would be developed and leased for
some type of office, retail or semi - commercial use.
Mayor Richards said he was concerned that there would be a problem concerning the
parking demand encroaching onto the retail uses to the north. He said he could
not support the proposal because he felt there would be too much building jammed
onto the site.
Mr. Kosmides argued that this property has been vacant for some time and that he
would like to make something nice out of the land. He said that he would only
lease out space for uses approved by the City and that he had no plans to sell the
property. Further, that he had spent time and effort on the proposed project, had
met with the staff and others in the areas, that he was anxious to go ahead
because of the requests for rental in that area and asked that there be no
prolonged delay.
Mayor Richards clarified that what has been said is that the plan as presented is
not acceptable and the Council believes it is not in the best interests of the
City because of inadequate parking and setbacks. Mr. Kosmides commented that he
would like to have the opportunity to bring his architect to the next meeting to
explain and present the details of the proposed plan.
Following further discussion, Member Paulus made a motion to deny the Final
Development Plan for 7101 -13 Amundson Avenue as presented for the reason that it
appears to meet the parking requirements in theory but in practice it does not.
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Mayor Richards asked for comment on the request of Mr. Kosmides that the matter be
held over in order to allow the proponent's architect to make a further
presentation. Member Smith commented that it would helpful in the proponent's
understanding if he had his architect give us ,a short presentation at the next
meeting. Further, that because the proponent had been asked to delay his
presentation of the proposal the City should give him the opportunity he has
requested.
Member Paulus then stated she would withdraw the motion on the floor. The second
was withdrawn by Member Rice.
Member Smith then made a motion that the hearing on the Final Development Plan for
7101 -13 Amundson Avenue be continued to March 19, 1990. Motion seconded by Member
Paulus.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION ACCEPTED FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING AND LOT
DIVISION FOR LOTS 1. 2. AND 3. BLOCK 2. SMISEK ADDITION Planner Larsen advised
that the proponent has withdrawn the petition for Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Rezoning and Lot Division for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Smisek Addition. Bill
Bonner, proponent, has told staff that he does not wish to pursue a four -unit
development for the subject property.
Member Kelly made a motion to accept the request of the proponent, Bill Bonner, to
withdraw his petition for Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Lot Division
for Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Smisek Addition. Motion was seconded by Member
Smith.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*HEARING DATE SET FOR VARIOUS PLANNING MATTERS Motion was made by Member Rice and
was seconded by Member Smith setting March 19, 1990 as hearing date for the
following Planning matters:
1) Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Medium Density. to Low Density Attached
Residential and Quasi - Public to Low Density Attached Residential and Single Family
Residential - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of West 70th Street
and vest of Cahill Road
2) Repeal of Heritage Preservation Overlay District - Ron Clark Construction -
Generally located south of vest 70th Street and vest of Cahill Road
3) Rezoning - R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2 Planned Residential
District - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of West 70th Street
and vest of Cahill Road
4) Preliminary Plat Approval for Ridgewood Addition - Ron Clark Construction -
Generally located south of West 70th Street and vest of Cahill Road.
5) Final Rezoning and Final Plat Approval - Walker Methodist /FPI Services, Inc. -
Generally located in the northwest quadrant of the York Av /Parklavn intersection.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR FOUR WHEEL DRIVE LOADER Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a four wheel drive loader to
recommended low bidder, Ziegler, Inc., at $84,330.00 (with trade -in).
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR DUMP TRUCK CAB & CHASSIS Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a dump truck cab and chassis to
recommended low bidder, Astleford Equipment, Inc., at $37,385.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
AWARD OF BID FOR TOW TRUCK WITH RECOVERY UNIT CONTINUED TO 4/2190 Member Paulus
explained that she had asked this to be removed from the consent agenda because
she had questions about the purchase of the tow truck with recovery unit. In
talking with Public Works Director Hoffman, she had asked him to present
information that would justify this expenditure.
Director Hoffman explained that this tow truck would be large enough to handle
fire trucks, dump trucks, loaders and graders during breakdowns and flat tires.
It would replace a 1973 service vehicle which is much too small to handle the
larger equipment. Towing charges can range from $100 -170 per tow. Public Works
staff has informed him that they use the service vehicle daily, that its live span
is over and it needs to be replaced. This size is appropriate to service the
approximate 225 vehicles and equipment of various types. He said he would
recommend this as a good long term purchase that would last 15 -20 years and that
if the purchase is delayed the cost will only go up.
Member Paulus asked what the approximate cost would be for a tow truck the next
size down in scale. Director Hoffman said it would estimate that at about
$50,000. He explained that the wrecker /service system.that is added to the truck
is what drives up the cost.
After additional discussion, Member Smith made a motion to continue the award of
bid for the tow truck with recovery unit to April 2, 1990 so that additional
information could be provided on the needs for servicing and towing. Motion was
seconded by Member Paulus.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*BID AWARDED FOR ONE TON 4 %4 PICKUP TRUCK Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a one ton 4x4 pickup truck to
Grossman Chevrolet, Inc. at $16,785.00, per Hennepin County cooperative purchasing
agreement.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes
*BID AWARDED FOR ONE TON CARGO VAN Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a one ton cargo van to recommended
low bidder, Win Stephen Company, Inc., at $13,038.45.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR 314 TON PICKUP TRUCK Notion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one 3/4 ton pickup truck to Grossman
Chevrolet, Inc. at $11,268.00, per Hennepin County cooperative purchasing
agreement.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR TWO ADMINISTRATION CARS Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for two administration cars to Rathert
Chevrolet at $22,754.00, per State purchasing cooperative agreement.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABINET AND CONTROLLER Motion was made by Member
Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one traffic signal
cabinet and controller to Riddle Controls, Inc. at $8,430.00, per MNDOT
cooperative purchasing agreement.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR ASTRO TURF TEE MATS Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for astro turf tee mats for Braemar Golf
Course and Golf Dome to recommended low bidder, Wittek Golf Supply, at $5,695.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR LIGHT FIXTURES AND LAMPS FOR GOLF DOME Motion was made by Member
Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for 20 light fixtures and
lamps for Braemar Golf Dome to recommended low bidder, Graybar Electric Company,
at $5,160.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR BOBCAT WITH 25 H.P. ENGINE Motion was made by Member Rice and
was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a bobcat with 25 h.p. engine for
the Park Department to recommended low bidder, Tri -State Bobcat, Inc., at
$8,093.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR TRUCK CAB AND CHASSIS Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one 14,000 lb. CVW cab and chassis
for the Park Department to Grossman Chevrolet, Inc. at $13,968.00, per Hennepin
County contract #1184A9 -232.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR 112 TON UTILITY VEHICLE Motion was made by Member Rice and was
seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one 1/2 ton utility vehicle for the
Fire Department to recommended low bidder, Suburban Chevrolet, at $14,999.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
RECYCLING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING GOODWILL TRUCK APPROVED Recycling
Coordinator Janet Chandler commented that Goodwill Industries has provided a
trailer at the Recyling Center for many years. On the average, 15 to 20 tons of
household goods per month have been collected in this manner. In recent years,
Goodwill has shifted to a different type of service - the attended donation center
with a worker on duty. Unusable material is not accepted and the trailer is
locked during non - operating hours. Goodwill has raised their standards of
acceptable material to the extent that everything needs to be useable or wearable
as is because they no longer repair any items.
At this time, Edina has the only Goodwill trailer which is not an attended
donation center. Because of a decline in quality of materials collected, Goodwill
plans to withdraw its trailer service to Edina effective April 2. In January of
1990, the proportion of waste was 64% of donated goods with a disposal cost to
Goodwill of $150 per trailer.
Coordinator Chandler said that Goodwill presented several options for drop -off
service to the Recycling Commission which included: 1) attended donation center,
2) attended donation center with reduced hours, 3) weekend only service, 4) one
day each weekend, and 5) trailer only, weekends.
The Recycling Commission considered the proposals and it was apparent that the
recycling program could not absorb the cost of an attended donation center without
exceeding the 1990 budget. The Commission recommended that the Goodwill-service
be discontinued primarily because of the cost and commented that if there was
money to spend they would prefer to have it spent to provide other services. On
the matter of weekend service, the Commission felt that as long as a trailer was
there', even on a limited basis, people would continue to drop off material and the
City would probably have a continual clean -up problem.
There are other options for residents, e.g. Goodwill drop -off locations in Eden
Prairie and Bloomington as well as several agencies which offer pickup services.
In conclusion, Coordinator Chandler said the Recycling Commission and staff
propose the following:
1) Notification to the public through publicity in the Edina Sun - Current.
2) Immediate posting of signs at the Recycling Center.
3) Provision of flyers listing options for drop -off and pickup service, to be
available at the Recyling Center.
4) Temporary increase in hours of staffing at Center to help inform the public
and avert cleanup problems.
Notion was made by Member Smith to approve the recommendation of the Recyling
Commission to discontinue the Goodwill trailer service at the Recycling Center and
that an informational flyer listing options for drop -off and pickup service be
available at the Center for a reasonable period of time. Motion was seconded by
Member Rice.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
(Member Kelly left the meeting during discussion of the following agenda item.)
REQUEST FOR SOUTHDALE POLICE OFFICER CONTINUED FOR ANALYSIS OF PRIORITIES AND
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS Manager Rosland recalled that the Council had requested that
staff investigate alternatives for funding costs associated with police officers
assigned to the Southdale Center as requested by Southdale Center. Staff and the
City Attorney have researched the following four questions summarized as follows:
1) Can the cost for such officers be assessed? Police protection does not fall
within the range of municipal services or improvements that are assessable from a
statutory standpoint. Such costs could be assessed if agreed to in advance by the
benefitted parties.
2) Could the cost be assessed in a manner similar to the 50th & France
maintenance district? No - statutes limit the 50th & France assessment process to
a defined purpose such as the maintenance of plaza areas. Cost of police services
is not included as a service that can be assessed in this manner.
3) Can the City create a service district comprising Southdale Center and thereby
charge fees for additional police services? Yes - special legislation was adopted
during the 1989 legislative session enabling the City to establish service
districts. A district could be established provided that owners representing at
least 25% of the district's tax capacity, or land area, petition for creation of
the district. It could be vetoed by owners of 35% of the tax capacity or land
area. There is one possible complication - under the enabling legislation, Edina
can create only two service districts. The first district can be created solely
by Edina; the second district must be a joint district with another city. If a
service district would be established covering Southdale, and the City later
wished to expand it to include a larger portion of southeast Edina for the purpose
of financing a transit system, the argument could be made that the expansion is in
fact creation of a second district.
4) Could the City adopt an ordinance similar to the false alarm ordinance to
cover costs? The false alarm ordinance provides a charge for an event that is not
expected to occur. This is quite dissimilar to the Southdale police situation and
therefore this method does not seem appropriate.
Manager Rosland pointed out that the simplest method would be to enter into
agreements with the benefitting parties whereby they agree to reimburse the City
for costs of added police service on an annual basis, and if such costs are not
reimbursed, to permit the City to levy the cost as an assessment.
Member Smith commented that he felt if there is an area that needs patrolling the
City should provide that. If the budget is limited then we should look at the
priorities within that budget. He said he would like to see an analysis of the
Police Department workload and how the Southdale needs for policing would fit in
and what would not get handled, rather than just adding to the budget and then
figuring out how the City can get some more revenue. He said he would not support
the philosophy that if you can afford additional enforcement you will get it.
Member Rice said that when the subject was last discussed he was in favor of the
the staff recommendation. However, having thought about that and having
discussions with others, he was convinced that the City should not appear to be
giving preferential treatment to anyone in the community because they can afford
more or request more. The question should be addressed with the existing law
enforcement staff even if it means less speed patrols, etc. as public safety is
crucial.
Member Paulus commented that the average citizen may feel that because of what is
happening in the Southdale area as to density they need greater law enforcement
but at the same time don't take away from the needs of the rest of the community.
A lot of the local citizens would say that Southdale should be taxed heavier since
they are causing more of the problem even though they want protection when
shopping there. Member Rice said he did not agree with that reasoning because
shopping malls are like the streets of America and there are certain rights for
citizens to be protected in them.
Member Smith made a motion directing staff to bring back an analysis of police
enforcement priorities that would include additional patrolling of Southdale
Center. Motion was seconded by Mayor Richards who said that the report should not
only look at reallocation of the existing police force but also look at the issue
of what funding would be needed for a stronger enforcement program for the
Southdale area.
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
(Member Kelly rejoined the meeting at this point on the Agenda.)
REPORT GIVEN ON ORDINANCES REGUTATING PRIVATE PARKING LOTS Planner Larsen
recalled that at the last meeting the Council had asked for information on
existing Edina ordinances that would apply to regulation of.private parking lots
and had also asked that staff look into ordinances of first class cities regarding
private parking lots. He explained that the following are used by staff to
evaluate private parking lots:
1) Zoning Ordinance requirements in paragraph F of Section 8. Parking and
Circulation which outlines the review process by the Engineer of any proposed
traffic circulation system on a lot or tract, circulation within parking areas and
driveway design.
2) Ordinance No. 612 (Adopting the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code) Section 7 - Fire
Lanes, Section 1 -C specifies the width and clearance of roadways necessary to
provide access for fire equipment and Uniform Fire Code Policy - Section 10.207.
Planner Larsen said that, in talking with staff from Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth
and Rochester, he learned that there is a uniformity throughout these cities in
their review of how standards are applied to private parking lots and that it was
similar to the procedure used by Edina staff. Also, those cities did not have
more of a written policy or ordinance that Edina has. The City of Duluth does
license parking lots, but it is basically an over - the - counter process.
Minneapolis and St. Paul do license commercial parking lots and Minneapolis will
be sending their ordinance. It does contain performance standards, e.g.
landscaping and setbacks similar to Edina's, and also has specific requirements
relative to signage, rate posting, etc. None of the cities' standards or policies
differentiated between pay parking lots and non -pay lots.
Member Smith asked Planner Larsen for his evaluation on the Southdale Medical
Building parking lot given the City's ordinances and regulations. He said he felt
that it does impact on the public streets. Planner Larsen responded that he had
observed those activities on numerous occasions recently and that in his
observations there is little or no impact on the public streets. There is little
if any delay in entering the parking lot and momentary delays in entering
sometimes from West 65th Street. He stated that there certainly are delays in
exiting the lot, specifically on West 65th Street. The problem is that once you
have paid there can be a delay in making a left hand turn and thereby vehicles are
blocked that normally have a free right out. Ultimately a solution may be to ban
left turns from the West 65th Street exit or force a widening of that exit to
allow a free right lane. Engineer Hoffman commented that he concurred that there
is no major impact on the public streets and in talking with Hennepin County they
have made the same conclusion.
Mayor-Richards questioned why the City should get involved from a public
standpoint if there is no problem with emergency vehicles having ingress and
egress to either Southdale Hospital or to the Southdale Medical Building.
Member Rice referred to the Minneapolis ordinance which provided for recovering
costs for inspection and policing of private parking lots. He submitted that
there have been hundreds of hours of staff time spent on the matter since the
owners of Southdale Medical Building installed paid parking. He said that other
medical facilities have paid parking lots but you can drive to their entrances to
drop someone off without taking a ticket and having to wait to get out. He added
that he felt the Southdale Medical Building parking lot is one of worst situations
that has ever been designed. Member Rice urged that if paid parking lots are to
exist the City should consider licensing them and have some restrictions and
standards that would be enforced.
Member Paulus said that there has been pressure from the public, from both
residents who use that facility and residents who are tenants. She felt we need
to educate the public that there is not much that the City can do to solve the
waiting to exit problems. Historically, that has been an important part of the
community and the tragedy is that the good will that existed is being destroyed.
Another concern of the general public is that other parking lots in the vicinity
of Southdale will start charging for parking.
Mayor Richards suggested that a letter be drafted that could be sent to anyone who
had contacted either Council Members or staff regarding the parking situation at
Southdale Medical Building. The letter would serve as a response and explain what
steps the City has taken concerning access for emergency vehicles and impact on
adjacent public streets. Further, that charging for parking is a private sector
decision.
Member Smith said he would like the Traffic Safety Committee to look at the
possibility of a pedestrian crossing for West 66th Street and France Avenue with
appropriate signing.
After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that staff bring
back.on April 2, 1990 an outline of points for discussion regarding additional
action the City could consider on the issue. Also, that the building owners be
invited to attend that meeting.
Douglas Lambert, 6205 Hansen Road, said that he is a dentist and a tenant of
Southdale Medical Building. He voiced his concerns regarding what has been
happening since the building owners installed pay parking and said the tenants
want the building to run well. He said the tenants group would be willing to work
with the City in any capacity to made the Southdale Medical Building a good place
to be.
REPORT GIVEN ON REQUEST FOR BIKE LANES ON WEST 50TH STREET Engineer Hoffman
referred to a letter from Donald and Sharon Fleischmann, 4914 Bruce Avenue, in
which they had requested that bike lanes be added to West 50th Street between
Wooddale and France Avenue to reduce traffic. He said that the reason for the
letter was that he had talked with them several months ago regarding bike lanes.
At that time he had told them he would not support their request and they could
bring their request to the Council.
Engineer Hoffman said that in reviewing the accident history for the past six
years, both before and after the roadway reconstruction, the findings showed that
the accident rate has dropped 20% since reconstruction. He said that he had
explained to the Fleischmanns that biking on that roadway would not be a safe
activity, that it has been a major arterial roadway since 1938 and it would not be
appropriate to consider bike lanes. He said he had told them that, in his
opinion, the roadway is working well given that type of roadway.
It was the consensus of the Council that they concurred with the recommendation of
the City Engineer and that this be communicated to Mr. and Mrs. Fleischmann.
APPOINTMENTS MADE TO ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES Motion was made
by Member Smith for consent of the Mayor's reappointment of individuals to
advisory boards /commissions /committees as follows:
Edina Art Center Committee (3 year term to 2 -1 -93)
Dolores Dege, Elizabeth Eisenbrey, Judy Smith and Peter Spokes
Board of Appeals (3 year term to 2 -1 -93)
Rosemary Utne
Community Development and Planning Commission (3 year term to 2 -1 -93)
Nan Faust, Charles Ingwalson, Lee Johnson and Virginia Shaw
Community Health Services Advisory Committee (2 year term to 2 -1 -92)
Dr. Richard Cohan, Eileen Cooke, Sally Tang and Silas Weir
Heritage Preservation Board (2 year term to 2 -1 -92)
Garold Nyberg and Cy Stuppy
Human Relations Commission (3 year term to 2 -1 -93)
Doris Barman (City) and Shirley Hunt (City)
Tom Oye (City) (term extended one year to 2 -1 -91 to stagger terms)
Edina Park Board (3 year term to 2 -1 -93)
Robert Christianson, Andrew Montgomery, and Jean Rydell
Recycling Commission (2 year term to 2 -1 -92)
Ardythe Buerosse, Robert Reid and Stephen Sando
South Hennepin Human Services Council (2 year term to 2 -1 -92)
Rev. Richard Preis and Jean Rifley
Paul Gens (confirming reappointment to 2 -1 -91 for term expired 2 -1 -89)
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Motion was made by Member Smith for consent of the Mayor's appointment of
individuals to advisory board /commissions and committees as follows:
Edina Art Center Committee
Donald Peddie (partial term to 2 -1 -91)
Community Development and Planning Commission
David Byron (partial term to 2 -1 -92)
Community Health Services Advisory Committee
Ann Francis and Pam Moody (2 year terms to 2 -1 -92)
Heritage Preservation Board
Marilyn Curtis (2 year term to 2 -1 -92)
Walter Sandison (Partial term to 2 -1 -91)
Human Relations Commission
David Hallet (School), Sharon Ming (School) (3 year terms to 2 -1 -93)
Gary Dietz (City) (partial term to 2 -1 -92)
Phyllis Kohler (School) (partial term to 2 -1 -92)
Edina Park Board
Beth Hall (3 year term to 2 -1 -93)
Clifford Sour (partial term to 2 -1 -92)
Recycling, Commission
Ken Joyce (partial term to 2 -1 -91)
Motion was seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Mayor Richards reminded the Council that there is a vacancy (Bentley) on the Board
of Appeals and that candidate names should be submitted to him.
LMC 1990 CITY POLICIES AND PRIORITIES FOR LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE DISCUSSED
Manager Rosland recalled that copies of the LMC 1990 City Policies and Priorities
were included in a prior Council packet for review and any discussion prior to the
LMC Legislative Conference on March 14. He observed that most of the discussion
in past years at the conference has concerned local government aids and tax
increment financing. He said that Mayor Richards and he planned to attend the
conference. Mayor Richards confirmed that the Council had no strong opposition to
the policies and priorities as outlined.
HENNEPIN COUNTY RECYCLING REFUNDING PROPOSAL PRESENTED Janet Chandler, Recycling
Coordinator, advised that Hennepin County is considering adoption of a recycling
funding assistance policy for 1991 based on a flat rate, not to exceed $1.50 per
household /per month. The proposed policy also would exclude city administration
costs from eligibility. At the public hearing on March 1, the matter was held
over by the County Board of Commissioners to March 22.
Although the proposed policy does not affect our 1990 budget, the impact can be
demonstrated by using the current budget as an example:
- Present policy, 1990 County funding anticipated is $293,000
- Proposed policy, 1990 County funding would be $252,000 ($1.50 x 14,000
households x 12 months)
Mayor Richards said he felt the City should speak out and take issue with this.
Member Paulus said she fully agreed because this would have an effect on recycling
participation in that there would be no rationale for citizens to recycle. Member
Smith concurred and suggested that an elected official of the City of Edina should
provide testimony.
It was the consensus of the Council that a letter be drafted for the Mayor's
signature addressed to Commissioner Keefe that would state the Council's objection
to the 1991 funding policy proposal and urge the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners to not change the present policy.
MANHOLE HAZARD DISCUSSED Member Rice commented that there are a number of manhole
in the streets that present a hazard to vehicles because they are positioned too
low. Engineer Hoffman explained that there are some manholes on streets that
after seal coating should have an additional collar to raise them. There also are
some soil conditions where the manholes in the winter season pop up and down
because of the frost. The policy is to keep them approximately 1/2 inch below the
street level so that they are not hit by snowplowing equipment. City crews are in
the process of surveying the manholes now so that corrections can be made.
Manager Rosland asked that specific locations be reported to Public Works.
TRAFFIC SIGNAL DEIAY AT VERNON /INTERIACHEN NOTED Member Kelly reported that the
traffic signal at Vernon and Interlachen Boulevard does not appear to function
properly because at times there are lengthy delays. Engineer Hoffman said that
Hennepin County plans to rebuild the signal light this summer and that he will ask
the County to check it.
ART CENTER COMMENDED FOR CELEBRATE THE ARTS BENEFIT Member Paulus commended the
Art Center staff and Board for their efforts in sponsoring the 3rd Annual
Celebrate the Arts Benefit held on February 24.
CONCERN REGARDING DOG LICENSES NOTED Member Paulus said that she had received a
call from a resident who asked that the City consider a process for renewal of dog
licenses by mail. She commented that if the renewal procedure were made easier
there may be a higher percentage of dogs that would be licensed. The resident had
also expressed frustration that the ordinance is not being enforced.
After some discussion, Manager Rosland said that staff would provide background
information to the Council regarding the current procedure and the feasibility of
a renewal by mail process.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE REGARDING TREE ORDINANCES MENTIONED Member Paulus referred to an
a recent article in the Star Tribune about municipalities that have adopted tree
ordinances. The emphasis was on protecting existing trees when there is land
development or additions to existing homes. She said that, because Edina is a
mature community that is starting redevelopment and /or additions, the City might
consider looking at this issue to determine if such an ordinance would be
appropriate.
INPUT SOUGHT ON CONTINUANCE OF SENIOR CENTER AT EDINA.COMMUNITY CENTER Member
Smith said that the Community Education Services Board on which he serves as
Council representative is seeking input relative to the continued existence of the
Senior Center facility in the Edina Community Center.
SWSCC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES PIANNING MEETING SCHEDULED FOR 4/4190 Member Smith
reminded the Council that the Southwest Suburban Cable Commission will hold a
goals and objectives planning meeting on April 4. He asked that the Council
advise him of any thoughts or concerns that should be brought to that meeting.
APRIL 14 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION TO BE RESCHEDULED Manager Rosland reminded the
Council that their quarterly Council Study Session scheduled for.Saturday,
April 14 falls on Easter weekend and suggested it be rescheduled. A possible date
would be Saturday, May 5 if space is available at Braemar Clubhouse.
AGENDA FOR COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT REVIEWED Manager Rosland proposed
the following agenda for the Council Strategic Planning Retreat on Monday,
March 12:
1) Update on Major Accomplishments - 1989
2) 1990 Internal Assessments /Management Goals
3) Strategic Planning on Major Issues and Priorities for 1990 -1991
He announced that Barbara Arney, Consultant for Government Training Service, would
be the facilitator for the strategic planning portion of the meeting.
COMPARABLE WORTH LAW CHANGES DISCUSSED Mayor Richards referred to a March 5th
memorandum to the Council from Ceil Smith, Assistant to Manager, regarding
comparable worth law (CWL) changes. Mayor Richards said he was concerned that in
good faith the City of Edina has attempted to make an effort to treat everyone
fairly and equitably. He asked for comment on that assumption and also for any
recommendations as to whether the Council should attempt to communicate with
legislators regarding the pending legislation.
Manager's Assistant Smith said her report included graphics showing the changes
that have taken place with the institution of the comparable worth adjustments
that the City has made over the last three years. The goal has been to compress
the spread of salaries in order to make them fall within the lines of the
regression and thus create a reasonable and equitable internal relationship of the
salaries of City employees. She said the City has made a good faith effort as
evidenced by the substantial changes in the skewing of the salaries across the
regression. Under the current law if someone were to analyze this they would come
to the same.conclusion.
Manager's Assistant Smith explained that the proposed changes in the existing CWL
are extensive and significant. They constitute a virtual rewrite of major
portions of the existing law. If enacted, the methodology for compensation
analysis used by most jurisdictions would apparently have to be changed from the
use of an "all jobs" regression analysis to the use of male and female line
comparisons. This would probably result in the City having to make further
comparable worth adjustments.
Mayor Richards asked if she and the staff felt the City of Edina is in compliance
with the CWL. Manager's Assistant Smith said that was correct. The City
submitted documentation similar to the attachments to the memorandum and have
never received acknowledgement one way or the other. She said she agreed with the
position of the AMM Personnel Committee's recommendation that there be no further
changes in the CWL until after the initial compliance date of 1991 and then
possibly do a more in -depth analysis.
Mayor Richards suggested that this position be communicated to our legislators to
keep them informed and to assist them in looking at the proposed legislation.
Manager's Assistant Smith said that there are a number of groups that are becoming
very vocal about the issue and are attempting to get to the legislators to tell
their side of the story instead of just listening to the Department of Employee
Relations.
*CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith to
approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register
dated 03/05/90 and consisting of 25 pages: General Fund $96,604.75, Communications
$143.26, Art Center $62,866.32, Capital Fund $153.79, Swimming Pool Fund $750.00,
Golf Course Fund $89,305.36, Recreation Center Fund $3,601.19, Gun Range Fund
$848.24, Edinborough Park $13,486.54, Utility Fund $38,166.16. Liquor Dispensary
Fund $3,111.64, Construction Fund $8,712.68, IMF Bond Redemption #2 $759.12, Total
$318,509.05 and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in
detail on the Check Register dated 01/31/90 and consisting of 18 pages: General
Fund $237,941.19, Art Center $1,613.27, Capital Fund $425.00, Swimming Pool Fund
$113.07, Golf Course Fund $18,106.39, Recreation Center Fund $12,664.53, Gun Range
Fund $53,7.78, Edinborough Park $13,344.06, Utility Fund $21,191.61, Storm Sever
Utility $625.26, Liquor Dispensary Fund $201,678.95, Total $508,241.11.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the
meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
City Clerk
April 1990
Edina City Council Calendar
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
AT CITY HALL UNLESS INDICATED 3/26/1990
3
4
5
6
7
Daylight Savings —
set ahead 1 hour
7:00pm CIS
COUNCIL
EDINA SCHOOLS
SPRING
REGULAR
MEETING
BREAK
ENDS
8
9
10
11'
12
13
14
Good Friday
15
16
17
18
-19
20
21
Easter
. 6: m CITY
CO NCIU
5:00Pm
VOLUNTEER
RECYCLING
COMM.
RECEPTION at
Braemar
7: m CITY
COUNCIL
Clubhouse
REGULAR
MEETING
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5: m BOARD
OREVIEW
29
30
AT CITY HALL UNLESS INDICATED 3/26/1990
Mai 1990
Edina City ouncil Calendar
SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
AT CITY HALL UNLESS INDICATED 3/26/1990
i'
� A.
o e �
0
All
• ,N onpc""t�O�
ess
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
COUNCIL
Agenda Item #
III.
From:
GORDON L. HUGHES
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Date:
APRIL 2, 1990
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
To Council
DESIGNATION OF DEVELOP -
Action
❑
Motion
MENT DISTRICT AND AP-
PROVAL OF TAX INCREMENT
❑
Resolution
FINANCING PLANS - RETAIL
AREAS
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Adopt attached resolution approving development program and tax increment
financing plans.
Info /Background:
April 2, 1990, is the scheduled public hearing for the proposed Tax
Increment Financing Districts at Valley View Road and Wooddale Avenue, 44th
Street and France Avenue and 70th Street and Cahill Road. In accordance
with statutory requirements, notice of this hearing has been published in
our official newspaper and notices have been sent to the Edina Board of
Education and the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County. Although not
required by statute, we have sent individual mail notices to owners of
property located within the proposed tax increment financing districts.
Report /Recommendation
April 2, 1990
Page Two
Attached for your consideration are the following items:
1. The development program and tax increment financing plan for the
proposed districts.
2. The minutes of the March 28, 1990, meeting of the Community
Development and Planning Commission. Please note that these
minutes are in draft form.
3. A memo from Eric Anderson, Assistant Finance Director, which
estimates the impact of the proposed districts on the future tax
burden of homesteaded property in the City.
4. A proposed Resolution of the City Council approving the program
and plans.
The development program and tax increment financing plans, which are
attached, comprise the legal documents which establish of the districts.
Please note that Exhibit B of this document references the planning studies
which have been prepared by the staff and the Hoisington Group, which were
distributed to you on March 19, 1990. Also, please note that Exhibit D of
the document will be distributed to you at the April 2, 1990, hearing.
This exhibit is the staff report concerning the qualification of the 44th &
France area as a redevelopment district as opposed to an economic
development district.
C
As noted above, one of the attachments is an estimate of the impact of the
proposed tax increment districts on the tax burden of homesteaded property
in the City. This impact is very difficult to calculate due to the
complexity of the property tax system, especially school funding. Also, we
must speculate on the timing of proposed development within the tax
increment districts. Given these assumptions, our estimate is based on the
impact which would occur five years after creating the tax increment
financing districts. We believe that this reasonably estimates the maximum
impact on homesteaded property which would be caused by the districts.
' 1
DEVELOPMENT /REDEVELOPMENT PLANS
• Required prior to establishing T.I.F. districts
• Conceptual, not final
• Basis for estimating public costs and tax increment revenues
• Framework for deciding location and amount of future public expenditures
• Rely ultimately on market place decisions
DEVELOPMENT /REDEVELOPMENT PLANS ARE NOT
• Rezonings
• Amendments to City's comprehensive plan
• Site plans
• Authorization to acquire private property
• The only plans - property owners /developers may propose different plans
DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 28, 1990.
Mr. Larsen explained what is needed this evening are Commissioners comments
and /or recommendations on the proposed formation of three Tax Increment
Districts within the City of Edina. The three areas are; 44th and France
Avenue, Wooddale and Valley View Road, and 70th and Cahill Road.
Chairman G. Johnson asked the Commission to note that he will retain the Chair
but will not comment nor vote on the Tax Increment Issues.
Chairman G. Johnson said to simplify the proposed issues, the Commission should
focus their discussion on each increment district individually.
* 44th and France Avenue South
Commissioner Hale noted that the Tax Increment plan for 44th and France still
indicates multiple housing. Mr. Larsen responded that that is correct. Mr.
Larsen clarified that the Commission by it's action is not endorsing any
specific project. The plan presented for 44th and France is a conceptual plan
and the City is asking you to recommend the establishment of a tax increment
district that may or may not include in the future multiple housing.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked why so much detail is depicted on the drawings
for the Tax Increment Districts. Mr. Larsen said, if after April 30, 1990, the
proposed Tax Increment District does not show specific possibilities the City
would be limited to what could possibly happen within the district. Mr. Larsen
said in a sense we have looked at each district and indicated
development /redevelopment to the maximum. He pointed out this does not mean it
has to be developed to the maximum, it's just that we can't increase our scope
but it can be decreased.
Commissioner McClelland said she understands the concept of the Tax Increment
District but in the area of 44th and France' she cannot support any multiple
housing.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen to explain the economics of
establishing the district. Mr. Larsen said the reason we establish tax
increment districts is to upgrade, modernize, and revitalize areas that in the
future could become problems due to the ages of the buildings, and other
factors. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said with tax increment the City would capture
a higher tax base which would help pay for the public costs incurred in the
area, and ultimately generate more taxes for all taxing jurisdictions.
Commissioner McClelland asked if the plan is approved would each improvement
come before the Commission and Council. Mr. Larsen said that is correct, each
proposal would require a public hearing process for rezoning, subdivision,
final development, etc.
J
/f
Chairman G. Johnson asked the Commission to note the letter from Roberta
Thorpe. The letter was so noted by the Commission.
Dr. Sidell, 3920 Sunnyside Road told the Commission he has officed in the
neighborhood for almost 31 years. He added he has done extremely well for a
variety of reasons, including good medical care, easy access and parking. Dr.
Sidell added he wants the individually of the area to remain intact and does
not want to see its character changed. He told the Commission he has
considered constructing an addition to his building but the establishment of a
tax increment district would confuse that issue. Concluding, Dr. Sidell said
the area works, and as the saying goes, "if it isn't broke, don't fix it.
Mr. James Van Valkenburg, was present representing the property owners of the
Edina Dry Cleaners. He said the dry cleaner employees 53 people, it is a well
maintained building and 2,000 people use the cleaners every week. Mr. Van
Valkenburg said the proposed tax increment plan does not solve the parking. He
said you will still have to park your car and walk to you destination. Mr. Van
Valkenburg said the cleaners is a buffer between residential and commercial and
the use in his opinion is not industrial. He objected to the fact that the
redevelopment plan removed the Edina Cleaners.
Commissioner Workinger asked with respect to the low to medium density housing
if the plan is approved in concept does that mean we are restricted to only
multiple housing in that area. Mr. Larsen indicated any type of housing
(single, double) located in the area labeled low to medium housing would be
appropriate.' Commissioner L. Johnson asked if what is presented would become
the standard. Mr. Larsen responded that it only suggests a use.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen what is needed to present to the
Legislature. Mr. Larsen said what is needed is what is a land use plan and a
financial plan.
Commissioner Palmer asked if the tax increment plan is approved does it give
the City the right to take land. Commissioner McClelland added she understands
how the district would work, but questioned if acquiring land would also
include taking private residential property, which could be expensive to
acquire. Mr. Larsen said yes, the City could obtain land, but has been
reluctant in the past to condemn any land. Mr. Larsen said the HRA will try to
negotiate with the property owner a fare market price. Mr Larsen agreed that
land condemnation can be very costly for any City.
Commissioner L. Johnson questioned if Minneapolis is part of this proposal.
Mr. Larsen said at this time Minneapolis has not expressed an interest in this
area -but in the past, if you note 50th and France, when Edina redeveloped that
area Minneapolis in a fashion, followed suite. Mr. Larsen added it is hoped
that that will also happen again.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend to the City Council that it is
appropriate to establish a tax increment district in this area, but added
there are reservations regarding the land plan that is depicted in the proposal
as presented, and Commission Members are not endorsing the "plan" but again,
are recommending that this is an appropriate area for tax increment.
Commissioner Palmer seconded the motion. Commissioners Workinger and
McClelland asked that it be specifically noted, so that it doesn't slip out of
N
the minutes, that they do not approve of multiple housing within this
neighborhood. Ayes; L. Johnson, McClelland, Workinger, Shaw, Palmer, Runyan,
Hale. Chairman G. Johnson abstained.
*Wooddale and Valley View Road
Mr. Larsen explained that in this area (Valley View Shopping Center) there is
enough space to redevelop and add an addition to the existing commercial area
of approximately 6,000 square feet. Mr. Larsen added the Southwest Clinic and
Valley View Drug area also have potential for possible expansion. This
expansion would include re- orientation of the entrances and parking, thus
providing safer parking and more green space. All this would hinge on
acquiring the Conoco Station and one single family house immediately north of
the station. Mr. Larsen told the Commission there is also a possibility of
converting the beauty shop into two family dwellings.
Commissioner McClelland asked if Mr. Larsen feels it is necessary to take the
single family house to obtain adequate parking. Mr. Larsen said yes, they
believe they need the one house when and if the time comes. He added adequate
off - street parking is needed.
Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend that -this area be deemed appropriate as
a tax increment district, but request the ability to review each redevelopment
on an individual basis. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. Ayes;
Hale, L. Johnson, McClelland, Runyan, Palmer, Shaw, Workinger. Chairman G.
Johnson abstained.
*70th and Cahill Road
Mr. Larsen with graphics pointed out to the Commission the two plans that are
being studied for this area. He pointed out one plan is more aggressive in
that requires removal of some buildings. The second plan does not require as
extensive redevelopment.
Commissioner Runyan pointed out the topography within this area can make
redevelopment difficult. Mr. Larsen agreed, adding the proposal is very
conceptual. He said it is desired to have the area retain the same amount of
retail space that is now present, adding the City wants the retail area to work
better and be fully leased.
Commissioner McClelland asked why the Ron Clark development is depicted in the
tax increment plan. Commissioner McClelland said a month ago no one mentioned
this plan being in the tax increment district. Commissioner McClelland said it
seems hardly fair to the homeowners of Highpointe to have to look at such a
dense parcel, full of buildings, and then maybe they will also have to look at
a parking lot to the east. Commissioner McClelland asked if the density of the
Clark project was due to the rational behind tax increment. Mr. Larsen said
this parcel has always been a part of the area and earmarked for redevelopment.
He added tax increment did not drive the density up on the Clark project. The
taxes levied to those single family houses and 21 townhouses could be used to
improve the area. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the properties within the Clark
project would be taxed, the same as other residential property and there is no
break for them because they are in the tax increment district, their taxes may
go into a fund designated to improve their immediate neighborhood.
Mr. Bill Slenk owner of the service station on 70th and Cahill told the
Commission he does not believe the project is good and that it will not help
the area. He said the gas station is needed and should stay.
Chairman G. Johnson clarified for Mr. Slenk that adoption of a tax increment
district does not necessarily mean that his gas station would be removed. He
added all the Commission is recommending is development of a tax increment
district and its boundaries, individual redevelopments will be looked at
individually.
Commissioner McClelland said that the retail district in this location does
need a boost in the arm. She pointed out the vacancies and frequency of
turn -overs within this area. She said it has been a real problem in the past.
Commissioner McClelland asked'Mr. Larsen the time frame for action on tax
increment. Mr. Larsen said the time frame is eight years. Staff considers
this location an economic development (8 years) versus a redevelopment district
which has a life of 25 years. In this area something must be done in 8 years.
Commissioner McClelland asked what type of areas are the other two. Mr. Larsen
said Wooddale and Valley View, and 70th and Cahill Road are economic
developments. 44th and France is earmarked as a redevelopment district with a
life of 25 years.
Commissioner L. Johnson said he is uncomfortable with the Ron Clark project
supporting the tax increment within the neighborhood. He questioned why
certain improvements couldn't be assessed to property owners. Mr. Larsen
agreed that from a philosophical standpoint you could have a problem with it,
and the City will certainly look at the possibility of assessing properties for
a portion of improvements.
Commissioner Members agreed that certain buildings in this area need
revitalization but requested that the service station remain. Commissioner
McClelland questioned what will happen to the Kosimides building. Mr. Larsen
said at this time that project is on hold until the City Council determines
what is appropriate for this area.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend that this area be deemed appropriate
as a tax increment district, he added this area is one area that needs
revitalization before others. He noted he is not comfortable with it entirely
and approval is subject to further review of the plan on an individual basis.
Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale, McClelland, L. Johnson,
Runyan, Palmer, Shaw, Workinger. G. Johnson abstained.
Chairman Johnson said all three districts have been moved on to the Council
with recommendations that tax increment districts be established subject to
review on individual projects.
4
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR
DEVELOPMENT-DISTRICT NO. 2
and
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS
90 -1 (44th and France),
90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale)
and
90 -3 (70th and Cahill),
April 2, 1990
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
L
- -TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Table of Contents is for convenience of reference
only and is not part of the Development Program or the Tax
Increment Financing Plan.
Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Statement of Need and Statutory Authority . . . . 1
B. Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III.
IV.
A. Property To Be Included in
Development District . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
B. Development Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Operation of Development District 4
D. Estimated Capital and Administrative Costs . . . . 4
E. Property Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 90 -1 (44TH AND FRANCE) . . . . . . . . . . . 6
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program 6
B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment
District . . . . . . . . . 6
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs . . . . 6
D. Payment of Capital-and Administrative Costs . . . 6
E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment . . . . . . 7
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on
Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . 9
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
NO. 90 -2 (VALLEY VIEW AND WOODDALE) . . . . . . . . . 10
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program .10
B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment
District . . . . . . . . . . . . 10'
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs . . . . 11
D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs . . . 11
E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment . . . . . . 12
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on
Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . . 13
i
V. TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
- - - - -NO.
-90 -3 (70TH- AND - CAHILL) ,-
14
A.
Statement of Objectives.and Development Program
14
B.
Property To Be Included in Tax Increment
District . . . .
14
C.
Estimated Capital and Administration Costs
14
D.
Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs
15
E.
Determination and Use of Tax Increment . . . .
15
F.
Impact of Tax Increment Financing on
Other Taxing Jurisdictions . . . . . . . . . .
17
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM AND PLANS . . . . . . .
18
VII. AMENDMENTS TO PROGRAM AND PLANS . . . . . . . .
18
EXHIBITS
A. Map of Development District No. 2
B. Development Plan
C. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing
District 90 -1
D. Staff Report Evidencing Tax Increment Financing
District No. 90 -1 Meets Redevelopment District
Criteria
E. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment
Financing'District.90 -1
F. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing
District 90 -2
.G. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment
-- Financing District No. 90 -2
H. List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing
District 90 -3
I. Estimated Tax Increment for Tax Increment
Financing District 90 -3
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Statement of Need and Statutory- Authority. The
commercial areas in City of Edina located in the vicinity of
West 44th Street and France Avenue, Valley View Road and
Wooddale Avenue and West 70th Street and Cahill Road currently
have certain deficiencies relating to traffic circulation,
parking, land use and physical development which detracts from
these areas. The City Council has determined that the City may
be able to assist in the alleviation of such deficiencies and
that in order to provide such assistance it is necessary to
include these three areas in a Development District to be
designated as Development District No. 2 and to take certain
action pursuant to a Development Program (the "Program ").
In order to finance the capital and administration
costs of the Program, it is proposed that the City adopt tax
increment financing plans (the "Plans "), which provide for the
creation of Tax Increment Financing Districts 90 -1 (44th and
France), 90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale) and 90 -3 (70th and
Cahill) (the "Districts ").
The Program and the Plans are adopted by the City
Council of the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.001 to 469.047 and 469.174 to 469.179.
B. Definitions. Each of the words and terms defined
in this Section shall for all purposes of the Program and the
Plan, have the meanings given to them in this Section B:
"Bonds" means the tax increment bonds and any other
obligations issued by the City, the principal of and interest
on which are payable in whole or in part out of the Tax
Increment, to finance or provide for the payment of the Capital
and Administrative Cost. -
"Bond Resolution" means any and all resolutions,
ordinances, trust indentures or other documents under which any
Bonds are sold, issued or secured.
"Capital and Administrative Costs" means the total
amount expended and to be expended by the City on Development
Activities as provided in the Program and Plans.
"Captured Tax Capacity" means for such Tax Increment
District that portion of the Tax Capacity for such Tax
Increment District in excess of the Original Tax Capacity for
such Tax Increment District as adjusted from time to time, if
any.
"City" means the City of Edina, Hennepin County,
Minnesota.
"Development Activities" means all actions taken or to
be taken by the City or HRA in establishing, implementing and
carrying out the Program.
"Development District" means Development District
No. 2 of the City as established pursuant to this Program.
"HRA" means the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of
Edina, Minnesota.
"Original Tax Capacity" means the Net Tax Capacity of
all taxable property in the Tax Increment District as most
recently determined by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State
of Minnesota as of the date of certification thereof by the
County Auditor pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177
and as thereafter adjusted and certified by the County Auditor
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177.
"Outstanding" when used with respect to the Bonds,
means Bonds which have not been paid, redeemed or discharged in
accordance with their terms or the terms of a Bond Resolution.
"Parcel" means a lot, parcel or tract of plat of land
comprising a single unit for purposes of assessment for real
estate tax purposes, as of the date of adoption of this Plan.
"Plans" means the Tax Increment Financing Plans for
each of the Districts as approved and as supplemented and
amended from time to time by the City Council of the City.
"Program" means this Development Program as
supplemented and amended from time to time by the City Council
of the City.
"Tax Capacity" means the net tax capacity of all
taxable property in a District as determined from time to'time
pursuant to state law.
"Tax Capacity Rate" means with respect to taxes
payable in any year the lesser of (i) the local taxing district
tax capacity rates for taxes payable in such year or (ii) the
"original tax capacity rate" for a Tax Increment District as
defined and calculated in accordance with Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.177, Subdivision la.
"Tax Increment" means that portion of the ad valorem
taxes generated by the extension of the Tax Capacity Rate to
-2-
the Captured Tax Capacity of taxable property in a Tax
Increment District.
"Tax Increment District 90 -1" means Tax'Increment
Financing District 90 -1 (44th and France) of the City.
"Tax Increment District 90 -2" means Tax-Increment
Financing District 90 -2 (Valley View and Wooddale) of the City.
"Tax Increment District 90 -3" means Tax Increment
Financing District 90 -3 (70th and Cahill) of the City.
"Tax Increment Districts" means collectively Tax
Increment. Financing District 90 -1, 90 -2, and 90 -3.
-3-
II. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2
A. Property To Be Included in-Development District.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, set forth in Exhibit A hereto, shall constitute the
Development District.
B. Development Plan. The Development Plan for the
Development District appears as Exhibit B hereto. To the
extent that any proposed uses in the Development Plan conflict
with the City's Comprehensive Plan, such uses will not be
permitted unless and until the Comprehensive Plan is amended to
permit such use.
C. Operation of Development District. Unless
otherwise directed by the City, the maintenance and operation
of the public improvements constructed in the District will be
the responsibility of the HRA, as administrator of the
District. Each year the HRA will submit to the City Council
the maintenance and operation budget for the Development
District for the following year.
The HRA will administer the Development District
pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.131; provided, however, that the HRA may exercise the
powers listed in said Section 469.131 only at the direction of
the City Council.
D. Estimated Capital and Administrative Costs. The
estimated Capital and Administrative Costs of the Program are
as follows:
capital Costs
44th and Valley View 70th and
-4-
France
and Wooddale
Cahill
Property Acquisition
$1,330,000
$153,800
$529,400
Demolition
200,000
40,000
150,000
Interest Assistance
175,000
100,000
150,000
Relocation
280,000
46,000
160,000
Public Improvements
(Parking, Utilities,
Landscaping, Street
Vacation)
530,000
190,000
175,000
Historic Building
Relocation
-
-
150.000
Total
$2,515,000
$529,000
$1,314,400
-4-
Financing and Administrative Costs and Contingency
Legal_, _Fiscal and Administrative-
Capitalized Interest
Bond Discount
Contingency
Total
$- 500,000
750,000
105,000
654,000
$2,009,000
The elements and costs shown above are estimated to be
necessary based upon information now available. It is
anticipated that the Capital and Administrative Costs may
decrease or increase. The City reserves the right to pay any
of the Capital and Administrative Costs from the proceeds of
Tax Increment Bonds or directly from Tax Increment.
E. Property Acquisition. In carrying out the Program
the City may acquire certain property in the Development
District. The Development Plan for the Development District
envisions that it may be necessary for the City to acquire any
right of way necessary for public improvements and to acquire
the following property in the Development District to assist in
the development of the property in the Development District in
accordance with the Program:
44th and France Area
Edina Cleaners
Rapid Oil
Storage Garage
4532 France Avenue South
4536 France Avenue South
3916 W. 44th Street
3918 W. 44th Street
3920 W. 44th Street
3924 W. 44th Street
3930 W. 44th Street
3936 W. 44th Street
Valley View and Wooddale
Roster's
6120 Kellogg
70th and Cahill
Union Oil'
Coit Warehouse
-5-
III. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 90 -1 (44TH AND FRANCE)
A. Statement of Obiectives and Development Program.
See Section B of the Program.
B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit C shall constitute the
Tax Increment District No. 90 -1.
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs.
1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds.of the
project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired
by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00.
2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and
Administration Costs of the Development District, comprising
the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the
Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown
in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the
Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid
from the proceeds.of the Tax Increment Bonds).
Program.
3. Property to be Acquired. See Section E of the
D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs.
1. In General. All Capital and Administrative Costs
will be paid from Tax Increment either directly or indirectly
by payment of debt service on Tax Increment Bonds issued to
finance such cost or reimbursement for items of Capital and
Administrative Costs paid directly by the City.
2. Issuance of Bonds. It is presently expected that
all or a portion of the Capital and Administrative Costs will
be financed by the issuance of the Tax Increment Bonds. The
Tax Increment Bonds will be issued by the City under authority
of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and Sections 469.174 to
469.179. The principal amount of the Bonds is expected to be
$6,370,000.
The actual principal amount of the Bonds, however, may be less
than or exceed this amount, and the right to issue the Bonds in
an amount greater than $6,370,000 to finance such Capital and
Administrative Costs is reserved. Similarly, the amount
ffm
allocated to capitalized interest covers interest payable on
the Bonds (net of investment income on proceeds of the Bonds)
at -an initial rate now - 'estimated to be approximately 8% per
annum for a 18 -month period; and the City reserves the right to
increase or decrease the amount of capitalized interest to
correspond to the interest actually payable on the Bonds over
the 18 -month period.
3. Security For Bonds. The Bonds will be general
obligations of the City, and the City will pledge its full
faith, credit and unlimited taxing powers to the payment of
principal thereof and interest thereon. The principal of and
interest on the Bonds are payable primarily, however, from the
Tax Increments from one or more of the Tax Increment Districts
and no ad valorem tax is expected to be levied for payment of
the Bonds and interest thereon in the Bond Resolution. All Tax
Increments will be pledged and appropriated to the payment of
the Bonds and the interest thereon when due. In addition, such
principal and interest will be paid from certain proceeds of
the Bonds (capitalized interest) and interest earnings thereon.
4. Bond Terms. The terms of the Tax Increment Bonds
are expected to be as set forth below; however, the right is
reserved to adjust any and all terms of the Tax Increment Bonds
to secure the best interest rate obtainable and to insure that
the entire principal of and interest on the Tax Increment Bonds
will be paid when due from the sources specified in paragraph 3.
The Tax Increment Bonds will be issued in one or more
series,'in the aggregate principal amount of $6,370,000,. will
mature serially over a period of approximately twenty (20)
years from the date of receipt by the City of the first Tax
Increment from the Tax Increment Districts, will be subject to
redemption prior to maturity, will bear a fixed rate or rates
of interest from date of issue to maturity, payable
semiannually commencing approximately six months after the
issuance thereof, and will be sold at public or private sale.
E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment.
1. Statutory Authority and Tax Increment District
90 -1 Eligibility as an Redevelopment District. Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 10 defines a -
"redevelopment district" as a tax increment financing district
consisting of a portion of a development district which is 70%
of the Parcels in which are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities or other improvements and 20% of the buildings are
structurally substandard and the additional 30% of the
buildings require substantial renovation or clearance to remove
such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout,
=7-
incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of
buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density,
- obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion,
or other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general
well -being of the community.
Based upon a report of City staff attached hereto as
Exhibit D, the City believes Tax Increment District 90 -1 is a
"redevelopment district" since the conditions set forth in the
preceding paragraph are satisfied with respect to Tax Increment
District 90 -1.
2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all
taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -1 as most
recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State
of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect
to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is
$116,578.
3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of
property in Tax Increment District 90 -1 is $116,578, the
Original Tax Capacity.
4. Captured Tax Capacity.
Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable
District 90 -1, upon completion of the
Increment District 90 -1 described in
2015) in Tax Increment District 90 -1,
computed as follows:
It is expected that the
property in Tax Increment
improvements in Tax
the Program (taxes payable
will'be $177,920,
Estimated Tax Capacity . . . . . . $294,498
at Completion
Less Original Tax Capacity . . . . 116,578
at Completion
Estimated Captured Tax
Capacity at Completion . . . . . $177,920
5. Tax Increment Calculation. Assuming the
Anticipated Private Developments occur as described and
provided in the Program it is estimated that the Tax Increment
to be received each year for the duration of Tax Increment
District 90 -1 will be as set forth in Exhibit E hereto. The
estimated amount of Tax Increment set forth in Exhibit E is
based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90098.
6. Duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1. It is
estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -1 will remain in
existence until 25 years from the date of receipt by the City
-8-
of the first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -1, or
until the City's obligation to pay the Tax Increment Bonds and
interest has been discharged.in accordance with the Bond
Resolution.
7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2,
the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the
Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment
District 90 -1, and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived
therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District
90 -1.
8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -1 in any year not needed to pay
debt service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before
August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce
any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and
then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax
Increment Bonds or pay additional Capital and Administration
Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution.
9. Pooling of Tax Increment. Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -1 will be pooled by the City
with all other Tax Increment received from the Tax Increment
Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital
and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and
Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property
included in Tax Increment District 90 -1._
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing
Jurisdictions.
The local government units other than the City which
are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in
which Tax Increment District 90 -1 is located, are Independent
School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various
metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan
Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control
District (the local government units).
The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment
District 90 -1 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original
Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -1 were unchanged,
except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in
Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from
benefiting from a portion of the increase in Tax Capacity which
results from the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -1
-9-
described in the Program or other development of the taxable
property in Tax Increment District 90 -1. In order to assess
-the- -impact of -this on Hennepin County, Independent School
District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates
what percentage the anticipated Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -1 at the completion of the improvements
in Tax Increment District 90 -1 described in the Program (which
occurs for taxes payable in 2015 as shown on Exhibit E hereto),
is of the present total Tax Capacity for such taxing
Jurisdiction'.
Estimated
Captured
Tax
Capacity Percent of
Present at Completion Present
Taxing Tax of Total Tax
Jurisdiction Capacity Improvements Capacity
Hennepin
County $1,034,463,652 $177,920 .02%
T.S.D.
No. 273 63,744,885 177,920 .28%
City of Edina 77,629,266 177,920 .23%
If Tax Increment District 90 -1 were not created and the
improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -1 as described
in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -1 would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax
capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the
duration of Tax Increment District 90 -1 in an amount equal to
the Captured Tax Capacity,
IV. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 90 -2 (VALLEY VIEW AND WOODDALE)
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program.
See Section B of the Development Program.
B. Property To Be Included in Tax Increment District.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina, Hennepin
County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit F shall constitute Tax
Increment District 90 -2.
-10-
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs.
1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds of the
project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired
by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00.
2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and
Administration Costs of the Development District; comprising
the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the
Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown
in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the
Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid
from the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds).
3. Property to be Acquired. See Section E of the
Program.
D. Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs. See
Section D of the Plan for Tax Increment District 90 -1.
E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment.
1. Statutory Authority and District Eligibility as an
Economic Development District. Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 12 defines an "economic development
district" as a tax increment financing district consisting of a
portion of a development district which the authority finds to
be in the public interest because it will discourage commerce,
industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to
another state, will result in increased employment in the
municipality or will result in preservation and enhancement of
the tax base of the municipality.
The City believes Tax Increment District 90 -2 is an
"economic development district" since the Development
Activities to occur in Tax Increment District 90 -2 will result
in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City.
2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all
taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -2 as most
recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State
of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect
to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is
$74,536, which amount is expected to be the Original Tax
Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -2, subject to adjustment
of 4.24% per year pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.177, Subdivision 1, based on the average percentage
increase in the assessed valuation of property in Tax Increment
District 90 -2 during the last five years.
see
3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of
property in Tax Increment District 90 -2 is $74,536, the
Original Tax Capacity.
4. Captured Tax Capacity. It is expected that the
Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax Increment
District 90 -2, upon completion of the improvements in Tax
Increment District 90 -2 described in the Program (taxes payable
2000) in Tax Increment District 90 -2, will be $10,468, computed
as follows:
Estimated Tax Capacity . . . . . . $123,373
at Completion
Less Original Tax Capacity . . . . 112,904
at Completion
Estimated Captured Tax
Capacity at Completion . . . . . $ 10,468
5. Tax Increment Calculation. Assuming the
improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -2 occur as described
and provided in the Program hereto it is estimated that the Tax
Increment to be received each year for the duration of Tax
Increment District 90 -2 will be as set forth in Exhibit G
hereto. The estimated amount.of Tax Increment set forth in
Exhibit G is based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90098.
6. Duration of the Tax Increment District 90 -2. It
is estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -2 will remain in
existence until the 8 years from the date of receipt of the
first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -2 or 10
years from the date of approval of this Plan, whichever is
earlier, or until the City's obligation to pay the Tax
Increment Bonds and interest has been discharged in accordance
with the Bond Resolution.
7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2,
the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the
Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment
District 90 -2, and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived
therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District
90 -2.
8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -2 in any year not needed to pay
debt' service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before
August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce
any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance
-12-
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and
then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax
Increment Bonds or-pay additional Capital and - Administration
Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution.
9. Pooling of Tax Increment. Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -2 will be pooled by the City
with all other Tax Increment received from the Tax Increment
Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital
and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and
Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property
included in Tax Increment District 90 -2.
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing
Jurisdictions.
The local government units other than the City which
are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in
which Tax Increment District 90 -2 is located, are Independent
School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various
metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan
Council, the Metropolitan Transit Commission, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control
District (the local government units).
The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment
District 90 -2 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original
Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -2 were unchanged,
except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in
Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from
benefiting from a portion of the increase in Tax Capacity which
results from the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -2
described in the Program or other development of the taxable
property in Tax Increment'District 90 -2. In order to assess
the impact of this on Hennepin County, Independent School
District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates
what percentage the anticipated Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -2 at the completion of the improvements
in Tax Increment District 90 -2 described in the Program (which
occurs for taxes payable in 2000 as shown on Exhibit G hereto),
is of the present total Tax Capacity for such taxing
jurisdiction.
-13-
Taxing
Jurisdiction
Hennepin
County
I.S.D.
No. 273
City of Edina
Present
Tax
Capacity
$1,034,463,652
63,744,885
77,629,266
Estimated
Captured
Tax
Capacity
at Completion
of
Improvements
$10,468
10,468
10,468
Percent of
Present
Total Tax
Capacity
less than .01%
.02%
.01%
If Tax Increment District 90 -2 were not created and the
improvements occur in Tag Increment District 90 -2 as described
in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -2 would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax
capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the
duration of Tax Increment District 90 -2 in an amount equal to
the Captured Tax Capacity.
V. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 90 -3 (70TH AND CAHILL)
A. Statement of Objectives and Development Program.
See Section A of the Development Program.
B. Property To 8e- Included in Tax Increment District
90 -3.
The Parcels located in the City of Edina,.Hennepin
County, Minnesota set forth on Exhibit H shall constitute Tax
Increment District 90 -3.
C. Estimated Capital and Administration Costs.
1. Capital Proceeds. The capital proceeds of the
project, comprising the proceeds of sale of any land acquired
by the City to private developers, are expected to be $0.00.
2. Capital and Administration Costs. The Capital and
Administration Costs of the Development District, comprising
the total costs expected to be incurred in carrying out the
Development Activities by the City is expected to be as shown
in Section D of the Program, plus interest to be paid on the
Tax Increment Bonds during their term (other than interest paid
from the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds).
-14-
3. Property to be Acauired. See Section E of the
Program.
D. 'Payment of Capital and Administrative Costs. See
Section D of the plan for Tax Increment District 90 -1.
E. Determination and Use of Tax Increment.
1. Statutory Authority and District Eligibility as an
Economic Development District. Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, Subdivision 12 defines an "economic development
district" as a tax increment financing district consisting of a
portion of a development district which the authority finds to
be in the public interest because it will discourage commerce,
industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to
another state, will result in increased employment in the
municipality or will result in preservation and enhancement of
the tax base of the municipality.
The City believes Tax Increment District 90 -3 is an
"economic development district" since the Development
Activities to occur in Tax Increment District 90 -3 will result
iri the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the City.
2. Original Tax Capacity. The Tax Capacity of all
taxable property in Tax Increment District 90 -3 as most
recently certified by the Commissioner of Revenue of the State
of Minnesota, being the certification made in 1989 with respect
to the Tax Capacity of such property as of January 2, 1989, is
$270,426, which amount is expected to be the Original Tax
Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -3, subject to adjustment
of 5.10% per year pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.177, Subdivision 1, based on the average percentage
increase in the assessed va-luation of property in Tax Increment
District 90 -3 during the last five years.
3. Current Tax Capacity. The current Tax Capacity of
property in Tax Increment District 90 -3 is $270,426, the
Original Tax Capacity.
4. Captured Tax Capacity. It is expected that the
Captured Tax Capacity of all taxable property in Tax'Increment
District 90 -3, upon completion of the improvements in Tax
Increment District 90 -3 (taxes payable 2000) in Tax Increment
District 90 -3, will be $306,941, computed as follows:
-15-
Estimated Tag Capacity . . . . . . $751,65.0
at Completion
Less Original Tag Capacity . . . . 444,709
at Completion
Estimated Captured Tag
Capacity at Completion . . . . . $306,941
5. Tag Increment Calculation. Assuming the
improvements in Tag Increment District 90 -3 occur as described
and provided in the Program hereto it is estimated that the Tag
Increment to be received each year for the duration of Tag
Increment District 90 -3 will be as set forth in Exhibit I
hereto. The estimated amount of Tax Increment set forth in
Exhibit I is based upon a Tax Capacity Rate of .90290.
6. Duration of the Tag Increment District 90 -3. It
is estimated that Tax Increment District 90 -3 will remain in
existence until the 8 years from the date of receipt of the
first Tax Increment from Tax Increment District 90 -3 or,10
years from the date of approval of this Plan, whichever is
earlier, or until the City's obligation to pay the Tax
Increment Bonds and interest has been discharged in accordance
with the Bond Resolution.
7. Use of Captured Tax Capacity and Tax Increment.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 2,
the City hereby determines that it will use 100% of the
Captured Tax Capacity of property located in Tax Increment
District 90 -3, and 100% of the Tax Increments to be derived
therefrom, for the entire duration of Tax Increment District
90 -3.
8. Excess Tax Increment. The Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -3 in any year not needed to pay
debt service on the Tax Increment Bonds coming due on or before
August 1 of the following year, shall be used first to reduce
any ad valorem property tax levied pursuant to and in accordance
with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, and
then shall be used to prepay or discharge outstanding Tax
Increment Bonds or pay additional Capital and Administration
Costs, all in accordance with the Bond Resolution.
9. Pooling of Tax Increment. Tax Increment received
from Tax Increment District 90 -3 will be pooled by the City
with all other Tax Increment received from the Tag Increment
Districts and will be available for expenditure for any Capital
and Administrative Costs, whether or not such Capital and
Administrative Costs are incurred with respect to property
included in Tag Increment District 90 -3.
-16-
F. Impact of Tax Increment Financing on Other Taxing
Jurisdictions.
The local government units other than the City which
are authorized by law to levy ad valorem property taxes and in
which Tax Increment District 90 -3 is located, are Independent
School District No. 273, Hennepin County, the HRA, and various
metropolitan area authorities, including the Metropolitan
Council, the Metropolitan Transit'Commission, the Metropolitan
Airports Commission and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control
District (the local government units).
The taxing jurisdictions encompassing Tax Increment
District 90 -3 will continue to receive taxes as if the Original
Tax Capacity of Tax Increment District 90 -3 were unchanged,
except for the increase in Original Tax Capacity described in
Part F(2) of this Plan. This precludes the jurisdictions from
benefiting from a portion of the increase in Tax Capacity which
results from the improvements in Tax Increment District 90 -3
described in the Program or other development of the taxable
property in Tax Increment District 90 -3. In order to assess
the impact of this on Hennepin County, Independent School
District No. 273 and the City the following table indicates
what percentage the anticipated Captured Tag Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -3 at the completion of the improvements
in Tag Increment District 90 -3 described in the Program (which
occurs for taxes payable in 2000 as shown on Exhibit I hereto),
is of the present total Tag Capacity for such taxing
jurisdiction.
Estimated
Captured
Tax
Capacity
Percent of
Present at Completion
Present
. Taxing Tax of
Total Tax
Jurisdiction Capacity Improvements
Capacity
Hennepin
County $1,034,463,652 $306,941 .03%
I.S.D.
No. 273 63,744,885 306,941 .48%
City of Edina 77,629,266 306,941 .40%
If Tax Increment District 90 -3 were not created and the
improvements occur in Tax Increment District 90 -3 as described
in the Program, all of the Captured Tax Capacity of Tax
Increment District 90 -3 would be available to the taxing
jurisdictions, which would result in an increase in the tax
-17-
capacity of such taxing jurisdictions in each year during the
duration of Tax Increment District 90 -3 in an amount equal to
the Captured Tax Capacity.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAM AMENDMENT AND PLANS
The Program and the Plans shall be implemented on
behalf of the City by the City Council and the HRA as
administrator of the Program. The City shall sell and issue.
Tax Increment Bonds in the amounts needed to finance the
Capital and Administrative Costs, less any portion thereof to
be paid directly from Tax Increment and shall use so much of
the proceeds of the Tax Increment Bonds available and Tax
Increment derived from the Districts to pay such Capital and
Administrative Costs as is necessary.
VII. AMENDMENTS TO PROGRAM AND PLANS
The City reserves the right to amend the Program and
the Plans, subject to the provisions of state law regulating
such action.
The City specifically reserves the right to enlarge
the geographic area included in any District, to increase the
Capital and Administrative Costs and the principal amount of
Tax Increment Bonds to be issued to finance such Capital and
Administrative Costs, by following the procedures specified in
Section 469.175, Subdivision 4, if and when it is determined to
be necessary for the payment of additional Capital and
Administrative Costs.
This Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans were
adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota on
the 2nd day of April, 1990.
Mayor
City Manager
51-15
Exhibit A
Map of Development District No. 2
Morninaside Rd. W 1
� � o O j a ai a jjj''''''��� ❑❑ �a _
ul
0 m o o:0 D � I
i
C7,
p 1
- a St• i
ua✓ I
� El� ggth i
a
i
I 45th
�a
CITY OF EDINA
PROJECT AREA PLANS
44TH AND FRANCE AVE.
Hoisington Group Inc
o loo 200 300
A -1
Project Area and Tax Increment
Financing District Boundaries
Figure 1
PLAN AREA
1 �1-
CITY OF EDINA
PROJECT AREA PLANS
WOODDALE AND VALLEYVIEW AVE.
Hoisington Group Inc
S'��bo tSo ioo
A -2
id.
Project Area and
Tax Increment Financing
District Boundaries
Figure 1
PLAN AREA
70th St. W. - -��
- -� �t 1
IT
Bli
Fot
Q o
I
CITY OF EDINA
PROJECT AREA PLANS
70TH AND CAHILL AVE.
Hoisington Group Inc.
o roe 200 roo
J t It.--- — -: J .
Amundson P
r�
s
—f Project Area and Tax Increment
i _ ❑ FMtancbV District Boundaries
Figure 1
PLAN AREA
Exhibit C
List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -1
(44th and France)
07- 028- 24 -44 -0055
07- 028 -24 -44 -0056
07- 028 -24 -44 -0058
07- 028-24 -44 -0059
07- 028 -24 -44 -0060
07- 028 -24 -44 -0061
07- 028 -24 -44 -0062
07- 028 -24 -44 -0063
07- 028 -24 -44 -0064
07- 028 -24 -44 -0065
07- 028 -24 -44 -0066
07- 028 -24 -44 -0067
07- 028 -24 -44 -0068
07- 028 -24 -44 -0069
07- 028 -24 -44 -0070
07- 028 -24 -44 -0071
07- 028 -24 -44 -0073
07- 028 -24 -44 -0075
07- 028 -24 -44 -0077
07- 028 -24 -44 -0081
07- 028 -24 -44 -0082
07- 028 -24 -44 -0083
07- 028 -24 -44 -0086
07- 028 -24 -44 -0128
07- 028 -24 -44 -0130
07- 028 -24 -44 -0134
07- 028 -24 -44 -0135
07- 028 -24 -44 -0137
07- 028 -24 -44 -0138
07- 028 -24 -44 -0140
07- 028 -24 -44 -0141
07- 028 -24 -44 -0142
07-028 -24 -44 -0147
1
Exhibit E
Projected Tax Increment for Tax
Increment Financing District 90 -1
(44th and France)
Original
Tax
Coapleted
Adjusted
Captured
Capacity
Projected
Tan
Tax
Tax
intension
Tax
Assessed
Pay -
Capacity
Capacity
Capacity
Rate
Increment
1989
1990
116,578
116,578
0
90.098$
0
1990
1991
118,910
116,578
2,332
90.0988
2,101
1991
1992
121,288
116,578
4,710
90.098%
4,243
1992
1993
177,932
116,578
61,354
90.098%
55,278
1993
1994
181,490
116,578
64,912
90.0988
58,485
1994
1995
185,120
116,578
68,542
90.0988
61,755
1995
1996
188,822
116,578
72,244
90.0984
65,091
1996
1997
206,196
116,578
89,618
90.0988
80,744
1997
1998
210,320
116,578
93,742
90.0988
84,459
1998
1999
214,526
116,578
97,948
90.0988
88,249
1999
2000
218,817
116,578
102,239
90.0988
92,115
2000
2001
223,193
116,578
106,615
90.0988
96,058
2001
2002
227,657
116,578
111,079
90.0988
100,080
2002
2003
232,210
116,578
115,632
90.0988
104,182
2003
2004
236,854
116,578
120,276
90..0988
108,366
2004
2005
241,591
116,578
125,013
90.0988
112,634
2005
2006
246,423
116,578
129,845
90.0988
116,988
2006
2007
251,352
116,578
134,774
90.0988
121,428
2007
2008
256,379
116,578
139,801
90.0988
125,957
2008
2009
261,506
116,578
144,928
90.0988
130,577
2009
2010
266,736
116,578
150,158
90.0988
135,290
2010
2011
272,071
116,578
155,493
90.0988
140,096
2011
2012
277,512
116,578
160,934
90.0988
144,999
2012
2013
283,063
116,578
166,485
90.0988
149,999
2013
2014
288,724
116,578
172,146
90.098%
155,100
2014
2015
294,498
116,578
177,920
90:0988
160,303
Exhibit F
List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -2
(Valley View and Wooddale)
19- 028-24 -34 -0091
19- 028 -24 -34 -0092
19- 028 -24 -34 -0093
19- 028 -24 -34 -0094
19- 028 -24 -43 -0058
19- 028 -24 -43 -0059
19- 028 -24- 43-0060
19- 028 -24 -43 -0061
19- 028 -24 -43 -0062
19- 028 -24 -43 -0063
19- 028 -24 -43 -0064
19- 028 -24 -43 -0076
19- 028 -24 -43 -0077
19- 028 -24 -43 -0078
Exhibit G
Projected Tax Increment for Tax
Increment Financing District 90 -2
(Valley View and Wooddale)
Completed
Original
Teat
Afilma-s-ed
_ PAY
caDSclty
1989
1990
74,536
1990
1991
76,027
1991
1992
77,547
1992
1993
107,403
1993
1994
109,551
1994
1995
111,742
1995
1996
113,977
1996
1997
116,257
1997
1998
118,582
1998
1999
120,953
1999
2000
123,373
Original
Tax
Adjusted
Captured
Capacity
Projected
Tax
Tax
Extension
Tam
Goacciity
Capacity
Rate -
Incumixt
74,536
0
90.0988
0
77,696
0
90.0988
0
80,991
0
90.0988
0
84,425
22,979
90.0988
20,703
88,004
21,547
90.0988
19,413
91,736
20,007
90.0988
18;026
95,625
18,352
90.0988
16,535
99,680
16,577
90.0988
14,935
103,906
14,676
90.0988
13,222
108,312
12,642
90.0988
11,390
112,904
10,468
90.0988
9,432
Exhibit H
List of Parcels in Tax Increment Financing District 90 -3
(70th and Cahill)
08- 116 -21 -i1 -0003
08- 116 -21 -11 -0005
08- 116 =21 -11 -0008
08- 116 -21 -11 -0009
08- 116 -21 -11 -0010
08- 116 -21 -11 -0019
08- 116 -21 -11 -0020
08- 116 -21 -11 -0021
08- 116 -21 -11 -0022
08- 116-21 -11 -0023
08- i16 -21 -11 -0024
08- 116 -21 -12 -0001
08- 116 -21 -12 -0002
08- 116 -21 -12 -0003
08- 116 -21 -12 -0004
08- 116 -21 -12 -0005
08- 116 -21 -12 -0006
Exhibit I
Projected Tax Increment for Tax
Increment Financing District 90 -3
(70th and Cahill)
Original
Tax.
Completed
Adjusted
Captured
Capacity
Projected
Tax
Tax
TAX
Extension
Tax
Assam
aci
Capacity
Caflacitx
Rate
Increment
1989
1990
270,426
270,426
0
90.290%
0
1990
1991
275,835
284,218
0
90.2908
0
1991
1992
374,087
298,713
75,374
90.2908
68,055
1992
1993
474,304
313,947
160,357
90.2908
144,787
1993
1994
576,526
329,958
246,568
90.290%
222,626
1994
1995
680,793
346,786
334,006
90.2908
301,574
1995
1996
694,408
364,472
329,936
90.2908
297,899
1996
1997
708,297
383,061
325,236
90.2908
293,656
1997
1998
722,463'
402,597
319,866
90.2908
288,807
1998
1999
736,912
423,129
'313,783
90.2908
283,314
1999
2000
751,650
444,709
306,941
90.2908
277,137
I
MEMORANDUM
To: Gordon Hughes, Assistant City Manager
From: Eric Anderson, Assistant Finance Directo
Re: New Tax Increment District Effects
Date: March 22, 1990
Summary:
As per your request, I have completed an analysis of the effects of collapsing the three
new tax increment districts after five years of development. The results, reflected in the
tables below, show the effects on a homeowner's property tax bill for the three major
taxing jurisdictions (City, County, & School District).
Assumptions:
Major assumptions are:
• Tax dollars were calculated for homesteaded property
• Tax levy amounts are held constant for the City and the County. The School district
levy partially changes due to the recent referendum.
• Development occurs for all three new districts as reflected in the preliminary dis-
closure documents
• Tax extension rates stay constant during the five year period
Conclusion:
Given these assumptions, Table 1 shows the net effect on three tax bills, if all three dis-
tricts were collapsed in 1995. An owner of a $150,000 homesteaded property would pay
$4.99 less in property taxes.
TABLE I -All Districts Combined - Net Effect on Tax Bills
Jurisdiction
Extension
Rates
$150,000
$250,000
$500,000
City
- 0.075%
(2.12)
(4.37)
(10.00)
County
-0.011%
(0.32)
(0.66)
(1.52)
School -273*
- 0.090%
(2.55)
(5.26)
(12.05)
Total*
- 0.117%
$4.99
$10.29
$23.56
* - City, County & School Rates reflect 92% of a property tax bill
1,
Table 2 Wooddale & Valley View - Effects on Prop.Tax Bills
* - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due
to their state funding process
+ - City, County & School District Rates reflect 92% of property tax bills
Extension
Market Values
150,000
250,000
500,000
Jurisdiction +
Rate
With TO in Place
City
12.959%
365.44
754.21
1,726.14
County
27.916%
787.23
1,624.71
3,718.41
School -273.
42.369%
11. 94.81
.2.465.88
5.643.55
Total
83.244%
2,347.48
4,844.80
11,088.10
Without TO in Place
City
12.955%
365.34
754.01
1,725.66
County
27.915%
787.22
1,624.68
3,718.34
School -273*
42.365%
1.194.70
2.465.65
5,643.04
Total
83.236%
2,347.26
.4,844.34
11,087.04
Net Result
City
- 0.004%
(0.10)
(0.21)
(0.47)
County
-0.001%
(0.02)
(0.03)
(0.07)
School -273*
- 0.004%
.11
0.22
(0.51)
Total
- 0.008%
$0.22
$0.46
$1.06
* - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due
to their state funding process
+ - City, County & School District Rates reflect 92% of property tax bills
Table 3 - 44th & France - Effects on Prop. Tax Bills
* - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due
to their state funding process
+ - City, County & School District Rates comprise 92% of property tax bills
Extension
Market Values
150,000
250,000
500,000
Jurisdiction +
Rate
With TO in Place
City
12.959%
365.44
754.21
1,726.14
County
27.916%
787.23
1,624.71
3,718.41
School -273
42.369%
1,194.81
2.465.88
5.643.55
Total
83.244%
2,347.48
4,844.80
11,088.10
Without TO in Place
City
12.947%
365.10
753.50
1,724.51
County
27.914%
787.18
1,624.60
.3,718.16
School -273*
42.356%
1,194.43
2.465.88
5,641.79
Total
83.217%
2,346.71
4,843.21
11,084.47
Net Result
City
- 0.012%
(0.34)
(0.71)
(1.63)
County
- 0.002%
(0.05)
(0.11)
(0.25)
School -273*
- 0.013%
(0.37 )
0.77
1.7
Total
- 0.027%
$0.77
$1.59
$3.63
* - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due
to their state funding process
+ - City, County & School District Rates comprise 92% of property tax bills
Table 4 - 70th & Cahill - Effects on Prop. Tax Bills
* - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due
to their state funding process
+ - City, County & School District Rates comprise 9A of property tax bills
Extension
150,000
250,000
500,000
Jurisdiction +
Rate
With TO in place
City
12.959%
365.44
754.21
1,726.14
County
27.916%
787.23
1,624.71
3,718.41
School -273
45.295%
11277.32
2,636.17
6.033.29
Total
86.170%
2,429.99
5,015.09
11,477.84
Without TO in place
City
12.900%
363.77
750.76
1,718.24
County
27.907%
786.98
1,624.19
3,717.21
School -273*
45.222%
12. 75.25
2.631.90
6.023.52
Total
86.028%
2,426.00
5,006.85
11,458.97
Net Result
City
- 0.059%
(1.67)
(3.45)
(7.90)
County
- 0.009%
(0.25)
(0.52)
(1.20)
School -273*
- 0.073%
2.07
4.27
9.77
Total
- 0.142%
$4.00
$8.25
$18.87
* - School District rates reflect only 1/3 the benefit of other taxing jurisdictions due
to their state funding process
+ - City, County & School District Rates comprise 9A of property tax bills
JIr f}
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: File, 44th and France Redevelopment District
FROM: Building Department and Planning Department
SUBJECT: Building condition in Redevelopment Plan Area.
DATE: April 2, 1990
The purpose of this memorandum is to document the condition of certain
structures within the plan area. Specifically, the following structures are
found to have defects in structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in
essential utilities and facilities, light and ventilation, fire protection
including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior portions, or similar
factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to
justify substantial renovation or clearance.
4500 France Avenue South. Edina Cleaners
The property includes two buildings. In 1977 the Edina Cleaners acquired the
Westgate Theatre, made a pass.through connection and expanded its commercial
cleaning operation into the vacated theatre. Results of a February 24, 1990,
code compliance inspection are attached.
4532 France Avenue South.
Single family home used as commercial office. Pre 1920 construction.
The following deficiencies are noted:
* Foundation is cracked and settled.
Front entry badly deteriorated, in danger of collapse.
* Rear stoop - landing has broken away from foundation and settled.
* Holes in plaster ceilings in kitchen and second floor bedroom.
* Evidence of plumbing leaks.
* No insulation
* Most windows are lacking screens and storm windows.
* Prime windows in poor condition `
4540 France Avenue South.
Single family dwelling. Pre 1916 construction
The following deficiencies are noted:
* Cracks in foundation.
* Prime windows in poor condition.
* Lacking some storm windows.
* Old hot water boiler with asbestos wrapped pipes.
* Electrical system below code requirements.
3916 West 44th Street.
Single family home. Constructed approximately 1905.
The following deficiencies are noted:
* Coal conversion hot water furnace, Pipe wrapped in asbestos.
* Electrical system does not street code. Wiring includes non-
conforming nob and tube wiring.
* Galvanized water pipe system. Should be changed to copper.
* Front porch settled 8 inches from house and must be reconstructed.
* East side of garage has settled.
* 20 plus year old roof that is deteriorated and shows signs of leakage
on interior.
* All interior surfaces are in poor condition.
3918 West 44th Street.
Single family home. Constructed approximately 1930.
* Electrical system does not meet code requirements.
* Older roof in deteriorated condition.
* Cracks in foundation, signs of some settling.
F-21 M
CITY OF
4"EDINA
4801 WEST 50TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424
12- 927 -8861
3 -30 -90
On February 14, 1990, a Code Compliance inspection was made at: 4500 France Ave.
Edina Dry- Cleaners.
The following non - conforming conditions were noted:
1. Non - conforming exit system was existing in most of the plant area. It
was also noted that exit doors were either locked or barricaded. This
is a serious condition.
2. Noted exposed electric wires in restroom directly off store front.
3. A full two hour separation is required around the boiler and this was
not in place. Present condition does not allow proper fire protection.
4. Solvent use and storage shall be verified by the Edina Fire Marshall for
proper use and protection.
5. Exterior tank storage to be reviewed by Edina Fire Marshall.
6. The wood roof is leaking in numberous locations. It appears that
there may be some decay of the roof boards and joist which could
possibly result in roof failure.
7. The wood roof joist are supported by a steel truss which appears to
have signs of corrosion.
8. The block walls and floors have somecracks which may be pertinent to the
building structure.
9. Boiler is very old, but appears in good shape. Relief valve needs to be
piped down to within 18" of the floor. Boiler room .has no make up air
piped into it. A boiler room is required to be in a 2 -hour room.
10. No make up air is piped in for the air being exhausted in building (dryers,
ect.)
11. Roof drains appear to be draining into sanitary sewer.
12. Equipment using City water does not appear to have proper back flow
preventers.
e It
THOMSEN
NYBECIE
JOHNSON
BOUQUET
AN VALKENBURG
OHNSTAD &
SNIITH, P.A.
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
Agenda Item III.A
LAW OFFICES
SUITE 600, EDINBOROUGH CORPORATE CENTER EAST
3300 EDINSOROUGH WAY, MINNEAPOLIS ( EDINA), MINNESOTA 55435
(612) 835 -7000 • FAX: (612) 835 -9450
GLENN G. NYBECK MARSH J. HALBERG OF COUNSEL:
GORDON V. JOHNSON WILLIAM E. SJOHOLM JACK W. CARLSON
JOHN K. BOUQUET THOMAS R. KELLEY RICHARD D. WILSON, P.A.
JAMES VAN VALKENBURG DENNIS M. PATRICK HERBERT P. LEFLER, III
MARK G. OHNSTAD PHILIP SIEFF HELGE THOMSEN. RETIRED
DONALD D. SMITH DAVID J. MCGEE
March 30, 1990
RE: 44th and France
HRA TIF Proposal
Mayor Richards and Members of the Council:
Our office represents the Edina Cleaners who is vitally involved in
this proposal. Some thoughts to consider:
We appeared at the Planning Commission meeting on March 28, 1990 where
this was discussed - the commission was very concerned as to several points.
1. They did not want to approve a plan of development without much
more study.
2. The density of the proposed multifamily was unacceptable.
3. The project was time driven and not by a specific proposal.
4. No plan should be implemented without an in depth analysis of the
financial impact as a TIF District; without a review of the impact
on the merchants and they just did not like the plan.
5. They approved the district reluctantly but not the plan.
We recognize the time limits, the possible legislative changes, the
fact that the proposals are tentative, and the fact that no developer is in
mind or in place.
✓ ti
-2-
Our specific concerns and comments:
1. This proposal not only moves our business - it puts us out of
business. We do commercial laundry for hotels and to shut down
for 30 -60 -90 days while we moved would mean we would lose the
customers. Edina Cleaners has 53 employees (who also shop at the
44th and France area). The Stotts family and Edina Cleaners have
been on this corner 30 years.
2. We bring a minimum of 2000 people per week to the corner.
3. Parking:
a. Our employees park in a space behind our building.
b. Customers come in through the parking in front.
Cleaner's customers won't park a long way and walk and
carry their belongings.
c. Parking in the overall area is no further than one would
find at a large shopping center, e.g. 50th and France or
Southdale.
4. Our Building:
a. Is well maintained.
b. Is of an age and style that is compatible with the building
the plan seeks to preserve.
c. Is a buffer to westerly expansion on Sunnyside.
5. We do not like the label "industrial" placed on our operation.
That conjures smoke stacks and noise which is not our situation.
We are within our zoning requirements.
6. The financial projections show a cost of $3,665,550 and an
increment return of $2,494.577 for a $1,170,973 shortgage. Even
extending the bonds 10 more years produces a shortfall.
-3-
7. As Dr. Seidel has stated and Dr. Pirsch's letter reflects -
to put this in a district makes for extreme uncertainty. Do we
expand? Do we remodel? Do we sell and move out? Who would buy
property with the possibility of a condemnation hanging over their
purchase?
8. New generations are now involved (Dr. Seidel's son and David
Stotts' son, Lee) which is a great positive to this continued
vitality of the area.
9. We have approximately 35,000 square feet of property which is a
substantial portion of the whole area.
10. Dr. Seidel wants to expand and Dr. Pirsch does not want to be
moved out of his building.
We are cognizant of the Mayor's remarks that even if adopted this is
not necessarily the plan and that you do not want to put anyone out of
business. We are very concerned about this project. We are afraid of the
impact on us. We are opposed to it.
Thus we request a denial of the proposed creation of a T.I.F. district
and of the plan. Neighbors often, after an external scare, come up with better
ideas to revitalize and continued successful operations in an area.
If, after you, review this and view the area, you have any questions I
would appreciate the opportunity to answer you. Mr. Stotts and I will attend
the April 2, 1990 HRA Council meeting and can answer questions then also.
JVV:jd
cc: Council members
Kenneth Rosland
Gordon Hughes
Craig Larsen
Dr. Seidel
Dr. Pirsch
Mr. Stotts
Agenda Item III.A.
Thomas R. Pirsch, D.D.S., PA
3930 Sunnyside Road
Edina, N.N 55424
March 27, 1990
Yayor Fred'Richards
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mr. Richards:
I am the owner of a dental practice and a building at
3930 Sunnyside Road, in the 44th & France Tax Increment
Financina District. I am writing because I will be unable
to attend the April 2nd Council Meeting.. I hadn't realized,
until I recently saw a map of the proposed changes, how
disasterous this would be for me and the three other owners
of buildinas on the north side of Sunnyside Road.
To start with, if implemented, this program would
absolutely preclude me from ever selling my practice upon
retirement, removing a potentially significant portion, of
my post- retirement income. This is because no dentist would
buy a practice that was in danger of a forced relocation. Re-
location of a dental office is particularly difficult and
expensive because of all the extra plumbing and wiring in
volved. This pleasant building and pleasant location is one
of the major advantages of my practice. The ability to own
one's own buildina and avoid the hassles of. renting, includ-
ina having a landlord charge for parking, is a real asset.
If a new building were constructed to house a dental office,
if I or a•buyer wanted to return to this area, we would be
obliaated to relocate for at least a year and make an addi-
tional move back. It wouldn't be possible. It would mean
premature retirement for me and no. sale of my practice to
anyone else.
The second problem would be I couldn't even sell my building
when I needed to. If condemnation occurred too soon, I get
rremature retirement - if too late, there would be no buyers
for a building, however desirable, with a condemnation hang-
ing over. I am not plannina retirement in the near future,
but one never knows.
have bgen a resident of Yorningside since 1936, a resident
of Edina since 1965. There has been a Firsch dental office
en this corner since 1928. The building is attractive, I
feel, and does not need to be condemned.- It was built in
1954 and has been well maintained. We have been good citizens:
taxes paid, snow shoveled, grass cut and watered, flower box
Mayor Fred Richards
Page 2
planted, trim painted and parking lot maintained.
The foregoing applies in some measure to the other three
owners of buildings in the Plan. I urge you to leave us
out of this proposed plan.
Sincerely,
Dr. Thomas R.'P' sch, D.D.S.
c.c.: Council Members
Mr. James VanValkenburg
Agenda Item III.A
March 25, 1990
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to you in- regards to the tax increment district the
city is considering at-44th and France' Avenue.
My name is Roberta Thorpe and I own the.land and .building at
3912 Sunnyside Road: (The Convention Grill)
Please allow me a few minutes of your time to express my concerns
regarding this. First of all, I am opposed to the city taking my
land and others to.make a public parking lot. It would limit any
future expansion on the property and has no benefit to the Convention
Grill. I do not feel the approach the city is taking in regards to
parking is a.very good solution. I suppose parking may be a problem
at times but the majority of the time it- isn't. Having a parking
lot with only.one entrance and_one exit on Sunnyside Road is going
to create a congested - busy area. There are now ap roximately five
or six accesses to the existing.parking areas from 4th Street,
France Avenue,, and Sunnyside Road. Traffic can flow easily in.and out
at a. slower pace with no congestion in any one area. I am against
this one entrance and exit onto Sunnyside from one public narking lot.
The other factor I am opposed to is putting in a "strip" shopping
area.. How boring and tiring it would be to see another one built
anywhere. I feel it would destroy the charm of the existing area
of smaller individual buildings, some having grass, trees and shrubs.
There really is no need for more retail shops in this area with
50th and France,: Calhoun Square, Miracle Mile and other areas so
close by. The majority of the existing buildings are solid,sound
structures. T.o.force owners to tear down and rebuild or relocate
would be extremely costly both dollar -arise and emotionally.
Individual ownership of the existing properties is extremely
Important.
The third area I'd like to expound on is the higher density housing;
proposed on 44th Street. I am also against this because we wdulda
lose "wonderful.mature trees" and the "open space" of yards with
green grass and shrubs. I feel these homes fit the area and are,
In a sense, buffers to the surrounding; homes. Who wants another
building (except a developer) like the one north of Durr, Inc. or
anything similar to it? I don't believe people should be forced
to leave their homes for higher density housing to be built.
The area south of the Edina Cleaners is questionable. Again,I don't
feel a "strip" shopping area is the answer. I personally don't like
to see homes rezoned to accommodate a business.
Another factor to this improvement plan is the Minneapolis side of
France Avenue (mainly the gas station) which will take away from
any improvements that may: be made on the Edina, side unless it is
replaced or made more appealing.
Lastly, the Edina Cleaners which brings many I people to this area
should be carefully considered. Like the o,,�Yner said, "to tear his
building down would put him out -of- business. "`. How many others..will
be put out -of- business orl decide to, relocate if this plan is im-
plemented? Not to mention the people being.forced to move from
their homes.
Please consider-all of these factors when-making your decision.
Thank you for your time.
Most sincerely,
Roberta Thorpe
Copies sent. to:
Mayor Richards
Council Members
City Planning Commission
. s Agenda Item III.6
March 28, 1990
Edina, City Council
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Attention: Mayor Fred Richards 9 Council Members
In response to the proposal before you on the city
development of Woodale and Valley View Rd.
About eight years Ego we lost our lease at 44th enc
France. We had to find E new location for our business.
At that time we found the 4400 Valley Visw.Rd. property.
which was zoned C - 4 service station use. To utilize the
property Kathy and I had to obtsin new zoning. We did
extensive remodeling to'tha- building for our use. and had
to satisfy parking, landscaping., drive way, curb 8 gutter
requirements. Which we did !
Why would a small husban and wife business do all this?
It was for one reason. It was so we would have some control
over our own destiny. It was so we wouldn't hove to wake
up Monday morning to find out.that we had lost our lease.
Your term "designated area from Valley View Center
east to Kellogg as comercial. The area between Kellogg
and Oaklawn as high denity residential" this must mean that
I don't exist !!
1. The Edina Land Use Plan originally adopted in
1981 a plan for 4400 Valley View Rd. to be used for high
density residential. Kathy and I- Ecquired new zoning, on
Dec. 1981. Why didn't the Edina Land Use chE.nga the plan
to reflect us as part of the business district, with the
new zonino set forth by The Edina City Council. I assumed
that when The Edina City Council changed the zoning.from
C -4, to C -1 NOT 2 -F You would think this would be the
end of it.
4400 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, EDINA MN 55424 / (612) 926 -6020
2. From my prospective being the last piece of
property to have full filled the requirements of the city.
I should be up to date. We do not park cars on the side-
walk, our, green is all most the only greenspace in the
business area, and we have planted trees and shrubs.
3. As for "COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL INCOMPATIBLIY
CONFLICTS" each and every business with the exception of
Mobil has single family on one or more sides. Why are we
being singled out for removal. We are the only property
in compliance with city ordinances.
If you let the proposal go ahead, the development
plan that is shown on figure 4 will be viewed by future
councils as the APPROVED PLAN.
Sincerely
Byron Recke
Agenda Item III.B
10fiter's fatno (110noto
4416 Valley View Road, Edina, MN 55424
Distributers of Petroleum Products
3inte 1956
March 27, 1990
Subject: Wooddale Ave & Valley View Rd Project
City of Edina Minn.
Mr. Fred Richards, Mayor
Dear Sir:
For 34 years, I have been a part of the City of Edina. My Son
has been with the business for over 18 years. Together we have watched
the City grow.and prosper. We want to be able to continue that.
We have taken care of Edina residents' moving and hauling needs
for 32 years, and auto servicing and repairs for 34 years.
The City claims that the Wooddale /Valley View area has a parking
problem. We do not feel that we are a part of that, because we have
always been able to handle our own parking needs.
The property across Kellogg Ave, does have a parking problem.
Years ago the City issued permits for that property, and evidently
did not take into consideration, the footage needed for parking.The
lot immediately adjacent to the North line of that property should
have been held for parking, but the City allowed the home to be built.
The business building and home were all built by the same person.
Several years back, it was suggested to curb Kellogg Ave at the
Valley View intersection, and green strip it, but nothing ever came
of it. We felt that this might better control most of the loose
parking situation at tkis intersection.
There must be other options for the City to consider, other than
the one plan that the City has shown to date. We do not advocate the
acquisition of any one persons property, idcluding our own, for any
thing such as a parking lot, when it is not needed.
Whensit comes to the needs of a City and it's residents, we feel
tbiat we have become an important part of those needs. It is not our
desire to stop progress within the City, but to be a part of it.
r
Page 2
We are urging the Mayor, and all of the Council members, to take
every little item into consideration, before any final steps are taken,
concerning the Valley View Road and.Wooddale Ave project.
Respectfully Yours,
R.L. RNaValley r
R View Service
Edina Rental Center
vrm
enc 5
rlr
Agenda_ Item_III.. B_
DATE: March 26,1990
TO: City of Edina
Attention: Council Members
SUBJECT: Designation of development district and approval
.of tax increment financing plans
1. My,name is Lois A. Roen - Brickley and I live at 6120 Kellogg
Avenue South. I am located in one of the areas where you are
planning a development district. I understand one of the
present plans would include taking my homesite.
2. I have owned and lived at this homesite for 25 years. I
understand that if this proposed district is passed the
City of Edina my acquire my home at anytime in the next
10 years.
3. I have started a remodeling plan, which I
hearing of the possible plans of the City
have discussed with real.tors the possibil
"home in the-future and understand that at
difficult or near impossible to sell with
the City of Edina acquiring the property.
A very concerned homeowner and Edina resident
Lois A. Roen - Brickley
have halted upon
of Edina, also I
ity of selling my
best it would be
the possibility of
of 25 years.
April 2, 1990
The Hon. Frederick S. Richards
The Mayor of The City of Edina
City Hall
Dear Mayor,
Agenda Item III.B
The undersigned are all residents of the City of Edina who will
be affected by redevelopment activities proposed for the Wooddale
and Malley View Road Project Area. Each of us has opinions about
the proposed development plan which we will express individually
this evening. However, we are of one mind that Roster's Conoco
Station is the most significant blight in our neighborhood.
In assessing the problem within the Wooddale and Valley View area,
the T.I.F. plan notes that certain activities at the Conoco Station
are , inappropriate and do not conform to the City's zoning ordinance.
Specific nonconforming activities listed in the T.I.F. Plan include:
1. Use of the site for small engine repair,
2. Use of the site as an equipment and vehicle
rental facility,
7.
Outdoor storage of merchandise and equipment, and
4. Outdoor storage of commercial vehicles.
To this list could be added:
1. Outdoor storage of-junk cars,
2. Outdoor storage of worn tires,
- Storage of vehicles on the boulevard, and
4. General debris such as pallets, a barrel, a
metal pole, a door, cardboard, etc. lying
about on the ground.
We understand that some of the nonconforming activities are exempt
from requirements of the City's zoning ordinance since these activi-
ties predate enactment of that ordinance. However, we believe that
some of the activities listed above are not exempt and the scope of
others exceeds that permitted by-any grandfather clause.
Creating a T.I.F. District for the Wooddale and Valley View Road
Area and implementing the proposed development plan would eliminate
Roster's Conoco Station and, thus, the associated blight affecting
our neighborhood. But the proposed development is a long range
plan whose feasibility is questionable and timetable for com -pletion
Is uncertain. The actual plan implemented, if a T.I.F. District
- 2 -
were created, may differ from that now proposed. However, enforcing
the City's zoning ordinance so as to eliminate nonconforming uses
and reduce the scope of grandfathered activities would immediately
mitigate the blighting influence of the Conoco Station.
While our neighborhood is now viable, we are concerned about the
gradual aecline within the plan area and would like to see existing
deficiencies corrected. Proz)er code enforcement would be an inex-
pensive and quick way to deal with at least some of these
deficiencies and reduce blight. Therefore, we requeat that the City
of Edina immediately enforce its zoning ordinance against Roster's
Conoco Station.
lv oyl
P(,
�
X04!
Gov o cl-�
cc: Mr. Gordon Huehes
Mr. C wt: j "u-se",
�P��°5,wpin5 eKC.(.o5.�
Sincerely,
Zl-rZL�17
�WOQ_�Fa3�
6117
�< I L I
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS 90-1, 90-2
AND 90-3 MAKING FINDINGS AND REQUESTING
CERTIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICTS 90-1, 90 -2 AND 90-3
as follows: BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota,
1. On April 2, 1990, this Council held a public hearing on the
designation of Development District No. 2 (the "Development District ") and the
adoption of the Development Program for Development District No. 2 (the
"Program ") and on the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax
Increment Financing Districts 90 -1, 90 -2 and 90 -3 (the "Tax Increment Districts "),
after notice of public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City not
less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The City has consulted with its
planning department on the designation of the Development District. All persons
desiring to be heard at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views.
2. Copies of the Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plans have
been presented to this Council and,are ordered placed on file with the City Clerk.
The forms of the Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans are hereby approved
and are incorporated herein by reference.
3. The Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans and the
designation of the Development District and establishment of the Tax Increment
Financing Districts are hereby approved.
4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 3, it is
hereby found for the reasons set forth in the Program and Tax Increment Financing
Plans that:
(A) Tax Increment Financing Districts 90-2 and 90-3 are each an
"economic development district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, subdivision 12.
(B) Tax Increment Financing District 90 -1 is a "redevelopment
district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision
10. •
(C) The proposed development outlined in the Program in the
opinion of this Council would not occur solely through private
investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and therefor the
use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
(D) The Tax Increment Financing Plans conform to the general
plan for the development of the City as a whole in that it aids in the
development of the property in the Development District in a manner
that alleviates deficiencies in the Development District as set forth in
the Program.
(E) The Tax Increment Financing Plans will afford maximum
opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for
the development of the area included in the Development District by
private enterprise in that it alleviates deficiencies in the Development
District as set forth in the Program.
(F) The .City elects the method of tax increment computation set
forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause (a).
S. The City Manager is authorized and directed to request that the
appropriate officials of Hennepin County to establish the Tax Increment Districts for
the premises in the City described in the Tax Increment Financing Plans.
Passed by the Council this 2nd day of April, 1990.
Attest:
City Clerk
2
Mayor
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Member . and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by
the Mayor, whose signature was attested by the City Clerk.
3
r' 04/05/90 09:18
f t - -tiC
r
X612 340 2644
Dorsey & Wh i t.riey
Councilmember Rice made a motion for the adoption of the following
resolution as it relates to the 44th and France area which was duly seconded by
Councilmember Paulus, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Councilmembers Rice, Smith, Paulus and Mayor Richards;
and the following voted against the same: Councilmember Kelly;
Councilmember Smith made a motion for the adoption of the
following resolution as it relates to the Wooddale and galley View area which vas
duly seconded by Councilmember Rice, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Councilrnernbers Rice, Smith, Paulus and Mayor
Richards;
and the following voted against the same: Councilmember Kelly;
Councilmember Smith made a motion for the adoption of the
following resolution as it relates to the 70th and Cahill area which was duly
seconded by Councilmember Rice, and upon vote being taken thereon, the
following voted in favor thereof: Councilmembers Rice, Smith, Paulus, Kelly and
Mayor Richards;
and the following voted against the same: none;
whereupon the following resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was
signed by the Mayor, whose signature was attested by the City Clerk.
16 002
T
' J
04/05/90 09:18 $612 340 2644 Dorsey & ft it.ney Z 003
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTTRICTs 90 -1, 90 -2
AND 90 -3 MAKING FINDINGS AND REQUESTING
CERTIFICATION OF THE TAX. INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICTS 90 -1, 90 -2 AND 90 -3
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. On April 2, 1990, this Council held a public hearing on the
designation of Development District No. 2 (the "Development District ") and the
adoption of the Development Program for Development District No. 2 (the
"Program ") and on the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax
Increment Financing Districts 90 -1, 90 -2 and 90 -3 (the "Tax Increment Districts "),
after notice of public hearing was published in the official newspaper of the City not
less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The City has consulted with its
planning department on the designation of the Development District. All persons
desiring to be heard at the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views-
2. Copies of the Program and the Tax Increment Financing Plans have
been presented to this Council and are ordered placed on file with the City Clerk.
The forms of the Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans are hereby approved
and are incorporated herein by reference.
3. The Program and Tax Increment Financing Plans and the
designation of the Development District and establishment of the Tax Increment
Financing Districts are hereby approved.
4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 3, it i5
hereby found for the reasons set forth in the Program and Tax Increment Financing
Plans that:
(A) Tax Increment Financing Districts 90 -2 and 90 -3 are each an
"economic development district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, subdivision 12.
(B) Tax Increment Financing District 90 -1 is a "redevelopment
district" as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subdivision
10.
04/05/90 09-19 $612 340 2644 Dorsey & Whitney 2004
(C) The proposed development outlined in the Program in the
opinion of this Council would not occur solely through private
investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and therefor the
use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
(D) The Tax Increment Financing Plans conform to the general
plan for the development of the City as a whole in that it aids in the
development of the property in the Development District in a manner
that alleviates deficiencies in the Development District as set forth in
the Program.
(E) The Tax Increment Financing Plans will afford maximum
opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole for
the development of the area included in the Development District by
private enterprise in that it alleviates deficiencies in the Development
District as set forth in the Program.
(F) The City elects the method of tax increment computation set
forth in .Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause (a).
5. The City Manager is authorized and directed to request that the
appropriate officials of Hennepin County to establish the Tax Increment Districts for
the premises in the City described in the Tax Increment Financing Plans.
Attest:
Passed by the Council this 2nd day of April, 1990.
City Clerk
2
Mayor
r
A.
V4
g3 ao
• ,NCORPOR^H •
see
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Rosland
From: Craig Larsen
Date: April 2, 1990
Subject: Release .of Restrictive
Covenants, South
Harriet Park Steiner
Addition
Recommendation:
INFO /BACKGROUND
Agenda Item #
TV B.
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr.. Recommends
❑
To HRA
❑
To Council
` Action
x
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
The City Council approved the subject plat on March 3, 1986. The attached
restrictive covenants were imposed as a condition prior to receiving a building
permit. The restrictive covenants were never signed or recorded. Consequently,
we have refused to issue building permits for the two lots.
The attached letter from Mr. Gislason, one of two parties to the plat, is
requesting the City Council to remove the restrictions as a condition of the
plat. The restrictions are structured as a private covenant. Seven nearby
properties are given standing to enforce provisions of the covenants. These
property owners have been notified of Mr. Gislason's request to be heard by the
City Council.
Section 1, paragraph A through H. set forth design criteria for houses on the
two new lots. The intent of the provisions was to ensure that design,
materials, and scale of the new homes would be similar to that currently
existing in the neighborhood.
GISLASON, MARTIN & VARPNESS, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
ROBERT W. GISLASON
JAMES T. MARTIN-
JOHN E. VARPNESS-
MICHAEL G. SWANSON*
PATRICK M. CONLIN
KXRTMD CIVIL TRIAL SMCIALIST
BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF
TRIAL ADVOCACY
-ALSO ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
IN WISCONSIN
March 9, 1990
Mr. Craig Larson, City Planner
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Re: Removal of Special Building Restrictions
Steiner's Addition, South Harriet Park
Dear Mr. Larson:
7600 PARKLAWN AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 444
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435
TELEPHONE 612/831.5793
FAX 612/831 -7358
LEGAL ASSISTANT
GLORIA DEEB
I respectfully request that you place this request for the
removal of special building restrictions on the proposed
subdivision of our lot and the adjacent lot to the north called
Steiner's Addition, South Harriet Park on the agenda of the next
meeting of the Edina City Council.
I believe that it has been common knowledge for at least the
last 20 years that there is more than sufficient land to create two
more very desireable and buildable lots facing 52nd Street and
adding them to the tax rolls of our City.
The late Dr. Richard Tudor first investigated this possibility
in the 1960s and, at that time, was told that there was no reason
why it couldn't be done. At that time, my four young children and
their playmates were enjoying the luxury of a 407 foot yard that
was enclosed with a living wall of trees, plants and-shrubs with
three separate levels or terraces; so I was unwilling to subdivide
it at that time notwithstanding the location of Arden Park across
the street. But I did agree with him that his idea was a good one,
and that the day would come when I would agree to do it. We
continued to be good friends for the rest of his life.
When Dr. Tudor retired and sold his house, he advised the
purchaser of the likelihood of a future subdivision; and that
information was subsequently passed on to the next purchaser, Dr.
Richard W. Steiner.
It seemed that every three or four years since the 1960s, I
have had an inquiry from some one as to when we would be
subdividing that land. It's a subject I have discussed on various
occasions with our former city manager and with our then mayor,
Jim Van Valkenberg, who is an old friend. I never heard of anyone
objecting to the idea.
At the time Dr. Steiner was getting his house ready to put on
the market, he approached me and asked if I would agree to putting
the eastern part of our two lots together and creating a
subdivision of two buildable lots. We then employed a surveyor who
prepared the plat on file in your office and agreed that the two
proposed lots should be highly desireable and that the land
remaining would be more than adequate for our existing homes.
Dr. Steiner agreed to do the work that would be necessary to
obtain council approval. Signs were erected giving notice of the
proposed subdivision, and I started to receive inquiries from
prospective purchasers.
My next involvement was some months later when Dr. Steiner
requested me to sign a document containing a series of special
building restrictions on the property. That was my first knowledge
or information concerning any possible problems.
I was informed that one particular gentleman living on Juanita
Avenue had some objections to the subdivision and had contacted and
attempted to solicit support for his objections from everyone
within a radius of at least several blocks. Although I have never
met Mr. Tarbox, I understand that he is an attorney.
At Dr. Steiner's request, I reviewed the proposed document
containing a number of special building restrictions that he said
were agreeable to himself and Mr. Tarbox. I was also informed that
the Edina Council had approved the proposed subdivision subject to
these special building restrictions. All this was without my
knowledge, permission and consent.
As a practicing lawyer for some 39 years and an adjunct
professor of law at the William Mitchell College of Law for 20 of
those years, I believe that I can truthfully and accurately inform
you that special building restrictions of this type have been and
are generally looked on with disfavor by judges, lawyers and
realtors.
But, as a courtesy to Dr. Steiner, I examined them very
carefully. My first reaction was that they were ridiculous and
would adversely and unreasonably affect the marketability of the
two new lots.
Dr. Steiner told me that he agreed with me, but had not
consulted with an attorney and felt that the only way he could get
council approval was to yield to Mr. Tarbox's demands.
I advised Dr. Steiner that I planned to continue to live in
this neighborhood for many years and that I would not agree to
2
expose my new neighbors to any restrictions that I considered
unreasonable.
I have since discussed the situation on two separate occasions
with you, members of your staff, and others connected with our
city. Without intending to embarrass anyone, I believe that it is
fair to say that no one other than Mr. Tarbox seriously believes
that these burdensome restrictions are either necessary or
desirable.
It is only fair to you and the members of our council that I
provide specific explanations for at least some of my many
objections to these restrictions.
1) First, they imply a lack of confidence in the
competence and judgment of those staff members of our
city government who are entrusted with the responsibility
for approving and granting permits for proposed
construction.
I personally believe that the City of Edina has the
best staff in this state and that they can be and should
be fully trusted to insure that any proposed new
construction be in general conformity with existing
neighborhoods as well as in compliance with all building
codes and standards.
2) Second, they unreasonably expose any buyer to the
unreasonable risk of litigation expenses -- not only his
own legal expenses, but also all of the legal costs,
expenses and fees of whatever litigious person should
elect to sue him or her.
By way of example if (a) the buyer of one of these
lots should build a new home that is one inch more than
25 feet from the top of the foundation to the highest
point of his roof, or (b) build a 1 and 1/2 car garage;
or (c) build a 2 and 1/2 car garage; or (d) build a
garage with a floor one inch higher than two feet about
the center of 52nd Street; or (e) use any concrete,
stone, stucco in the exterior of his home would appear
to be liable as a matter of law to any unfriendly
neighbor and /or pathological litigant that chose to sue
him. In such an event, being required to pay not only
his own legal costs, but all the legal fees of the party
suing him could "be disastrous. Such expenses are not
covered in a standard policy of homeowner's insurance.
As a practicing lawyer, I would advise any client
who consulted me to avoid any such exposure by finding
other land to build on. -
3
3) A number of these restrictions are just simply
ridiculous and totally unnecessary. For example, it
should be instantly obvious to anyone that the houses to
be constructed will have to face 52nd Street; they are
not located on Juanita or Halifax or Minnehaha Boulevard.
Does anyone believe that the City of Edina would
ever grant a building permit for anything other than one
(1) single family dwelling on each lot? Now, Mr. Tarbox
may personally have genuine fears that someone will try
to build a filling station, or a condominium, or a
grocery store on one of those lots, but that does not
mandate the implementation of a requirement to do what
is already instantly obvious as well as already
controlled by our zoning laws.
The City of Edina would clearly not grant a building
permit for the construction of a new home facing 52nd
STreet unless the north side of the new home was in line
with the other homes on the south side of 52nd Street;
this would necessarily leave more than 40 feet between
the rear of the house and the southern lot line
Has anyone ever even heard of.a house that has any
wall that is not less than 100 percent glass?
Why shouldn't a garage floor be more than two feet
above the center of an adjacent street? My home on
Minnehaha Boulevard has a garage floor that is more than
four feet above the street.
Why does Mr. Tarbox insist that garages be not less
than no more than two car garages? My home has only a
one car garage as do may of the nearby houses on Juanita
and Halifax Avenues. What is wrong with a 1 and 1/2 or
2 and 1/2 car garage if a family needs a place to store
bicycles or wants a workbench?
Why should limitations or the choice of building
materials be etched in granite? We live in an era of
tremendous technological advances. Why should newer,
safer, more efficient, and more attractive materials that
modern science may develop in the future be excluded from
use in only these two lots in the City of Edina.
One of the reasons I and most of our friends have chosen Edina
as a place to live is that we like our neighborhoods, we like our
neighbors, and we both like and trust in the good judgment and
fairness of our city government and its excellent staff who, so
far, have done a superior job in supervising its growth and
development.
4
To impose special building restrictions on just two building
lots that are different than the rest of the residential areas of
the city with such onerous exposures for legal expense would, in
my opinion, be unnecessary, unfair, and discriminating. It would
clearly lower their value and impair their marketability.
I respectfully urge that the Edina City Council take action
to remove these restrictions.
Respectfully _submitted,
Robert W. Gislason .
5205 Minnehaha Boulevard
Edina, MN 55424
Telephone: 831 -5793
P.S. I herewith attach a photocopy of the restrictions and
penalties that one man,'Mr. Tarbox, seeks to impose on these two
Edina lots in perpetuity. Copies of this letter being delivered
or mailed to Mr. Tarbox as well as the other residents at the
address shown in Exhibit A. Each of .them is invited to call me and
discuss any concerns they might have.
5
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS,
CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
THIS DECLARATION, Made this day of
198_, by Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V.
Gislason and Patricia C. Gislason, husband and wife (herein
called the "Declarants ").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Declarants are the owners of the real
property located in the County of Hennepin described as follows:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, South Harriet Park Steiner
Addition, according,to the plat thereof on file in the
office of the County Recorder in and for said County,
(herein individually called a "Lot" and together called the
"Lots ").
NOW THEREFORE, the Declarants hereby declare, impose
upon and make both of the Lots subject to the following
covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which shall operate as
restrictions passing with the conveyance of both Lots and every
part of both Lots, and shall apply to and bind each and every
owner and occupier, and claimant of an interest in, any Lot or
any part of any Lot, and their successors -in- interest to -wit:
1. Structure Criteria. All structures hereafter
constructed, placed or erected on the Lots will conform to the
following criteria and guidelines:
A. there shall be,no more than one (1) single family
dwelling (herein called "House ") on each Lot;
B. Houses shall face and have their front entrances
on West 52nd Street;
C. Houses shall be subject to a forty foot (401)
rear setback requirement such that no House shall
be within forth feet (401) of the rear (South)
boundary of the Lot on which it is located;
D. Houses shall not exceed one and one -half (1 -1/2)
stories in height and shall not measure more than
twenty -five feet (25') from the top of the
foundation to the highest point of the roof;
E. the gable roof pitch of Houses shall be
six- twelfths (6/12) or greater;
F. Houses shall have attached garages with the
capacity for not less than, and not more than,
two (2) automobiles. The elevation of the garage
floor, as measured on a line running from East to
West at the center of the garage, shall be not
more than two feet (2') above the center line of
West 52nd Street. Garages shall, in all
respects, comply with the ordinances of the City
of Edina;
G. the materials for the exterior of Houses shall be
brick, shakes, lap siding, or a combination of
these materials. The width of exposed shakes and
lap siding shall not exceed twelve inches (12 ")
per row;
H. the North faces of Houses shall be less than one
hundred percent (100 %) glass such that the front
walls of the Houses shall not be all glass.
2. Run with the -Land. The covenants, conditions, and
restrictions of this Declaration shall run with the land and
shall be binding upon the owner or owners of the Lots, their
respective legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns.
3. Enforcement. Enforcement of these covenants,
conditions, and restrictions may be by any record fee owner, or
-2-
contract for deed buyer, of any Lot or any of the parcels of
real property described in Exhibit A attached, and enforcement
shall, be by any proceedings at law or equity against any person
or persons violating or attempting to violate any thereof,
either to restrain such violation or recover damages therefor,
and failure by any person to enforce or seek enforcement of any
provision of this Declaration shall in no event be deemed a
waiver of the right to do so for any subsequent violation. In
any action to enforce any provision of this Declaration, the
losing party or parties shall pay the court costs and the
reasonable attorneys' fees of the prevailing party.
4. Notice. At the time that an application is made
for any building permit with respect to either or both of the
Lots, the owner or owners.of the Lot or Lots for which such
application is made shall provide written notice that an
application has been made for a building permit to the record
fee owner or owners or contract for deed buyers of the seven
(7) parcels of real property described in Exhibit A attached.
Notice shall be deemed to have been given when it is deposited
in the United States mail, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, return receipt requested, and addressed to such
owner or owners or contract for deed buyers.
5. Severabilitv. Invalidation of any of the
provisions herein, or the application of any thereof to any
persons or in any circumstances shall not affect any of the
-3-
other provisions, or the application thereof to any other
person or in any other circumstances, which shall remain in
full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has caused these
presents to be duly executed the date first above written.
Richard W. Steiner
Robert V. Gislason
Patricia C. Gislason
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
this day of 19 by Richard W. Steiner, a
single person, and Robert V.,Gislason and Patricia C. Gislason,
husband and wife.
Notary Public
-4-
EXHIBIT A
The real property located in the County of Hennepin
described as follows:
5128 Juanita Avenue South
Lot 4, Block 4, Glenview Addition
5209 Minnehaha Boulevard
Lot 40, Block 2, South Harriet Park Second
Addition
5200 Halifax Avenue South
Lot 1, Block 2, South Harriet Park Second Addition
5204 Halifax Avenue South
Lot 2, Block 2, South Harriet Park Second Addition
5208 Halifax Avenue South
Lot 3, Block 2, South Harriet Park Second Addition
5137 Juanita Avenue South
Lot 11, Block 3, Glenview Addition
5136 Indianola Avenue South
Lot 10, Block 3, Glenview Addition
LO
I
m
a
C/
Y
at that
certain plat entitled "EDINA OAKS ", platted by Robert A. Ro s and Eleanor B.
Roberts, First Bank Southdale, and Rudy Trones Construc Inc., and
presented at the Regular Meeting of the City Counci March 3, 1986, be
and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval
Motion for adoption of the resolution was s "hided by Member Turner, commenting
that two criteria stated in the Compre ive Plan (e.g. retaining the character
and symetry of the neighborhood an a topography /vegetation of a lot proposed for
subdivision) have been taken ' consideration by the proposed five lot plat.
She added that the draina s a potentially difficult issue and requested that
staff take special c hen the roadway is constructed. No further comments
being heard, May ourtney called for a rollcall vote.
Rollcall:
, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney
FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION. Mr. Larsen presented
the request for final plat approval for the South Harriet Park Steiner Addition,
generally located east of Minnehaha Boulevard and south of West 52nd Street. He
recalled that preliminary approval was granted by the Council on February 3, 1986,
subject to certain restrictions on the property. He said that those restrictions
are being prepared and will be placed on record when the plat.is recorded. Staff
would recommend final plat approval subject to: 1) payment of a subdivision
dedication, 2) an executed developer's agreement, and 3) that no building permits
will be issued until the City has evidence that the restrictions have been recorded
against the plat. No objections being heard, Member Richards introduced the
following resolution and moved its adoption subject to payment of a $3,200.00
subdivision dedication fee, an executed developer's agreement, and that no building
permits be issued until the City has evidence that the restrictions have been
recorded:
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that
certain plat entitled "SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION ", platted by
Richard W. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia G.
Gislason, husband and wife, and presented at the Regular Meeting of the City
Council of March 3, 1986, be and is hereby granted final plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Bredesen.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
the Minnesota Tennants Union and was present to state a complaint aga' n
Edina landlord with regard to improper eviction notices. He sta rther that
they were planning to stage a protest picket at the home of andlord and in
talking with the Police Department has been advised tha c eting in front of
any dwelling in the City is prohibited. Mr. Sterns ed they were prepared
to challange the ordinance as unfair and uncons ' ional and suggested the
Council consider amending the ordinance. Me Richards said he appreciated
hearing Mr. Sterns' viewpoint and had he nothing that would suggest the Council
consider amending the ordinance. He gested that if there has been a violation
of-law that the Union pursue it g the legal remedies available. Member Turner
stated that the ordinance r ing picketing had recently been review concerning
another matter. No fo action was taken.
ONCERN STATED EAMRDING SNOW IN DRIVEWAYS. Victoria Lenander, 3907 Sunnyside
Road, said
plowed
di it
04-"fiad called the Street Department regarding the snow that had been
her driveway and sidewalk, adding that as a senior she found it
get help to shovel it out. She suggested that the plowing be done
MINUTES
F
Answering rollcall were edesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner and Mayor
Courtney.
PIINUTES o cial Meeting of January 25, 1986 were approved as submitted
by m Imber Turner, seconded by Member Kelly.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR LOTS 41 AND 42, BLOCK 2, SOUTH HARRIET PARK 2ND
ADDITION. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered
placed on file. Planner Craig Larsen recalled that the request for preliminary
plat approval for Lots 41 and 42, Block 2, South Harriet Park 2nd Addition,
generally located east of Minnehaha Boulevard and south of W. 52nd Street, had
been continued from the Council Meeting of January 6, 1986 pending agreement
between the proponents and concerned neighbors on certain deed restrictions.
The subject property consists of two, individually developed single dwelling
lots and the owners are proposing a four lot subdivision which would create
two new buildable lots. Mr. Larsen said that since that meeting the neighbors
and staff have gone over a list of restrictions proposed by the neighborhood
group and agreement has been reached on a list of restrictions that would be
imposed on the property by way of a private covenant. A graphic was presented
showing the proposed plat. The new lots would measure 81.5 feet and 80 feet
in width. The proposed restrictions are: 1) dwelling must front on West 52nd
Street, 2) dwellings must be single family, 3) dwellings on Lot 1 and Lot 2
must maintain a 40 -foot rear yard, 4) dwellings must be no greater than
1.5 stories, or 25 feet from the peak to foundation line, 5) roof pitch of
dwellings shall be 6 on 12 or greater, 6) garage floor elevations shall be no
more than 2 feet above elevation at center line of street, 7) siding material
shall be brick, cedar shingles, lap siding, or a combination thereof, 8) each
dwelling shall have no more than a two car garage, and 9) north faces of the
two new dwellings shall be less than 100% glass. Staff would recommend pre -
liminary plat approval with the following conditions: 1) execution of the
private deed restriction, 2) developer's agreement covering the extension of
the watermain to West 52nd Street to serve the properties, and 3) subdivision
dedication. Mr. Larsen advised that Richard Steiner, proponent, and repre-
sentatives of the neighborhood were present to confirm that an agreement had
been reached. No objections being heard, Member Bredesen introduced the
following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to the conditions identified
by staff:
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
FOR SOUTH HARRIET PARK STEINER ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that that
certain plat entitled "South Harriet Park Steiner Addition ", platted by
Richard i.JI. Steiner, a single person, and Robert V. Gislason and Patricia C.
Gislason, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City
Council of February 3, 1986 be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Bredesen, Kelly, Richards, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR 5555 WEST 78TH STREET (HOYT DEVELOPMENT).
Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on
file. Mr. Larsen advised that the subject property, located south of West
78th Street and south of Cahill Road extended, measures approximately 5 acres
in size and is zoned Planned Industrial District, PID. Until recently the
property was developed with a small industrial building. Final plan approval
61041LIN 9 [o
io
, w1wiln,
MINI
94; . 4i` .
r2-
=,tic mu. 4
aw,
. . . . . . . . . . ...
Win
lip a V
t4,Z.
WIN t.
T
ZZ.
K3 a;:
Aq.
alai ' d . w a +: ~ r ^R 3 ae�r SPA +/ X,ll
%act .4
the
maw
awl
All
sail 'Mew
NO I A
op. Mae
:11JI'A"10
M 10 LAW a WMAI 010110 rews
"Fc
a
'ev., Ism
CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Land Surveyors
8110 Eden Road Phone (612)941 -3031 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Certificate ®f �urbep
Survey For Richard Steiner Book Page File C151 -85
5201 Minnehaha Boulevard
Edinal MN 55424
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION LOTS 41 AND 421 BLOCK 2, SOUTH HARRIET PARK 2ND ADDITION
r�
#5201
#5205
BOL�E�
Q
1�1 .
NEST 52ND STREET
. ? 32 - -
/34�c
%r$
76 # z°
� Y
LOT 1 LOT 2
°;z8:: 14. /0g72 A
78 ' w� ±
Ll #5209
Scale: 1" =501,
I `.ral,y a„gfy dwo"h. isas sad earrsd ..p -a Wil.a of a .wvgr of** baaadarlem of Lots 41 and 42. Block 21 South
Harriet Park 2nd Addi inn waasfia Gwtp. MYaassMa oad sf " I - -1 a of all beadisp -1 a. sad all
.Wbh aaasadnasts, If any. fran or as Bald had. Sw my od by aw We •aye N 3cmher / 1f 9
CAKDAMM & AS=MiS, INC.
♦
`
O
LOT 1 LOT 2
°;z8:: 14. /0g72 A
78 ' w� ±
Ll #5209
Scale: 1" =501,
I `.ral,y a„gfy dwo"h. isas sad earrsd ..p -a Wil.a of a .wvgr of** baaadarlem of Lots 41 and 42. Block 21 South
Harriet Park 2nd Addi inn waasfia Gwtp. MYaassMa oad sf " I - -1 a of all beadisp -1 a. sad all
.Wbh aaasadnasts, If any. fran or as Bald had. Sw my od by aw We •aye N 3cmher / 1f 9
CAKDAMM & AS=MiS, INC.
Ever- CASES
398
ARGUED AND DETERMINED
IN THE
425 SUPREME COURT OF MINNESOTA
553
T. JOSEPH OLSEN v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS.
449
449 115 N. W. (2d) 734.
403
out of June 1, 1962 —No. 38,420.
d Bank 80 Zoning—zoning ordinance— denial of permit for authorized use—when
rt5, Re- proper. - - - - - -- -
476 1. nder com rehensive zonin ordinance of city of . inneapoh�
itendent enacted pursuant to Minn St 462.18 city is bound to comply with`
�tetitis, provisions, and_class.ification of property to such ordinance,
581 ub'ect oni to exce tion that if there is evidence that a nuisance wil
Appel- result (, from a commercial use authorized therein, in a particular
86 neig orhood, city may deny application for permit for such use.
'eterson, It may not deny such permit merely because it may disagree with
413 some prior council in its determination that a certain classification
of property under zoning ordinance was justified.
&Life
101 Same —sae— denial of permit for gasoline filling stat1 °° —when arbitrary.
m
135 2. This court has held that a gasoline filline station is not a
nuisance per se, or of a questionable nature in itself, but on the con-
trary is of a useful character and necessity in these days of heavy
automotive traffic.
346 = gee-- same — same - -same.
3. Where claim that gasoline station proposed for plaintiff's prop-
: erty would constitute a nuisance in neighborhood is not raised; and {
where proposed plans and mode of operation planned therefor are
indicative that no nuisance will result from its operation; and where
5
2 263 MINNESOTA REPORTS
other evidence submitted is adequate to support court's finding to
such effect, held such finding must be sustained on appeal.
Evidence that city has approved special permits for a large number
of gas stations within its boundaries, many of which were in near
vicinity of schools, playgrounds, and residences, held indicative that
here city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiffs ap_
plication for special permit because of proximity of plaintiff's property
to school, playground, and residences.
Apps and error — review — findings of trial court,
4. On appeal from district court, this court must consider find-
ings in the light of evidence submitted most favorable to prevailing
Party. Such findings will not be reversed unless manifestly contrary
to evidence. Rule in Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62
N. W. (2d) 363, followed.
Zoning— zoning ordinance— denial of permit for gasoline filling station__
when arbitrary.
5. Testimony of witnesses and evidence submitted at trial con-
sidered and held adequate to support court's finding that construction
and operation of gasoline filling station on property classified for
commercial purposes under comprehensive zoning ordinance would
not result in traffic, fire, or safety hazards.
Sam arne--denial of permit for authorized use—when proper.
6. Classification of propert under comprehensive zonin ordi-
nance must ovem and may not
be restricted except where it is
{shown that nuisance will result from use of ro en rmitted there -
Under. City may not nutiifv and destro • definite and valuable inter- /
gists in real ro ert by arbitrarih' lacin restrictions thereon
seater than those
provided in comprehensive zoning ordinance. Exer-
jcise of >»]tce *ower does not authorize arbttran intermeddlinY by
ctt with nvate ownership of property though its acts be labeled
for yreservation of health, safety or general welfare. - - labeled
- - --
- l
Action in the Hennepin County District Court wherein plaintiff
sought a declaratory judgment that the action of defendant city in
denying his application for a building permit was void. After findings
for plaintiff, Paul J. Jaroscak, Judge, defendant appealed from an
order denying its motion for a new trial and from the judgment
entered. Affirmed.
OLSEN c. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 3
D. J. Shama, Acting City Attorney, and Paul T. Aitken, Assistant
City Attorney, for appellant.
Josiah E. Brill, Jr., and Brill & Brill, for respondent.
THOMAS GALLAGHER, JUSTICE.
Action by T. Joseph Olsen to compel the city of Minneapolis to
grant his application for a permit for the erection and maintenance
of a gasoline filling station on his property on the southwest corner
of 58th Street and Penn Avenue South in Minneapolis.
The court made findings and ordered judgment in effect requiring
the city to grant the application described. Defendant's subsequent
motion for amended findings or, in the alternative, for a new trial
was denied. This appeal by the city is from the judgment entered
and from the order denying defendant's motion for amended findings
or a new trial.
The city contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the
trial court's finding that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously
in denying plaintiffs application; and that it had thereby deprived
Plaintiff of property and property rights without due process; and
that the court was without jurisdiction to enjoin defendant from in-
terfering with plaintiffs erection of the gasoline filling station on the
plans and specifications approved by the building inspector of the city,
and from interfering with the use thereof by plaintiff and his assignees,
in the operation of such gasoline filling station. In substance, it contends
that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the council had
acted reasonably in denying plaintiff's application for the permit in
that such evidence clearly indicated that traffic hazards, fire hazards,
blight, devaluation of property, hazards to children, and detriment
to the general health, safety, and welfare would result from the oper-
ation of a gasoline filling station on this property. With respect
to such issues, the trial court found as follows:
"That ever since the 7th day of April, 1924, there has been in
force and in effect in the City of Minneapolis a comprehensive zoning
ordinance by virtue of which the property of the plaintiff herein -
before described was classified and zoned within the `commercial'
4 263 MIN\ESOTA REPORTS
district, which classification permits the erection and operation of
a gasoline filling station, in addition to many other commercial uses.
"That shortly prior to the commencement of this action, plaintiff
had prepared complete plans and specifications for the erection of
such a building for the purpose of engaging in the retail gasoline
fillin; station business. That he submitted the same to the Building
Inspector of the City of Minneapolis, a person duly authorized by law
to determine whether or not such plans and specifications complied
with the building ordinances of said City, and on the 14th day of
January, 1960. the said Building Inspector, through one of his duly
authorized representatives, approved said plans and specifications but
refused to issue a permit for the erection of said building unless and
until the City Council of the City of Minneapolis granted a Special
Council Permit therefor required by the ordinances aforesaid.
"That at or about the same time, the plaintiff submitted said plans
and specifications to the Fire Marshal of the State of Minnesota for
approval pursuant to State statutes governing such matters and the
same was duly approved by.said Fire Marshal.
"That at or about the same time, said plans and specifications
were duly submitted by the plaintiff, pursuant to ordinance. to the
Minneapolis Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau. and the same
were duly approved.
"That at or about the same time said plans and specifications were
submitted by the plaintiff. pursuant to ordinance, to the department
of the City Engineer of the City of Minneapolis and the same was
duly approved with respect to the matters of traffic and sidewalks.
"That said plans and specifications comply in all respects with all
statutory and ordinance provisions applicable to such matters.
s a • s t
"That, at the time plaintiff made application for a Special Council
Permit, the manner of delivery and storage of inflammable liquids,
including gasoline and oil, was fully regulated by the Statutes of the
State of Minnesota and under such statutes by the order of the Fire
Marshal, and his determination that the plans and specifications of
the plaintiff complied with statutory requirements is conclusive be-
tween these parties on the question of possible fire hazard.
OLSEN v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 5
"That under circumstances substantially the same as those under
which plaintiffs application was denied, the City Council of the City
of Minneapolis has heretofore granted a great many Special Council
Permits for the erection and operation of gasoline filling stations
in the City of Minneapolis; there had been arbitrary and capricious
discrimination between plaintiff and other applicants to whom such
permits were granted, thereby denying plaintiff equal protection under
the law'as required by the State and Federal Constitutions.
"That many, if not all, of the commercial uses (other than gas-
oline filling stations) that are permitted under the zoning ordinance
would create problems more serious with respect to traffic than those
problems, if any, which would exist if a gasoline filling station is
permitted at this location. * * *
"That the erection of a gasoline filling station on the premises here-
in involved would increase the traffic to a negligible degree * * *
and * * * any such increase would be less than the increased traffic
brought about by many other types of commercial uses authorized
under the zoning law; ' * *.
"That the use of said premises for a gasoline filling station would
not materially increase the hazard to school children or to pedestrians,
nor to vehicles or to persons in vehicles.
"That the erection and operation of a gasoline filling station of the
type set forth in plaintiff's application for a Special Council Permit
and as described by the testimony of witnesses in this action will
not constitute a nuisance.
"That the effect on the market value of adjoining property resulting
from the erection of a gasoline filling station on the premises herein
involved would be of a very minimum character * * * no more
than should justly be expected by one erecting a residence in a
commercial district or immediately adjacent thereto.
"That the denial of said application by the City Council * ' * was
arbitrary, unreasonable, invalid and in violation of the plaintiffs con-
stitutional rights for the following reasons:
• • s • •
"(b) That the use of said land for such purpose would not be
6 263XINNESOTA REPORTS
harmful to the health, morals, safety or public welfare of the com-
munity;
"(c) That it would not constitute a fire hazard or a traffic hazard
to have said land used for such purpose;
"(d) That in actual practice the said City Council • * • has • '
over a period of years granted Special Council Permits for the
erection and operation of retail gasoline filling stations in the City of
Minneapolis under circumstances substantially the same as the cir-
cumstances under which the plaintiff's application for such a permit
was denied;
"(e) Th4t the denial of said petition deprives paintiff of _his con-
stitutional rights contrary to Section 7 of Article 1 and Section 13
of said Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America:
"(f) That the denial of said petition takes plaintiff's property with-
out just compensation first paid or secured, contrary to Article 1,
Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota."
In its conclusions, the court determined:
"That the action of the City Council of the City of Minneapolis in
denying plaintiff's application ' * was unreasonable, capncious.
confiscatory. arbitrary and void.
'°That the action denied plaintiff dual protection under the
law in violation of the constitutional provisions of both the State
of Minnesotai and the United States."
The court thereupon ordered that:
"The d:fendant, its agents and officers be enjoined from interfer-
ring with the erection by the plaintiff of the improvements set forth
in the plans and specifications approved by the Building Inspector of
the City of Minneapolis and from interferring with the use. and
occupancy thereof, either by plaintiff, his tenants, assignees, or
transferees, when erected for the purpose of engaging in the operation
of a retail easoline filling station."
1. It is undisputed that under the comprehensive zoning ordinance
OLSEN c. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
of Minneapolis, upheld by this court in State ex rel. Beery v. Houghton,
164 Minn. 146, 204 N. W. 569, 54 A. L. R. 1012, plaintiff's property
is presently zoned for commercial purposes. The original zoning or-
dinance was enacted under and pursuant to L. 1921, c. 217, 3 1, as
amended by L. 1923, c. 364, ; 1. The present statute, Minn. St.
462.18, provides:
"For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, order, con-
venience, prosperity and general welfare, any city of the first class
in the state acting by and through its governing body, may by or-
dinance regulate the location, size, and use of buildings, the height
of buildings, the arrangement of buildings on lots, and the density
of population therein, may make different regulations for different
districts thereof, and may acquire or prepare and adopt a compr°-
hensive city plan for such city or any portion thereof for the future
physical development and improvement of the city, in accordance
with the regulations made as aforesaid, and may thereafter alter the
regulations or plan, such alterations, however, to be made only after
there shall be filed in the office of the city clerk a written consent
of the owners of two- thirds of the several descriptions of real estate
situate within 100 feet of the real estate affected,' and after the
affirmative vote in favor thereof by a majority of the members of
the governing body of such city * * *
Under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of defendant, Minne-
apolis City Charter and Ordinances ( Perm. ed.) 1:31. all property
within the city is classified as to location, size, use, and height of
buildings, their arrangement on lots, and density of population. This
ordinance was amended March 12, 1929, to include property within
the boundaries of Richfield annexed by the city in 1927, wherein
plaintiff's property is located. Plaintiffs property is thereby clas-
sified for commercial use.
Section 5 of the zoning ordinance provides as follows:
"In the Commercial District all buildings and premises, except as
'See, State ex rel. Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 255 Minn. 249, 97
N. W. (2d) 273.
8 263 MINNESOTA REPORTS
otherwise provided in this ordinance, may be used for any use per-
mitted in the Multiple Dwelling District or for any other use except Th
the following: [listing 32 exclusions]." wo
Gasoline filling stations are not listed within the exclusions. However, in€
after enactment of the zoning ordinance in 1924, the defendant's ab:
city council adopted an ordinance, Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, ter
220.010, commonly called the Special Permit Ordinance, which W,
provides in part: Cc
"No person shall hereafter build, re -build, enlarge, alter, place, 90
keep, use or maintain, within the City, any structure or premises
for any of the following described occupations, industries or uses, du
unless such person shall have first obtained permission from the City an
Council so to do: Pe
s s s • • he
"Gasoline filling stations ' ' '."
It was under this latter ordinance that the city council acted here
in denying plaintiffs application for permit to build and maintain the
gasoline filling station on his property at 58th Street and Penn
Avenue South zoned for commercial use.
If the basis of the council's denial of plaintiffs application was
that a gasoline filling station at this location would constitute a nui-
sance, there would have to be a finding to this effect. In deciding
this question, the council does not have authority to deny a special
permit merely because it may disagree with some preceding council
in its determination that classification of plaintiffs property under
a zoning ordinance for commercial purposes was justified. The council
as now constituted is bound by the comprehensive zoning classifi-
cation, subject only to the exception that, if there is evidence that
a nuisance will result from a commercial use in a particular neigh-
borhood, in its discretion it may deny an application for special per-
mit to conduct a business which would constitute a nuisance there.
2. On this question, it is of some significance to note that this
court has held that the operation of a gasoline filling station does
not of itself constitute a nuisance. Thus, in Crescent Oil Co. v. City
of Minneapolis, 175 Minn. 276, 278, 221 N. W. 6, 7, it was stated:
OLSEN v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 9
per- "* * * Filling stations are a necessity in modern motor traffic.
:cept The keeping of an oil supply upon the premises of auto users
would be an intolerable source of inconvenience and of daneer. Fill -
°ver, ing stations are usually well kept. They are not resorts for objection -
ant's able people. They are not loafing places. They are not of the charac-
aces ter of many lines of business which easily tend to become nuisances."
hich We again stated in a subsequent appeal in this case, Crescent Oil
Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 177 Minn. 539, 540, 225 N. W. 904,
'ace, 905:
uses "The trial court correctly held ' * that the business of con -
Ises, ducting a gasolene filling station was not of a questionable nature
City and was not apt to become a nuisance; was neither hurtful nor
pernicious but of a useful character and a necessity in these days of
heavy motor traffic."
3. Whether the gasoline filling station here proposed would con -
aere stitute a nuisance in the neighborhood described does not appear
the to be an issue in the present proceedings. The point is not argued
'enn in the city's brief nor was it urged during the trial of the case.
Counsel for defendant stated in open court that "there's no claim
was there's any nuisance here." Plans and specifications indicate that every
aui- effort has been made to make the station attractive and to shut it
ling off from adjoining property. Its hours of operation will be limited,
vial minimum lighting extending directly only to the perimeter of the prem-
ncil ises will be installed, and offensive odors will be eliminated through
der modern equipment. No heavy repair work will be permitted on auto-
'161 mobiles, and no used or new tires will be stored outside the station.
Under these circumstances the court was justified in finding that
hat the erection and operation of the station "will not constitute a nui-
gh- sance" and that other commercial uses authorized under the zoning
er- ordinance, without special permit, would be more oppressive and create
,re. greater inconveniences and hazards in the neighborhood. Further, it
his seems unlikely that the city could validly advance the "nuisance"
yes claim in view of the fact that it has approximately 2,000 filling stations
;ity within its boundaries, many of which admittedly are in close proximity
;d; to schools, playgrounds, and residential structures.
10 263 MINNESOTA REPORTS
4. Regarding fire, traffic, health, and safety hazards, which the
city contended would follow if the permit were granted, it appears
quite definitely that the city's claims were not established. The ap-
plicable rule here does not differ from that as to findings of fact
of a district court in other types of litigation. It is expressed in Kiges
v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 539, 62 N. W. (2d) 363, 374, as
follows:
"While this court must search the record to ascertain whether any
erroneous rules of law have been applied and act accordingly, it
must on appeal consider the testimony in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party. When an action is tried by a court without
a jury, its findings of fact are entitled to the same weight as the
verdict of a jury and will not be reversed on appeal unless they
are manifestly contrary to the evidence, and such rule applies whether
the appeal is from a judgment or from an order granting or denying
a new trial. Lipinski v. Lipinski, 227 Minn. 511, 35 N. W. (2d) 708."
See, also, Gunderson v. Anderson, 190 Minn. 245, 251 N. W. 515.
5. At the trial the testimony of expert witnesses and other evi-
dence was submitted with respect to the issues described. We have
carefully examined all of such evidence and conclude that therein
the trial court's findings have adequate support. Mr. Alfred C.
Godward, a civil engineer with experience in the field of land
development and planning, who had served defendant city in various
capacities including that of park engineer. planning engineer, traffic
engineer, engineer of the Board of Estimate and Taxation, and con-
sulting engineer to the Minneapolis Housing Authority, and who bad
been active in behalf of the enactment of the original comprehensive
zoning ordinance here involved, testified that the operation of a filling
station at the proposed site would not interfere with traffic to any
great extent if approximately 120 cars were to be serviced there each
day; that with present -day equipment and methods of operation
fire hazards have been almost completely eliminated; that the glare
from station lighting has been eliminated by modern lighting fixtures;
that access to and from gasoline stations has been so regulated by
city ordinance that traffic hazards have been reduced to a minimum;
OLSEN v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 1
that today gasoline stations constitute one of the very acceptable uses
for property zoned as commercial; and that a gasoline station would
not interfere with traffic to as great an extent as would many other com-
mercial uses for which no permit would be required.
With respect to other claimed hazards, the evidence established that
the specifications for plaintiff's gasoline station had been approved
by the state fire marshal under Minn. St. 73.171 and that the fire
prevention bureau of defendant city had approved them as a pre-
requisite for the special permit. Sergeant Gerald E. Willar, a member
of the Minneapolis Police Department, called by the city, testified that
any interference with traffic from a gasoline station such as here pro-
posed would be hardly noticeable and in any event negligible. With
reference to school hazards (Armatage School is approximately 400
feet from the proposed gasoline station), Sergeant Walter Helin of the
Minneapolis Police Department testified that he has been with the
department for 20 years and that for the past 12 years he has been
in charge of school safety patrols for the city and during all that time
he had never known or heard of a child being injured because of traf-
fic around a gasoline filling station.
6. The trial court's findings, amply supported by the evidence de-
scribed, make it clear that the city had no sound basis for circum-
venting the uses and classifications of property prescribed :•.nd
authorized under the comprehensive zoning ordinance. The ordinance
must govern except where it is shown by competent and reliable
evidence that because of special circumstances a nuisance %%A] result
from the use of property in a certain location in the manner other-
wise authorized. But--h- it seems obvious that the 6tv's "underlying
,1110tive in deny nz plaintiff the permit was its conclusion that th-
i operation of a gasoline filling station in the location described would
violate the "nei ^_hborhood c it sought to insure Th • V
determination of plaintiff's rights on such a basis cannot be permitted
It US settled that purely aesthetic considerations do not form a sound
basis for nullifying or destroying definite or valuable in in prop
e without compensation therefor to the owner. State ex rel. Lacht-
man v. Houghton, 134 Minn. 226, 158 N. W. -1017, L. R. A. 1917F,
1050; Jefferson County v. Timmel, 261 Wis. 39, 51 N. W. (2d)
12 263 MINNESOTA REPORTS
518; Sic-el v. Adams (Fla.) 44 So. (2d) 427. One who has
acquired property zoned for p3rticulsr purposes under a comprehen-
sive zoning- ordinance should be entitled to rely thereon as against
the arbitrary enactment of amendments thereto which result in the
diminution in value or the restriction of his rights and interests in
such property. State ex rel. Foster v. City of Minneapolis, 255 Minn.
249, 97 N. W. (2d) 273: State, by Lord, v. Pahl, 254 Minn. 349,
95 N. W. (2d) 85; Binder v. Village of Golden Valley, 260 Minn. 418,
110 N. R'. (2d) 306; Phipps v. City of Chicago, 339 Ill. 315, 171
N. E. 289; Western Theological Seminary v. City of Evanston,
325 Ill. 511, 156 N. E. 778; Id. 331 I11. 257, 162 N. E. 863; Evanns
v. Gunn, 177 Misc. 85, 29 N. Y. S. (2d) 368, affirmed, 262 App. Div.
865. 29 N. Y. S. (2d) 150: Matter of Dubow v. Ross, 175 Misc. 219,
22 N. Y. S. (2d) 610; Matter of Pelham View Apts. v. Switzer. 130
Misc. 545, 224 N. Y. S. 56; City of Coldwater v. Williams Oil Co.
288 Mich. 140, 284 N. W. 675; Sandenburgh v. Michigamme Oil Co.
249 Mich. 372. 228 N. W. 707; Vine v. Zabriskie, 122 N. J. L.
4. 3 A. (2d) 886; Clifton Hills Realty Co. v. City of Cincinnati. 60
Ohio App. 443, 21 N. E. (2d) 993; State ex rel. Schroedel v. Pagels,
257 Wis. 376, 43 N. NN'. (2d) 349: Rosenberg v. Village of Arhitefish
Bay, 199 Wis. 214. 225 N. W. 838; Wasilewski v. Biedrzycki. 180
Wis. 633. 192 N. W'. 989. While it is true that a number of courts have
held that the issuance of a permit to erect a structure for a permitted
use under a zoning ordinance does not create a vested right that
cannot be cut off by subsequent amendment, Matter of Fox Lane Corp.
v. Mann, 216 App. Div. 813, 215 N. Y. S. 334; Brett v. Building-
Commr. 250 Mass. 73, 145 N. E. 269: City of Lansing v. Dawley,
247 Mich. 394, 225 N. W. 500, we feel that in justice the better
rule is to give full accord to the rights of property owners based
upon interests therein arising out of comprehensive zoning ordinances.2
=1n Ki_es v. Cite of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N. W. (2d) 363, in-
volving a comprehensive zoning- ordinance which included plaintiff's prop -
erty. it was held that a building permit issued to plaintiff prior to passage
of an ordinance rezoning his property did not create any vested rights
where be had not commenced excavation under the permit until 51,1
months after its issuance, and where the building code ordinance provided
OLSEti c. CITY OF MINNrEAPOLIS
13
In conclusion the court's language in White's Appeal, 287 Pa.
259, 266, 134 A. 409, 412, 53 A. L. R. 1215, seems particularly ap-
plicable here. There it was stated:
the power to * * regulate does not extend to an arbi-
trary, unnecessary or unreasonable intermeddling with the private
ownership of property, even though such acts be labeled for the pres-
ervation of health, safety and general welfare The exercise must
have a substantial relation to the public good within the spheres
held proper. It must not be from an arbitrary desire to resist the
natural operation of economic laws or for purely aesthetic consider-
ations: * * *."
Based upon the foregoing principles and under the facts outlined.
it must follow that the trial court's determination finds adequate sup-
port and that accordingly the order and judgment appealed from must
be affirmed.
Affirmed.
that the permit would expire if no work had been done above the founda-
tion within 3 months. Whether plaintiff had vested rights under prior com-
prehensive zoning ordinance was not determined. Later in State ex rel.
Berndt v. Iten. 259 Minn. 77, 106 N. W. (2d) 366, this court recognized
the principle that under certain circumstances vested rights may be ac-
quired as a result of existing zoning ordinances, citing 58 Am. Jur., Zon-
ing, § 182; Huff v. City of Des Moines, 244 Iowa 89, 56 N. W. (2d)
54; David A. Ulrich, Inc. v. Town of Saukville, 7 Wis. (2d) 173, 96 N. W.
(2d) 612. In State ex rel. Howard v. Village of Roseville, 244 Minn. 343,
70 N. W. (2d) 404, on the issue of financial loss arising from zoning
ordinance where owner had acquired property alter zoning ordinance had
gone into effect, it was held that he was presumed to have acquired it
with full knowledge of such ordinance. In State ex rel. Foster v. City of
Minneapolis, 255 Minn. 249, 97 N. W. (2d) 273, this court cited Leighton
v City of Minneapolis (D. Minn.) 16 F. Supp. 101, wherein, with reference
to Minneapolis Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Federal District
Court had stated (255 Minn. 253, 97 N. W. [2d] 276): "* * * When
zones are established, citizens buy and improve property relying on the
restrictions provided by law. They have a right to the permanency and
security that the law should afford."
&Ioz'2-�
-eae __ 21_�Iio
STATE ER REL. FOSTER v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS 249
disposition of this case does not come within any of the three situations
provided by § 278.07.
It is ordered that the clerk's disallowance of costs and disbursements
be and is hereby affirmed.
STATE EX REL. MELVILLE FOSTER AND ANOTHER v.
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND ANOTHER.
97 N. W. (2d) 273.
May 1, 1959 —No. 37,609.
Zoning— zoning ordinances -- validity of provision for rezoning.
1 -2. Provision in M. S. A. 462.18 that after adoption of com-
prehensive zoning ordinance governing body of municipality may
subsequently rezone property included therein but only after written
consent of owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of property
situate within 100 feet of the real estate to be rezoned, held invalid
in so far as it authorizes city council to adopt ordinance rezoning
relators' premises from "commercial" to "residential" classification.
Case distinguished.
3. Leighton v. City of Minneapolis (D. Minn.) 16 F. Supp. 101,
distinguished and applied.
Zoning— zoning ordinances — validity of provision for rezoning.
4. Statute or ordinance which confers power on some property
owners to control the property rights of others and which grants no
standard by which such power is to be exercised is invalid.
Mandamus in the Hennepin County District Court to compel Donald
Erickson, building inspector of the city of Minneapolis, to issue a
building permit for a proposed office building to relators, Melville Foster
and Mary B. Foster. The court, William C. Larson, Judge, found that
the petition should be dismissed and the alternative writ quashed, and
relators appealed from the judgment entered. Reversed and remanded.
Brill & Brill, for appellants.
Charles A. Sawyer, City Attorney, and D. J. Shama, Assistant City
Attorney, for respondents.
�GVv
252 255 MINNESOTA REPORTS
respect to the matter in hand.
• + • • •
"There are elements in the case which suggest that the action of the
Council was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. The
property had been zoned for many years as `Commercial.' No attempt
to build on the property has ever been made aside from the present
proposed project of the relators. It is triangular in shape and is sur-
rounded on all sides by highways. There is other commercial property
of a very substantial nature nearby and there are indications that there
will be further commercial development of a substantial nature in the
immediate vicinity in the very near future. • • • It seems fair to say
that the property has no substantial value for residential purposes and
that it is very unlikely it will ever be utilized for this purpose because of
its somewhat unusual physical lay -out and its immediate proximity to
traffic on all sides, • • •."
This is an appeal by relators from the judgment subsequently entered
in accordance with the trial court's determination.
1. We are of the opinion that the consent clause of § 462.18, as a
prerequisite to the exercise of the city council's legislative authority to
amend the comprehensive zoning ordinance, constitutes an unlawful
delegation of power to impose restrictions on real property, and renders
this_provision_-of the statute_ invalid. It is well settled that —
a municipa
corporation may not condition restricted uses of property upon the
:corporation nsent of private individuals such as the owners of adjoining property;
and that It is an unreasonable exercise of police power to rest control of J
property uses in the hands of the owners of other property. Matter of
Concordia Collegiate Inst. v. Miller, 301 N. Y. 189; 93 N. E. (2d) 632,
21 A. L. R. (2d) 544.
As stated in 37 Am. Jur., Municipal Corporations, § 162:
"• • • W_ here an ordinance • • • attempts to confer power on some
property holders virtually to control and dispose of the property rights
of others. and creates no standard by which the power thus given is to
be exercised. so that the property holders who desire and have the
authority to establish the regulations may do so solely for their overt
interests, or even capriciously. constitutional limits have been violated.
STATE E% REL. FOSTER V. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
253
The consent provision is an unlawful delegation of legislative
authority and discretion, with no rule or standard to guide those whose j
decision will control."
2. In the instant case the consent clause in § 462.18 does not
merely set in force an authorized power delegated to the council but in
substance grants to adjoining owners the right to empower the council
to act to impose property restrictions where otherwise it would have no
such authority. As such, it is in contravention of U. S. Const. Amend.
XIV. Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U. S.
116, 49 S. Ct. 50, 73 L. ed. 210; Eubank v. City of Richmond, 226
U. S. 137, 33 S. Ct. 76, 57 L. ed. 156; Matter of Concordia Collegiate
Inst. v. Miller, 301 N. Y. 189, 93 N. E. (2d) 632, 21 A. L. R. (2d)
544.
3. Respondent relies upon Leighton v. City of Minneapolis (D.
Minn.) 16 F. Supp. 101. There, plaintiff was denied a permit to erect
a commercial building under the comprehensive zoning ordinance here
involved because her property had been classified as "multiple dwelling"
thereunder and she had failed to obtain the necessary consent of two-
thirds of the several descriptions of real property situate within 100
feet of her premises to enlarge such classification by changing it to
"commercial." But here relators were denied a permit to erect a
commercial building upon premises which at the time of their purchase
were zoned "commercial" because two-thirds of the adjacent property
owners had instituted proceedings to empower the city council to
rezone relators' property from "commercial" to "residential." Certainly
a purchaser of real property is entitled to place some reliance upon
zoning ordinances which have classified the property being purchased.
As stated in Leighton v. City of Minneapolis (16 F. Supp. 106) :
"' ' ' When zones are established, citizens buy and improve property
relying on the restncUons provided b law. The have a ri t to the_
permanency and security that the law should afford."
4. The injustice of the situation under the attempted rezoning of
relators' property here is evidenced by the fact that application of the
rezoning ordinance has divested relators' property of all substantial value
without compensation to relators. All this is brought about at the
1�
A
<j. CONSENT IV.C.1.
LOCATION
MAP
LOT DIVISION
NUMBER LD -90 -3
L O C A T 10 N 7032 Wexford Road
7028 and 7100 Down Road
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
i
//
DRAFT OF MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON MARCH 28, 1990.
LD -90 -3 7032 Wexford Road and
7028 and 7100 Down Road
Dave Rovick, Lee Chapman and James Harman
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject proposal would split off the rear
portion of 7028 Down Road and divide the property between the owners of 7032
Wexford Road and 7100 Down Road. Parcel A would be attached to 7032 Wexford and
Parcel B would be attached to 7100 Down Road.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends approval. This is a division we have been
working to accomplish for some time. It will prevent an attempt to subdivide
.the rear portion of 7028 for a new homesite. We would, however, recommend a
conservation easement covering parcel A and B. The easement would prevent
building on the parcels without Council approval.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend approval subject to the conservation
easement covering parcels A and B. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
In
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 28, 1990
LD -90 -3 7032 Wexford Road and
7028 and 7100 Down Road
Dave Rovick, Lee Chapman and James Harman
The subject proposal would split off the rear portion of 7028 Down Road and
divide the property between the owners of 7032 Wexford Road and 7100 Down Road.
Parcel A would be attached to 7032 Wexford and Parcel B would be attached to
7100 Down Road.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval. This is a division we have been working to
accomplish for some time. It will prevent an attempt to subdivide the rear
portion of 7028 for a new homesite. We would, however, recommend a conservation
easement covering parcel A and B. The .easement would prevent building on the
parcels without Council approval.
1 ronls have not Set 1:0 cstsb t I sll
property line It as shown. Building
locations are per information
providtxl by client. Rlcroarhments, it
any. iro- not shown.
L. V
L�
S
VT
Lc+ is
I O
m
I I
ad
� 0 /
t
8S •76
L_ Val
r j
W 1. L—J
U
cc
Q
a
'fbZ.B"i ---- - - - - --
IV
lop i -1 /1 /p 1
- ,Lr),L
0
T
SEW
Car. tot 131
1
�.
I
I
r-
N
N
I
I
nA
A.
ol*FAIN r [•l k, M ;,, I.\
Li
FAIRVI
®� HO DA
t i k.
0,11m01\'I&VAre
JINA PLANNING DFPAP
,I
DRAFT OF MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 28, 1990
LD -90 -4 6124 and 6128 Ewing Avenue South
The estate of R. Englehardt and Tom Prin.
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the proposed lot division would transfer the
southerly five feet of 6124 Ewing Avenue to 6128 Ewing Avenue. The transfer
would allow for a conforming setback for the garage on 6128 Ewing Avenue. Both
lots would then conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Larsen concluded staff recommends - approval.
Commissioner Hale moved to recommend lot division approval. Commissioner L.
Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 28, 1990
LD -90 -4 6124 and 6128 Ewing Avenue South
The estate of R. Englehardt and Tom Prin.
The proposed lot division would transfer the southerly five feet of 6124 Ewing
Avenue to 6128 Ewing Avenue. The transfer would allow for a conforming setback
for the garage on 6128 Ewing Avenue. Both lots would then conform to Zoning
Ordinance requirements.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval.
AND ASSOCIATES ENG'RS. a
CERTIFICAT
ao .
SOT
WE 9-7590 MIN
% (7-6
25'
24
l
27
121.22" N'
- . -40 - --
� z
!t1
3
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation
of a surrey of the boundaries of Lot 1, Block 1, Farmer's Second
Addition, sennepin County, Minnesota and of the location of all
buildings, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this
lot day of J1ily 1959 �`• -�
A 4 1 .A-Wly
i
r
�iUi� �i�'v1,7 II'.J�E�.ril^.'R
VlLLA E OF EDINA
Scale
x,,_20`
.G
ATE RM NO 566
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate
parcels:
Lot 3, Block 1, ENGLEHARDT'S ADDITION, and
Lot 1, Block 1, FARMER'S SECOND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the owners of the above tracts of land desire to subdivide said tracts
into the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "Parcels "):
Lot 3, Block 1, ENGLEHARDT'S ADDITION, except the south 5 feet, and
Lot 1, Block 1, FARMER'S SECOND ADDITION, and the south 5 feet of Lot 3,
Block 1, ENGLEHARDT'S ADDITION; and
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 Ordinances
Nos. 804 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. 804 and
Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof
as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any
other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further
subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent
ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may
be provided for by those ordinances.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1990.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA)
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned and duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina,
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct
copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular
Meeting of April 2, 1990 and as recorded in said Regular Meeting.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate
parcels:
Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS, and
Lot 2, Block 1, GRIFFITH ADDITION, and
Lot 1, Block 1, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the owners of the above tracts of land desire to subdivide said tracts
into the following described new and separate parcels (herein called "Parcels "):
Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS, except that part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS lying
southeasterly of a line running from a point in the easterly line of Wexford
Road distant 67.26 feet southerly measured along said easterly line, from the
southwesterly corner of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HILLS, to a point in,.the
northeasterly line of said Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly, measured
along said northeasterly line, from the southeasterly corner of said Lot 13
and lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the above described line
distant 97.08 feet northeasterly along said line from the easterly line of
Wexford Road to a point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81 feet
easterly along said south line from the most westerly corner of said Lot 12.
Subject to easements of record, if any; and
Lot 2, Block 1, GRIFFITH ADDITION, and that part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS
lying southeasterly of a line running from a point in the easterly line of
Wexford Road distant 67.26 feet southerly measured.along said easterly line,
from the southwesterly corner of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HILLS, to a point in
the northeasterly line of said Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly,
measured along said northeasterly line, from the southeasterly corner of said
Lot 13 and lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the above described
line distant 97.08 feet northeasterly along said line from the easterly line
of Wexford Road to a point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81
feet easterly along said south line from the most westerly corner of said Lot
12. Except the east 54.03 feet as measured at right angles to the east line
thereof. Subject to easements of record, if any; and
Lot 1, Block 1, SCHEY'S PARK VIEW 2ND ADDITION, and the east 54.03 feet, as
measured at right angles to the east line, of the following described
property: That part of Lot 12, PROSPECT HILLS lying southeasterly of a line
running from a point in the easterly line of Wexford Road distant 67.26 feet
southerly, measured along said easterly line, from the southwesterly corner
of Lot 13 said PROSPECT HILLS, to a point in the northeasterly line of said
Lot 13, distant 50.00 feet northwesterly, measured along said northeasterly
line, from the southeasterly corner of said Lot 13 and lying westerly of a
line drawn from a point on the above described line distant 97.08 feet
northeasterly along said line from the easterly line of Wexford Road to a
point on the south line of said Lot 12 distant 139.81 feet easterly along
said south line from the most westerly corner of said Lot 12. Subject to
easements of record, if any.
Resolution - Lot Division
Page 2
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 Ordinances
Nos. 804 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. 804 and
Ordinance No. 825 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof
as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any
other provision thereof, and subject, however, to the provision that no further
subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent
ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may
be provided for by those ordinances.
ADOPTED this 2nd day of April, 1990.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA)
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned and duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina,
do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct
copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular
Meeting of April 2, 1990 and as recorded in said Regular Meeting.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
.4�
4 91N A.
�. Cn
0
• • � ~�bRVOW���p/
lees
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Rosland
From: Philip S. Dommer
Date: April 2, 1990
Subject: Appeal of a decision by
the Edina Board of Appeals
to deny 1.5 foot sideyar
setback variances in cas
B -90 -9
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
1V.
D.
Consent
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
To Council
Action
0
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Refer to attached minutes and staff report.
Info /Background:
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments met on March 15, 1990, to review the subject
variance. Four members of the Board were present at the hearing. Action on the
request by the Board resulted in a tie vote. The proponent was given the option
of tabling the request, but chose instead to have the item stand as a denial so
that this appeal could be made.
Since the hearing the proponent has checked with designers who believe that a
second floor cannot structurally be added to the dwelling at the required set-
back because there are no load bearing walls to carry the addition. Single
story additions are also not possible since the home is at the maximum 25%
lot coverage limit.
MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
HELD ON THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 1990 AT 5:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Helen McClelland, Len Olson,
Mike Lewis and Geof Workinger
STAFF PRESENT: Philip Dommer, Senior Planner
Joyce Repya, Associate Planner
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
January 18, 1990
Mr. Lewis moved for approval of the January 18, 1990 Board of Appeals and
Adjustments Meeting Minutes. Mrs. McClelland seconded the motion. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
B -90 -9 Star Marie Anderson- Atwater
4420 Vandervork Avenue
Zoning: R -1
Request: A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the north and a 1.5 foot
sideyard setback variance to the south to create second floor
living space.
Mrs. McClelland excused herself from the meeting.
Mr. Dommer told the Board the subject property is separated on the north and
south sides by a sideyard setback of five feet. Each of the dwellings on those
properties are one story dwellings. They are of similar size and layout.
Mr. Dommer explained the homeowners desire to increase the living space by
adding a second floor to the dwelling. It would create an additional 1116 square
feet.
Mr. Dommer'pointed out the Edina Zoning Ordinance requires that the sideyard
setback would increase by six inches, for every foot above fifteen feet that the
height increases. An additional 1.5 foot sideyard setback is needed in order to
build the proposed addition.
Mr. Dommer told the Board the properties of 4432 and 4436 have second story
construction similar to the proposed. However, they are neighbors and are
similar in appearance.
Mr. Dommer concluded Staff recommends that the variance not be granted.
The properties on both sides of the subject property are single story dwellings.
The home at 4428 Vandervork in particular will be negatively impacted since it
will be between two 2 story homes.
Staff believes that an addition to the home is appropriate, but would recommend
it meet the setback requirement to reduce the impact.
Ms. Anderson - Atwater, and her brother Mr. Anderson who is a builder were
present.
Mr. Dommer suggested that it may be possible to realize an addition by notching
the addition in 1 1/2 feet on each side. Mr. Dommer submitted a photo showing a
home in the block where the second story was set in 1 1/2 feet on each side.
Mr. Anderson told the Board the reason for the setback is due to a problem
created by having to construct the addition on the bearing or supporting walls.
He explained that if the addition were constructed off the bearing walls, as
suggested, it would eventually cave in. He added he considered the the option
recommended by staff but in that house in would not work.
Mr. L. Olson asked Ms. Anderson - Atwater if she researched constructing an
addition off the rear of her house. Ms. Anderson - Atwater explained to Mr. Olson
and the Board that she did consider constructing the addition in the rear of her
property, but in researching this possibility found that the City did not wish
to sell it's land to her. She pointed out she has no choice but to construct up
because her property backs up to city property. Mr. Workinger asked Ms.
Anderson - Atwater if she had retained other developer's or architect's to design
the addition, and if so, did any propose a different solution. Ms.
Anderson - Atwater said that she retained three different architectural firms and
all of them indicated the best way to expand the property is the way it is
presented to them this evening.
A discussion ensued with Mr. Workinger and Mr. Lewis indicating they could not
support the granting of the variance because a precedent.would be set. They
also noted construction could negatively impact one.neighbor. Mr. Lewis
suggested tabling the meeting allowing for time for redesign. Ms.
Anderson - Atwater repeated that she has already had three firms look into this
problem and all have come to the same conclusion, if she cannot buy more land
the addition will have to go up, or else she will have to request a variance for
lot coverage for a single story addition to the rear. Mr. G. Johnson and Mr.
Olson expressed belief that Ms. Anderson - Atwater has a hardship, in that she
cannot expand out the rear of her home because of city owned property and that
if she expands off the bearing walls as indicated by staff the proper beam
support would not be realized. Mr. G. Johnson said a variance is determined if
there is a hardship and he added he believes she has a hardship.
Mr. Olson moved for variance approval. Mr. G. Johnson seconded the motion.
Upon a roll call vote; Ayes, Olson, Johnson, Nays, Lewis, Workinger. Motion
failed.
Mr. Johnson explained to Ms. Anderson - Atwater that this decision can.be appealed
if she so chooses, to the City Council. Mr. Johnson added if that is her
decision she should submit'a letter within 10 days requesting an appeal of their
decision.
LOCATION MAP
VARIANCE
NUMBER B -90 -9
LOCATION 4420 Vandervork Avenue
R E 0 U E S T A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the north
A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the south
EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
w
EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
STAFF REPORT
MARCH 15, 1990
B -90 -9 Star Marie Anderson - Atwater
4420 Vandervork Avenue
Zoning: R -1
Request: A 1.5 foot sideyard setback variance to the north and a 1.5 foot
sideyard setback variance to the south to create second floor
living space.
The subject property is separated on the north and south sides by a sideyard
setback of five feet. Each of the dwellings on those properties are one story
dwellings,, They are of similar size and layout.
The homeowners desire to increase the living space by adding a second floor to
the dwelling. It would create an additional 1116 square feet.
The Edina Zoning Ordinance requires that the sideyard setback would increase by
six inches, for every foot above fifteen feet that the height increases. An
additional 1.5 foot sideyard setback is needed in order to build the proposed
addition.
The properties of 4432 and 4436 have second-story construction similar to the
proposed. However, they are neighbors and are similar in appearance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the variance not be granted.
The properties on both sides of the subject property are single story dwellings.
The home at 4428 Vandervork in particular will be negatively impacted since it
will be between two 2 story homes.
Staff believes that an addition to the home is appropriate, but would recommend
it meet the setback requirement to reduce the impact.
IM
i
i
�h
CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
P. O. BOX 24021
LAND SURVEYORS
• 941.3030 • EDINA, MINN. 55424
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
Surrey For: " _ , ;, File No._ + Book__ —Page—,-,
45 '
JT --
u G `
I
U
N
0 8
Duet✓ 11 �.-� a I ��
c I
tj
h aZ
45
YP/R-
BUILDING INSPECTOR
VILLAGE OF EDINA
I hereby, certify that this it a true and arred rpl- ___ "on of o survey of the boundaries of
County, Min to ai
.isible •naeochments, if any, from er an said land. Surrayed by me tM
RECEIVE"' ► L t�r�
-zS3
• Orion of i all
CARDARELLE & ASSOCIATES, INC
STATF QF[:_ NA ASAA
Q
IL
1V mAsmj%Tp-
EO
-- -- \ M&T(A kPAIST. _
CTU
LF-r-r �,71I-�ATIOQ
y4 " -1 -o
\ \, �xIST1
a.WATIOrJ
`f" I
` \ � �—
V4" = I -J
-I
((c ) ¢ooF J�►ts � � o• ss► - - - - -- �,r►ovz.e .1 -
kr+rlovE b t�sT eooF - --
Ll
-- 12" NMs N rir- (MAIL H w-wsT)
��D,¢ �,6 V �•T O r�l
Y4`� _�. o
a,
oILe—
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
��X�
To: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER
From: MARCELLA NI. DAEHN, CLERK
Date: MARCH 27, 1990
Subject: ON -SALE WINE LICENSES
ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A1
Recommendation:
Info /Background
Agenda Item #V.
A.
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
❑
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
The Council adopted the wine licensing ordinance on April 1, 1985 which allowed
sales of wine only in qualifying restaurants. Sec. 43 of the ordinance
provided for automatic termination of all previously issued licenses and also
stated that no licenses shall be issued after July 1, 1990. (Copy attached.)
The Council may wish to consider the following options:
1) Extend the sunset provision to a future date.
2) Repeal the sunset provision as stated in Sec. 43.
If the Council should elect to take neither of the above actions with the intent
to let the ordinance provisions for wine licensing expire, the Council may wish
to hold a public hearing on the issue of terminating wine licensing in the City.
Drafts of amendments to the ordinance are attached for the two options above.
ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A1
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 902 TO
ALLOW SALES OF WINE ONLY IN
QUALIFYING RESTAURANTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Definitions. To Section 1 the following definitions are
added and amended as follows:
"Bar" means a counter or similar kind of place or structure at which
wine is served but not in conjunction with regular full menu service.
"City" means the City of Edina.
"Commissioner" means the State Commissioner of Public Safety.
"Council" means the Council of the City of Edina.
"Licensed Premises" means the area shown in the application as the
place where wine will be served and consumed.
"Meal" means entrees and sandwiches offered on a restaurant menu.
"Person" means and includes any individual, partnership, association,
trust, institution, corporation or municipality.
"Restaurant" means an establishment, under control of a single
proprietor or manager, having appropriate facilities for serving meals
and where in consideration of payment therefor, meals are regularly
served at tables to the general public, and which employs an adequate
staff to provide the usual and suitable service to its guests. This
definition amends and supersedes the definition of "Cafe" or "restaurant"
in Ordinance No. 902.
"State" means the State of Minnesota.
"Wine" means vinous beverage created by fermentation.
Sec. 2. Sec. 21, No Liquor in Restaurants, is hereby amended by
adding at the beginning thereof the words "Except as permitted under
Part H of this Ordinance, ".
Sec. 3. Part H is hereby added as follows:
"PART H.
ON SALE OF WINE ONLY IN RESTAURANTS."
186 -1A -1
prior to the date of expiration of the license. Applications for renewal
of an existing manager's license shall be made at least 30 days prior to
and not earlier than 150 days prior to the date of expiration of the
license. The renewal application may incorporate by reference all
information contained in the original application, to the extent such
information is then true, current and applicable. If, in the judgment of
the City Council as to on -sale wine licenses, and in the judgment of the
City Manager as to manager's licenses, good and sufficient cause for the
applicant's failure to apply for a renewal within the time provided is
shown, the City Council, or City Manager, as the case may be, may, if the
other provisions of this ordinance are complied with, grant the
application notwithstanding such failure to timely apply.
(d) No on -sale wine license shall be transferred to any person or
premises by the person or from the premises to whom and for which the
license was granted, by any means whatsoever, including, without
limitation, devise, descent or involuntarily by the operation of law,
without the person and premises to whom and to which the license is to be
transferred having first submitted an application containing all of the
information required in an original application, and complying with all
requirements for an original license, and receiving the approval of the
Council, and where required, the Commissioner, provided that an
application for transfer may refer to, and incorporate therein by
reference, the information set forth in the original application for the
license to be transferred, to-the extent such information is then true,
current and applicable.
(e) Manager's license shall be personal to the person to whom it is
issued and shall not be transferable.
(f) Any change in the persons named in the original application for
an on -sale wine license or any change in such original application, as
required by Sec. 37 of this ordinance, including any increase in the size
or seating capacity of the licensed premises, shall be deemed a transfer
for purposes of this ordinance; provided, however, if the licensee is a
limited partnership, a change in the limited partners of 10% or less'
cumulatively over the then license period shall not be deemed a transfer;
and provided further, however, that if the licensee is a corporation, a
change in stock ownership of 10% or less cumulatively over the then
license period shall not be deemed a transfer.
Sec. 38. Financial Requirements for an On -Sale Wine License.
(a) Investigation Fees and Deposit - At the time of original
application, the applicant shall deposit $500 with the City of Edina for
the Investigation Fee. Should the investigation require an out -of -state
investigation, an additional $2,000 shall be deposited prior to further
processing of the application by the City. The cost of the investigation
shall be based on the expense involved, but in no event shall it exceed
$500 if the investigation is limited to the State of Minnesota or $10,000
-3-
liquor license, including a wine -only on -sale license, revoked for
any violation of any statutes, ordinances or regulations relating to
the manufacture, sale, distribution or possession of intoxicating
liquor or wine.
6) Have a manager, licensed under Sec. 42 of this Part H, in
charge of and on the licensed premises at all times during which the
licensed premises are open for business.
7) Sign a statement indicating that he or she has reviewed and
understands the pertinent sections of this-Ordinance and of State
laws and regulations.
8) Not have applied for nor hold a federal wholesale or retail
liquor dealer's special stamp or a federal or state gambling or
gaming stamp or license.
9) Not be an employee or elected official of the City of Edina.
10) Not have falsified any information given either in the
application or in the process of investigation.
11) On renewal, not have been found in violation of any
provision of this ordinance or applicable State statutes or
regulations.
12) If an individual, be a U.S. citizen.
13) Not be financially indebted to a person who is disqualified
under subparagraphs 5, 7 and 11 of this paragraph (a).
(b) Licensed Premises - The licensed premises must meet the
following requirements:
1) Be in a PC1, PC2 or PC3, or Mixed Development District or
be in a restaurant permitted in the R -1 District, as established by
the City Zoning Ordinance.
2) Have an exclusive entrance from or exit to the exterior of
the building in which the licensed premises are located. Entrances
from or exits to a public concourse or public lobby meet this
requirement.
3) Be under the control of the licensee.
4) Be a restaurant having facilities for seating not fewer
than 25 guests at one time.
5) Have a valid food establishment license and have a kitchen
approved by the City Public Health Sanitarian.
-5-
s
(h) Licensees under this Part H may sell wine during the same hours
on Sunday as holders of Sunday sale licenses may sell intoxicating liquor.
(i) The'City inspections authorized by Sec. 12(g) of this ordinance
are anticipated to be made at least twice during each license period.
(j) All applicable provisions of State statutes and regulations
shall be complied with in connection with the on -sale of wine.
Sec. 41. Suspension and Revocation. The enforcement, suspension and
revocation provisions of Ordinance No. 141 shall apply to all licenses
issued under Part H of this ordinance, except to the extent inconsistent
with applicable State statutes and regulations, and in the event of such
inconsistencies, the State statutes and regulations shall apply.
Sec. 42. Manager's License.
(a) The manager(s) or person(s) in charge of a licensed premise
shall be an individual or individuals.
(b) Each individual manager shall apply for an individual manager's
license on application forms provided by the City Clerk. The application
shall be processed in a manner similar to that for an on -sale wine
license. Each application shall describe the licensed premises to be
managed by the applicant. The manager's license shall be restricted to
the licensed premises described in the application.
(c) No investigative fees shall be required for a manager's license
application, but if investigated with an application for an on -sale wine
license and if investigation of the proposed manager for the licensed
premises results in additional expense, or out -of -state investigation,
additional deposits may be required to be made under Sec. 38.
(d) The applicant for a manager's license, in order to be granted a
manager's license hereunder, shall and must comply with all requirements
of this ordinance, State statutes and regulations which are applicable to
an applicant for a manager's license under this Part H, and including,
without limitation, Sec. 39(a) and Sec. 40 of this Part H.
(e) The license fee is listed in Ordinance No. 171. The provisions
of Sec. 38(b) apply to this Sec. 42, except that no refund of the license
fee shall be made.
Sec. 43. Automatic Termination. The provisions of this Part H shall
terminate automatically at 12:01 A.M.. on July 1, 1990. No licenses
shall be issued under this Part H after said time and date. All licenses
then previously issued under this Part H also shall automatically
terminate at such time and date and thereafter no wine shall be sold
under such licenses.
-7-
ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A2
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A1
TO EXTEND THE AUTOMATIC TERMINATION DATE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Sec. 43 of Ordinance No. 902 -A1 is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 43. Automatic Termination. The provisions of this Part H shall
terminate automatically at 12:01 A.M. on No licenses
shall be issued under this Part H after said time and date. All licenses then
previously issued under this Part H also shall automatically terminate at such
time and date and thereafter no wine shall be sold under such licenses."
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
ORDINANCE NO. 902 -41
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A1
TO DELETE AUTOMATIC TERMINATION PROVISION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Sec. 43 of Ordinance No. 902 -A1 is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
ATTEST:
ZI
(City cilt5v
186 -1A -2
M
r
186 -1A -2
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Kenneth R. Rosland, City Manager
FROM: Craig G. Swanson, Chief of Police
DATE: March 30, 1990
SUBJECT: REPORT ON WINE LICENSING
I have reviewed the Edina Police Department's role in the wine licensing process.
The review period encompasses April, 1985 through March, 1990. The below comments
summarize that review.
All licenses have been regularly inspected. The inspections have been both
instructional appointments and no- notice visits. Discrepancies have been noted
and the licensees have corrected them in a reasonable period. Discrepancies are
best characterized as omissions and have not been of the magnitude to affect the
license.
No enforcement actions have been initiated under City Ordinance or State Statute
in connection with the on -sale of wine.
Calls for service to licensed establishments have been consistent with calls to
similar non - licensed restaurants.
The only problem area in the wine licensing process for the Police Department
has been the timeliness and accuracy of documents necessary for licensing of
establishments and managers. Both the City Administration, through the City
Clerk, and the Police Department are working to minimize this problem.
If you have questions concerning these comments, please contact me.
r •:
Craig G. Swanson
Chief of Police
EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
°
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager.
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5 000
DATE 5 March, 1990
AGENDA ITEM VII. A.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: one Recovery Vehicle (Tow Truck)
Company Amount of Quote or Bid
1, Twin Cities Wrecker Sales. .1, $ 69,940.00
2., Lakeland Ford, Inc.. 2, $ 73,705.04
3. Ast-leford.Equipment, Inc. 3; $ 74,208.00
4. 4..
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED. QUOTE OR BID:
Twin Cities Wrecker Sales
GENERAL INFORMATION:
$ 69,940.00
This purchase is a tow vehicle large enough to handle fire trucks,
our dump trucks, loaders and graders during breakdowns and flat
tires. This will replace Unit 30 -270, a. 1973 vehicle which is much
too small to handle our newer equipment. This purchase will be
funded from the equipment replacement fund under central services
equipment operation (560 account) and equipment replacement fund of
the street department (300 account).
S'gnat ell
The Recommended bid is
within budget not
Public Works - Streets & Equipment
Department operation
Finance Director
Rosland yCV Manager
CITY L-,P PnTNA
PUBLIC WORKS nEPARTMENT
MEMnRANnum
DATE: March 30, 1990
TO- Fran Hoffman, Ci tv Pnoi nAr-r A Ci rimcr-or of Publ ic' Works
FROM: . Gene Bartz, Superintendent. of Public, Works
SUBJECT: SHOP TRIJCK
The. shop. rrt.jr.k. 'we. would lik-e. to pure-hjse, should be. eqUiPlDe-Cl wit.h
a startina unit., gas tanks, air tank, push bar, plus hook. This
vehicle would 1973 :'/4
replace. unit. number 30.270 which 'is a 1 :1. ton
pick-up wit.h A. wrecker on the back. Because. of its age.; !.;nit.
rit - safe. to Use even on cars or _j p
jMber �n.�70 i s i.in
p i r.k-( r iun k-
in the past we have used Our large. loader to retrieve any down
trucks, which is not, the purpose of a, loader with i og chains.
kjt.jr track record has bee n good, however, with th ..
no maior
accidents. The shop truck we. are asking for is not large. e-nougn
to re-•reive anything bigger than our d ' ump trucks, but would be
able to tow fire. trucks, graders, loaders, etc. We would
continue to have. that. contract•e.d out as we. have in the past, we
have to retreive. vehicles for many reasons fue-1 malfu.n.ction,
acCidpntA. when we mus,11• use water pumns, u (sch as this spring or
r. i me A of 'Inclement. weather this tini - . woU
-!: I d be sed
to winch pumnc
-:,m nank varIs a n d h a d - t o - r e a c. h a r. rs
On ar,
e.xtrpmelv -:Clrl
day we w l I 'he callea on -1.n re+reivp in ro 20 squad a r i (I
admini.stral-- Ivp cars frnm Cit -
y H;.j 1 1 nl ijA what ever anni.imi.ilAtes
d u r , n a e Ma i I y n p e. r a t -. on
....jr !last cCntra tow was March '.:7,th. T"it= r.All was placed at
C.te
^; 1'1 P.M, Thp tow tru rrive.Cl. at. -70
C. k a AF. P.M, at ;_i cost cl V52
inr a nAr, I arger iin r.
-os- a ill nimum of 0, to :7, 1 _2 e. r ,� a
i. js m i le-age. nliJS S15 for air hnok-un. n I ijs $1c or Mroppinc the
d r i v r-. Chant., M i 11 1P _.r T w i n a es t. -. ma t P.;,,
h 0 u rs r;=..z-, r, o n q e i mp.
Matt. Tcwinq est.iMatc-s 1 hnt.jr depending on how busy, etc, ' During
R w;_jj!- nould be as l one. as 8 hourA. WP I e e he
response time is a very ir-.innrtant. WhAn ambtjlanc^es .:.re.
7W11 . _.h P. r q the 011ange.r of -,:'-ie di ri ja-, f rri= - -. na . nr t1ip ijnit `.el
b e. n i n acid t- •h e d r i i a.
s C t,,7, 1. e.n.. . When any vAhinle JS Onwn r
he i j.q P (I -For -1: ts (I P..,, i a r a t P. ri n i i r n cDs e Nnt m-n I y r1r) we. i JA e
s4-
u,;t= n' ',he vehicjil�.6. hi.it -)n r. nr i mi- S ;3 1 sn, •
The ne.w .;;hnn i-.rt.j(,-k would be-able t.,7j f!jP1 fire. trunks at. Flre.
�ii:eneC
The. !jew shop truck would also be used to cnange. i..-)ade.r rlres
t 4. ,
that, when loaded, weigh 1 ton per tire. A*i-• presen L- 1 Me We
have' no way to nhange flat tires t.hat occur away from the. shop.
The. usefl.1l life of this new r i a woLJ -ld be 15 years: with an
average cost to own of approximately $46:50 per year-.
T -believe. the safety iqSLJe-8 WF the. very
Irrant our getting
Versati 1e. 1--ype of trLJc.k we Are after,
h
0 ��'Mmllll
t t
` RAE
t '..
J
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: March 14, 1990
TO: Fran Hoffman
Director of Publ -r" s
FROM: Ted Paulfran
Fire Chief
SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS TOW WITH RECOVERY UNIT
At our last Council Meeting, March 5, 1990, it was apparent to me that some
confusion exists involving the City's "need" for this type of equipment.
From the Fire Department perspective, the need is, on occasion, critical.
1. We do not have back -up fire trucks. When one is out -of- service,
we need attention fast and on occasion, a tow. This unit is not
large enough to lift a fire truck, but could field service and
tow a vehicle out of traffic or off the roadway.
2. We do have a back -up ambulance, but with present service demand,
both the primary and back -up are frequently in service. In
addition, our experience with break -downs has been poor and we
cannot leave a unit unattended on the public roadway. The
present tow truck -will not safely handle an ambulance.
It is important to us to have quick diagnostic work, service and a tow when
necessary. The proposed unit will address a major portion of our needs,
and is a basic sensible approach to this equipment problem.
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Fran Hoffman, Director of Public Works
FROM: Captain Leonard Kleven, Police Department
DATE: March 30, 1990
SUBJECT: TOWING /SERVICE TRUCK
The Edina Police Department has need of a towing /service truck on average of once
per week. Circumstances requiring such a vehicle include:
** Breakdowns due to high demands on electrical
systems at emergency scenes. Squad cars suffer
breakdowns on a regular basis since the cars are
run 16 -24 hours per day in all kinds of weather.
** Accidents - Although infrequent, we do have squad
cars involved in accidents that require they be
towed to Public Works.
** Weather /Terrain - Snow storms, floods, sand and mud
have all caused tow requests in the past. Emergency
responses sometimes require squad cars to go off -
road into gravel pits, golf courses, parks, etc., in
life- threatening situations.
** Flat Tires - Squad cars carry no spare tires or tools
due to the amount of emergency equipment carried in
the trunk. While the tires can sometimes be changed
at the scene, it is often safer to tow the vehicle.
** Support Vehicles - Animal Control, Community Service,
and unmarked Investigative vehicles, many of which are
high - mileage units, also break down from time to time,
occasionally outside the city limits.
** Private Towing - If we are to rely on local tow companies,,
we can expect to wait for service along with others re-
questing service. During inclement weather or emergency
situations, private tows can be delayed for hours. Since
we don't have an excess inventory of emergency units, our
ability to provide emergency service could be threatened.
Respectfully,
Leonard Kleven
Captain
EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT
A.1
>4 REQUEST FOR PUR
CHASE
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Francis.Hoffman,.Director of Public Works
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT.: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN-EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE. 2,Ap'rill.1990 AGENDA ITEMV I I. B.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Sand, Rock, Bitiminous Material, & Concrete
Company
Amount of Quote or ENd
See Attached Tabulation.
2. 2.
3.
3.
4, 4.
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Award to companies as.listed on attached sheet.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This is the bid establishing the prices for certain materials
used in public works projec'ts. The prices are.firm.for a period
of one year (1 April, 1990 to I April, 1991). The funds for',the
purchases come from the money allocated to the operati . ng'section
of the budget (300 accounts).
. .
'e
Sigrfatur --
The Recommended bid is
within budget not
Public Works
Department
Finance Director
31and,'(Zjy Manager
1
i�
\�7
SAND, ROCK, BITUMINOUS MATERIAL &.CONCRETE
LOW BID
Comparative
1989/1990
Change of Percent
ITEM
COMPANY
1990
1989
+ or -
Delivered
Prior Lake Aggregate
3.03
2.89
+ 5.0%
Sand
Delivered
Model Stone
8.35
8.35
0%
Buckshot
Delivered
Edward Kraemer & Sons
5.30
5.19
+ 2.2%
Class II
Limestone
Delivered
Dresser Trap Rock
13.25
11.85
+11.8%
Seal Coat
Chips
Picked Up
Commercial Asphalt
16.20
14.95
+ 8.4%
At Plant
Asphalt
#2331*
2331 Fine*
Midwest Asphalt
19.10
15.60
+22.4%
#2341*
Midwest Asphalt
19.20
16.20
+18.5%
Winter Mix
Midwest Asphalt
39.00
28.00
+39.0%
Delivered
Model Stone
44.00
42.00
+ 4.75%
Concrete **
(Cu.Yd.)
(Cu.Yd)
Cut Back
Koch Refining
.708
.80
-11.5%
Asphalt
(Gal.)
(Gal.)
Delivered
All items
per ton,except as noted.
* These
items are awarded on basis
of total
cost per ton
including
trucking
and labor.
** Award
based on lower delivery
charge than
other bidder.
* ** Award
on asphalt to Midwest or
Commercial
should also
include award to
other
company if one of the asphalt
plants
is down.
. R
r REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
HASE
S
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Francis Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00
DATE ? April, 1990 AGENDA ITEMv11.C.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: one Reversible Snow Plow and Wing
Company Amount of Quote or &d
LaHaas Mfg. & Sales $ 10,558.00
2. Little Falls Machine. 2. $ 10,885.00
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
LaHaas Mfg. & Sales $ .10,558.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This purchase is a snow plow and wing for Unit #25 -450. The
purchase is funded from the equipment replacement fund.
Pnhlir Wnrks - Streets
;Signature Department
The Recommended bid is
within budget not wit u� ohn Wallin, Finance Director
enneth Rosland,CCity Manager
° REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
�:�
,,, o o:; SE
TO: Mayor.and Council Members
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: March 30, 1990 AGENDA ITEM.VII.D.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1990 Ford F -800 lift truck (Aerial bucket)
Company Amount of Quote or ENd
1• Road Machinery & Supply $67,108.00
2 • Truck Utilities 2 • $72,483.00
3. 3
4. 4.
5. 5,
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR END.
Road Machinery & Supply $67,108.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Trade in of one 1975 Ford Hy- ranger bucket truck fora new 1990
Ford.F -800 lift truck '(trade in value'of $19,000)
i ture Department
The Recommended bid is X_
within budget not
Kenneth Rosland, City.
Director
9,%14 A. A,Il�
O e �' c' . :e REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Pa.rk and Recreation
Department
VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00
DATE: March 30, 1990
AGENDA ITEM VII.
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Braemar Golf Course parkin -,
lot
reconstruction
Company
Amount of Quote or E§d
1. Alber Construction, Inc.,
1,
$168,951.20
2. Bury & Carlson, Inc.
2,
$172,482.00
3. GIgI Asphalt .Corp.
3.
$181,890.55
4• 11idwest Asphalt Corp.
4.
$1.55:992.65
5 • DMJ Corporation
5 .
$188,936.55
(Eight more bidders listed on back)
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Alber Construction, Inc._ $168,951.20
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Thirteen companies submitted bids on Braemar Golf. Course narkinv lot .
reconstruction. Approved orginally with Bonds for expansion of golf course
Sign re
Depart
The Recommended bid is X
within budget not within „b get n allin, Finance Director
y
Kenneth Rosland ity Manager
Continuation of bidders for Braemar
Golf course parking.lo_t reconstruction.
6.
Valley Paving, Inc.
$190,.160.50
7.
Alexander Construction Co, Inc.
$190,322.60
•8.
McNamara Contracting Co., Inc.
$193,302.05
9.
Stenger Excavating Co.
$193,607.50
10.
Widmer, Inc.
$195,077.50
11.
Hardrives, Inc.
$196,554.15
12..Barber
Construction Co., Inc.
$199,589.90
13.
G.L. Contracting
$202,683.40
�lrTA..lrl
0 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
o ; SE
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director Park and Recreation Department
VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE: March 28., 1990 AGENDA ITEM VII.F
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Braemar Soccer Field Renovation
Company Amount of Quote or Bid
1. Perkins Landscape 1. $9,789.00
2. DMJ Corporation 2, $11,265.00
3. F. F. Jedlicki Inc. 3. $12,490.00
4. 4.
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Perkins Landscape $9,789.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Excavate and fine grade field to accomodate new soccer field.
behind Braemar Arena. [,Widening present field from 60 yard soccer /footbal
field to a regulation soccer field, 80 yards wide, which is 95 feet
wider than present field.
The Recommended bid is
within budget not within
enneth Rosland,
Wallin, Fina ce Director
r
Manager
ro
A.
C
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
Mayor & City Council
From:
Jane Paulus,
Fran Hoffman,
I -494 PMT
Date:
2 April, 1990
Subject: I -494 EIS Update
Recommendation:
No action required.
Agenda Item # VIII-A.
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA
❑ To Council
Action ❑ Motion
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
❑ Discussion
Info/Background-
Attached is a memorandum and sketches to give you an idea of the process that
is done in evaluating I -494 alternatives. This first area of review is the
area immediately south of Edina between TH 100 and old County Road 18.
City staff has been working with Mn /DOT, Hennepin County, consultant and other
cities staff to develop and reduce the number of alternatives in each area that
should be studied in detail. The three sketches are a product of evaluating
over five plus alternatives in the first area.
March 14, 1990
BRW, Inc.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
IN THE TH 169 INTERCHANGE AREA
ALTERNATIVES PROPOSED FOR FURTHER STUDY
Alternative 1
Split diamond between Washington Avenue and West Bush Lake Road
with the existing half- diamond interchange at East Bush Lake
Road.
Option A: Fully directional interchange at TH 169.
Option B: Partial directional interchange at TH 169 with loops in
the northeast and southwest quadrants.
Alternative 3
Full diamonds at Washington Avenue and East Bush Lake Road.
Option A: Fully directional interchange at TH 169.
Option B: Partial directional interchange at TH 169'with loops in
the northeast and southwest quadrants.
DESIGN.FEATURES TO'BE ADDRESSED IN FUTURE STUDIES
o Options to maintain route continuity between the north and
south legs of TH 169 as this roadway crosses I -494.
o Eliminating the existing access between the south leg of TH
169 (west of Prairie Center Drive) and I -494 to the east and
providing access between Prairie Center Drive and I -494 to
the west.
o The feasibility of moving the proposed frontage road north
of I -494 farther to the south.
o Alternatives to the proposed ramps at Highwood Drive that
provide access to and from the south -on CSAH 18.
ALTERNATIVES TO BE DROPPED FROM FURTHER STUDY
Half diamond to the west, at Washington Avenue, full diamond at
East Bush Lake Road.
Full diamond at west Bush Lake Road, half diamond to the east at
East Bush Lake Road.
Split diamond between West Bush Lake Road and East Bush Lake
Road.
Interchange Alternative a. Interchange Alternative b.
ALTERNATIVE 1
Outside Half Diamonds
at Washington Ave. and
West Bush Lake Rd.
a. Fully Directional
Interchange at T.H.169
b. Partial Directional
Interchange at T.H.169
Legend:
Proposed Local
Access and Frontage
Roadways
Existing Roadways
Note: System interchange at
T.H.5/212 and T.H.100to be
addressed in the future and
will be coordinated with
T.H.169 improvements.
NORTH
NO SC -_=
Illlllllft
RECONSTRUCTION
MINNESOTA RIVER TO 1-394
Interchange Alternative a. Interchange Alternative b.
ALTERNATIVE 3
East Bush Lake Rd./
Washington Ave.
Full Diamonds
a. Fully Directional
Interchange at T.H.169
b. Partial Directional
Interchange at T.H.169
Legend:
- -- Proposed Local
Access and Frontage
Roadways
Existing Roadways
Note: System interchange at
T.H.5/212 and T.H.100 to be
addressed in the future and
will be coordinated with
T.H.169 improvements.
NORTH
'1
NO SCALE
1=49.4
RECONSTRUCTION
MINNESOTA RIVER TO 1-394
r
/9�r1A.
Cn
>1.� �0 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Rosland
From: Craig Larsen
Date: April 2, 1990
Subject: Regulation of Private
Parking Lots
Recommendation:
INFO /BACKGROUND
Agenda Item #
VIII. B.
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
The City of Minneapolis requires a license for all parking lots containing 10 or
more parking spaces. All parking lots are subject to design standards and are
reviewed by the Department of Public Works. Commercial parking lots, those
charging for parking, are subject to further requirements, including signage and
stacking spaces. All parking lot licenses are granted by the City Council. A
copy of the complete ordinance is attached for your review.
Key elements of the Ordinance relating to Commercial Lots are highlighted below.
I have indicated the areas where we currently have Ordinance authority for
review and approval.
Edina Ordinance Minneapolis Ordinance
None Required 1. Licenses required for all parking lots
containing 10 or more spaces.
Free Parking: License for initial
application only.
I
M
Commercial lots: Yearly license required,
Fee between $100 -$300.
.2. Performance Requirements:
All Parking Lots:
A. Yes
A. Hard surface required
B. Yes
B. Setbacks required
C. Yes
C. Landscaping, & screening required
D. Yes
D. Design and layout subject to approval
of City Engineer
No Ordinance Requirement
3. Stacking spaces at entrance
(Note: Stacking spaces were
required for review by City
1 space for self -serve ticket vendor and
Engineer
3 or 4 for attended lots.
No Requirements
4. Sign Requirements
A. Name and phone # of licensee
B. Hours of operation
C. Rates, including minimum rate and
maximum rate for 12 and 24 hours.
D. Size of signs is defined in Ordinance
No Ongoing or Periodic
5. Inspections. Authorized as deemed necessary
inspections required.
by Department of Licenses.
NO. • 8/2/02
1st Reading _
Ref. to Comm.
Public Hearing
2nd Reading & Final
Passage
82 -Or-
AN ORDINANCE
of the
CITY OF
MINNEAPOLIS
Dote
Date to Mayor
Date Returned
Date Resubmitted
to Council
AltlprmPn raricnnr Cintar anti 11 bits presents the following ordinance:
Repealing and reenacting Title 13, Chapter 319 of the
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances relating to Licenses
and Business Regulations: Open Air Motor Vehicle Parking Lots.
The City Council of the City of Minneapolis do ordain as follows:
Section 1. That Chapter 319 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be and is
hereby repealed.
Section 2. That a new Chapter 319 of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances be
enacted to read as follows:
"319.10. Definitions.
"Attendant Parking ". means the practice of having the motor vehicle operated by
the licensee between the motor vehicle reservoir area and the parking area, and between
the parking area and the exits.
"Commercial Parking Lot" means a parking lot which charges a fee for parking or
storing motor vehicles.
"Fee" means anything of value, including but not limited to, money, tokens, or
requiring the purchase of goods or services as a condition precedent to the privilege of
parking a motor vehicle.
"Free Parking Lot" means a. parking lot for which no fee is charged for parking or
storing motor vehicles and which is operated for the benefit of persons such as, but not
limited to, employees, members, customers, patrons, clients or visitors.
"Motor Vehicle" means every- vehicle which is self- propelled and not deriving its
power from overhead wires.
"Motor, Vehicle Reservoir Area" means the area at the entrance of a commercial
parking lot between the property line and the line at which a ticket or claim check is
received or a fee is paid.
"Parking Lot" means any open air place with ten (10) or more parking spaces used
for the parking or storing of motor vehicles,,
319.20. License Required.
No person shall own or operate or in any way offer to operate a parking lot without
first obtaining a license for that lot as provided in this chapter.
319.30. Application for License.
Any person desiring to be licensed to own or operate a parking lot shall file an
application with the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services on forms provided by
the Department. The application shall contain such information as the Department may
require, including plot plans and the street address of the applicant's residence, the name
of the owner of the lot and the name of the manager or operator of the lot if different
than the owner. No application shall be considered completed unless plot plans have been
.approved by the Department of Inspections and Department of Public Works with regards
to all requirements of this ordinance.
319.40. Procedure.
Prior to the issuance of a license, the City Council shall determine if the parking
lot complies with all the provisions of this chapter, other applicable provisions of the
Code, and state statutes and regulations. If all such provisions are met and proper
application has been made, the City Council may grant the license.
319.50. Classes of Licenses: Commercial Parking Lots.
Licenses granted for commercial parking lots under this chapter shall be designated
as either "Class All or "Class B" licenses.
A "Class A" commercial lot may charge any rate that a "Class B" lot can charge, or
may charge a rate based upon any fraction of a month.
"Class B" commercial parking lots shall be limited to charging customers for
parking on a month -by -month contractual basis only.
A "Class B" parking lot shall have no pay boxes or other available means on the
premises, by which a more frequent than monthly fee may be charged for parking.
319.60. License Fee.
The annual license fee for a. commercial parking lot licensed under this chapter
shall be:
Class A
Class 8
0-50 spaces
$100.00
0-50 spaces
$50.00
51 -100 spaces
$150.00
51 -100 spaces
$100.00
101 -200 spaces
.$250.00
101 -200 spaces
$150.00
Over 200 spaces
$400.00
Over 200 spaces
$300.00
The license fee for a free parking lot shall be fifty dollars ($50.00), which shall be
payable only when the original application is made and when the license is transferred to a
new licensee.
There shall be a $50.00 surcharge for each commercial parking lot license for a new
location not previously licensed under this chapter.
319.70. Expiration Date.
A commercial parking lot licenses issued under this chapter shall expire on
Septen r 1st of each year..
319.80. Transfer of Licenses.
No license issued under this chapter shall be transferable except upon application in
the same' m -inner as for a new lot, and approval by the City Council.
319.90. Insurance Required.
eh applicant for a license under this chapter at all times shall keep in full force
and of a public liability insurance policy written by an insurance company authorized
to-do business in this state, in the following amounts: Not less than five thousand dollars
($5,000) property damage; twenty -five thousand dollars ($25,000) for injury or death of one
person; and fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) for each occurrence. A copy of the policy or
certificate of insurance shall be filed with the Department of Licenses and Consumer
Services. The policy or certificate shall contain an endorsement as provided by section
259.160 of this Code of Ordinances. No cancellation of any insurance policy shall be valid
except upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the Department of Licenses and
Consumer Services.
319.100. Revocation Suspension, Refusal to Renew.
A license granted under this chapter may be revoked, suspended or not renewed by
the City Council for good cause. Violations of any of the terms of this chapter shall be
cause for revocation, suspension, or refusal to renew a license.
319.110. Inspections Required; Notice, Correction of Violations.
(a) At such times as deemed necessary, the Department of Licenses and
Consumer Services shall inspec eve parking lot located within the city. In the event a
parking lot is found not in complia -ce with any of the provisions pursuant to this chapter a
written notice shall be served personally upon the licensee of such parking lot or by mail
at the residential address as appearing on the license application.
(b) The written notice shall describe the violation and shall be signed by the
Director of Licenses and Consumer Services. The notice shall require the licensee to
correct the listed violations within thirty (30) days after date of service of such notice or
to show cause why such license should not be revoked at the next meeting of the
appropriate city council committee following the thirty (30) day period. The notice shall
contain a return to be signed by the server thereof attesting the manner in which the
notice was served
319.120. Paving Required.
;(a) The ground or floor space of �all;parking lots shall be surfaced with concrete
of either the cement or asphalt type.
(b) A parking lot which was properly licensed on August 1, 1982 and which had
surfaced its lot prior to August 1, 1982 by the double penetration seal coat method may
continue to use that method provided the materials and applicRtion process conform to
standards established by the Director of Licenses and Consumer Services, based on
recommendations from the Director of Public Works. _ parking lot using the double -
penetration seal coat paving method shall resurface the lt a minimum of once a year.
(c) The ground or floor surface of `all parking lots shall be maintained so as to
provide a smooth, level surface for parking and shall be kept free of depressions, cracks,
gaps, holes, and similar surface aberrations, as well as dust, rocks, dirt and other debris.
319.130. Driveways.
'Each parking lot shall have at least one driveway which shall be adequate to afford
safe and- efficient ingress and egress to the parking facility. All driveway locations, the
width of driveways, location of self- service ticket vendors, location of attendant buildings
and the interior circulation systems shall be approved by the Department of Public Works.
319.140. Drainage.
A�1 parking lots shall be constructed with a drainage system adequate to prevent
the free flow of water into the sidewalk or into properties adjacent to the parking lot.
319.150. Motor Vehicle Reservoir.
A— =m.mercial___parking lot shall have a motor vehicle reservoir area at each
entrance. The motor vehicle reservoir area for an attended commercial parking lot with a
' vehicle capacity of fifty (50) or less motor vehicles shall have at least three (3) eight and
one half (8 1/2) foot by twenty (20) foot
spaces. All other attended commercial parking
lots shall have at least four (4) eight and one half (8 1/2) by twenty (20) foot spaces.
Where a self - service ticket vendor is used, the motor vehicle reservoir area shall have at
least one eight and one half (8 1/2) foot by twenty (20) foot space for the purpose of
receiving tickets. The motor vehicle reservoir area shall be conspicuously outlined with
pavement paint and shall not be used for the parking or storage of motor vehicles.
319.160. Placement of Cars.
No car shall be parked in a manner which blocks any fire escape or exit door of any
building adjoining the parking lot. In no case shall cars be parked in a manner that would
prevent reclamation of any car upon request. At no time shall any driver with a current
claim check be refused the opportunity to obtain his • car, provided the driver has paid
accumulated parking charges.
319.170. Placement of Pay Box.
In all Class "A" commercial parking lots using a pay box of any kind, said box shall
be conspicuously placed near the entrance to the lot, or in such place that the patron of
the lot can easily locate the box. All Class "A" commercial parking lots which use pay
envelopes shall have an adequate supply on hand at. the lot and accessible to the patrons at
all time.
319480. Claim Check.
'When a car is left for parking in an attended Class "A" commercial parking lot, the
driver shall be furnished with a claim check on which shall be printed the full name of the
operator and the address of the parking lot. A claim check is not required where cars are
parked or stored in a manner that would be allowed under a Class "B" license and when
some memorandum in writing is given the person patronizing the lot stating the monthly
fee and showing the full name and address of the operator and the address of the parking
lot as they appear on the license application.
319.190. Parking Spaces and Aisles when no Attendant Parking.
�A arking lots shall have conspicuously marked spaces which shall open directly
upon an aisle of such width and design as approved by the City Engineer unless the lot has
an attendant on duty at all times.
319.200. Landscaping, Fencing, and Bumper Curbs.
(a) arking lots shall be landscaped. The landscaping requirement shall be
met by complyitwith one of the following alternatives:
(1) Maintaining a buffer yard at least five (5) feet in depth along each
property line, except at places of entrance and exit, which is
contiguous to a street or residential district. Each yard shall be
planted and adequately maintained in living sod, shrubbery or trees
and shall be defined by a six (6) inch curb along the perimeter of the
buffer yard. A buffer yard may be used as a place to store snow.
(2) Erecting an architectural screen at least 30 Inches in height and
planting trees along each property line, except at places of entrance
and exit, which is contiguous to a street or residential district. The
architectural screen shall be a wall or fence of wood, ornamental
block, brick, metal or combination thereof. Posts may be either
wood or metal. When wood is used In an architectural screen, It shall,
at a minimum, be rough -sawn, pressure - treated west coast fir or
hemlock at least #2 common. The height of the top of the screen
should equal that of the posts. The design of the architectural
screen shall be according to the prototype approved by the City
Council. Trees shell be planted along each property line which is
contiguous to a street or residential district. Trees shall be chosen
from a list of approved species adopted by the Director of Licenses
and Consumer Services based on recommendations of the Park Board
Chief of Forestry. The list shall prescribe a minimum size and
maximum interval for each species, and all trees shall be planted in
conformity with the appropriate size and interval.
(3) Erecting an architectural screen at least 30 inches in height along
each property line, except at places of entrance and exit, which is
contiguous to a street or residential district, and constructing
landscaped areas at each corner of the parking lot. The
architectural screen shall be a wall or fence of wood, ornamental
block, brick, metal or combination thereof. Posts may be either
wood or metal. When wood is used in an architectural screen, it shall,
at a minimum, be rough-sawn, pressure - treated west coast fir or
hemlock at least #2 common. The height of the top of the screen
should equal that of the posts. The design of the architectural
screen shall be according to the prototype approved by the City
Council. Landscaped areas shall each be at least 20 square feet,
defined by a raised curb or berm, and planted and maintained with
trees and sod, shrubbery or living ground cover.
(b) Wherever a buffer yard is used, the parking lot shall maintain bumper curbs
at least six (6) inches in height for all parking spaces to prevent motor vehicles from
coming in contact with the yard. Wherever an architectural screen is used, bumper curbs
shall not be required, provided that the screen is of adequate strength to act as a bumper
post.
(c) No parking lot licensee shall park or allow to be parked any motor vehicle on
such lot in such a manner that any part of said motor vehicle extends over or beyond the
property line, or over and into any street, sidewalk, alley, or driveway, or in such a
manner that any part of said motor vehicle comes into contact with any wall, planter,
shrubbery or building.
(d) If a provision of a zoning ordinance imposes a more stringent landscape and
screening requirement than is found in this chapter, the provisions of the zoning ordinance
shall be controlling.
319.210. Attendant Buildings.
Attendant buildings shall be accessible to all reservoir areas and located no closer
than five (5) feet from the sidewalk adjacent to any entrance or exit. Minimum
standards for the materials and general design of attendant buildings shall be as follows:
(a) Attendant building shall have a minimum floor area sufficient to
accommodate the normal complement of station - operating personnel. The
building shall be enclosed and weathertight. It shall be equipped with an
operable and lockable door and window. It shall be set on a curb or
platform rising a minimum of six (6) inches above the adjacent lot paving.
Service connections shall be in accordance with this Code.
(b) Materials of construction shall be compatible with the screening design and
should respect the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Materials
used in construction shall be of a permanent nature such as brick, stone,
concerete, wood, terra - cotta, prefinished metal, tile and other similar
materials.
(c) All building plans shall be submitted to the Department of Inspections for
approval so as to insure their compliance with all building codes. A building
permit shall be required for construction of said building.
319.220. Lighting.
Parking lots which are equipped with lights shall have such lights arranged in a
manner so -that- residential structures shall be shielded from direct rays of light and so as
not to exceed an intensity of illumination greater than three (3) footcandles measured at
the residence district boundary, or ten (10) footcandles measured at the contiguous street
right -of -way line.
319.230. Signs .
(a) Every Class "A" licensee shall maintain information signs on the parking lot.
No information signs are required for Class "B" lots except that when signs are used they
shall conform to the requirements of this section when applicable. Said signs shall show
the name and telephone number of the licensee or attendant, the licensee's number under
which he is operating, and the rates charged for parking or storing automobiles on said
premises. Such signs shall state the minimum rate, the maximum rate for 12 hours, and
the maximum rate for 24 hours, and if there is no maximum rate, the sign shall so
indicate. Such signs shall also state the rate for special events. No change in the posted
rates shall be effective until notice of such change has been given not less than 24 hours
prior to the effective time of the change in schedule by posting the same on the premises.
Signs shall be either 3 feet by 5 feet horizontal, 3 feet by 5 feet vertical, or 5 feet by 10
feet horizontal, permanently mounted with a minimum height to the bottom of sign of 8
feet and a maximum height to top of sign of 15 feet, and shall conform to all City codes
regarding erection and construction. All signs shall be plainly visible to the public, and
shall be printed in the "Standard Alphabet of Highway Signs" (Series "E") - Series "C" or
"D" may be permitted upon approval to accommodate necessary long verbage. Layout of
sign graphics shall be according to the approved prototypes as approved by the City
Council on file with the Department of Inspections which establishes the standards
pertaining to size of sign, color, size of lettering, placement of information and
identification symbols. Signs may include a business logo. In no case shall any letters or
numerals be less than 3 inches in height. The green color used shall be "outdoor
advertising association standard" #144 -L medium green.
(b) Signs on one -way streets need only display required graphics on the side
facing traffic flow. In such cases the opposite face shall be painted white.
(c) Free parking lots may place -no more than one freestanding information sign
at each entrance. The sign shall not be required to adhere to the above graphic
requirements, but shall be limited to a maximum size of 15 square feet and in no case shall
the longest dimension exceed 5 feet.
(d) Except as permitted in this section, it shall be unlawful to attach signs to or
display graphics of any type on licensed attendant buildings except to attach or
incorporate Into the building design a sign which specifies the hours of attendant duty, the
location of keys after attendant hours, the name and phone number of licensee, and any
other information essential to the normal operation of the lot.
(e) All parking lots which engage in towing of unauthorized vehicles shall post
such practice on a sign at each lot entrance, or on an informational sign, or on the outside
of an attendant building. In addition, the sign shall include the lot owner's name, license
or permit number, name and telephone number of Class "A" tower used. Letters on such
signs shall be at least one (1) inch in height.
319.240. Charges Limited to Those On Sign. Maximum Lost Ticket Charge.
No parking lot shall charge any greater sum for parking a motor VBhicle than is
provided for on the entrance signs. No parking lot shall charge a lost ticket charge
greater than the maximum rate for each 24 hour period in which a car was actually
parked in the lot.
319.250. Alterations.
It shall be unlawful for any parking lot operator to make any alterations In the
approved plot plan layout pertaining to entrance and exit location; width and grade; design
and location of attendant building; landscaping area or screening; location of signs;
location of lighting; without first securing the approval of the Department of Public Works
and the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services.
319.260. Maintenance.
No licensee, or other person in charge of any parking lot shall place upon the
street, alley, curb, sidewalk or boulevard any accumulations of snow, ice, dirt, rubbish or
other dangerous or unwholesome substances or of any water or waste by reason of washing
or cleaning of automobiles; and each licensee shall at all times keep all driveways leading
to said parking lot and sidewalks and boulevards adjacent to said parking lot free and clear
of all accumulations of snow, ice, dirt, weeds, rubbish or other dangerous or unwholesome
substances. All snow originating in entrances or upon the lot itself shall be hauled away
at the lot owner's or operator's expense or placed well back on private property. Each
licensee shall at all times keep all surface areas of said parking lot free and clear of all
accumulations of dirt, weeds, rubbish, or other dangerous or unwholesome substances.
Attendant buildings, landscaping, fences, walls, planters and shrubbery shall be kept clean
and in good condition at all times. Trees, plants, and grass shall be well tended and shall
be replaced without delay if damaged, diseased, or dead. All surfaces required to be
paved shall be maintained with a smooth level surface and shall be kept free of
depressions, cracks, gaps, holes or similar surface aberrations.
319.270. Keys Left In Vehicles.
Whenever keys to motor vehicles are required to be left in the vehicle or with an
attendant, an attendant must be on duty at all reasonable times and when such attendant
is not on duty, the keys to the said motor vehicles shall be made available to the owners
of such vehicles at some suitable place not more than 150 feet distant from the parking
area. Where no suitable place is available within 150 feet, the license applicant shall
submit to the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services the location of the nearest
suitable place subject to review of the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services and
approval by the City Council. In all instances, the location of key storage shall be made
known to the tow desk of the Police Department.
319.280. . Unauthorized Use of Vehicles.
No parking lot personnel shall use or permit the use of any motor vehicle left for
parking for any purpose whatsoever unless authorized in writing by the owner or operator
of such vehicle.
319.290. Transferring Vehicle to Another Lot.
No parking lot personnel shall transfer any vehicle to another parking lot without
the consent of the owner or person in charge of said vehicle unless such vehicle is parked
without permission or payment.
319.300. Reports to Police.
Each licensee shall immediately report to the Police Department the license
number and make of the motor vehicle parking in the lot for a period longer than 48 hours
after the termination of the parking agreement.- No vehicle shall be reported more than
once on any consecutive stay. Every licensee shall notify the Police Department within
24 hours of any claim made by reason of any loss or theft occurring upon the licensed
premises.
r
319.310. Prohibited Acts.
(a) The licensee of a parking lot shall not permit the repairing except in an
emergency, dismantling or wrecking of any motor vehicle or the storage of any junk motor
vehicle on the parking lot.
(b) No person shall charge, or offer to charge, a fee for parking on any property
other than a properly licensed commercial parking lot.
319.320. Compliance Time Schedule.
(a) Parking lots in operation prior to September 1, 1982 shall have until.June 1,
1983 to comply with the paving requirements of section 319.120, the landscaping
requirements of section 319.200, and the provision of section 319.210 regarding the
placement of attendant buildings.
(b) The City Council may grant one extension of time to a parking lot to comply
with the paving requirements of section 319.120 and the landscaping requirements of
section 319.200. An extension of time may be granted only to a parking lot on property
scheduled for development in the immediate future.
A licensee seeking an extension of time shall do so by petition to the Department
of Licenses and Consumer Services. When a petition has been filed, a hearing shall be
scheduled before the standing committee of the City Council responsible for licenses. No
extension of time shall be granted unless the licensee shows that plans actually exist for
the development of the property in the immediate future and that there are particular
hardships and practical difficulties In the way of carrying out paving and landscaping
without delay.
When an extension of time is granted, it shall be in writing and shall specify the
date upon which paving and landscaping improvements must be completed. No extension
of time shall be granted for a period longer than twelve (12) months.
An extension of time shall be deemed to run with the property on which the parking
lot is located. No parking lot shall be granted more than one extension of time,
regardless whether the license is transferred to a different licensee, or whether the
property or the business thereon is later sold, leased, or otherwise transferred."
Alderman
0"adzic
Aye
may
N.V.
Atli
I Ovra
Suat
Mdartnan
Scanon
Aye
Nav
N.V.
Atm.
Ovrd.
Suat
019nan
Noward
0au n
Rodnnstav�
WMta
Senulatad
Slater
Carbon
Pre RainvdN
Kapian
X INDICATES
VOTE — N.V. - Not Voting
Aba. - Absent
Ovra . Vote to 0ve►nge Surf Vote to Sustain
1ASSED 19
APPROVED
NOT APPROVED _ 19
VETOED
ATTEST _ _
cl.rk
pre"de"t of eavneil
Mapr
ye
�
�0
\�bRaaeMt °v�
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: COUNCIL 14EMBERS
Agenda Item #
VIII.0
From: FRED RICHARDS, MAYOR
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Date: MARCH 27, 1990
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject: VACANCY ON RECYCLING
❑
To Council
COMMISSION
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Info /Background:
I have been informed
to the Recycling Com
March 5th meeting to
Please give me names
position.
that Ken Joyce is unable to accept appointment
nission. You will recall that he was appointed at our
fill a partial term to 2 -1 -91.
of individuals that you wish to nominate for this
q. 1. I,i4
O.
)1181n
.0
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER
From: CRAIG SWANSON
CHIEF OF POLICE
Date: APRIL 2, 1990
Subject: DOG LICENSING
Recommendation:
Info /Background:
Agenda Item # viii.D
Consent ❑
Information Only 0
Mgr . Recommends ❑ To HRA
❑ To Council
Action ❑ Motion
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
❑ Discussion
As requested by the Council, the attached report summarizes background
information regarding licensing of dogs in the City and provides an
estimate as to cost of mailing out renewal notices.
0
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Kenneth E., Rosland, City Manager
FROM: Craig G. Swanson, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Dog Licensing
DATE:_._ March 26, 1990
The attached "draft" form is provided in accordance with the Council's,request
The form would be sent out in November anticipating the December 31st license
expiration. A letter acknowledging the license renewal would be sent to those
who choose to use the mailing format.
As recommended in my memo to you on March 16, 1990, I would encourage the use
of any unanticipated revenue to identify and license currently unlicensed dogs.
Conservative estimates are that the number of unlicensed dogs exceeds the total
that are or have been licensed. As many as 1500 unlicensed dogs may exist in
Edina.
To identify unlicensed dogs, the following examples might be implemented.
* Authorize veterinarians to sell licenses at the time of
initial rabies vaccinations.
* Have veterinarians hand out the attached renewal card at
the time of initial rabies vaccinations.
* Set up vaccination /licensing clinics at reduced rates.
* Request veterinarians to provide a list of vaccinated dogs.
* Discuss a "life time" license.
* Discuss "free licensing" of cats and dogs that have been
vaccinated and spayed or neutered.
If you have questions or comments, please contact me.
Craig . Swanson
Chief of Police
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Kenneth E. Rosland
FROM: Craig G. Swanson
SUBJECT: PgZ Licensing
DATE: March 16, 1990
At the March 5, 1990, Council meeting, questions arose regarding
notification to dog owners for license renewal. Facts about licensing
include:
* Rationale for licensing:
- A means of identifying stray or lost dogs and establishing proof
of ownership.
- A mechanism for assuring that animals are vaccinated against
rabies.
* Total licenses issued:
1989 - 570
1988 - 585
1987 - 629
* Renewals:
55% previously licensed
34% licensed during preceding year
11% never licensed before
* Estimates of the dog population:
- Approximately 1,000 dogs licensed during 1984 -1989.
- 60%+ of dogs are never licensed.
- Estimated 2,500 dog population in Edina.
* Renewal mailout cost (1,000 addresses):
printed mailer - $300.00
postage 140.00
labels - 28.00
staff time (mailout only) - 60.00
$528.00
I recommend a renewal mailout. It will generate a larger percentage of
renewals. Revenue from the renewals will generate $2,000 to $4,000. I
further recommend that this revenue be used to attack the larger problem of
unlicensed dogs.
If you have questions or comments, please contact me.
CRAIG SWANSON
CHIEF F POLICE
T=
IIELP US HELP YOU.
MA EL OR BRNG LN YOUR APPUCATION TODAY'
All dogs over 6 months of age must be licensed with the City. M licenses axpire
December 3lstof the year in which they are issued. The license tae you receive must
be worn by your dog at all times. Licensing provides the City with a method of
ins&.ng that dogs are properly vaccinated against rabies.
Additionally, du'g owners receive tremendous value from a license in that authorities
make every ef!br-, to return lost dogs to their homes when they are wearng a current
license. All other dogs are transported to the animal shelter in Bloomington where
impounding and boarding are charged
NMUMONIS
:0 CZFHAN —00 — rrul :o: log Lcew- city of Uen ?-&r'e,7eWZxw-tej-,v Edmhjine. MN
55U-L F!MW Uldwid $4.00 fo.-&= ag :a be 1-cersmd—Stake etcks pay-Ajk w. Coy -iEden
LICENSE :APPLICATION
Nmer's name
Address —
Home prune # Emergtnei 4
Dog's nacre (!st) Breed
Color Sex: M ❑ F M
Rabies Tag Date Vet Clinic
Dog's name (2nd') Bmed
Color XW. Sex: M CI F CI
E
Rabies Tag V Due Vet Clinic
WK)IMANT NOTICE
ApUcsdom MU not be unmpted wi'hout =mpltta tabus VJCdMWGn WOMMU011- ThIS iAf*n=I0A 3 On your MtAMS Of
vu=nadoa P!=w .*= )*v: vcc cH rJc if necaaary.
aasoixa xorsmmus t oms,%;aon jxviaom
Ma
r Animal
Control _Laws
Strictly
-Enforced
6 -foot
leash
required
„ \
animal
waste
, _ clean -up
a� required
nuis
in 5
UM
�F "u nxad
area
z-;rZ, -Q6 MT. 9)
•
Slr „sod 'S"i
i 3:�!rt^s
tzx__ Mosat U!W 'VMIP3
• laa ;s 1po51saM lost,
3uaL:.. -QdaC a3TIcd euMZ
r Animal
Control _Laws
Strictly
-Enforced
6 -foot
leash
required
„ \
animal
waste
, _ clean -up
a� required
nuis
in 5
ao9�Se
1Jce cited
t�
No Dogs
PARK RULES. No Tethered or Una ended Dogs
o e r Cn
�N�baroM'��v/
leas
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Francis Hoffman
City Engineer
Date: 2 April, 1990
Subject: Stormwater Projects
Recommendation:
Agenda Item # VIII. E.
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA
❑ To Council
Action ❑ Motion
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
❑ Discussion
Authorize to bid projects as recommended.
Info /Background:
The following are stormwater projects proposed to be constructed during 1990
and funded from the stormwater utility.
Section
I:
W. 76th St. &
Parklawn, Edina Lake Park
$ 9,040.00
Section
II:
Edina Manor -
Grimes & Halifax
Avenues
56,492.00
South of W. 58th St.
Section
IIA:
Edina Manor -
Grimes & Halifax
Avenues
17,902.00
from MH CB X64
to MH #5
Section
III:
Sunnyside Ave.
& Browndale Ave.
to Creek
97,885.50
Section
IV:
W. 64th St. between Xerxes and
Pond
37,795.00
Section
V:
Yorktown Park
Strip from Adams
Hill Pond
105,016.00
to Centennial
Lakes
$324,130.50
Staff will present each with
the use of a graphic
at the
Council meeting.
�1
o� e
>4 0
\NC0peee ��0�
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & Council
From: John Wallin
Finance Director
Date: April 2, 1990
Subject: Opening for the MWCC
Advisory Committee
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
IX-A.
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
❑
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
0
Discussion
Discussion on the remaining opening for the MWCC Advisory Committee.
Info /Background:
Pauline Langsdorf of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has
asked that we be made aware of a remaining opening for the MWCC Advisory
Committee for an elected official from either St. Louis Park, Edina,
Richfield or Bloomington (Precinct.F). The applications for the position
were to be closed on March 15, 1990, however the MWCC will welcome
applications at least until the Committee positions are chosen during
mid - April.
Attached is an application for the Advisory Committee.
m
J
Date
APPLICATION FOR METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMIVIISSION
GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears, Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
612 222 -8423
NAME:
last first middle
ADDRESS:
street number municipality or township zip code
MAILING ADDRESS (if different from home address):
street number city state zip code
PHONE: Home
Business
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTOL COMMISSION PRECINCT (see enclosed map)
CATEGORY OF MEMBERSHIP: NAME OF GROUP REPRESENTED:
Elected Municipal Official
Municipal Staff
Environmental Group Representative
Industry Representative
At -Large Senior Citizen
EMPLOYMENT:
Please be specific in providing beginning and ending dates for employment and membership in civic
and similar organization-
Employing firm, agency I Address
Position
Years with agency
Other work experience (optional):
Beginning date
Employing firm, agency Beginning, ending dates
Employing firm, agency Beginning, ending dates
Employing firm, agency Beginning, ending dates
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
Organization Beginning, ending dates
Position
Organization Beginning, ending dates
Position
Organization Beginning, ending dates
Position
(OVER)
OTHER INFORMATION (Please give beginning, ending dates, if applicable.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The following information is optional and is sought solely for the purpose of broadening citizen
participation in the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's decision - making process.
Sea Race/National Origin
_ Female
Male
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific Islander
Black
Hispanic
—Caucasian
Other (specify)
Check if the following applies to you:
_ 60 years of age or older
REFERENCES (optional):
A:
full name relationship
mailing address
full name
mailing address
If you have any questions, call the Commission at (612) 229 -2102.
Return to: Metropolitan Waste Control Conunission
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Attention: Pauline Langsdorf
phone number
relationship
phone number
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612 222 -8423
January 25, 1989
To Elected Municipal Government Representatives:
The Metropolitan Waste Control (MWCC) is seeking applicants for
the General Advisory Committee to the Commission which was
authorized by the MWCC in December 1989. We are seeking eight
members who are elected municipal government representatives, one
member from each MWCC precinct. We are contacting your
city /township to inform you of the formation of this advisory
committee. If you or someone from your elected body wish to apply
please submit the enclosed application.
An informational sheet explaining the duties of the advisory
committee, and a map indicating MWCC Precincts are enclosed.
Applications are to be submitted by March 15, 1990 to:
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (6th Floor)
Attn: Lurline Baker -Kent, Chair
230 East 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
If you need more information regarding this advisory committee,
call Pauline Langsdorf (229 - 2102).
Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
O
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION 612 222 -8423
GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WHAT IT IS; HOW TO APPLY
WHAT IS THE GENERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE?
This is a new committee designed to serve a function somewhat similar to the former Sewer Service Advisory
Boards that existed metro -wide before legislation in 1987 did away with the six service areas to establish one
sewer service area. The job of this advisory committee is to focus on the sewer service needs of the
communities of the Twin Cities seven county metropolitan area and to advise the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission (MWCC) on issues related to these needs. This new advisory committee will be formed in the
spring of 1990 and will consist of 25 members and a Chair appointed by the Chair of the MWCC. Citizens
serving on this committee should have a strong interest in the effective and efficient collection and treatment
of the metropolitan area's wastewater.
ITS PURPOSE
The purpose of this advisory committee is to develop recommendations to the MWCC related to metropolitan
area wastewater service and treatment with a focus on planning and managing for the future. The MWCC
Commission will refer topics to be studied by the advisory group. These might include MWCC's budget,
toxics control, odors, residual solids management, water quality issues, communication and public education
efforts.
HOW THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION FITS IN
The MWCC is charged with collecting and treating the wastewater of the Twin Cities area, to preserve and
protect the environment. The MWCC serves 105 communities in the seven counties and treats more than
275 million gallons of sewage per day. The MWCC owns and operates 11 wastewater treatment plants and
provides a series of interceptor sewer pipes to link the communities to the MWCC wastewater treatment
plants.
The agency is governed by a board of Commissioners that sets the agency's policy and represents
geographic precincts throughout the seven -county metro area. The MWCC obtains a majority of its funding
through user service charges.
The Metropolitan Council, the chief planning and coordinating agency for the Metropolitan Area, determines
which portions of the seven county metropolitan area are to have sewer service. The MWCC provides the
sewer service to the areas designated by the Metropolitan Council.
HOW MEMBERS TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ARE SELECTED
Advisory committee members are appointed by the MWCC Chair. The MWCC will ask for recommendations
for committee members from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM), the Metropolitan Area
Managers Association (MAMA), individual cities and townships, local Chambers of Commerce,'and various
environmental organizations. The MWCC Chair will serve as General Advisory Committee Chair or will
appoint a MWCC Commissioner to Chair the committee. The Committee will consist of one elected official
and one appointed official from each MWCC precinct. There will be four members representing
environmental groups, and four members representing industry. One at-large senior citizen member will
represent economically disadvantaged senior citizens. Members serve staggered three -year terms. (Initially
members will be appointed to one, two, or three year terms to establish the rotation process.)
Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
-MD-(D
Metropolitan
Waste Control
Commission
Iw•t.taNt.Rt
4. I ■.KN
I
■U —% I o.• c.o.a
I
I
I
•••Nt•
a.•e•t•
114+000
t.lt «twa
iKSi a/at �r I •1tw SC.wOu
.o.tsr ara
I
..•..,
N.tN ..d ■°
11.
41N a.fa I
•
tu.HU co". .•wM
Cf ■It..Iat L
M.IN
NawttaNN
i
ft 111Y1\
r.!
OAr• /
w.GO
I
1
la".410.
Kat..K6 WASHINGTON CO.
fOK••M
.aw.t t•..l MNO 1 wNN aNKlwo'
T - -�•—�
• I
. ••OMaA Nti .N.
0
='
I fiKlw.Ia•
t1 -M NKar,
w
V
M.t
HE/INE
N CO. Mar! wl•at K� '•
°�•
G..wr. I
rNr IllaN.tw O SI :Rt (n x
R•M � •OMYY� ft. W
�ta «. r • •na.oN iwi` ••.tnw
• Nat• ■aM ►t —,
,.■ � - � i .asr
1
I I
O.O.• `�
11A Sfu CO.
a.■11.00 I I
NawttaNN
i
ft 111Y1\
�
OAr• /
l.■al./.�
«wa.wo0o I ..Ia•17w1
I •
1�
(I''�l
roN
I r UOyO
1�
II
• I
1.w• «0 y.ar••
J
0
A
t1 -M NKar,
w
L ,
•
Nlt
.00.w..
\
— -- r¢
•.!•
1
l•
.•M
\wIw
t1 Wiau.! (jY
I 4faN.lYS«.
.Nrltu •r•ro/t
17
.l•Nf•
NIG.Ia
\t .!.
IM G.l
!
°I -
CN /..
�
CAIIVEII CO.
1
4.4"
N04.111 tOtt.y 4600"
Vi
Jy lwy I awl°°
OAIIOTA CO.
jJ.Nwca � I
•y�i� 1 t•.H.
y� «•
I '`SO.
I t01M O.wa G.l.
�
N «Y 1 •.•.t.RGt
"k"4 —loco I 411"l0. I
I
.M•
.w ■t la. \.! •Ot1.e. /! Y1M.1yCt•
.
a °4t
.\11.16\
r.4K
MIND
I S.. 1°.rf.Sfe
+.rtfK.
I I I
I •1.w 110. �
I...l
1..Yl /l1• I l"-G lrl I
141{"1
,
WtllaaG
rrw.l I - a
I
•a..rl1N
SCOTT Co. I
..
«..tN I
I
S1.
I
I
w1w.••.Il
iJ -! I•r•
I I..-.!
.I ..I II• I uu1 n...t I -111.. :lo.....1
tv•t •.
•
I I ° I
11 •a .
KWI
I I I
l
la•
I
II 1II
r.0"_ —
oN..
.1laS S 10 I• 70
»
G•114.Y1
1••11.•.
+
I
r I
440
asociaion of
metropolitan
municipalities
March 21, 1990
AGENDA ITEM: IX,B.
BULLETIN
TO: Member City Officials
FROM: Walter Fehst, President
RE: NOMINATIONS FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS - ANNUAL MEETING, WEDNESDAY
EVENING, MAY 16TH.
1. NOMINATIONS WANTED FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
A Nominating Committee consisting of the following individuals
was appointed by the Board of Directors on March 1, 1990. Chair:
Gary Bastian, Maplewood Councilmember and Past President; Jerry
Dulgar, Crystal Manager; Tom Egan, Eagan Mayor; Edwina Garcia,
Richfield Councilmember; Sharon Klumpp, Oakdale Administrator;
Peggy Kelly, Edina Councilmember; Paula Maccabee, St. Paul
Councilmember, Dennis Schneider, Fridley Councilmember; and Dave
Unmacht, Prior Lake Manager. The offices of President,
Vice - President and eight directors are to be filled. DUE TO THE
TWO -TERM LIMITATION, THERE WILL BE AT LEAST FIVE NEW BOARD MEMBERS
ELECTED.
The Board meets the first Thursday evening of each month and its
main duties and responsibilities are to adopt a yearly budget,
determine the yearly priorities for legislative lobbying; and
coordinate and direct staff activities. We are asking for your help
in identifying candidates for the Board of Directors and
Volunteers /Nominations are needed from all parts of the
Metropolitan Area.
ACTION REQUESTED:
NOMINATIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING A BRIEF RESUME SHOULD BE SENT
TO THE ATTENTION OF VERN PETERSON IN THE AMM OFFICE BY NO LATER
THAN FRIDAY, APRIL 6TH., 1990. GET THOSE NOMINATION$ IN THE MAIL
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!
-1-
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008
2. WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 16TH. IS THE DAY SELECTED FOR THE AMM ANNUAL
MEETING:
The 1990 AMM Annual Meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday
evening, May 11p 1990. Many of the meeting details have not been
finalized as yet but it will be a dinner meeting beginning with a
social hour starting at 5:30 P.M. Please mark your calendars now
for this important meeting. A notice, agenda and reservation.
information will be mailed in about four weeks.
3. RTB CHAIR'S LOCAL OFFICIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED;
VOLUNTEERS SOUGHT:
At the request of the AMM, Mike Ehrlichmann Chair of the Regional
Transit Board is establishing an RTB Chair's Advisory Committee. By
agreement with Mr. Ehrlichmann, the AMM will seek volunteers from
within member cities and provide a list to him of two officials
for each committee position. Tentatively, the Committee composition
targeted for 7 officials from Hennepin County cities, 3 from Ramsey
cities, 2 each from Anoka and Dakota County cities, and 1 each
from Washington, Scott, and Carver cities for a total of 17 persons.
This is a fairly good geographic representative of the area
population.
The basic task of the committee will be to provide input from the
city perspective on major transportation /transit policy issues and to
develop innovative and creative ideas for short and mid term
transit improvements throughout the area. The Committee will act.
as a two -way communications conduit between the RTB and cities
supplying information and alternative scenarios for.consideration
by the RTB on transit policy.'
Both the AMM Board and RTB Chair hope that the committee will be
active and provide meaningful input. Therefore, local officials
wishing to serve should be prepared to spend the necessary time. The
Committee once formed, will determine meeting times, length, and and
frequency but one can expect at least one meeting per month of 2 to
3 hours duration. The previous Advisory Committee met at 4 P.M.
Mr. Ehrlichmann expressed a desire to have as many members as
possible be elected officials versus appointed.
ACTION REQUESTED:
If you or someone from your city would like to serve on the RTB
Chair's Advisory Committee, please call Carol Williams, Roger
Peterson or Vern Peterson at 227 -4008 by April 5, 1990. The Board
of Directors will consider the nominees at its April 5 meeting.
OF=
t •-
4. AMM MEMBERSHIP AT ALL TIME HIGH:
The City of Shoreview has recently become the 68th. member of the
AMM! This is the largest membership in the 16 year.history of the
AMM. Nearly 90 percent of all the people living in the Twin City
Metropolitan Area reside in the 68 member cities. We are delighted to
welcome Shoreview into AMM membership and look forward to working
with their city officials in the comming months and years. Dick
Wedell is Mayor, Dwight Johnson is Manager and the Councilmembers are
Sandy Martin, David McGraw, Richard Sundberg and Ben Withhart.
DISTRIBUTION NOTE:
This bulletin has been mailed individually to all Mayors,*
Councilmembers and Managers.
-3
,WE F�°,�RE
. \
WE DARE I�'•"r�
WE SHARE
March 30, 1990
1 l
/Mr. Fred Richards, Mayor
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
y Edina, MN 55424
Dear Fred,,
PUBLIC
SCHOOLS This letter is a follow -up to a recent conversation that I
understand you had with Sarah Jones, - Chairperson of the
Edina Board of Education. The purpose of that conversation
as well as this letter is to ask that you consider putting
the matter of excess tax increment revenue from the 1988
school tax referendum before the Edina City Council.
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the resolution
approved by the Board of Education several months ago as
well as Superintendent Smyth's letter to the City Manager.
The background information to the resolution explains how
the excess revenue concept works.
If the shift of revenue from the city to the school district
is approved it will not actually increase revenue for the
school district. The district's subsequent levy authority
(to be approved in the fall of 1990 for the school year
1991 -92) will be reduced by the amount of the excess tax
increment revenue. In effect, the whole thing is revenue
neutral for the school district. With the reduction
adjustment to the levy authority there is, of course, a
small reduction to Edina taxpayers. This is an excellent
opportunity for the Edina City Council and the Edina Board
of Education to work together in a way that will benefit the
tax - paying citizens in the school district who are also
residents of the city by reducing taxes slightly. It is not
a significant amount of tax dollars, but nevertheless an
opportunity for some positive publicity in the community
through a joint effort of the two local taxing authorities.
If you would like to discuss this matter
not hesitate to give me a call or you may
Gordon Hughes on the city staff. Gordon
this matter together so that we are both
it.
5701
NnRMANnAl F Sincerely,
ROAD
E D I N A
MINNESOTA
55424
612- 920 -2980
am
es A. Hamann
Assistant Superintendent
for Business Services
JAH /mef
Enc.
cc: Sarah Jones
Ray Smyth
further please do
wish to visit with
and I have studied
knowledgeable about
'N EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYE?
W.j C'R R E
W f 0 A R E
W E 8 N A R E
1 I
June 22, 1989
P U B L I C
S C N 0 0 L S
• 1907
F I F T Y F I V E
Mr. Ken Rosland, City Manager
Edina City Hall
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Ken,
You may be aware that legislation passed during the
1988 session provides for some changes with respect to
tax increment financing districts. One of the changes
makes it permissible for a city to rebate to a school
district excess tax increment revenue generated by a
school district referendum levy. The Edina Board of
Education recently approved a resolution to request
that such a rebate be made. I have enclosed a copy of
that resolution.
The purpose of this letter is to ask you to put this
matter on the agenda of a future meeting of the Edina
City Council for consideration. Members of your staff,
Gordon Hughes and Erik Anderson, have met with Jim
Hamann on this to review the provision in the law and
to work up the financial numbers. You may want to
visit with any or all of them for more information.
Your early attention to resolution of this request by
the Board of Education will be very much appreciated.
FIFTY FIVE mef
Enc.
W E 8 T 7 0 T N
S T R E E T
E 0 1 N A N N
5 5 4 3 5
812.144.3513
,myth
:nt
AN EQUAL OPPORTUN'TY EMPLOYER
FOR ACTION INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 273
Regular Meeting, June 12, 1989
Volume 60, Report 403
SUBJECT: EXCESS TAX INCREMENT REVENUE FROM THE 1988
REFERENDUM
Be it Resolved, That
The Board of Education
Request the Edina City Council to rebate
the excess tax increment revenue resulting
from the 1988 referendum for the fiscal year
1989 -90 and annually thereafter.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The City of Edina contains four tax increment financing
districts, two of which (50th and France District and
Grandview District) are inclusive within the school
district. When these TIF districts were established the
base or first year valuation of the districts was captured
for taxing jurisdictions such as the school district or
county, which means that tax revenue for the school district
from the TIF districts remains fixed for a 20 to 25 year
period. Because the TIF districts do increase in value the-
city is able to generate incremental tax revenue (difference
between the fixed amount and current or incremental
valuation). These incremental tax revenues are used to
retire the development bonds and other costs of development.
When the voters of the school district authorized by
referendum an additional levy, the result of applying the
additional levy on the incremental or current value is the
generation of "windfall" revenue to the development (TIF).
district. This phenomenon directs revenue to the TIF
district through no action on the part of the city instead
of producing revenue for the school district for whose
benefit the levy was created.
The 1988 amendments to the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing
Act include a provision whereby a city with tax increment
financing districts may pay excess tax increment revenue
generated by a referendum levy to the school district
689
(clause 3 of Subdivision 10 added to M.S. 469.177). Payment
by a city to a,school district of the excess tax increment
revenue must be approved by'a majority vote of the city
governing body.
The additional referendum levy approved by voters in the
Edina School District on October 18, 1988, will generate
excess tax increment revenue during 1989 -90 in the two TIF
districts inclusive within the school district as follows:
50th and France District $33,370
Grandview District 15,690
Total $49,060
'-690
Agenda Item XI.A
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Recycling Commissioners
FROM: Susan Wohlrabe
SUBJECT: RECYCLING COMMISSION /CITY COUNCIL LIAISON MEETING
DATE: March 23, 1990
Monday, April 16, is the date scheduled for the Recycling Commission /City
Council's Liaison Meeting. It will be held at 6:00 PM in the Manager's
Conference Room, prior to the Council Meeting at 7:00 PM. -This meeting
replaces the individual liaison assignment of a Council Member to your
Commission. It is a time when mutual concerns can be discussed, and it is
intended to be an informal session - -you may have an agenda if you wish.
sw
cc: Mayor & Council Members
Janet Chandler
O (Le
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
ass
To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Agenda Item #
XI.B
From: KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Date: MARCH 29, 1990
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject: CLOSED MEETING TO DISCUS
0
To Council
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Action
0
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
That the Council by motion schedule a closed meeting to discuss labor
negotiations immediately following adjournment of the Regular Meeting on
April 2, 1990.
Info /Background
I would like to meet with the Council, -in a closed meeting for the purpose of
discussing labor negotiations.
The Open Meeting statute provides that a a governing body of a public employer
may by a majority vote in a public meeting decide to hold a closed meeting
to consider strategy for labor negotiations. The time of commencement and
place of the closed meeting shall be announced at the public meeting.
4510 Edina Boulevard
Edina, Minnesota 55424
March 26, 1990
Ms. Jane Paulus
4617 Moorland Avenue
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Ms, Paulus:
I an prompted to write to you because of the article in the Tribune
Shelter section on March 24. It concerns the reaDdling of a small
house on the corner of Wooddale and Country Qub in the Country Club
areae
I have always felt that the lots in Country Club were too small for the
houses. Lately it seems to aye that.several people have been enlarging
these houses almost up to the lot line. I refer in particular to a house
at 4515 Moorland which now has its garage pushed right up against its
neighbor's back fence.
I do net knew any of the parties Invol"d in the Wooddale house, nor do
I Know arW of the neighbors. I do feel, however, that the Country Club
area is on the National Register of Historic Places fbr a reason. If
builders and others continue to come into our neighborhood and "nearly
triple the size" of the houses, the character of Country Club is going
to be lost. I have lived here for over twenty years, and I would be
most unhappy if one of my neighbors built within three feet of my lot line.
Are there no zoning laws against this? If there are special variances and
loopholes, shouldn't they be closed? Thank you for your attention.
Yours truly,
Mary Ann MacLennan
G.
FY.BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE
A
-2307 Government Center
HENNEPIN Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 -0237
Phone (612) 348 -4077
-.March 28, 1990
The Honorable Frederick S. Richards
Mayor, City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Mayor Richards:
The County Board at its meeting of March 27, 1990, approved the
attached resolution that affects yard waste management.
The resolution outlines the County's charges for handling yard waste
at any of its disposal sites.
Cities opting to manage the composting or landspreading of their yard
waste without County involvement are eligible for a rebate from the
County. Schedule A, attached to the resolution, shows the amounts
which cities are eligible to receive. We will provide information
soon about how a city may request a rebate.
We.will continue to cooperate with those cities needing disposal sites
for yard waste this year and will provide information where the
landspreading sites are and the hours the sites will be open to
receive yard waste.
sig6erely,
r
Vern T. Genzlin
Associate County Administrator
cc: Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland, Manager
Attachment
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
90
RESOLUTION NO.-90-3-299
719
00424
The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Spartz, seconded
by Commissioner Jude:.
WHEREAS, Board Resolution 90- 2 -31R1 and 90- 2 -32R1 outlined the
intent of the County yard waste composting program for 1990; and
WHEREAS, To date, no yard waste transfer sites have been identified
and permitted by any municipality,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Hennepin County yard waste composting
program for 1990 will be organized as follows:
1. All material coming into a County operated site must be in bulk
form; no bags will be allowed.
2. The County will charge $30 per ton if scales are available or $10
per cubic yard for yard waste coming into the County system.
3. The County will operate a compost site in Hassan and charge haulers
for the material delivered. The site will be in operation from
April 2 - May 31, 1990.
4. The County will contract with one or more farmers for the
landspreading of yard waste. The County will have personnel at each
designated landspreading site to record the cubic yards of material
delivered. Haulers will be charged on the basis of recorded
material delivered.
5. Cities opting to manage the composting or landspreading of their
yard waste without County involvement will be eligible for a rebate
from the County. This rebate will correspond to the portion of the
solid waste tip fee paid by the city's residents for yard waste
composting, and is based on a calculated rate of $1.90 of the $95.00
tip fee. *Schedule A (.attached) shows the amounts which cities may
be eligible to receive under this policy.
6. If a city selects and permits a yard waste transfer site, the city
will operate the site. The County will transport the material to a
County- identified landspreading or composting site and charge the
city for the material at the $30 per ton or $10 per-cubic yard rate,
depending upon availability of a scale at the site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That staff be directed to execute contracts
with one or more farmers for landspreading of yard waste for in 1990.
The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were
Five YEAS and No NAYS as follows:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS YEA NAY OTHER
Jeff Spartz
X
Randy Johnson
X
John Keefe
ABSENT
John E. Derus
_
X
Tad Jude
_
X
Mark Andrew, Vice Chairman
_
X
Sam S. Sivanich, Chairman
_
ABSENT
RESOLUTION ADOPTED.
ATTEST:
Clerk of County oard
*Note: On File Vith Clerk of the Board
MAP 2 7 19QO
J
SCHEDULE A
Estimated Yard Waste Rebate to Municipalities
Based on MSW Projections for 1990
x 1.90 /T
Total Tons
%
Billable
Yard Waste
City
Per Year
Distribution
Tons
Surcharge
Bloomington
108,122
10.60
72,580
$137,902
Brooklyn Center
23,892.
2.35
16,090
30,571
Brooklyn Park
35,859
3.52
24,102
45,794
Champlin
4,979
.49
3,355
6,375
Corcoran
2,048
.20
1,369
2,601
Crystal
15,302
1.50
10,271
19,515
Dayton (PT.)
2,008
.20
1,369
2,601
Deephaven
1,565
.16
1,095
2,081
Eden Prairie
42,562
4.18
28,621
54,380
Edina
55,751
5.47
37,454
71,163
Excelsior
3,135
.31
2,123
4,034
Fort Snelling
89
.01
68
129
Golden Valley
40,347
3.96
27,115
51,519
Greenfield
683
.07
479
910
Greenwood
282
.03
205
390
Hanover (PT.)
116
.02
137
260
Hassan Twp.
803
.08
548
1;041
Hopkins
24,622
2.42
16,570
31,483
Independence
1,084
.11
753
1,431
Long Lake
2,760 `"
.27
1,849
3,513
Loretto
141
.02
137
260
Maple Grove
18,788
1.85
12,667
24,067
Maple Plain
1,945
.19
1,301
2,472
Medicine Lake
197
.02
137'
260
Medina
1,164
.12
822
1,562
Minneapolis
372,846
36.56
250,334
475,635
Minnetonka
44,518
4.37
29,922
56,852
Mtka Beach
273
.03
205
390
Minnetrista
1,405
.14
959
1,822
Mound
3,734
.37
2,533
4,813
New Hope
20,022
1.97
13,489
25,629
Orono
3,130
.31
2,123
4,034
Osseo
4,632
.46
3,150
5,985
Plymouth
54,113
5.31
36,359
69,062
Richfield
25,824
2.54
17,392
33,045
Robbinsdale
9,369
.92
6,299
11,968
Rockford (PT.)
197
.02
137
260
Rogers
1,016
.10-
685
1,302
St. Anthony (PT.)
2,057
.21
1,438
2,732
St. Bonifacius
758
.08
548
1,041
St. Louis Park
48,250
4.73
32,387
61,535
Shorewood
2,146
.21
1,438
2,732
Spring Park
671
.07
479
910
Tonka Bay
805
.08
548
1,041
Wayzata
5,115
.51
3,492
6,635
Woodland
241
.03
205
390
Others
30,629
2.83
19,381
35,853
Totals
1,019,995
100.00
684,720
$1,300,000
o� 00, 2 .Su�G'�,� , t°
I sG�
IC,A
L$ _
5
BUGS
Why co /ds are
so touchin
bD•ME -DOWN colds 9
' timer Xa by People tpuc'Ou8
t _ tant M ZhaNe wb �� irgpofi-
Your: dat,s�� ar
-� �Y. sgps• Pau! Doueuent-
�di beyond .,0� Qhie
?
p1 COF" the sta o thing
fthe touch their �
:osea
a You era';` NO
then
Jump o
�e4 You touch y�
d bog fhds ha W' in.
Ptems el Iratory lracC Cold
Ys, otv dP In One to four
Q Y mot:
And soft JmOd -headache
QQ ceoise14 r000q
e.
zetwicogw
0
Z%�°° but OW► �Vf L
/ -
o
yA /yo
alr-GROUP
7625 Parklown • Edina, Minnesota 55435 (612) 830-1111
March 28, 1990
Mr. Frederick Richards
Mayor
Edina City Council
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Mr. Richards:
We would like to take a moment to say thank you and
congratulate the many members of the Edina City departments
that were so helpful and cooperative in our accident at the
Edina Professional Building on France Avenue.
City manager, Kenneth Rosland, John Schirmang, Chief
Building Official, Ted Paulfranz, Fire Chief, Terrence K.
Kehoe, Assistant Fire Chief., James Michalko, Supervisor of
Inspections and to all of the people who assisted them, a
marvelous job was done in coordinating and responding to
what could have been a very serious situation. This
accident goes under the category of one of those unforeseen
and unpredictable things that happen in life. With their
cooperation, our staff was able to respond immediately and
effectively with a minimal amount of disruption to tenants
in the building and their customers.
Once again, thank you very much for a job well done!
Sincerely,
JLT GROUP
i Z� �^
Jerry L. Trooien
Kurt Williamson
Ron Johnson
JLT /dy
KW /dy
RJ /dy
rt
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1990, 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Gordon Johnson, Nan Faust, Helen McClelland,
Robert Hale, Lee Johnson, Geof Workinger, David Runyan,
Charles Ingwalson
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Bailey, John Palmer, Virginia Shaw
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Fran Hoffman, City Engineer
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Runyan moved for approval of the January 31, 1990 Community
Development and Planning Commission Minutes. Commissioner Workinger'seconded
the motion. Commissioner McClelland asked to have the minutes revised for
Agenda Item, Z -90 -1, correct the spelling of Mr. Everson's name from-Iverson to
Everson and to add after her statement "she will not support development of a
neck lot " nor a building pad cut into a hill and a substandard lot. Regarding
the townhouse proposal Commissioner McClelland wants added," Doubles or a four
plex maximum ". Commissioner Hale asked'to have the minutes revised for Z -90 -1
to add his comments; they are as follows: 1) Commissioner Hale asked if the
driveway easement for Lot 13 couldn't run easterly to the driveway for the
townhouses. Mr. Larsen said this was being considered. 2) Commissioner Hale
asked about the "emergency overflow" on lot 9 as shown on sheet 6 of 8, and
wouldn't this cause problems with the steep slope and with the townhouses below.
3) Commissioner Hale asked if there were any restrictions on the driveway width
which would apply to the 25 foot wide neck lot. Mr. Larsen said no. Z -90 -2 4)
Commissioner Hale noted that there is residential directly across the pond and
very expensive residential across the pond to the north.' 5) Commissioner Hale
asked Mr. Larsen if Section 11(b) of Ordinance No. 804 as it applies to property
adjoining a pond and calling for a 100 foot setback would apply. Mr. Larsen
said no. With the above mentioned requested revisions the Commission all voted
aye to approve the minutes for January'31, 1990.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z -90 -1 Ron Clark Construction, Inc., R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District
to PRD -3, Planned Residential District.
S -90 -1 Preliminary Plat Approval for Ridgewood Addition.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Medium Density Residential
to Low Density Residential
7
Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission at their last meeting suggestions were made
to the Developer, Mr. Clark and a number of those suggestions are presented this
evening in a revised plan.
Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note the changes as follows:
Mr. Larsen pointed out the preliminary plat continues to illustrate 13 lots.
Minor lot line adjustments are made on lots 7,8,9,10 and 13. As a result the
number of variances on lot 7 are reduced from 3 to 2. Lot 7 now has the
required 30 feet on frontage on a public street. Lot width and lot depth to
perimeter ratio variances are still required. Also, portions of lots 9 and 10
have been added to lot 13 to allow more flexibility in siting a new home.
However, Lot 13 still requires a lot depth variance.
Mr. Larsen explained the previous proposal contained 25 units in one 7 unit
building and 3 six unit buildings. The revised proposal illustrates 21 units
with no building larger than 4 units. The result is that the development now
meets our definition for Low Density Attached Residential. Low Density Attached
Residential allows up to six units per acre and up to 4 units per building. The
revised plan also allows for a PRD -2 zoning compared to the previous PRD -3
zoning. The proposed plan complies with all requirements of the PRD -2 district,
including lot coverage and number of units per building.
Mr. Larsen said the proposed site plan also reduces to 2 the number of curb cuts
serving the townhouse development. One is at the far west side of the property
near the crest of the hill. The second lines up with Limerick Lane.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission that although the Commission previously voted to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to Medium Density Residential, it may want to
consider Low Density Residential for the townhouse site. The Plan defines Low
Density as follows:
LOW DENSITY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL (0 -6 DU /acre). This designation is
intended to include two family dwellings, townhouses, and other multi - family
developments containing a maximum of four dwelling units per building or
structure. Single family dwellings may also be a compatible use in such areas.
It is intended that this designation will provide a variety of housing types in
relatively close proximity to single family residential areas and will represent
a transitional use between single family areas on high volume roadways or more
intense uses. Although a maximum of 6 DU /acre is noted, maximum densities will
be influenced by surrounding single family densities.
Mr. Larsen noted the Commission has previously taken action on repeal of the
Heritage Preservation Overlay District and the Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Actions remaining are:
1. Amend recommendation on Comprehensive Plan to change townhouse portion
of the plan to Low Density Attached Residential.
2. Preliminary rezoning from R -1 to PRD -2 for townhouse portion of the
site.
3. Preliminary Plat approval for 13 single family lots, 21 townhouse lots
and one outlot (townhouse common areas).
2
Staff Recommended Conditions:
1. Final Rezoning
2. Final Plat Approval
3. Parkland Dedication
4. Developers Agreement
5. Landscaping Plan and Bond
6. Investigation of Historical Park Near 70th and Cahill
Mr. Larsen told the Commission he became aware today, relative to the Historical
Designation and Historical Park that there is some confusion and that it may be
his fault. Mr. Larsen said the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) which
considered this request recommended that the building could be removed, but the
site where the foundation is, or the use of some of the foundation materials on
the site, should be designated as historically significant. Mr. Larsen said on
a staff level this recommendation was taken a step further to include the'
possibility of expanding the historical area to other corners of the Cahill
settlement. Mr. Larsen said the reason this approach was investigated was due
to the proposed residential character of the development on the west, and the
renovation taking place on the commercial side of Cahill where the Old Cahill
School and the store were located. Mr. Larsen said staff never meant to take
away from the HPB's recommendation, but more to expand the area of search for
historical significance. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note that
investigation of a Historical Park is one of the points that needs to be
addressed and a solution found for final approval.
Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen what the lot depth is for Lot 13. Mr.
Larsen said at its shallowest point Lot 13 is 120 feet deep. This depth
complies with the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance but not with the
lot depth of the properties in the surrounding neighborhood as'defined in
Subdivision Ordinance No. 804.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if the slopping concerns would be
addressed at this level or could they be part of the Developer's Agreement. Mr.
Larsen said it could be made part of the Developer's Agreement if the Commission
so requested, but those concerns, regardless would be addressed by the
Engineering Department before final approval.
Mr. Ron Clark, proponent, Nancy Horn, and Mike Gair Mr. Clark's representatives,
Gary Nyberg, Heritage Preservation Board, and interested residents were present.
Mr Gary Nyberg, representative from the Heritage Preservation Board addressed
the Commission informing them that the Board felt the church was architecturally
insignificant, however, the site has historic significance. The Board
recommended that a pocket`be developed similar to the one near the Edina Mills
site and that it be developed on the west side of Cahill Road. It was also
recommended that some of the foundation from the church should be incorporated
into the development of a pocket park. Mr. Nyberg said that was their
recommendation to the Edina City Council.
Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Nyberg if the HPB considered locating the
pocket park on the east side of Cahill Road. Mr. Nyberg said at the time this
item was considered that was not mentioned as a possibility,. Mr. Nyberg added
that he feels since this is the last remaining piece still intact, the pocket
3
park should be located on or near the original site of the church. Commissioner
Runyan asked Mr. Nyberg if the HPB had any specific recommendations for a pocket
park, and did they look at the possibility of a commemorative marker. Mr.
Nyberg said the most logical suggestion from their meeting was to incorporate
and /or use the footings to create a commemorative marker, and have the pocket
park constructed similar to the Edina Mills Park. Mr. Nyberg said the Board
found this solution to make the most sense due to the size of the church and the
high cost of upkeep and the removal of the church from the site. Chairman
Johnson asked how much space does the Board think will be needed for the park.
Mr. Nyberg responded that he has no idea, but probably the size of the Edina
Mills Park. Commissioner Runyan asked if the Board wants the whole foundation
incorporated into the park. Mr. Nyberg replied that the Board would like to see
some of the stones from the foundation used to commemorate the site, and have
some parking nearby if possible. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out that since
the land is privately owned, who would fund the purchase of the land for the
park and what funds would be used to maintain it? Mr. Larsen answered that that
is difficult to access because at this level the Planning Commission and the
Heritage Preservation Board do not have the power to allocate funds for a park.
Continuing, Mr. Larsen explained the City Council is the body that will study
this aspect of the proposed development and will make their decision. Mr Larsen
said that is why staff has expanded it's search for a park and proposed an
alternative to the park being located on the site. Staff looked at the original
Cahill settlement which included all corners of 70th and Cahill Road.
Commissioner Faust said in a way that puts the cart before the horse. She added
how can the developer design a project if they do not know what the Council
wants to do about the historical aspect of the site. Mr. Larsen said that is
true, but it is a factor the developer is aware of, and if final approval is
granted the development will have to reflect what the Council has ordered.
Mr. Mike Gair presented to the Commission the revisions that have taken place as
a result of their recommendations. Mr. Gair pointed out the site is 12.8 acres.
The revised proposal depicts 21 townhouses and 13 single family homes. The
price of the single family homes will be between $350 thousand - $700 thousand.
The price of the townhouses will be between $250 thousand - $300 thousand. Mr.
Gair pointed out Mr. Clark is a quality builder and has constructed many quality
houses and townhouses in the City. Continuing, Mr. Gair said the townhouses
would be stucco, brick, and cedar shakes. Mr. Gair pointed out that the project
would create an excellent tax base for the City and the single family homes
would add children to the Edina school system. With graphics Mr. Gair pointed
out the proposed development site and how it relates to the surrounding area.
Mr. Gair added that the change in the number of townhouses from 25 to 21 give
the townhouse site zoning potential for Low Density Attached versus the previous
request for Medium Density Attached. He added there are no attached units more
than four, and the rest are two and three unit buildings. Mr. Gair noted that
the previous plan had three accesses and the revised plan indicates two.
Mr. Clark addressed the Commission informing them he has worked hard on this
project to decrease the density. He told the Commission he is willing to work
with the Council and City to come to an agreement on the park. Continuing, Mr.
Clark said he will construct a quality development and will work hard to provide
adequate screening and buffering and perimeter landscaping that everyone would
find acceptable. Mr. Clark said he will cooperate in any way possible to make
this development blend into the community and to address any individual
concerns.
LA!
Commissioner Faust said she doesn't understand how there can be 188 less
townhouses and only 3 1/28 less land coverage. She asked if the size of the
townhouses have been increased. Mr. Gair said the townhouses have not been
increased in size. Commissioner Faust asked the size of the townhouses. Mr.
Gair said the townhouses are 30 feet X 83 feet. They will have 1600 square feet
on the main level, with a total of 2000 square feet for the footprint, which
includes the garage. Commissioner L. Johnson explained that the 188 decrease in
townhouses is taken from the original townhouse total of 25 minus the 4, which
is an 188 decrease. The 3 1/28 decrease in land coverage is taken from the
whole development.
Commissioner Hale . asked why the driveway access for Lot 13 doesn't access via
the drive from the townhouse development rather that West 70th Street. Mr.
Gair said the reason for that is because of the grade. It is too steep.
Commissioner Runyan agreed adding that the slope for that driveway access would
be around 108.
Commissioner Workinger said he doesn't like the idea of any type of easements on
properties. He added he wants to make sure a driveway easement isn't added to'
Lot 13 after final approval. Commissioner Workinger said he wants Lot 13 to
remain as presented. Chairman G. Johnson said from a legal standpoint if the
future property owners agree an easement can be created. Commissioner L.
Johnson said that maybe to prevent that from happening it could become part of
the Developer's Agreement.
Commissioner L. Johnson questioned Mr. Gair on where the slope easement would be
located. Mr. Gair said their slope easement would not extend to the erosion
control line. He added this would leave flexibility for structure placement.
Mr. Gair asked Commissioner L. Johnson if his idea was to have the slope
easement and erosion control line be coincidental. Commissioner L. Johnson
said that he would feel more comfortable if the slope easement extended to the
erosion control line.
Commissioner McClelland commented that she has concerns about substandard lots
within a new development. Commissioner McClelland said she would'like to have
one lot removed from the single family subdivision. She added if one lot is
removed variances would not be required and the proposed neck lot would be
removed. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland said that as a result of the new
Subdivision Ordinance the Commission should look very carefully at developments
that require variances. Mr. Larsen explained that the new subdivision ordinance
is a guideline to aide in their review process. Commissioner McClelland told
the Commission she walked the site for a second time and was appalled by the
condition, size, and state of repair of the retaining walls on the back side -of
the property. She noted that there is erosion present and agrees with
Commissioner L. Johnson that the slope easement should be coincidental with the
erosion line. Commissioner McClelland submitted to the Commission a graphic
that shows 12 lots instead of the proposed 13 and reduced the number of
townhouses from the proposed 21 to 16. Commissioner McClelland said she has a
grave concern regarding Lot 7 which would create a neck lot if approved. She
pointed out the steepness in topography in the northwest corner and the steep
retaining walls.
Linda Smithson, 5608 West 70th Street told the Commission the neighborhood is
not interested in multi family housing on the site. She said the poll taken
5
indicates the neighborhood wants the site to remain single family. She pointed
out low density is to be influenced by the density of the single family
neighborhood. Ms. Smithson added she wants the density decreased in the middle
section. She pointed out the twin homes on the northwest corner have the
appearance of single family residences, adding that type.of low density
development is the type of guidance she would like to see in this development if
there is to be multiple housing at all. Continuing, Ms. Smithson said if there
is to be a park, the townhouse development would appear tighter than what has
been presented. Ms. Smithson said the view of the roof lines would be
detrimental to the value of the homes across the street.
Mr. Miles Hersey, property owner at Highpointe, told the Commission when he
purchased his property he was told the site would remain as is, due to the
historical significance of the land. He added he does not want to look at roof
lines and would prefer to look at a pocket park. Mr. Hersey said he would like
to see a pocket park developed on the site. Mr. Hersey asked Mr. Clark what the
height of the buildings would be on the portion of the historical site. Mr.
Gair answered that the buildings located on the historical site are one story
buildings.
Mrs. Darlene McDonnel, resident of Highpointe, told the Commission Mr. Clark
made no promise to her regarding the historical aspect of the site next to
Highpointe. She pointed out.he did not own the site and therefore had no
control over the site. Continuing, she said when she first purchased her condo
she was concerned about the dumpster situation at the school because it was kept
very messy. Since that time garbage containment has improved. She added the
only change that has taken place for her is that instead of a second set of
condominiums being developed Mr. Clark chose to develop townhouses because the
market became soft for condo's. Mrs. McDonnel said she is very happy at
Highpointe and Mr. Clark builds a quality project.
Donna Ebert, 7004 Lee Valley Circle, said she does not know many facts but asked
when Mr. Everson bought the property was there anything that said you have to
keep the site historical. Mr. Everson said when he purchased the property that
was not considered, he added he knew the church was historical but he did not
know that he couldn't in the future develop his property. Ms. Ebert added she
is in favor of the project and believes that it will not deteriorate the value
of nearby properties and said it has to be better than looking at the school
across the street. She added it is a great tax base and will improve the
property,around it and enhance the value.
Mr. Lowell Swanson, owner of a unit at Highpointe, asked if emergency vehicles
can get into and out of the site as proposed. Mr. Swanson also questioned if
the water runoff on the project will change if the site is developed. Mr.
Hoffman said emergency vehicles usually fight fires from the perimeter of
townhouse projects. He added the drainage plan presented is adequate. Mr.
Hoffman said no developer designs for a 100 year flood, as occurred in 1987.
Mr. Hoffman said if the property did not flood during that time they were very
lucky because many places received damage. He concluded that this development
should not have a negative impact regarding drainage. Mr. Swanson asked where
snow would be stored. Mr. Hoffman said on a townhouse site the snow issue is
"their issue ". They can haul the snow away, store the snow on the grass or do
whatever. The City has no requirement for snow removal.
6
Ms. Nancy Askoy, 5600 West 70th Street asked since more children are being born,
etc. and more school space is being needed is it wise to sell the school
building to a private developer if it may be needed as a school. Commissioner
Faust told Ms. Askoy that she spoke with Sara Jones and was told that the City
cannot afford to moth -ball a building for 20 years and put in on line.
Commissioner Faust told the Commission Sara Jones indicated that the Community
Center and Highlands School will take care of City needs. Commissioner Faust
pointed out the school is already privately owned.
Lyle Sellors, 5547 Village Drive, told the Commission he believes Mr. Clark has
done a good job with the plan and agrees there needs to be a transition between
the single family homes and the commercial area. Mr. Clark's low density
townhouses meets that need.
Commissioner McClelland told the Commission she is still concerned about the
density of the townhouse proposal. She said Cahill has alot of traffic on it
and she cannot support housing so close to that intersection. Commissioner
McClelland added that she supports development of a pocket park on the site
where the church is located. Commissioner McClelland referred to her plan and
pointed out that in her plan curb cuts would be eliminated and the density would
be decreased to 16 units. She pointed out her plan would leave enough room to
incorporate the pocket park. Commissioner McClelland also added this plan would
greatly increase green space and an open feeling. Concluding, Commissioner
McClelland said she wants to see 1 lot out of the single family proposal
bringing that proposal to 12 lots, reduction in townhouse units from the
proposed 21 to 16 and a pocket park placed on site.
Mrs. Lindvell, resident of the area, told the Commission she feels the proposal
is too dense.
Commissioner Runyan commented that he felt the price of the units being
developed should add to and increase neighborhood property values. Residents
asked Commissioner Runyan if he would like to live across from the proposal.
Commissioner Runyan said in his opinion this development is good for the City of
Edina as a whole. He said there is adequate open space and added that single
family homes all the way to Cahill Road does not make good sense. Ms. Ebert, of
Lee Valley Circle, said again that she is in favor of the project. She said
this is the first time she, as a resident in the area, has ever been given
information before hand on what is going to be developed within her
neighborhood. She added the proposal makes good planning sense. She said in
her opinion what is there now is undesirable, and what is presented will look
better than the school and the church which isn't even clearly identified as
historically significant.
Commissioner Hale said he is a bit confused on where the one and two story
townhouse's are located. With graphics, Mr. Gair pointed out the locations of
the one and two story townhouses on the site. The one story townhouses are
located on the east end and the two story units are in the middle. Chairman G.
Johnson questioned if that townhouse situation should be flip- flopped.
Commissioner Faust said she has a real concern between the transition of the
proposed townhouses and the proposed single family homes. She expressed concern
that the transition area is not large enough.
7
Commissioner Ingwalson told the Commission he believes the plan is sound and the
low density transition between the commercial and the single family units is
appropriate. Commissioner Ingwalson expressed concern over the pocket park and
said it is unfortunate that this issue wasn't resolved before this meeting. Mr.
Larsen explained that a parkland dedication of cash could occur, or the pocket
park could be located on the site. Mr. Larsen commented he agrees that the
situation regarding the park is fuzzy. Commissioner Ingwalson asked if after
the Council makes their decision regarding the park would the proposal come back
to the Commission for review. Mr. Larsen said the townhouse portion would come
back to the Commission for final approval. The park aspect will be part of the
townhouse plan.
Commissioner Faust asked Mr. Larsen what is the requirement for parkland
dedication. Mr. Larsen said when the City does not want land for parkland
dedication they require cash.
Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Clark if he considered single family homes where the
westerly 9 townhouse units are located. Mr. Clark said putting single family
homes farther to the east did not work well. Continuing, Mr. Clark explained the
natural place to break the transition between single family homes and townhouses
is where the terrain changes. Mr. Clark said that seemed to be the logical
place to make that transition. Commissioner Hale asked if they located houses
in that area how many would there be. Mr. Clark said at a guess around 4 single
family houses. Mr. Clark noted that they toyed with the idea of zero lot line
dwellings in that area.
Chairman Johnson asked the Commission for their opinions on the single family
proposal.
Commissioner McClelland said she cannot support the single family proposal as
presented with a substandard lot and a neck lot. It's a new development that
requires variances.
Commissioner Workinger said he has no objection to the single family proposal
but still feels uncomfortable with the density of the townhouse development.
Commissioner Faust told the Commission she agrees with Commissioner McClellands
observations and indicated she is favorable to Commissioner McClellands
redesign.
Commissioner L. Johnson told the Commission he likes the single family portion
of the development. He added the best use of the topographical features is the
way it has been developed. He added the intent in using the land for housing is
to be creative and with the neck lot the land is not abused at all.
Commissioner L. Johnson said if he has a concern it is with Lot 5 because it may
be built down the hill. Continuing, he added the way this has been laid out is
good and he added Lot 7 is an ideal lot. He reiterated that he wants the slope
easement to be coincidental with the erosion control line. He noted that maybe
the slope easement could be relaxed for Lot 4 but not the others. He added he
has a concern that does not include the numbers or shape of the lots, but is the
waterflow that goes over the rotted timber walls next door. Commissioner L.
Johnson pointed out Mr. Clark does not have control over that, adding it is his
understanding that Mr. Hoffman will carefully review waterflow questions and
concerns. Commissioner L. Johnson said he would also like to see Lot 13
0
orientated to the east, the way it is shown, Lots 9 10, 13 all relate very well
to the townhouses.
Commissioner Runyan said he agrees with Commissioner L. Johnsons points. He
added he could also see the slope easement relaxed a bit for Lot 5, but snug for
Lots 9, 10.
Commissioner Ingwalson said he concurs with the plan presented.
Commissioner Hale added he agrees.
Dorothy Omen, Lanham Lane, said she feels Commissioner McClell'ands plan is good.
Chairman Johnson asked the Commission for their opinions on the townhouse
project.
Commissioner L. Johnson said he is in favor of the townhouse proposal. He added
the two, three, and four unit buildings are an appropriate transition from the
commercial to single family. He pointed out if this project would be developed
with single family houses the number of houses that could be developed within
this area are around 10. Commissioner L. Johnson pointed out that massing and
sizing in his opinion is not a stumbling block. Commissioner L. Johnson said he
would like to see a little more park like atmosphere but added he feels an
attempt has been made. Commissioner L. Johnson said in his opinion the
development is appropriate and will be good for Edina.
Commissioner Ingwalson concurred with Commissioner L. Johnson and said it is a
good use of the site. He added single family houses on this corner does not
make sense. Continuing, he said the park is still an issue, but if Mr. Clark is
willing to take the consequences on where the Council locates the park, he has
no problem.
Commissioner Workinger said the density on the westerly portion of the site is
still a concern for him. It appears too dense. The transition between Lot 13
and Lot 9 and the townhouse development is still a little to tight.
Commissioner Runyan said he likes the project, and Mr. Clark has made every
effort to respond to the concerns of the Commission. He added this plan is
superior to what was previously proposed. Commissioner Runyan said given the
land the proponent has to work with, this project has been designed very well.
Commissioner McClelland said the plan is too dense, an allowance must be made
for the pocket park at this time, and added it is not necessary to develop every
parcel in Edina to its maximum. Commissioner McClelland said she want to see
less density and sides with the residents.
Commissioner Hale said the driveway is still a problem.
Commissioner Faust said she believes this part of Edina has been "dumped" on and
it is important to respond to these neighbors. She added Mr. Clark's doubles on
crosstown are fabulous and suggested that he develops doubles. Commissioner
Faust said she cannot vote for this because the pocket park has not been
addressed to her satisfaction.
7
Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend approval subject to the change in the
Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Attached Residential to Low Density
Attached Residential, to recommend preliminary rezoning approval from R -1 to
PRD -2, and to recommend preliminary plat approval for 13 single family lots, 21
townhouse lots, and one outlot, approval subject to staff recommendations and
that the staff recommendations include a recommendation for a slope easement
closer to the 910 line for lots 6, 7 and 8 and at the 900 line for lots 4 and 5.
Staff recommendations include: Final Rezoning, Final Plat Approval, Parkland
Dedication, Developers Agreement, Landscaping Plan and Bond and Investigation of
a Historical Park Near 70th and Cahill. Commissioner L. Johnson said the Council
should not be prejudiced in any way as they consider the pocket park as
recommended in #6 of staff's recommendations. Commissioner Runyan seconded the
motion.
Marsh Everson pointed out Cahill Road is the buffer between the commercial area
and residential neighborhood.
Upon roll call vote: Mrs. Faust, Nay; Mr. Hale, Nay; Mr. L. Johnson, Aye; Mrs.
McClelland, Nay; Mr. Rynyan, Aye; Mr. Workinger, Nay; Mr. Ingwalson, Aye;
Mr. G. Johnson, Aye. Motion failed on a 4 -4 vote.
Chairman G. Johnson said the .proposal is to be forwarded to the Council with no
recommendation.
III. OTHER BUSINESS:
Tax Increment Districts
Mr. Larsen explained to the Commission City Staff is looking into the
possibility of creating tax increment districts in three areas within the City.
Due to the time constraints regulated
by the County the City of Edina has to establish these districts before April
30, 1990 to take advantage of tax increment.
Mr. Fred Hoisington was present to explain the three areas the City has
earmarked as being potential tax increment districts.
Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission the City of Edina has indicated three
areas where they feel development of a tax increment district. would be
beneficial to the City. These areas are: 1) France Avenue and 44th Street, 2)
Wooddale and Valley View Road, and 3) Cahill Road and West 70th Street. Mr.
Hoisington pointed out that these are areas where there seems to be
deterioration and /or where the buildings are aged and traffic and parking
circulation and safety are problems. Mr. Hoisington noted that this plan, does
not include any property within Minneapolis.
* 44th and France Avenue
Mr. Hoisington explained that the plan for the area of France Avenue and 44th
Street would involve West 44th Street to the rear of the properties along Eton
Avenue and follow a line to West 46th Street. This proposal would call for the
10
removal of seven single family houses, possibly nine total. Removal of the dry
cleaners in indicated, which at the present time is an illegal use. The .
redevelopment plan would include low density to medium density multi - family
housing, retail and office improvements, parking lot improvements, landscaping
improvements, and relocating the utility lines underground.
A discussion ensued with Members of the Commission indicating they do not want
to see multi - family housing in that area. Commission, Members also noted that
in the past it has been very hard to work with the owners of the dry cleaners
and if they choose not to be involved with this project the redevelopment plan
would not work as presented. Commission - Members also pointed out the
topography of the area would create some steep parking areas. The Commission
also wanted noted that this area of Edina is very unique and fun and they do not
in any way want that destroyed. Mr. Larsen agreed that this area of Edina is
unique and the purpose and the goal of it's redevelopment is not to destroy
it's character.
* Wooddale and Valley View
Mr. Hoisington told the Board the improvement area includes Valley View Center,
west to Kellogg Avenue and the area between Kellogg and Oaklawn. Mr. Hoisington
pointed out that within the commercial area, activities at the Conoco Station
are inappropriate and do not conform to the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission that this commercial area in Edina is
in decay and has some very serious circulation problems and hazardous parking
areas. This area also has poor signage, too many driveways, lack of commercial
district identity and limited expansion potential. The goal for this area is to
solve these problems and retain a lucrative commercial area.
Commission Members agreed that this area has some problems and suggested that
maybe the commercial aspect could be relocated all in one area in the Valley
View Shopping Center. The Valley View Shopping Center has adequate parking and
if Baskins Robbins and the bike shop were to move into that area some of the
problems could be solved. It was the consensus of the Commission to leave this
area alone at the present time.
70th Street and Cahill Road
Mr. Hoisington explained to the Commission the area for consideration is bounded
by 70th Street to the north, the railroad right -of way to the east, the northern
boundary (east to west) of the Gabberts building, Village Drive extended and the
City of Edina park open space property to the south, and the rear lot lines of
the single family homes fronting on Lanham Lane and Lee Valley Circle to the
east.
Mr. Hoisington pointed out that the commercial area is having a real struggle.
and does not seem to hit the market. Mr. Hoisington said that it is believed
that the retail area could take off if it is marketed and presented in the right
way. Mr. Hoisington said the residential project for the area is to encourage
development consistent with land use designations. Residential development may
include 13 single family homes and as many as 21 doubles or attached units.
11
Members of the Commission suggested that a market study be implemented for this
area. They agreed that this area in Edina does need some "cleaning up ".
Commissioner L. Johnson commented that he feels the gas station should be left
in the area because neighborhood gas stations are important to the residents of
the area.
Mr. Larsen said this proposal will be before the City Council on March 19, 1990
and will come back to you for further comments on March 28, 1990.
IV. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
12
WE Ex
Hoogenakker, '
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
062T20
03/26/90
9.35
THE PRINT SHOP
PRINTING
062T20
03/26/90
119.69
THE PRINT SHOP
PRINTING
129.04
* * * * **
079742
03/26/90
172.50
MN SAFETY COUNCIL
DUES'
172.50
* * * * **
091R65
03/26/90
94.20
ROLLINS OIL CO.
MORROR HEAD
091R65
03/26/90,
94.20-
ROLLINS OIL CO.
MORROR,HEAD
.00
* * * * **
(see also 092T96)
091T96
03/26/90
877.30
TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR
REPAIR TO DOOR
877.30
*1t*Mlk It
'
092700
03/26/90
49.34
JANET CHANDLER
MILEAGE /PARKING
49.34
092701
03/26/90
25.76
FIRST-BANK MPLS
REFUND
25.76
092702
03/26/90
32.10
JOHN FOX
REFUND
32.10
092703
03/26/90
73.00
MN DEPT OF
TREES
73.00
092704
03/26/90
79.00
SIGN -TIFIC
SIGNAGE
79.00
092705
03/26/90
147.55
APRES INC PARTY
DINNER MEETING
147.55
(3.checks)
* * * * **
INDRANI MALLICK
092708
03/26/90
75.00
PERFORMANCE
092708
03/26/90
80.00
C.LONNING
PERFORMANCE
092708
03/26/90
100.00
CURTIS HEAD
PERFORMANCE
255.88
092709
03/26/90
35.00
F &M DIST INC
REFUND
35.00
092710
03/26/90
269.44
LEVERING WOOD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
269.44
092711
03/26/90
1,091.35
JASON INVESTMENTS
REFUND
1,091.35
04 -02 -90 PAGE 1
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4504 - 510 -51 13154
10- 4504 - 510 -51
10- 4204 - 140 -14
10- 4540 - 560 -56 93850 6221
10- 4540 - 560 -56 93850 6211
10- 4540 - 440 -44 3371 3850
,10- 4504- 507 -50
40- 3800 - 000 -00
40- 3800 - 000 -00
10- 4560 - 644 -64
50- 1300 - 003 -00 06239 6606
10- 4206 - 100 -10 6582 6607
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
10- 3055 - 000 -00
10- 4504 - 507 -50
40- 3800 - 000 -00
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
092712
03/26/90
092713
03/26/90
092714
03/26/90
092715
03/26/90
092715
03/27/90
092716
03/26/90
092717
03/26/90
092717
03/26/90
092718
03/26/90
092719
03/26/90
092720
03/26/90
092721
03/26/90
092722
03/26/90
092723
03/26/90
092724
03/26/90
092724
03/26/90
092724
03/26/90
092725
03/26/90
092725
03/26/90
092725
03/26/90
092726
03/26/90
092727
03/26/90
092728
03/26/90
r
CHECK REGISTER
AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
10.00
MIDWEST GANG
DUES
10.00
*
33.28
BRIGADE
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
33.28
*
56.00
DON WENDLING
EQUIP MAINT
56.00
*
267.90
US WEST
BOOKS /PAMPHLETS
329.90
US WEST
BOOKS /PAMPHLETS
597.80
*
1,487.00
MARY D WALTERS
PHONE CONSULTING
1,487.00
*
180.00
KTMA TV
ADVERTISING
310.00
KTMA TV
ADVERTISING
490.00
*
i
298.56
STAR TRIBUNE
ADVERTISING
298.56
*
290.00
SPECIALIZED GRAPHICS
DOOR HANGERS
290.00
*
358.93
MARLIN IND DIV
TRAINING
358.93
*
26.25
MAPCO SAND /GRAVEL CO
SAND
26.25
*
10.00
ARDYTHE BUEROSSE
SUPPLIES
10.00
*
39.15
HARMON GLASS
GLASS
39.15
*
90.49
AM LEONARD
SOCKET /BLADE
90.49-
AM LEONARD
SOCKET /BLADE
90.49
AM LEONARD
SOCKET /BLADE
90.49
*
199.40
CITYLINE
SERVICE CONTRACT
142.40
CITYLINE
SERVICE CONTRACT
148.80
CITYLINE
SERVICE CONTRACTS
490.60
*
351.40
THE FOURSONE
UNIFORM ALLWANCE
351.40
*
78.74
BRC ELECT MIDWEST
PRINT PAPER TAPES
78.74
*
55.00
CLIFF JOHNSON
PRINTING
04 -02 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4204 - 420 -42
10- 4266 - 420 -42 4901
10- 4274 - 420 -42 2751
10- 4502- 420 -42 4398
10- 4502 - 420 -42 4398
10- 4256 - 510 -51
27- 4214 - 667 -66 756401 6595
27- 4214- 667 -66 756402 6595
27- 4214 - 667 -66 6593
40- 4248 - 803 -80 1893 6515
10- 4202 - 281 -28 3644
10- 4504 - 301 -30 106978 6186
10- 4504 - 507 -50
10- 4504 - 646 -64 6262
10- 4580 - 301 -30 72711 6349
10- 4580 - 301 -30 72711 63449
10- 4580 - 301 -30 72711 63449
30- 4288 - 781 -78 483 6736
30- 4288 - 781 -78 484 6693
30- 4288 - 781 -78 482 6621
10- 4266 - 420 -42
10- 4504 - 180 -18
23- 4600- 611 -61 6531
2
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
04 -02 -90
PAGE 3
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. #
MESSAGE
55.00
*
* * * * **
*** -CKS
092734
03/26/90
60.48
TROPHY WORLD
PLAQUES
27- 4600 - 661 -66
6634
6678
60.48
*
092735
03/26/90
39.95
THOMPSONS
TRACK LITE
27- 4540 - 662 -66
101402
6670
39.95
*
092736
03/26/90
183.16
MIKE SIITARI
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
10- 4266 - 420 -42
183.16
*
092737
03/26/90
50.00
MN PROJECT ON
SCHOOL
10- 4202 - 420 -42
50.00
*
092738
03/26/90
300.00
MGIA
CONFERENCE
10- 4202 - 420 -42
300.00
*
092739
03/26/90
209.60
MEDIA DEVELOP IND
GENERAL SUPPLIES
12- 4504 - 434 -43-
892627
5951
209.60
*
092740
03/26/90
475.00
TOM-ELVIDGE
REFUND
27- 3432 - 000 -00
475.00
*
092741
03/26/90
.60.00
AM TRAFFIC SAFETY
SCHOOL
10- 4202 - 281 -28
60.00
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092743
03/26/90
165.00
ALARMLOCK
PROF SERVICES
30- 4201- 782 -78
6218
165.00
*
092744
03/26/90
25.00
DRUG ABUSE UPDATE
SUNSCRIPTION
10- 4204 - 504 -50
1302
25.00
*
* * * * **
.
* ** -CKS
092746
03/26/90
875.00
LINDA KOZAK
SERV 3- 28/4 -10
30- 4201 - 781 -78
875.00
*
092747
-03/26/90
959.38
JAMES CONSTR CO
NEW COUNTER /PRO SHOP
27- 1332 - 000 -00
1043
5949
959.38
*
092748
03/26/90
484.83
FLEX- O -LITE INC
GLASS BEADS
10- 4544 - 335 -30
105081
5687
484.83
*
092749
03/26/90
13,038.45'
WIN STEPHENS COMP
1 TON CARGO VAN
10- 4901 - 305 -30
26051
6264
13,038.45
*
092750
03/26/90
540.00
KBL -TV
ADVERTISING
27- 4214 - 667 -66
646
6518
540.00
*
092751
03/26/90
680.00
KARE 11
ADVERTISING
27- 4214 - 667 -66
210052
6517
680.00
*
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
092752
03/26/90
092753
03/26/90
092754
03/26/90
092755
03/26/90
092756
03/26/90
092757
03/26/90
092758
03/26/90
092759
03/26/90
092760
03/26/90
092761
03/26/90
092762
03/26/90
092763
03/26/90
092764
03/26/90
092765
03/26/90
092766
03/26/90
092766
03/26/90
092766
03/26/90
092766
03/26/90
092766
03/26/90
092766
03/26/90
092767
03/26/90
092768
03/26/90
04 -02 -90 PAGE
CHECK.REGISTER
# MESSAGE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
15,439.00
SPALDING
GOLF RANGE BALLS
15,439.00
*
30- 4224 - 781 -78
11,577.00
RATHERT
EQUIP REPLACEMENT
11,577.00
*
30- 4224 - 781 -78
50.00
PAT FUHR
PERFORMANCE
50.00
*
10- 4502- 440 -44
100.00
AMY ANDERSON
PERFORMANCE
100.00
*
30- 3505 - 000 -00
75.00
FRANK TOWGAS
PERFORMANCE
75.00
*
23- 4504 - 611 -61
50.00
PAT FUHR
PERFORMANCE
50.00
*
23- 4600 - 611 -61
50.00
ROYAL SIL -O -ETS
PERFORMANCE
j 50.00
*
35.00
SHIRLEY OLSON
PERFORMANCE
35.00
*
200.00
KNOCK NAGOW DANCERS
PERFORMANCE
200.00
*
60.00
BRAIN RICHARDS
PERFORMANCE
60.00
*
15.00
US CHAMBER OF
BOOK
15.00.*
93.62
RUTH SCHMOLL FD
PETTY CASH
93.62
*
305.00
ROY J HANSON
AMBULANCE REFUND
305.00
*
10.00
ROBERT JOHNSON
REFUND
10.00
*
8.50
NAOMI JOHNSON
DUES
41.78
NAOMI JOHNSON
ADVERTISING
41.52
NAOMI JOHNSON
GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.95
NAOMI JOHNSON
REPAIR PARTS
62.39
NAOMI JOHNSON
CRAFT SUPPLIES
11.30
NAOMI JOHNSON
PRINTING
175.44
*
1,034.00
ST PAUL FABRICATING
CONSTRUCTION
1,034.00
*
220.00
MICROFACS INC
SERVICE CONTRACT /FAX
04 -02 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
# MESSAGE
27- 4636 - 666 -66 C17200
10- 4904 - 420 -42 50089
5257
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78'
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
10- 4502- 440 -44
10- 4504 - 440 -44
10- 3180- 000 -00
30- 3505 - 000 -00
23- 4204 - 611 -61
23- 4214 - 611 -61
23- 4504 - 611 -61
23- 4540- 613 -61
23- 4588- 611 -61
23- 4600 - 611 -61
60- 1300 - 015 - 2020044
4575
10- 4288 - 510 -51 3461
6682
4
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
220.00 *
092769
03/26/90
10.00
10.00 *
092770
03/26/90
32.00
32.00 *
092771
03/26/90
32.00
32.00 *
092772
03/26/90
32.00
32.00 *
092773
03/26/90
450.00
450.00 *
092774
03/26/90
4,468.10
4,468.10 *
092775
03/26/90
l 450.00
450.00 *
092776.
.03/26/90
220.82
220.82
092777
03/26/90
45.00
45.00 *
092778
03/26/90
4,500.00
4,500.00 *
092779
03/26/90
95.00
95.00 *
092780
03/26/90
3,072.63
3,072.63 *
092781
03/26/90
4,000.00
4,000.00 *
092782
03/26/90
3,415.18
3,415.18 *
092783
03/26/90
10.50
10.50 *
092784
03/26/90
10.00
10.00 *
092785
03/26/90
210.00
-
210.00 *
092786
03/26/90
1,024.00
1,024.00 *
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
MN MAYORS ASSN
RONALD KING
SUZANNE CROWE
MICHELLE SHARP
FRANK FISCHER
EDINA HIGH SCHOOL
DAVE LANGHOLTZ
MIDWEST SPORTS MUG
COUGAR SPORTS
MOODY INVESTORS SERV
U OF M
INDECO
STANDARD & POORS
RICHARD G LARSON
DAVID RAFTER
GENERAL CINEMA CORP
J THOMAS NELSON
MARGARET MCDOWELL
DUES
REFUND
REFUND
REFUND
SERVICES
SERVICES
SERVICES
COST OF GOODS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
BOND ISSUE
WORKSHOP
PROF SERVICES
BOND INSURANCE
PRO SERVICES
,BOOKLET /AICP
REFUND
AC INSTRUCTOR
AC INSTRUCTOR
04 -02 -90 PAGE 5
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4202 - 100 -10
28- 3500 - 000 -00
28- 3500 - 000 -00
28- 3500 - 000 -00
28- 4224 - 701 -70
28- 4224 - 701 -70
28- 4224 - 701 -70
28- 4504- 702 -70 021562 6526
28- 4504 - 702 -70 6526
10- 1145 - 000 -00
10- 4202 - 480 -48
10- 4201 - 500 -50
10- 1145 - 000 -00 189712
30- 4201 - 781 -78
10- 4502- 120 -12
10- 3072 - 000 -00
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
092787
03/26/90
092788
03/26/90
092789
03/26/90
092790
03/26/90
092791
03/26/90
092792
03/26/90
092793
03/26/90
092794
03/26/90
092795
03/26/90
092796
03/26/90
092797
03/26/90
092798
03/26/90
092799
03/26/90
092800
03/26/90
092801
03/26/90
092802
03/26/90
092803
03/26/90
092804
03/27/90
092805
03/27/90
04 -02 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61-
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201- 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
10- 4202 - 420 -42 017225
10- 4202 - 420 -42
6
CHECK REGISTER
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
48.00
ANN LENOBLE
AC
INSTRUCTOR
48.00
*
180.00
NICK LEGEROS
AC
INSTRUCTOR
180.00
*
42.00
HARRY HEIM
AC
INSTRUCTOR
42.00
*
240.00
MARGARET GUST
AC
INSTRUCTOR
240.00
*
450.00
PAT GEISHEKER
AC
INSTRUCTOR
450.00
*
30.00
KATHY GUSTAFSON
AC
INSTRUCTOR
30.00
*
540.00
JEAN GRAPP
AC
INSTRUCTOR
540.00
*
360.00
SUSAN FRAME
AC
INSTRUCTOR
360.00
*
263.00
BILL DIETRICHSON
AC
INSTRUCTOR
263.00
*
655.00
TOBIS DICKER
AC
INSTRUCTOR
655.00
*
180.00
BETSY BRYANT
AC
INSTRUCTOR
180.00
*
24.00
ADRIANE BRUMFIELD
AC
INSTRUCTOR
24.00
*
663.00
MARIAN ALSTAD
AC
INSTRUCTOR
663.00
*
156.00
CYD WICKER
AC
INSTRUCTOR
156.00
*
150.00
MONICA RUDQUIST
AC
INSTRUCTOR
150.00
*
72.00
DAVID RICKERT
AC
INSTRUCTOR
72.00
*
192.00
DOROTHY ODLAND
AC-INSTRUCTOR
192.00
*
300.00
CITY OF ST PAUL
CONT ED
300.00
*
90.00
MATSA
SCHOOL
04 -02 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61-
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201- 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
10- 4202 - 420 -42 017225
10- 4202 - 420 -42
6
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
04 -02 -90 PAGE 7
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
'ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
90.00 *
092806
03/27/90
243.00
IAWP
SCHOOL
10- 4202 - 420 -42
243.00 *
092807
03/27/90
15.00
ANTI VEHICLE CRIME
MEMBERSHIP
10- 4204 - 420 -42
15.00 *
092808
03/27/90
50.00
DR DOUG WALLACE
FEE
'10- 4201- 500 -50
50.00 *
092809
03/27/90
985.50
GC ACCESSORIES
ACCESSORIES /GC
27- 4504 - 664 -66
5619
985.50 *
092810
03/27/90
3,152.25
MILLS ADVERTISING
MAGAZINE EXP
12- 4215 - 434 -43
50328
3,152.25 *
092811
03/27/90
520.00
DESIGNWRITE STUDIO
DESIGN /LAYOUT
12- 4201 - 434 -43
11026
520.00 *
092812
03/27/90
112.00
LOCO EXPO
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 822 -82
092812
03/27/90
112.00
LOCO EXPO
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 842 -84
092812
03/27/90
111.00
LOCO EXPO
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 862 -86
335.00
092813
03/27/90
36.67
THE MN JAYCEES
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 822 -82
092813
03/27/90
36.67
THE MN JAYCEES
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 842 -84
092813
03/27/90
36.66
THE MN JAYCEES
ADVERTISING
50- 4214 - 862 -86
110.00
092814
. 03/27/90
30.00
BIRD TIME SYSTEM
TIME CARD RACK
27 -4516- 661 -66
902132 6739
30.00 *
1
092815
03/27/90
1,149.00i,i?g.gam_
COMPUTERS PLUS
FURNITURE
25- 4900 - 001 -26
12305 5719
1,149.00 *1,1?9.99
092816
03/27/90
130.00
DAN M CMAHON
REIMBURSEMENT
10- 4202 - 281 -28
130.00 *
092817
03/27/90
24.83
CITY OF BROOKLYN PK
MAMA LUNCH
10- 4206 - 140 -14
3584
24.83 *
092818
03/27/90
6,479.00
DCA INC
FEE FOR SERVICE
10- 4156 - 510 -51
37845
6,479.00 *
092819
03/27/90
80.81
COUNTS MED EQUIPMENT
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
10- 4510 - 440 -44
109114 5420
80.81 *
092820
03/27/90
15.00
MARTIN SCHEERER
REIMBURSEMENT
10- 4202 - 440 -44
15.00 *
092821
03/27/90
125.00
ESPECIALLY FOR
REFUND
10- 3055 - 000 -00
.125.00 *
092822
03/27/90
258.90
THE FITNESS STORE
WEIGHT EQUIP
10- 4504 - 440 -44
010688 5409
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
* ** -CKS
CHECK REGISTER
6620
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
258.90
*
* ** -CKS
092823
03/27/90
35.00
NATIONAL CERT BOARD
CERTIFICATION
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 560 -56
35.00
*
10- 4540 - 560 -56
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092A09
03/26/90
818.28
AAA
REGISTRATION EXP
818.28
*
10- 4256 - 510 -51
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092A17
03/27/90
1,316.58
ADS TO GO
MARKETING EXP
092A17
03/27/90
1,316.58
ADS TO GO
MARKETING EXP
092A17
03/27/90
1,316.57
ADS TO GO
MARKETING EXP
3,949.73
*
* * * * **
092A21
03/26/90
185.50
ADT SECURITY SYS.
ALARM SERVICE
185.50
*
* * * * **
092A27
03/26/90
53.30
ART GOKEY
MILEAGE
53.30
*
* * * * **
092A36
03/26/90
103.87
AUTOMOTIVE WHSL INC
REPAIR PARTS
103.87
*
092A39
03/26/90
199.80
ALTERNATOR REBUILD
CASTER
092A39
03/26/90
90.00
ALTERNATOR REBUILD
REBUILT
289.80
*
* * * * **
092A41
03/26/90
209.58
AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE
COST OF GOOD
092A41
03/26/90
179.70
AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE
CONCESSIONS
389.28
*
092A53
03/26/90
136.82
AMERICAN SHARECOM
TELEPHONE
136.82
*
* * * * **
092A76
03/26/90
129.55
ASPLUND COFFEE
COST OF GOODS
129.55
*
* * * * **
04 -02 -90 PAGE 8
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4204 - 600 -60
* ** -CKS
10- 4310 - 560 -56
* ** -CKS
50- 4214 - 822 -82 EDA025
50- 4214 - 842 -84 EDA025
50- 4214 - 862 -86 EDA025
* ** -CKS
30- 4304- 782 - 78-308969
6620
* ** -CKS
40- 4208 - 806 -80
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
99697 6013
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 560 -56
1756 6275
10- 4540 - 560 -56
14776 6320
* ** -CKS
28- 4624 - 703 -70
6169
28- 4624 - 703 -70
* ** -CKS
10- 4256 - 510 -51
* ** -CKS
28- 4624 - 703 -70
47962 6428
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
10- 4540 - 560 -56
1431
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
10- 4540 - 560 -56
092A96
03/26/90
154.00
REPLACE BATTERY
27- 4540- 664 -66
005331
154.00
*
kkkkkk
.
1310
6426
092A98
03/26/90
388.03
6596
BLEVENS CONS SUPPLY
388.03
*
k k k k k
6426
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUIOR DELIVERY
:B
0903
03/26/90
68.26
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 842 -84
68.26
*
kkkkkk
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 862 -86
092605
03/26/90
20.00
10- 4504 - 160 -16
092605
03/26/90
3.30
PENS'
092605
03/26/90
10.63
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
BINDER COVERS
10- 4504 - 260 -26
33.93
BERTELSON BROS: INC.
PENS
i
551855
kkkkkk
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
CROY CARTRIDGE
10- 4504 - 510 -51
092607
03/26/90
880.56
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 510 -51
553985
880.56
k k k k k k
092618
03/26/90
45.64
092818
03/26/90
41.82
092B18
03/26/90
22.95
110.41
kkkkkk
092824
03/26/90
221.53
092624
03/26/90
84.13
092824
03/26/90
131.28
436.94
kkkkkk
.
092B27
03/26/90
136.00
092B27
03/26/90
311.50
092B27
03/26/90
282.50
730.00
kkkkkk
092830
03/26/90
14.46
092630
03/27/90
4.32
092B30
03/27/90
71.60
092830
03/26/90
11.42
092B30
03/27/90
158.40
092830
03/26/90
51.30
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
AUTOMOBILE SERV CTR REPAIR WORK
AVR INC CONCRETE
BENSON SAFETY GLASSES
BACH -BILL BOILER LIC FEE
BACH -BILL GENERAL SUPPLIES
BACH -BILL OFFICE SUPPLIES
BADGER METER INC WATER METERS
04 -02 -90 PAGE 9
ACCOUNT NO. INV._ # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4248- 560 -56 6717 6402
40- 4540- 803 -80 18787 1044
10- 4642 - 301 -30 288277
30- 4204 - 781 -78
30- 4504 - 782 -78
30- 4516 - 781 -78
40- 1220 - 000 -00 617958 6415
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
SEALED BEAM
10- 4540 - 560 -56
1431
6102
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
BATTERY
10- 4540 - 560 -56
2783
6397
BATTERY WAREHOUSE
REPLACE BATTERY
27- 4540- 664 -66
005331
6424
BLEVENS CONS SUPPLY
REPAIR PARTS
28- 4248 - 703 -70
1310
6426
BLEVENS CONS SUPPLY
COST OF GOODS
28- 4624 - 703 -70
6596
BLEVENS CONS SUPPLY
COST OF GOODS
28- 4624 - 703 -70
6426
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUIOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 822 -82
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 842 -84
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 862 -86
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
DICTIONARY
10- 4504 - 160 -16
551875
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
PENS'
10- 4504 - 160 -16
554212
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
BINDER COVERS
10- 4504 - 260 -26
554212
BERTELSON BROS: INC.
PENS
10- 4504 - 440 -44
551855
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
CROY CARTRIDGE
10- 4504 - 510 -51
554740
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 510 -51
553985
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
092830
03/26/90
092830
03/26/90
092830
03/27/90
R R R R R
MESSAGE
::
02672
03/26/90
RRRRRR
10- 4504 - 510 -51
092878
03/27/90
092878
03/26/90
R R R R R M
STAMP PAD
092C01
03/26/90
092C01
03/26/90
R/�R RRR
09X05
03/27/90
092C05
03/27/90
092C05
03/27/90
092C05
03/27/90
R
X09
:::**
03/26/90
092C09
03/26/90
RRRRRR
092C16
03/26/90
092C17
03/26/90
092C17
03/26/90
BRAEMAR CLUBHOUSE
STRATEGIC PLANNING
092C22
03/26/90
092C22
03/26/90
R R R R R R
*
092C25
03/26/90
092C25
03/26/90
CHECK REGISTER
04 -02 -90
PAGE 10
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO.:INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
60.19
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 510 -51
15.69
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
STAMP PAD
10- 4516- 140 -14
2.38
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
HIGHLIGHTERS
10- 4516 - 440 -44
554212
389.76
*
* ** -CKS
35.35
BRAEMAR CLUBHOUSE
STRATEGIC PLANNING
10- 4206 - 100 -10
35.35
*
* ** -CKS
470.12
BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 520 -52
152301
6689
126.95
BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC
CLEANING SUPPLIES
10- 4512 - 520 -52
6419
597.07
* ** -CKS
93.60
C & S DISTRIBUTING
COST /GOODS SOLD
23- 4624 - 613 -61
102029
6307
109.52
C & S DISTRIBUTING
COST /GOODS SOLD
23- 4624 - 613 - 61102538
6529
203.12
* ** -CKS
7.00
CAMPBELL -RALPH
PARKING /CONF
12- 4202 - 434 -43
173.69
CAMPBELL -RALPH
PHOTO SUPPLIES
12- 4508 - 434 -43
20.58
CAMPBELL -RALPH
PHOTO SUPPLIES
12- 4508 - 434 -43
29.95
CAMPBELL -RALPH
EQUIPMENT
12- 4902 - 434 -43
231.22
* ** -CKS
153.10
CARLSON PRINTING
BUSINESS CARDS
10- 4504 - 510 -51
47387
293.60
CARLSON PRINTING
PRINTING
10- 4600 - 600 -60
47411
6749
446.70
* ** -CKS
55.37
CATCO
FITTINGS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
345247
6284
55.37
*
67.50
CDP
TONER
10- 4504 - 540 -54
99.82
CDP
COPY RENTAL
10- 4504 - 540 -54
167.32
*
* ** -CKS
5.01
CERT POWER TRAIN
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
60213
6400
25.03
CERT POWER TRAIN
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
59995
6266
30.04
* ** -CKS
100.70
CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO
AD FOR BIDS
10- 4210 - 140 -14
110451
40.87
CHAPIN PUBLISHING CO
ADVERTISING
30- 4214 - 781 -78
110896
6746
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT
CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP PAL ALARMS
CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP 2 PIKE POLE
COMM OF TRANSPORTATION
G9MM OF REVENUE SERVICES
CONTACT MOBILE COW
899989 -
CURTIN MATHESON SCI
CURTIN MATHESON SCI
CURTIS 1000
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
D.C. HEY CO.
D.C. 'HEY CO.
DAY - TIMERS INC
SWITCH /REPAIR WORK
LAB SUPPLIES
LAB SUPPLIES
LETTERHEAD
REPAIR PARTS
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
SERVICE CONTRACT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
10- 4574 - 440 -44 53957 5405
10- 4901 - 440 - 44.53958 5406
60- 1300 - 289 -04 81518
10- 4294 - 560 -56 14664 6398
10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611
10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611
10- 4504 - 510 -51
27- 4540 - 664 -66 42393 6442
23- 4248 - 612 -61 157656 6305
30- 4288 - 781 - 78.162472 6767
30- 4516 - 781 -78 6745
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
141.57
* * * * **
04 -02 -90 PAGE 11
092C33
03/26/90
25.50
092C33
03/27/90
20.50
092C33
03/26/90
27.10
092C33
03/26/90
55.90
092C33
03/26/90
20.50
092C33
03/26/90
20.50
092C33
03/26/90
20.50
092C33
03/26/90
20.50 -
092C33
03/26/90
815.10
092C33
03/26/90
27.10
EDINA
WATER
1,012.20 *
* * * * **
OF
EDINA
092C38
03/27/90
485.50
092C38
03/27/90
140.00
28- 4258- 708 -70
CITY
t 625.50 *
* * * * **
WATER
28- 4258 - 708 -70
092C51
03/27/90
163.75
WATER
30- 4258 - 782 -78
163.75 *
* * * * **
EDINA
WATER
092C65
03/26/90
188.95
188.95 *
* * * * **
09X86
03/26/90
233.36
299.96
092C87
03/26/90
187.84
421.20* -*
092C88
03/26/90
71.94
71.94
092C89
03/26/90
48.60
48.60
* * * * **
092D07
03/26/90
70.70
092D07
03/27/90
48.13
118.83
* * * * **
092D37
03/26/90.
61.48
CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP PAL ALARMS
CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP 2 PIKE POLE
COMM OF TRANSPORTATION
G9MM OF REVENUE SERVICES
CONTACT MOBILE COW
899989 -
CURTIN MATHESON SCI
CURTIN MATHESON SCI
CURTIS 1000
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
D.C. HEY CO.
D.C. 'HEY CO.
DAY - TIMERS INC
SWITCH /REPAIR WORK
LAB SUPPLIES
LAB SUPPLIES
LETTERHEAD
REPAIR PARTS
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
SERVICE CONTRACT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
10- 4574 - 440 -44 53957 5405
10- 4901 - 440 - 44.53958 5406
60- 1300 - 289 -04 81518
10- 4294 - 560 -56 14664 6398
10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611
10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611
10- 4504 - 510 -51
27- 4540 - 664 -66 42393 6442
23- 4248 - 612 -61 157656 6305
30- 4288 - 781 - 78.162472 6767
30- 4516 - 781 -78 6745
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
CHECK
REGISTER
04 -02 -90 PAGE 11
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
23- 4258- 612 -61
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
27- 4258- 662 -66
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
27- 4258 - 662 -66
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
27- 4258- 662 -66
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
28- 4258 - 702 -70
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
28- 4258 - 702 -70
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
28- 4258- 708 -70
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
28- 4258 - 708 -70
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
30- 4258 - 782 -78
CITY
OF
EDINA
WATER
50- 4258 - 841 -84
CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP PAL ALARMS
CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIP 2 PIKE POLE
COMM OF TRANSPORTATION
G9MM OF REVENUE SERVICES
CONTACT MOBILE COW
899989 -
CURTIN MATHESON SCI
CURTIN MATHESON SCI
CURTIS 1000
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO.
D.C. HEY CO.
D.C. 'HEY CO.
DAY - TIMERS INC
SWITCH /REPAIR WORK
LAB SUPPLIES
LAB SUPPLIES
LETTERHEAD
REPAIR PARTS
CONTRACTED REPAIRS
SERVICE CONTRACT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
10- 4574 - 440 -44 53957 5405
10- 4901 - 440 - 44.53958 5406
60- 1300 - 289 -04 81518
10- 4294 - 560 -56 14664 6398
10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611
10- 4504 - 482 -48 6611
10- 4504 - 510 -51
27- 4540 - 664 -66 42393 6442
23- 4248 - 612 -61 157656 6305
30- 4288 - 781 - 78.162472 6767
30- 4516 - 781 -78 6745
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
61.48 *
kkkkkk
092D39
03/26/90
1,420.08
1,420.08 *
kkkkkk
092D47
03/27/90
8.18
8.18 *
kkkkkk
092D85
03/26/90
453.00
092D85
03/26/90
1,266.25
1,719.25 *
kkkkkk
092E05
03/26/90
f 6,897.00
092E05
03/26/90
2,000.00
092E05
03/26/90
800.00
092E05
03/26/90
2,689.43
092E05
03/26/90
2,689.43 -
092E05
03/26/90
2,689.43
12,386.43 *
kkkkkk
092E20
03/26/90
85.00
85.00 *
k k k k k k
092E32
03/26/90
540.70
540.70 *
kkkkkk
092E75
03/26/90
300.00
300.00 *
kkkkkk
092E81
03/26/90
35.14
35.14 *
kkkkkk
092F02
03/26/90
3.60
092F02
03/26/90
272.19
k k k k k k
275.79 *
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
DAYTONS CAM CORDER
DEPENDABLE COURIER COURIER SERVICE
DUFFEY PAPER CO.
DUFFEY PAPER CO.
E. H. RENNER & SONS
E. H. RENNER & SONS
E. H. RENNER & SONS„
E. H. RENNER & SONS'.
E. H. RENNER & SONS
E. H. RENNER & SONS
ECOLAB PEST ELIM..
EASTMAN KODAK CO
EMPLOYEES CLUB
ENGINE PARTS SUPPLY
FACILITY SYSTEMS
FACILITY SYSTEMS
PAPER
PAPER
PUMP REPAIR
WELL #2 REPAIR
PUMP REMOVAL
PUMP SHAFT
PUMP SHAFT
PUMP SHAFT
SERVICE CONTRACT
EQUIP MAINT
SUPPLIES
PARTS
COVER PLATES
CHAIR
04 -02 -90 PAGE 12
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
12- 4902 - 434 -43
* ** -CKS
10- 4201 - 140 -14 150467
. * ** -CKS
10- 4504- 510 -51 65784 6585
10- 4504 - 510 -51 85785 6585
* ** -CKS
40- 4248 - 801 -80 2071 4271
40- 4248 - 801 -80 2073 6612
40- 4248 - 801 -80 2072 3985
40- 4540 - 801 -80 2070 5216
40- 4540 - 801 -80 2070 5216
40- 4540 - 801 -80 2070 5216
* ** -CKS
30- 4288 - 782 -78 P33754 6690
* ** -CKS
10- 4288 - 510 -51
* ** -CKS
10- 4504- 500 -50
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 106727 6009
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 520 -52 45877
10- 4901 - 510 -51 45878 6615
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
092F11
03/26/90
2,083.43
FEED RITE CONTROL
WATER CHEMICALS
2,083.43
kkkkkk
.
092F21
03/26/90
3,368.00
FLANAGAN SALES
LIGHTS FOR DOME
3,368.00 *
kkkkkk
092F47
03/27/90
51.70
FOWLER ELECTRIC
TOOLS
51.70 *
kkkkkk
092F50
03/26/90
43.86
FRED G ANDERSON
MATERIAL
092F50
03/26/90
40.98
FRED G ANDERSON
OIL BASE
092F50
03/26/90
7.34
FRED G ANDERSON
MATERIAL
092F50
03/26/90
20.49
FRED G ANDERSON
MATERIAL
092F50
03/26/90
i .37.38
FRED G ANDERSON
PAINT
150.05
kkkkkk
;
092F56
03/27/90
3,592.00
FRANK B. HALL & CO.
INSURANCE
3,592.00 *
kkkkkk
092F59
03/26/90
146.51
FRANK J. ZAMBONI
GENERAL SUPPLIES
146.51 *
kkkkkk
092F76
03/26/90
21.51
FLAHERTY EQUIP CORP
RINGS
092F76
03/26/90
182.12
FLAHERTY EQUIP CORP
PISTON /RINGS
203.63
092G09
03/27/90
195.00
GOVT TRAIN SERV
CONT ED
092G09
03/26/90
15.00
GOVT TRAIN SERV
WORKSHOP
092G09
03/27/90
20.99
CONF /LODGING
289.00 *
CRAGUN' S CONF . CTR.
kkkkkk
092G24
03/27/90
52.00
GEN. COMMUNICATIONS
INSTALLATION
092G24
03/27/90
27.30
GEN. COMMUNICATIONS
RADIO SERVICE
092G24
03/26/90
286.25
GEN. COMMUNICATIONS
MAINT CONTRACT
092G24
03/27/90
43.20
GEN. COMMUNICATIONS'
SPEAKER
408.75
kkkkkk
04 -02 -90 PAGE 13
ACCOUNT NO. INV. M P.O. # MESSAGE
40- 4622 - 805 -80 136281 1670
* ** -CKS
27- 4540 - 667 -66 4546
* ** -CKS
27- 4580 - 664 -66 39980 1061
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 520 -52 74036 5925
10- 4540 - 520 -52 73975 5727
10- 4540 - 520 -52 74051 5992
10-4540-520-52-74002 6484
10- 4540 - 520 -52 73978 5730
* ** -CKS
10- 4260 - 510 -51
* ** -CKS
30- 4504 - 782 -78 15213 6747
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 6256
10- 4540 - 560 -56 6256
* ** -CKS
10- 4202 - 420 -42 7091
10- 4202 - 600 -60
12- 4202 - 434 -43
* ** -CKS
10- 4248 - 440 -44 62192 6057
30- 4248 - 440 -44 63308 5051
10- 4294 - 560 -56 33042
10- 4504 - 440 -44 62192 6057
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
04 -02 -90 PAGE 14
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
092626
03/26/90
28.04
GENERAL OFFICE PROD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 420 -42
28.04
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092G62
03/26/90
68.00
GRANDMA S CUPBOARD
FOOD
27- 4624 - 663 -66
5517
68.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092672
03/26/90
45.00
GARY SMIEJA
GENERAL SUPPLIES
40- 4504 - 803 -80
45.00
* * * * **
DAN'S REGISTER SERVICE
** *-CKS
092G99
03/26/90
162.00
POPPER GA&W REG44Z R
REPAIRS
.27- 4248 - 663 -66
6678
092699
03/26/90
50.00
GOPHER CASH REGISTER
REPAIRS
27- 4248 - 666 -66
10434 6602
--24-2-.-949--*
( 2 checks)
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092H09
03/26/90
684.00
HALLMAN
OIL
10- 4618 - 560 -56
51298 6352
684.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092H23
-03/27/90
2,188.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
092H23
03/27/90
27,829.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
092H23
03/27/90
2,188.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
092H23
03/27/90
27,829.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
092H23
03/27/90
5,194.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
092H23
03/27/90
182.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
092H23
03/27/90
5,194.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
092H23
03/27/90
1,484.00
HARRIS HOMEYER CO.
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
72,088.00 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092H33
03/27/90
373.44
HENN CTY SHERIFF
WORKHOUSE /JAIL
10- 4286 - 220 -22
373.44 *
092H34
03/27/90
5,616.56
HENN COUNTY TREAS.
WORKHOUSE /JAIL
10- 4286 - 220 -22
20968
092H34
03/26/90
7,157.80
HENN COUNTY TREAS.
WORKHOUSE /JAIL
10- 4286 - 220 -22
20928
12,774.36 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092H56
03/26/90
13.98
HIRSHFIELDS
PAINT
10- 4540 - 540 -54
124795 6314
13.98 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092H74
03/26/90
72.08
HOOTEN CLEANERS
LAUNDRY
10- 4262 - 420 -42
092H74
03/26/90
8.48
HOOTEN CLEANERS
LAUNDRY
10- 4262 - 440 -44
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
i
04 -02 -90
PAGE 15
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. #
MESSAGE
80.56 *
kkkk *k
k -kk -CKS
092I09
03/26/90
95.00
IAAO
DUES
10- 4204 - 200 -20
716736,
95.00 *
. kkkkkk
kkk -CKS
092I49
03/26/90
94.49
INMAC
PRINTER STAND
10- 4504 - 260 -26
6457
092I49
03/26/90
26.93
INMAC
OFFICE SUPPLIES
30- 4516- 781 -78
6522
121.42 *
kkkkkk
-
kkk -CKS
092J23
03/26/90
156.45
JR JOHNSON SUP
TREES /FLOWERS /SHRUBS
30- 4660 - 782 -78
68568
6622
156.45 *
kkkkkk
-
kkk -CKS
092J27
03/26/90
jo 26.47
JERRYS FOODS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
23- 4504- 611 -61
26.47
kkkkkk
kkk -CKS
092J74
03/26/90
43.89
JUSTUS LUMBER
CHISEL
10- 4540 - 520 -52
26316
5913
092J74
03/26/90
24.08
JUSTUS LUMBER
DRYWALL
10- 4540 - 520 -52
27517
6015
092J74
03/26/90
155.21
JUSTUS LUMBER
FIRE GRID
10- 4540 - 520 -52
26776
5996
092J74
03/26/90
16.27
JUSTUS LUMBER
CHAIN BOLT
10- 4540 - 540 -54
27602
6111
092J74
03/26/90
180.59
JUSTUS LUMBER
LUMBER
10- 4540 - 540 -54
28131
6259
092J74
03/26/90
166.96
JUSTUS LUMBER
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 540 -54
27824
6184
092J74
03/26/90
18.91
JUSTUS LUMBER
GALV BOX
10 -4540- 540 -54
26856
6003
092J74
.03/26/90
488.22
JUSTUS LUMBER
REPAIR PARTS
40- 4540 - 802 -80
28316
6285
1,094.13
kkkkkk
_
kkk -CKS
092J99
03/27/90
40.00
JANET CANTON
MILEAGE /LOGIS
10- 4208 - 160 -16
40.00 *
kkk -CKS
K
:::*::
03/27/90
135.76
KAMAN BEARING & SPLY
REPAIR PARTS
27- 4540 - 664 -66
6462
135.76 *
kkkkkk
kkk -CKS
092K35
03/26/90
19.29
KNOX COMM CREDIT
MATERIAL
10- 4504 - 318 -30
612509
6190
092K35
03/27/90
26.99
KNOX COMM CREDIT
SHELVING
10- 4504 - 440 -44
600881
092K35
03/26/90
105.99
KNOX COMM CREDIT
SHEETROCK
10- 4540 - 520 -52
600663
6544
092K35
03/26/90
29.29
KNOX COMM CREDIT
MATERIAL
10- 4540 - 540 -54
600998
6499
092K35
03/26/90
87.06
KNOX COMM CREDIT
MATERIAL
10- 4540 - 540 -54
612094
6199
092K35
03/26/90
61.64
KNOX COMM CREDIT
PLUMBING PARTS
10- 4540- 646 -64
600931
6497
092K35
03/26/90
71.51
KNOX COMM CREDIT
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 646 -64
601050
6180
092K35
03/26/90
56.60
KNOX COMM CREDIT
LUMBER
10- 4604 - 646 -64
612038
6358
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
092K35
03/26/90
092K35
03/26/90
* * * * **
6180
092K51
03/26/90
* * * * **
GENERAL SUPPLIES
092K63
03/26/90.
lf * Rf*
LAWSON
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
092L28
03/26/90
478.07
LAWSON
092L30
03/26/90
09200
03/26/90
* * * * **
LAWSON
092L34
03/26/90
* * * * **
6180
092L66
03/26/90
* * * * **
REPAIR PARTS
092L70
03/26/90
09200
03/26/90
AMOUNT
162.75
215.73
836.85
332.00
332.00
170.50
170.50
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
KNOX COMM CREDIT LADDER
KNOX COMM CREDIT REPAIR PARTS
KREMER SPRG & ALGN
KUSTOM ELECTRONICS
SPRING FOR TRUCK
EQUIP MAINT
04 -02 -90 PAGE 16
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
27- 4504 - 667 -66 638247 6361
40- 4540- 802 -80 638538 6286
10- 4540 - 560 -56 19917 6255
10- 4274 - 420-42
42.87
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
TIE STRAP
10- 4504 - 301 -30
6180
84.41
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 322 -30
6106
193.16
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 322 -30
6108
397.12
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 325 -30-
5619
j 476.27
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPLLIES
10- 4504 - 325 -30
6181
66.33
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
STRAP
10- 4504 - 560 -56
6181
220.26
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 646 -64
6107
365.52
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
FASTENERS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6179
478.07
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6105
467.52
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6180
470.18
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540- 560 -56
6106
347.31
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
PARTS
10- 4620 - 560 -56
6181
486.18
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
KITS
10- 4620 - 560 -56
5915
60.23
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
SAFETY EQUIP
10- 4642 - 560 -56
5916
396.98
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
SAFETY EQUIP
40- 4504- 802 -80
6104
365.69
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
BOLTS
40- 4540- 801 -80
6179
471:40
LAWSON
PRODUCTS
SEAL KITS
40- 4540- 803 -80
6483
5,389.50
3,429.12
487.10
3,916.22
15.75
15.75
184.20
184.20
125.00-
125.00
LAYNE MINNESOTA CO
LAYNE MINNESOTA CO
LEEF BROS. INC
POWER CABLE
#12 WELL REPAIR
LAUNDRY
LONG LAKE FORD TRACT CONTRACTED REPAIRS
LUCY ROSCHE
LUCY ROSCHE
CLEANING
CLEANING
40- 4540 - 801 -80 17057 6356
40- 4540 - 801 -80 17058 6548
23- 4201 - 612 -61
10- 4248 - 560 -56 101352 6364
27- 4201 - 662 -66 30570 4909
27- 4201 - 662 -66 30570 4909
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
092L70 03/26/90
092M02
03/26/90
092M02
03/26/90
092M02
03/26/90
092M02
03/26/90
092M02
03/26/90
092M02
03/26/90
* * * * **
2809
092M10
03/26/90
* * * * **
6188
092M16
03%27/90
* * * * **
10- 4620 - 560 -56
092M19
03/26/90
092M19
03/26/90
092M19
03/26/90
092M19
03/26/90
* * * * **
6594
092M22
03/26/90
092M22
03/26/90
092M22
03/26/90
092M22
03/26/90
092M22
03/26/90
092M23
03/26/90
092M23
03/26/90
092M23
03/26/90
092M27
03/27/90
092M27
03/27/90
092M27
03/26/90
092M27
03/26/90
092M27
03/26/90
092M27
03/26/90
092M27
03/26/90
092M27
03/26/90
t
AMOUNT
125.00
125.00
491.66
833.30
325.44-
325.44
325.44
108.58
1,758.98
104.95
104.95
421.40
421.40
46.56
2,381.57
17.10
139.40
2,584.63
443.67
358.88
438.62
412.77
471.31
2,125.25 *
175.00
350.00
350.00
875.00 *
30.00-
30.00
467.50
383.55
380.00
327.25
495.00
90.30
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR- ITEM DESCRIPTION
LUCY ROSCHE CLEANING
MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC
MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC
MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC
MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC
MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC
MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC
MARSHALL & SWIFT
MCCAREN DESIGNS
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
MCNEILUS STEEL
MCNEILUS STEEL
MCNEILUS STEEL
MCNEILUS STEEL
MCNEILUS STEEL
MARKETING FACTORS
MARKETING FACTORS
MARKETING FACTORS
MERIT SUPPLY
MERIT SUPPLY
MERIT SUPPLY
MERIT SUPPLY
MERIT SUPPLY
MERIT SUPPLY
MERIT SUPPLY
MERIT SUPPLY
PUMP
SWEEPER PARTS
SWEEPER PARTS
SWEEPER PARTS
SWEEPER PARTS
SOLENOID VALVE
SUPPLIES
TREES /FLOWERS /SHRUBS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
REPAIR PARTS
TOOLS
PARTS
STEEL RODS
STEEL
MATERIAL
STEEL
MATERIAL
SERVICES
SERVICES
SERVICES
04 -02 -90 PAGE 17
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
27- 4201 - 662 -66 30570 4909
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
2616
6016
10- 4540- 560 -56
1885
5365
10- 4540 - 560 -56
2809
5365
i0- 4540 - 560 -56
2809
5365
10- 4540 - 560 -56
2809
5365
10- 4540 - 560 -56
2686
6188
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 200 -20
* ** -CKS
30- 4580 - 782 -78 2622 6768
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 440 -44
10- 4540 - 560 -56
10- 4580 - 560 -56
10- 4620 - 560 -56
10- 4540 - 560 -56 48134 6120
10- 4620 - 560 -56 49219 6247
10- 4620 - 560 -56 48892 6189
40- 4504 - 801 -80 49530 6251
40- 4540 - 803 -80 48516 6131
50- 4201 - 820 -82
50- 4201 - 840 -84
50- 4201 - 860 -86
AMBULANCE COLLECT
10- 3180 - 000 -00
AMBULANCE COLLECT
10- 3180 - 000 -00
HEAVY DUTY CLEANER
10- 4504 - 560 -56
23688
6127
CLEANING SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 646 -64
23825
6492
ICE MELT
10- 4520 - 318 -30
23705
6197
PRESSURE WASH
10- 4620 - 560 -56
23722
6208
WASH /WAX
10- 4620 - 560 -56
23689
6126
POLYLINERS
27- 4512- 667 -66
23700
6594
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 04 -02 -90 PAGE 18
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
092M27
03/26/90
499.00
092M27
03/26/90
489.95
092M27
03/26/90
358.80
10- 4204 - 140 -14 807727
MN.
3,491.35 "
kkkkkk
EQUIP
RENTAL
092M29
03/27/90
42.00
092M29
03/27/90
30.00
092M29
03/27/90
500.00
TEL.
EQUIP
572.00
kkkkkk
MN.
CELLULAR
092M32
03/26/90
113.74
092M32
03/26/90
227.17
TEL.
EQUIP
340.91
kkkkkk
MN.
CELLULAR
092M35
03/26/90
218,619.58
10- 4226 - 420 -42
MN.
218,619.58
k k k k k k
092M44
03/27/90
164.92
10- 4226 - 420 -42
MN.
164.92
kkkkkk
EQUIP
RENTAL
092M46
03/26/90
39.56
092M46
03/26/90
27.50
67.06
k M k k k k
092M60
03/26/90
63.95
092M60
03/26/90
43.10
092M60
03/26/90
37.10
144.15
kkkkkk
092M68
03/26/90
88.20
092M68
03/27/90
166.75
092M68
03/27/90
28.20
092M68
03/27/90
16.80
092M68
03/26/90
25.84
092M68
03/27/90
42.75
092M68
03/27/90
8.80
092M68
03/27/90
10.50
092M68
03/27/90
72.60
092M68
03/27/90
24.90
485.34
kkkkkk
MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES
MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES
MERIT SUPPLY PAINT
MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE COLLECT
MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE COLLECT
MESSERLI & KRAMER SERVICES
M AMUNDSON
M AMUNDSON
CIGARETTES
CIGARETTES
28- 4512- 702 -70 23850 6535
30- 4512 - 782 -78 23896 6687
40- 4504- 803 -80 23723 6207
10- 3180 - 000 -00
10- 3180 - 000 -00
12- 4201 - 434 -43
50- 4634 - 862 -86
50- 4634 - 862 -86
METRO WASTE CONTROL SEWER CHARGES 40- 4312 - 812 -80 505004
MIDWEST CHEM SUPPLY SUPPLIES 10- 4514 - 520 -52 27471 6605
METZ BAKING CO BREAD 27- 4624 - 663 -66 5511
METZ BAKING CO COST OF GOODS 28- 4624 - 703 -70
MILWAUKEE TOOL CO. TOOLS
MILWAUKEE TOOL CO. TOOLS
MILWAUKEE TOOL CO. BALL /PARTS
40- 4580 - 801 -80 6341
40- 4580 - 801 -80 6485
40- 4580 - 801 -80 6177
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
CAR PHONE
10- 4204 - 100 -10
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
CAR PHONE
10- 4204 - 140 -14 807727
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
EQUIP
RENTAL
10- 4226 - 420 -42
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
EQUIP
RENTAL
10- 4226- 420 -42
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
EQUIP
RENTAL
10- 4226 - 420 -42
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
EQUIP
RENTAL
10- 4226 - 420 -42
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
EQUIP
RENTAL
10- 4226 - 420 -42
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
EQUIP
RENTAL
10- 4226 - 420 -42
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
EQUIP
RENTAL
10- 4226 - 420 -42
MN.
CELLULAR
TEL.
EQUIP
RENTAL
10- 4226- 420 -42
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
092M70
03/27/90
kkkkkk
092M80
03/26/90
092M80
03/26/90
092M80
03/26/90
092M81
03/27/90
092M81
03/26/90
092M81
03/26/90
092M81
03/26/90
092M81
03/27/90
092M82
03/26/90
092M82
03/26/90
092M82
03/26/90 f
kkkkkk
092M93
03/27/90
k *kk **
092M97
03/26/90
kkkkkk
092N14
03/26/90
092N14
03/26/90
092N14
03/26/90
kkkk *k
092N18
03/26/90
k *kk *k
092N22
03/26/90
092N22
03/26/90
092N22
03/26/90
092N22
03/26/90
kkkkkk
09ZN33
03/26/90
AMOUNT
138.00
138.00 *
24.63
43.66
48.73
117.02 *
180.00
60.00
45 .19'
68.28-
195.97
412.88 *
30.00
30.00
30.00
90.00 *
146.00
146.00 *
4,394.50
4,394.50 *
33.33
33.34
33.33
100.00 *
186.26
186.26 *
216.72
117.59
173.24
184.78
692.33
149.00
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
MN. CONWAY NOZZLE REPAIR
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN. TORO INC.
MN. TORO INC.
MN. TORO INC.
MN. TORO INC.
MN. TORO INC.
MN. TROOPER
MN. TROOPER
MN. TROOPER
MOTOROLA
MPLS FINANCE DEPT
NARCOFFICER
NARCOFFICER
NARCOFFICER
NATL CAMERA EXCH
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
NELSON RADIO COMM
NOTICE PUBLIC HRG
NOTICE PUBLIC HRG
AD FOR BIDS
IRRIGATION SCHOOL
SCHOOL
REPAIR PARTS
CREDIT
MOWER PARTS
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
12 BATTERIES
WATER
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
PHOTO SUPPLIES
SECURITY REPAIRS
ALARM
ALARM SERVICE
ALAARM SERVICE
SIREN REPAIR
04 -02 -90 PAGE 19
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4248 - 440 -44 14982 5815
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87002
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87003
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87001
27- 4202 = 664 -66
27- 4202 - 664 -66
27- 4540 - 664 -66
27- 4540 - 664 -66
27- 4540- 664 -66
50- 4214 - 822 -82
50- 4214 - 842 -84
50- 4214 - 862 -86
102413 6278
101806 6332
100406 6046
102099
102588 6601
10- 4504 - 440 -44 6058
40- 4640 - 803 -80
50 -4214- 822 -82
50- 4214 - 842 -84
50- 4214 - 862 -86
10- 4508 - 420 -42 252244 6588
10- 4504 - 646 -64 6738
28- 4304- 702 -70 207488
50- 4304 - 821 -82 207584
50- 4304 - 861 -86 207583
10- 4540 - 560 -56 15698 6399
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
149.00
kkkkkk
092N48
03/27/90
9.97
NO STAR TURF
REPAIR PARTS
092N48
03/26/90
77.60
NO STAR TURF
MOWER PARTS
87.57
k k k* k k
092N72
03/26/90
550.00
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
JUNK TIRES
092N72
03/26/90
1,099.44
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES
1,649.44
k k k k k k
092N82
03/26/90
63.23
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST /GOODS SOLD
092N82
03/26/90
498.00
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST /GOODS SOLD
092N82
03/26/90
117.02
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST /GOODS SOLD
678.25
kkkkkk
092N96
03/26/90
67.00
MINN COMM PAGING
SERVICE CONTRACT
67.00
k k k k k k
092017
03/26/90
50.00
OFFICE PRODUCTS
CABLES
092017
03/26/90
22.00
OFFICE PRODUCTS
GENDER MENDER
092017
03/26/90
35.00
OFFICE PRODUCTS
CABLES
107.00
k k k k k k
092024
03/26/90
509.60
OFFSET PRINTING
TIME CARDS
092024
03/26/90
291.00
OFFSET PRINTING
PRINTING
092024
03/26/90
457.00
OFFSET PRINTING
PRINTING
1,257.60
092027
03/26/90
3,995.00
OLD DOMINION BRUSH
BROOM STICK
C3,995.00 *
092P28
03/26/90
.58
PLANT EQUIP INC
CONTROL VALVE
177.58 *
kkkkkk
092P48
03/26/90
451.53
PIP PRINTING
PRINTING
092P48
03/26/90
57.50
PIP PRINTING
OUTSIDE PRINTING
092P48
03/26/90
121.10
PIP PRINTING
PRINTING
630.13
kkkkkk
04 -02 -90 PAGE 20
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
27- 4540 - 664 -66 204091 6421
27- 4540 - 664 -66 204090 6421
* ** -CKS
10- 4310 - 560 -56 8447 6339
10- 4616 - 560 -56
*** -CKS
23- 4624 - 613 -61 170065 6306
23- 4624 - 613 -61 170258 6309
23- 4624 - 613 -61 170302 6309
* ** -CKS
30- 4288 - 782 -78 6608
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 510 -51 103351 5873
10- 4504 - 510 -51 705450 6313
10- 4504 - 510 -51 103570 5873
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 510 -51 30616 5792
10- 4600 - 420 -42 30724 6447
10- 4600 - 420 -42 30725 6445
**A-CKS
10- 4534 - 310 -30 3361 5912
40- 4540 - 805 -80 12248 6182
* ** -CKS
23- 4600- 611 -61 6740 6308
30- 4600 - 781 -78 6782 6691
30- 4600- 781 -78 6749 6589
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
092P64
03/27/90
219.80
POMMER CO. INC.
2 PLAQUES
219.80
RRRRRR
092P78
03/26/90
78.00
PRINTERS SERV INC
BLADES SHARPENED
78.00 *
RRRRRR
092Q20
03/26/90
69.36
QUICK SERV BATTERY
FILTERS
69.36 *
RRRtIRR
•
092R25
03/26/90
215.70
RENTAL EQUIP & SALES
TOOLS
092R25
03/26/90
329.00
RENTAL EQUIP & SALES
REPLACE CHAIN SAW
544.70
RRRRRR
j
092R31
03/27/90
21.53
RETAIL DATA SYS MN_.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.53
R R R R R R
092R35
03/26/90
340.00
RICHFIELD PLUMB CO
PLUMBING REPAIRS
340.00
092R49
03/27%90
201..31
ROAD RESCUE
LIGHT BOXES
092R49
03/26/90
36.86
ROAD RESCUE
FLASHER
238.17 *
RRRRRR
092R53
03/27/90
28.80
ROBERT B. HILL
SALT
28.80 *
RRRRRR
092R59
03/26/90
352.60
ROCHESTER MIDLAND
GENERAL SUPPLIES
352.60 *
RRRR *R
•
092R65
03/26/90
94.20
ROLLINS OIL CO.
MORROR HEAD
092R65
03/26/90
94.20
ROLLINS OIL CO.
MIRROR HEAD
092R65
03/26/90
94.20-
ROLLINS OIL CO.
MORROR HEAD
94.20
kR * *RR
092R79
03/27/90
106.25
RTW INC.
FEE'FOR SERVICE
04 -02 -90 PAGE 21
ACCOUNT N0. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4504 - 440 -44 021481 5810
RRR -CKS
28- 4274 - 704 -70 47604
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 35698 6203
* ** -CKS
10- 4580 - 301 -30 11526 6204
10- 4901 - 650 -64 11622 6498
* ** -CKS
30- 4516- 781 -78 1178 6766
RRR -CKS
27- 4248 - 662 -66 9535 6677
* ** -CKS
10- 4510- 440 -44 030113 5800
10- 4540- 560 -56 20313 6401
* ** -CKS
10- 4504- 440 -44 22418 5.054
* ** -CKS
28- 4504 - 702 -70 6442
**A-CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 93850 6211
10- 4540 - 560 -56 93850 6221
10- 4540- 560 -56 93850 6221
10- 4260- 510 -51
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
092R79
03/27/90
092R79
03/26/90
* * * * **
10- 4540 - 560 -56
092S09
03/26/90
* * * * **
SOUTHDALE FORD
092S27
03/26/90
* * * * **
092S34
03/26/90
092S34
03/26/90
092S34
03/26/90
092S34
03/26/90
092S34
03/26/90
092S34
03/26/90
092S35
03/26/90
092S35
03/26/90
233077
092S45
03/26/90
092S45
03/26/90
092S45
03/26/90
092S45
03/26/90
* * * * **
50- 4236 - 821 -82
092S72
03/26/90
092S72
03/26/90
* * * * **
50- 4236 - 841 -84
092S77
03/26/90
092S77
03/26/90
092S77
03/26/90
092S77
03/26/90
092S77
03/26/90
092S77
03/26/90
092S77
03/26/90
092S78
03/26/90
092S78
03/26/90
AMOUNT
289.85
21.25
417.35
127.15
127.15
26.74
26.74
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
RTW INC. FEE FOR SERVICE
RTW INC. FEE FOR SERVICE
SCHAFER EQUIP CO
SHERWIN WILLIAMS
RACK FOR VAN
PAINT TRAY LINERES
04 -02 -90 PAGE 22
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
10- 4260- 510 -51
10 -4580- 301 -30 150317 6011
40- 4544 - 801 -80 35077 6318
29.15
SOUTHDALE FORD
HOSE ASSM
10- 4540- 560 -56
232574
46.13
SOUTHDALE FORD
MOTOR ASSM
10- 4540 - 560 -56
233175
36.37
SOUTHDALE FORD
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
232897
9.41
SOUTHDALE FORD
SWITCH
10- 4540 - 560 - 56233503
129.83
SOUTHDALE FORD
LINK ASSM
10- 4540 - 560 -56
233004
8.74
SOUTHDALE FORD
BUSHING
10- 4540 - 560 -56
233077
259.63 *
38.95
SOUTHERN VACUUM
FLOOR MAINT
50- 4236 - 821 -82
42.95
SOUTHERN VACUUM
VACUUM REPAIR
50- 4236 - 841 -84
81.90 *
2.96
ST. PAUL BOOK
NAME TAGS
10- 4206 - 100 -10
921742
46.16
ST. PAUL BOOK
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 325 -30
848382
6269
11.96
ST. PAUL BOOK
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 420 -42
921882
16.69
ST. PAUL BOOK
OFFICE SUPPLIES
10- 4516 - 600 -60
920575
6569
77.77
24.00
STREICHERS
UNIFORM ALLWANCE
10- 4266- 420 -42
M69164
6502
147.70
STREICHERS
MAPLIGHT
10- 4620- 560 -56
68727
6005
171.70
100.00
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
- REPAIR WORK
10- 4248 - 560 -56
98713
171.50
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR WORK
10- 4248 - 560 -56
6896
48.49
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
MODULE
10- 4540- 560 -56
122970
72.00
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
WIRE SET
10- 4540- 560 -56
122281
21.68
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
LATCH
10- 4540 - 560 -56
122221
2.30
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
HOSE
10- 4540 - 560 -56
122558
12.10
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
VALVE
10- 4540 - 560 -56
122765
428.07
62.35
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
PLUMBING PARTS
10- 4540 - 646 -64
6380
32.48
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
PLUMBING PARTS
10- 4540 - 646 -64
6342
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
092S78
03/26/90
80.24
092S78
03/26/90
282.48
092S78
03/26/90
236.91
GENERAL SUPPLIES
40- 4504 - 802 -80
694.46
kkRkkR
092S80
03/26/90
1,750.00
10- 4612- 560 -56
T17317
1,750.00
RRRRkR
092S90
03/26/90
39.60
3371
3850
39.60
R R R R k R
60930
5811
092S97
03/27/90
283.05
6345
283.05
Rk *Rkk
l
092T08
03/26/90
49.98
092T08
03/26/90
67.99
117.97
Rkkkkk
092T10
03/26/90
413.50
092T10
03/26/90
360.00
092T10
03/26/90
128.00
.901.50 *
RRkRkR
092T14
03/26/90
45.24
45.24 *
kkkRRR
092T40
03/26/90
32.43
092T40
03/26/90
59.50
092T40
03/26/90
34.18
126.11
RRRRRR
092753
03/26/90
4,000.08
4,000.08
*kkRkk
092T96
03/26/90
352.00
092T96
03/27/90
246.50
092T96
03/26/90
2,035.00
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP REPAIR PARTS
SUBURBAN RATE
SWANSON BROTHERS
SEH
TARGET
TARGET
TERRY ANN SALES CO
TERRY ANN SALES CO
TERRY ANN SALES CO
TEXGAS CORP.
TOLL COMPANY
TOLL COMPANY
TOLL COMPANY
TRACY OIL
(see also 092T96)
TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR
TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR
TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR
SRA DUES
SAND
PRO ENG SERVICES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
PHOTO SUPPLIES
04 -02 -90 PAGE 23
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
40- 4540 - 801 -80 6175
40- 4540 - 801 -80 6281
40- 4540- 803 -80 6337
* ** -CKS
10- 4201 - 506 -50
* ** -CKS
10- 4504- 301 -30 26096 6276
* ** -CKS
40- 4201 - 800 -80 6871
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 440 -44
12- 4508 - 434 -43
* ** -CKS
GARBAGE BAGS 27- 4504- 663 -66 1048 6676
PAPER CUPS 27- 4504- 663 -66 1045 6675
SHOP TOWELS 27- 4504 - 664 -66 1034 6163
* ** -CKS
PROPANE 10- 4504 - 301 -30 6482
* ** -CKS
CAPS WELDER
10- 4504 - 560 -56
107190
5765
PROPANE
10- 4610 - 560 -56
488036
6486
GENERAL SUPPLIES
40- 4504 - 802 -80
35474
6176
* ** -CKS
GASOLINE
10- 4612- 560 -56
T17317
6477
* ** -CKS
REPAIR TO DOOR
10- 4248 - 440 -44
3371
3850
DOOR REPAIR
10- 4248 - 440 -44
60930
5811
DOOR SECTION
10- 4540 - 540 -54
1878
6345
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
092T96
03/26/90
2,886.00
092T96
03/26/90
104.50
5,624.00
R *RRRR
092U08
03/26/90
3,312.15
092U08
03/26/90
698.35
092U08
03/26/90
297.00
092U08
03/27/90
51.30
4,358.80
R R R R R R
092V10
03/26/90
475.11
475.11
* R R * R
092V15
03/26/90
457.80
457.80 *
RRR * **
092V46
03/26/90
370.86
370.86 *
* * *RRR
092W44
03/26/90
181.35
181.35 *
R R * R R *
092W49
03/26/90
190.14
190.14
RRkRRR
092W66
03/26/90
41.13 -4i.98-
41.13 *1 -*
RRRRRR
092W76
03/26/90
140.10
092W76
03/26/90
5,898.93
6,039.03
* R R R R R
092X05
03/26/90
160.00
160.00
* R * R R
092Z05
03/26/90
109.05
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR . ITEM DESCRIPTION
TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR
TWIN CITY GAR. DOOR
UNIFORM UNLIMITED
UNIFORM UNLIMITED
UNIFORM UNLIMITED
UNIFORM UNLIMITED
GAS DOOR .
ROLLERS
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
BADGES
VALLEY INDUSTRIAL LP FUEL
VAN PAPER CO. SUPPLIES
VESSCO REPAIR PARTS
WEST WELD SUPPLY CO.
WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
WILLIAMS STEEL
WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY
WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY
XEROX CORP.
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
TUBES /GUIDE VALVE
HYDRAULIC LIFT
HARD HAT SPRAY
,REPAIR PARTS
GOLF MATS
COPY DEVELOPER
SAFETY EQUIP
04 -02 -90 PAGE 24
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4540- 540 -54 1898 5708
10- 4540- 560 -56 60798 6128
* ** -CKS
10- 4266 - 420 -42
10- 4266 - 430 -42
10- 4504 - 420 -42
10- 4504 - 440 -44 20931
**A-CKS
28- 4612 - 704 -70
* ** -CKS
10-4514-520-52-301486 6599
* ** -CKS
40- 4540 - 805 -80 7483 6136
* ** -CKS
10- 4610- 560 -56 82262 5851
**A-CKS
10- 4248 - 560 -56 22440 5869
* ** -CKS
10 -4620r 560 -56
* ** -CKS
27- 4540 - 666 -66 24973 6455
27- 4636 - 667 -66 21833 6451
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 510 -51
* ** -CKS
28- 4642 - 701 -70
a
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
6322
10- 4540 - 560 -56
109.05
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6322
10- 4540 - 560 -56
092Z14
03/26/90
9.45
092Z14
03/26/90
24.79 -
092Z14
03/26/90
3.1.80
092Z14
03/26/90
24.79
092Z14
03/26/90
7.16
092Z14
03/26/90
21.79
70.20
* * * * **
191,458.21
191458.11-
6,122.13
7,180.76
1,149.00
1 ,g-e-
32,206.97
8,385.54
8,609.16
r
249,023.35
7,076.66
1,197.75
512,409.53*
5 ' "'° "'
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ZIEGLER INC
ZIEGLER INC
ZIEGLER INC
ZIEGLER INC
ZIEGLER INC
ZIEGLER INC
FUND 10 TOTAL
FUND 12 TOTAL
FUND 23 TOTAL
FUND 25 TOTAL
FUND 27 TOTAL
FUND 28 TOTAL
FUND 30 TOTAL
FUND 40 TOTAL
FUND 50 TOTAL
FUND 60 TOTAL
TOTAL
DEFLECTO
DEFLECTO
REGULATOR /GASKET
DEFLECTO
ROD
DEFLECTO
GENERAL FUND
COMMUNICATIONS
ART CENTER
CAPITAL FUND
GOLF COURSE FUND
RECREATION CENTER FUND
EDINBOROUGH PARK
UTILITY FUND
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
CONSTRUCTION FUND
.04 -02 -90 PAGE 25
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6322
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6322
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6258
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6322
10- 4540 - 560 -56
6274
10- 4540- 560 -56
632
* ** -CKS
;1
Ge
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK
REGISTER
02 -28 -90 PAGE 1
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
031700
03/01/90
47.96
R M LUTZ
CONT ED
10- 4202 - 420 -42
MANUAL
-0369
egteif9
M LUTZ
UNlFeRM AkEeWANeE
iB 4266 428 42
- -M,4NHAt --
031700
03/01/90
67.18
R M LUTZ
UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
10- 4266 - 420 -42
MANUAL
115.14* 4;.96
* * * * **
* *" -CKS
032M98
03/01/90
1,198.73
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
10- 4254 - 440 -44
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
1,627.90
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
10- 4254 - 520 -52
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
7,728.91
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
10- 4254 - 540 -54
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
2,140.64
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
10- 4254 - 646 -64
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
273.50
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
23- 4254 - 612 -61
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
1,418.01
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
27- 4254- 662 -66
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
291.23
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
27- 4254- 664 -66
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
4,880..59
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
27- 4254 - 667 -66
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
5,167.19
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
28- 4254 - 702 -70
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
6,646.94
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
30- 4254 - 782 -78
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
428.17
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
40- 4254- 801-80
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
3,766.13
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
40- 4254 - 803 -80
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
94.07
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
50- 4254- 821 -82
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
418.94
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
50- 4254 - 841 -84
MANUAL
032M98
03/01/90
318.25
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
50- 4254 - 861 -86
MANUAL
36,399.20
* * * * **
* *" -CKS
032U27
03/01/90
676.76
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
473.93
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 622 -62
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
53.06
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 628 -62
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
16.06
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
23- 4256 - 612 -61
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
52.41
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
27- 4256 - 662 -66
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
188.06
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
27- 4256- 667 -66
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
98.92
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
28- 4256- 702 -70
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
294.88
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
30- 4256 - 782 -78
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
98.92
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256- 702 -70
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
98.92-
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 702 -70
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
102.64
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256- 821 -82
MANUAL
032U27
03/01/90
112.07
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 841 -84
MANUAL
2,068.79
* ** -CKS
033A82
03/01/90
46.25
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
033A82
03/01/90
1.68
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256- 628 -62
MANUAL
47.93
" ** -CKS
033A84
03/01/90
12.35
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256- 510 -51
MANUAL
12.35
* ** -CKS
033C33
03/01/90
137,000.00
CITY /EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
50- 1010- 000 -00
MANUAL
033C33
03/01/90
137,000.00-
CITY /EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
50- 1010 - 000 -00
MANUAL
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
RRRRRR
036F14 03/01/90
036F14 03/01/90
R R R * R *
AMOUNT
00 *
15,149.28
553.46
15,702.74
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR
FIDELITY BANK
FIDELITY BANK
02 -28 -90 PAGE 2
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
FICA 10- 4149 - 510 -51 MANUAL
MEDICARE 10- 4162 - 510 -51 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
037E11
03/08/90
9.03-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
12.92-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
1.02-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037EII
03/08/90
3.77-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86.
MANUAL
037EII
03/08/90
2.31-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
4.31-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
25.87-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
2.13-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
451.44
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
89?EH
89�91�98
H?.65
EAGLE WfNE WINE
5e 4620 842 84
MANUAL--- -
037E11
03/08/90
646.19
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
037EII
03/08/90
51.00
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
188.59
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
115.50
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037EII
03/08/90
106.48
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037EII
03/08/90
1,293.58
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E11
03/08/90
215.68
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E11
03/01/90
20.54
x,165.29
EAGLE WINE MIX
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
* * * * **
3,027.64*
* ** -CKS
037E26
03/08/90
2.01-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
23.17-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
3.06-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
4.23-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
4.23-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
4.23
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
100.62
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
153.44
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
1,158.88
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
211.64
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
211.64
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
211.64-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
189.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
591.75
ED PHILLIPS
50-4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
599.30
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
33.60-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
1,150.60
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
775.53
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
760.25
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
845.55
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
685.85
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
037E26
03/08/90
216.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
7,373.29 *
a
I
1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR' ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
■■. ■.� ... -CKS
037G82
03/08/90
17.36-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037G82
03/08/90
19.19-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
037G82
03/08/90
60.95-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037G82
03/08/90
41.12-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
037G82
03/08/90
959.55
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037G82
03/08/90
3,047.27
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037G82
03/08/90
2,056.24
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037G82
03/08/90
182.01-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
699,992
O
2,109.66- .9D
GRises
eeePER
58 4628 842 84
MANUA6 -
037G82
03/08/90
114.32-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
3,518.45"
* ** -CKS
037J62
03/08/90
4.67-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
4.67-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
4.40-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
4.67
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
21.55-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
1.57-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
60.00-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
7.27-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
1.30-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
4.66-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
7.83-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
58.82-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
11.54-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
.96-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
1,078.08
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
4.80
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
14.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
3,001.02
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
2,940.16
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
12.80
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
2.00.
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
470.20
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
9.60
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
470.20-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
437.06
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
- 037J62
03/08/90
4.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
157.96
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
465.80
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
129.72
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
8.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
463.94
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
726.16
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
6.80
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
1.60
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
97.29
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
1,151.72
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
7.60
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
21.60
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK
REGISTER
02 -28 -90 PAGE 4
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
037J62
03/08/90
1.20
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037J62
03/08/90
781.03
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
11,340.57 "
* * ■��■
* ** -CKS
037P32
03/01/90
25,046.68
P.E.R.A.
PERA
10- 4145 - 510 -51
MANUAL
25,046.68
* ** -CKS
037P82
03/08/90
3.25-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
3.25-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
3.25
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
9.17-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
_2.03-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
13.76-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
142.38-
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/01/90
19.95-
PRIOR WO
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/01/90
19.95
PRIOR WO
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/01/90
19.95
PRIOR WINE
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
142.37
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
142.38
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
101.74
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
458.53
PRIOR WINE.
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037P82
03/08/90
687.86
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1,382.24
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
037Q16
03/08/90
15.92-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
.68-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
4.68-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
5.98-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
55.70-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
27.11-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
7.81-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
18.53-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
.17
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
12.90-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
2.36-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
46.69-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
298.80
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
796.40
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
1,355.25
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
2,784.30
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
390.20
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
2,334.45
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
465.47
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
67.63
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
1,848.74
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
1,283.64
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
16.92-
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037Q16
03/08/90
234.93
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
037Q16
03/01/90
.03
QUALITY WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
s
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
02 -28 -90 PAGE 5
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV..#
P.O. # MESSAGE
037Q16
03/01/90
.03
QUALITY
WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
11,644.76 *
kkkkkk
* ** -CKS
037T49
03/08/90
549.50
TOW DISTRIBUTING
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
549.50 *
kkkkkk
* ** -CKS
039N16
03/01/90
24.51
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 301 -30
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
97.19
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 321 -30
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
24,603.23
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 322 -30
MANUAL
039.N16
03/01/90
108.94
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 330 -30
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
62.41
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 330 -30
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
3,104.46
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 330 -30
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
2,778.38
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 375 -30
MANUAL
03SN16
03/01/90
1,005.24
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 440 -44
MANUAL
03SN16
03/01/90
45.99
NSP
POWER
10- 4252- 460 -46
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
1,380.75
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 520 -52
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
2,266.07
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 540 -54
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
'2,213.18
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 646 -64
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
4,208.37
NSP
POWER
10- 4252 - 646 -64
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
733.70'
NSP
POWER
23- 4252 - 612 -61
MANUAL
03SN16
03/01/90
265.08
NSP
POWER
26- 4252 - 682 -6.8
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
1,363.76
NSP
POWER
27- 4252 - 662 -66
MANUAL
039N16
.03/01/90
204.09
NSP
POWER
27- 4252 - 664 -66
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
688.44
NSP
POWER
27- 4252 - 667 -66
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
9,165.10
NSP
POWER
28- 4252 - 702 -70
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
489.72
NSP
POWER
29- 4252 - 722 -72
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
6,383.49
NSP
POWER
30- 4252 - 782 -78
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
2,209.09
NSP
POWER
40- 4252 - 801 -80
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
4,400.94
NSP
POWER
40- 4252 - 803 -80
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
69.86
NSP
POWER
40- 4252 - 803 -80
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
4,921.34
NSP
POWER
40- 4252- 803 -80
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
3,087.58
NSP
POWER
40- 4252 - 803 -80
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
36.99
NSP
POWER
40- 4252 - 804 -80
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
476.61
NSP
POWER
41- 4252 - 902 -90
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
723.72
NSP
POWER
50- 4252- 821 -82
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
737.65
NSP
POWER
50- 4252 - 841 -84
MANUAL
039N16
03/01/90
386.11
NSP
POWER
50- 4252 - 861 -86
MANUAL
78,241.99
kkkkkk
* ** -CKS
039U27
03/01/90
3;150.21
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256- 510 -51
MANUAL
039U27
03/01/90
776.60
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 622 -62
MANUAL
039U27
03/01/90
98.82
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
23- 4256- 612 -61
MANUAL
039U27
03/01/90
24.91
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
26- 4256 - 682 -68
MANUAL
039U27
03/01/90
201.92
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
27- 4256 - 662 -66
MANUAL
039U27
03/01/90
35.00
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
27- 4256 - 664 -66
MANUAL
039U27
03/01/90
101.64
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
28- 4256 - 702 -70
MANUAL
039U27
03/01/90
37.92
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
29- 4256- 722 -72
MANUAL
039U27
03/01/90
78.12
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
40- 4256- 801 -80
MANUAL-
039U27
03/01/90
68.26
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
40- 4256- 803 -80
MANUAL
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
039U27 03/01/90
kkkkkk
040776
0 43*:6 kk
kkkkkk
044E11
044E11
044E11
044E11
044E11
044E11
044E11
044EII
044E11
044E11
kkkkkk
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
044E26
kkkkkk
044G82
044G82
CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 6
AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
111.53 US WEST COMM TELEPHONE 50- 4256 - 861 -86 MANUAL
4,684.93 *
* ** -CKS
03/01/90 15.00 MN GFOA DUES 10- 4204 - 160 -16 MANUAL
15.00 *
* ** -CKS
03/01/90
991.25
JAMES CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION
27 -1332- 000 -00
MANUAL
991.25
* ** -CKS
03/08/90
7.79-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
11.92-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
44.65-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
1.21-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
389.44
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
595.91
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
60.69
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
2,232.40
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/01/90
108.44
EAGLE WINE MIX
50- 4632- 842 -84
MANUAL
03/01/90
82.67
EAGLE WINE MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
3,403.98
* ** -CKS
03/08/90
5.73-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
14.95-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
14.75-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
10.42-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
2.03-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
747.51
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
737.63
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
521.04
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
101.62
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
70.85-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
131.20
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL-
03/08/90
208.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
335.50
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
313.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
923.61
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
788.31
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
1,125.23
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
622.51
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
621.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
7,058.38
* ** -CKS
03/08/90
5.00-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
22.50-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 862-86
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV
044G82
03/08/90
36.45-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
044082
03/08/90
81.49-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
044G82
03/08/90
91.22-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 862 -86
044G82
03/08/90
4,074.46
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
044G82
03/08/90
4,561.02
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626- 862, -86
044G82
03/08/90
1,822.62
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628- 822 -82
044G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
044G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
10,221.44
* * * * **
044J62
03/08/90
4.70-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
52.02-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
22.17-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
3.02-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
8.84-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
044J62
03/08/90
11.91-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
044J62
03/08/90
66.22-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
044J62
03/08/90
11.77-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
9.53-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
49.68-
JOHNSON
WINE
50 -3710- 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
12.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
152.74-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
1,108.82
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
5.20
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
2,601.10
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626- 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
3,310.70
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
044362
03/08/90
16.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
044J62
03/08/90
14.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626- 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
2,484.18
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
55.29-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
2.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
471.27
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
8.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
301.99
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
044J62
03/08/90
1,191.08
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
044J62
03/08/90
11.20
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
044J62
03/08/90
14.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
044J62
03/08/90
885.52
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
044J62
03/08/90
23.20
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
954.54
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
9.60
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
1,178.36
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
044J62
03/08/90
10.32-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
044J62
03/01/90
76.99
JOHNSON
WINE MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
14,223.14
* * * * **
044P20
03/08/90
6.00
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
044P20
03/08/90
252.75
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
044P20
03/08/90
164.75
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
044P20
03/08/90
4.00
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
04020
03/01/90
25.00
PAUSTIS
& SONS MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
02 -28 -90 PAGE 7
# P.O. # MESSAGE
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
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
1990 CITY OF EDINA.
CHECK NO. DATE
*::*pk k k 0 03/01/90
kkkkkk
044P82
03/08/90
044P82
03/08/90
044P82
03/08/90
044P82
03/08/90
044P82
03/08/90
044P82
03/08/90
k k k k k k
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
044Q16
kkk k'kk
046700
kkkkkk
046A82
AMOUNT
452.50
5,000.00
5,000.00
2.69 -
9.07-
7.69-
134.70
453.40
384.74
953.39
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
POSTMASTER
PRIOR WINE
PRIOR WINE
PRIOR WINE
PRIOR WINE
PRIOR WINE
PRIOR WINE
POSTAGE
02 -28 -90 PAGE 8
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
10- 4290 - 510 -51 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
03/08/90
.72-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
11.84-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
4.90-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
33.23-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
2.38-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
1.08-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
3.11-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
14.30-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
17.43-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
3.07-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
8.96-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
.56-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
62.56-
QUALITY
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
592.01
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
1,661.25
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
155.60
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
448.20
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
3,127.84
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
489.45
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
72.10
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
03/08/90
1,426.25
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
237.30
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
107.40
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
03/08/90
55.90
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
03/08/90
306.00
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628 - 862-86
MANUAL
03/08/90
1,739.90
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
10,255.06
* ** -CKS
03/01/90
43.50
J LONG
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 420 -42
MANUAL
43.50 *
* ** -CKS
03/01/90 28.01 AT &T TELEPHONE 27- 4256 - 662 -66 MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
10.00
CHECK
REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
046A82
03/01/90
3.38
AT &T
TELEPHONE
046A82
03/01/90
4.08
AT &T
TELEPHONE
046A82
03/01/90
2.18
AT &T
TELEPHONE
PETTY
CASH
37.65
046873
03/01/90
046A83
03/01/90
4.01
AT &T
TELEPHONE
046A83
03/01/90
96.29
AT &T
TELEPHONE
046A83
03/01/90
2.11
AT &T
TELEPHONE
046A83
03/01/90
12.07
AT &T
TELEPHONE
046A83
03/01/90
57.49
AT &T
TELEPHONE
PRINTING
046B73
171.97
40.80
GC
046A84
03/01/90
16.95
AT &T
TELEPHONE
436.80
COMM
16.95
SALES
TAX
RRRRRR
046B73
03/01/90
10.00
GC
PETTY
CASH
DUES
046B73
03/01/90
50.00
GC
PETTY
CASH
REPAIR
046B73
03/01/90
51.42
GC
PETTY
CASH
LAUNDRY
046873
03/01/90-
117.63
GC
PETTY
CASH
GENERAL SUUPLIES
046873
03/01/90
75.13
GC
PETTY
CASH
OFFICE SUPPLIES
046B73
03/01/90
28.02
GC
PETTY
CASH
OFFICE SUPPLIES
046873
03/01/90
25.00
GC
PETTY
CASH
REPAIR PARTS
046B73
03/01/90
38.80
GC
PETTY
CASH
PRINTING
046B73
03/01/90
40.80
GC
PETTY
CASH
CONCESSIONS
046C51
03/01/90
436.80
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
kRRRRR
046C51
03/01/90
11.44
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
257.40
COMM
REV
FUEL
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
146.80
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
3,815.30
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
590.04
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
76.80
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
1,022.55
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
448.44
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
5,941.88
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX,
046C51
03/01/90
11,323.78
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
046C51
03/01/90
9,232.54
COMM
REV
SALES
TAX
32,866.97
RRRRRR
047C33
03/01/90
128,000.00-
CITY / EDINA
PAYROLL
TRANSFER
047C33
03/01/90
128,000.00
CITY / EDINA
PAYROLL
TRANSFER
.00
RRRRRR
047L32 03/01/90 65.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITY REGISTRATION
65.00
R R R R R R
02 -28 -90 PAGE 9
ACCOUNT NO.. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
27- 4256 - 664 -66
MANUAL
28- 4256 - 702 -70
MANUAL
40- 4256 - 803 -80
MANUAL
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
10- 4256 - 622 -62
MANUAL
23- 4256 - 612 -61
MANUAL
23- 4256 - 612 -61
MANUAL
10- 4256 - 622 -62
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
27- 4204 - 661 -66
MANUAL
27- 4248 - 663 -66
MANUAL
27- 4262 - 663 -66
MANUAL
27- 4504- 667 -66
MANUAL
27- 4516 - 661 -66
MANUAL
27- 4516 - 667 -66
MANUAL
27- 4540- 667 -66
MANUAL
27- 4600 - 661 -66
MANUAL
27- 4624 - 663 -66
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
10- 4612 - 560 -56
MANUAL
23- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
27- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
28- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
29- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
30- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
40- 3357- 000 -00
MANUAL
50- 3357 - 001 -00
MANUAL
50- 3357 - 002 -00
MANUAL
50- 3357 - 003 -00
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 1010 - 000 -00
MANUAL
50 -1010- 000 -00
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4202 - 140 -14 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 02 -28 -90 PAGE 10
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 4 P.O. # MESSAGE
047P70 03/01/90 175.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 10- 4290 - 510 -51 MANUAL
175.00 *
* * * * ** * ** —CKS
OS1E11
03/08/90
.92—
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
05lE11
03/08/90
8.35—
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051E11
03/08/90
5.99—
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
05lE11
03/08/90
1.56—
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051EII
03/08/90
17.26—
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051E11
03/08/90
45.99
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051E11
03/08/90
417.48
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051EII
03/08/90-
78.00
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E11
03/08/90
299.39
EAGLE WINE
50 -4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
051E11
03/08/90
862.87
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051E11
03/01/90
57.26
EAGLE WINE
MIX
50- 4632- 822 -82
MANUAL
05lE11
03/01/90
133.60
EAGLE WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL
05lE11
03/01/90
204.64
EAGLE WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
2,065.15
* * * * **
* ** —CKS
051E26
03/08/90
1.69—
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
7.91—
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
1.29—
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
26.92—
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
19.01—
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
1.58—
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
84.55
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90'
395.76
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
64.60
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
1,346.28
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
79.25
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
950.70
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
887.76
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
562.65
ED. PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
185.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
198.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
915.10
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
928.30
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
915.10—
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 842 -84 a
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
915.10
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
68.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL -
051E26
03/08/90
601.10
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051E26
03/08/90
580.18
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051E26
03/01/90
153.50
ED PHILLIPS
BEE
50- 4630 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051E26
03/01/90
38.05
ED PHILLIPS
BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
MANUAL
7,980.38
* * * * **
* ** —CKS
051F14
03/01/90
15,456.35
FIDELITY BANK
FICA
10- 4149 - 510 -51
MANUAL
051F14
03/01/90
555.32
FIDELITY BANK
INSURANCE
10- 4162 - 510 -51
MANUAL
16,011.67 *
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
02 -28 -90 PAGE 11
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
051G82
03/08/90
5.00-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
3'1.67-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
104.09-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
10.26-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
27.71-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90.
4.78-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
1,583.34
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
5,204.49
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
238.83
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
1,385.34
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
512.97
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
051G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
8,741.46
* ** -CKS
051J62
03/08/90
12.00-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
4.00-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
9.75-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
7.48-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
40.11-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
.03/08/90
3.54-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
71.43-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
8.07-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
13.24-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
7.26-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
37.20-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
6.29-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
9.80
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
2,006.02
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
18.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/01/90
92.09
JOHNSON
WINE LIQUOR
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
3,479.17
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626- 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
1,860.02
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
9.80
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
748.93
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
.97-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
352.11
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
6.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
8.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
.97-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
.97
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
1,326.63
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
05062
03/08/90
.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
05062
03/08/90
14.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
8.38-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
805.43
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
17.60
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
6.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
628.53
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
051J62
03/08/90
727.55
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER
.CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV
051J62
03/08/90
14.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 862 -86
O51J62
03/08/90
.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
1.10-
PRIOR WINE
11,901.96
051P82
03/08/90
2.62-
* * * * **
50- 3710 - 822 -82
O5082
03/08/90
2.28-
PRIOR WINE
051P20
03/08/90
134.75
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
O51P20
03/08/90
581.55
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628- 862 -86
O51P20
03/08/90
4.00
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628- 862 -86
O51P20
03/08/90
8.00
PAUSTIS
&.SONS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
728.30
03/08/90
470.30
PRIOR WINE
* * * * **
051P32
03/01/90
25,011.58
P.E.R.A. PERA
10- 4145 - 510 -51
25,011.58
* * * * **
051P82
03/08/90
1.10-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
051P82
03/08/90
2.62-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
O5082
03/08/90
2.28-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710- 842 -84
O5082
03/08/90
9.41-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
O51P82
03/08/90
5.60-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
O5082
03/08/90
54.95
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
O51P82
_03/08/90
131.17
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
O51P82
03/08/90
114.13
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
O5.1P82
03/08/90
470.30
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
O51P82
03/08/90
280.15
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
O51P82
03/01/90
65.17
PRIOR WINE MIX
50- 4632- 822 -82
1,094.86
* * * * **
051Q16
03/08/90
5.30-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
O51Q16
03/08/90
7.69-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
O51Q16
03/08/90
.97-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
051016
03/08/90
17.31-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
O51Q16
03/08/90
1.46-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90
.76
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90
.76-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90-
.76-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
O51Q16
03/08/90
10.80-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90
2.21-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90
16.22-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90
2.28
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90
59.59-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
O51Q16
03/08/90
5.69-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
O51Q16
03/08/90
2.21-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
O51Q16
03/08/90
11.96-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
O51Q16
03/08/90
865.90
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
051Q16
03/08/90
110.66
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626- 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90
2,980.08
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
O51Q16
03/08/90
539.72
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
O51Q16
03/08/90
597.94
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
02 -28 -90 PAGE 12
# P.O. # MESSAGE
MANUAL
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
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
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
13,128.75
GROUP HEALTH
CHECK REGISTER
MANUAL
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
051Q16
03/08/90
529.50
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
051Q16
03/08/90
767.90
QUALITY
WINE
MED CENTER
051Q16
03/08/90
96.40
QUALITY
WINE
50- 4202 - 860 -86
051Q16
03/08/90
75.80
QUALITY
WINE
051Q16
03/08/90
75.80
QUALITY
WINE
21,294.50
051Q16
03/08/90
226.80-
QUALITY
WINE
21,294.50 *
051Q16
03/08/90
75.80-
QUALITY
WINE
03/01/90
051Q16
03/08/90
145.75
QUALITY
WINE
054U27
051Q16
03/08/90
1,616.30
QUALITY
WINE
TELEPHONE
051Q16
03/08/90
568.55
QUALITY
WINE
COMM
051Q16
03/08/90
219.85
QUALITY
WINE
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
8,747.66
03/01/90
16.06
US
kkkkkk
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
.
14.87
053736
03/01/90
40.00
MN MUNC
BEV ASSN
CONVENTION
053736
03/01/90
120.00
MN MUNC
BEV-ASSN
CONVENTION
053736
03/01/90
40.00
MN MUNC
BEV ASSN
CONVENTION
054U27
03/01/90
200.00
US
WEST
COMM
kkkkkR
054G86
03/01/90
13,128.75
GROUP HEALTH
INSURANCE
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
13,128.75 *
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
kkkkkk
MANUAL
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628- 862 -86
054M24
03/01/90
17,437.20
MED CENTER
INSURANCE
50- 4202 - 820 -82
MANUAL
17,437.20 *
MANUAL
50- 4202 - 860 -86
MANUAL
kkkkkk
054P42
03/01/90
21,294.50
PHP
INSURANCE
21,294.50 *
054U27
03/01/90
294.42
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
374.66
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
23.96
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
45.57
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
16.06
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
14.87
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
179.03
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
142.06
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
106.34
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
490.31
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
16.06
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
16.06
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
054U27
03/01/90
16.06
US
WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
1,735.46
kkkkkk
057H83
03/01/90
160,000.00
HRA
TRANSFER
02 -28 -90 PAGE 13
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4256- 841 -84
* ** -CKS
50- 4202 - 820 -82
MANUAL
50- 4202 - 840 -84
MANUAL
50- 4202 - 860 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4156- 510 -51 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4156 - 510 -51 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4156 - 510 -51 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
10- 4256- 622 -62
MANUAL
10- 4256 - 628 -62
MANUAL
10- 4256 - 646 -64
MANUAL
23- 4256 - 612 -61
MANUAL
27- 4256- 662 -66
MANUAL
27- 4256 - 667 -66
MANUAL
28- 4256 - 702 -70
MANUAL
30- 4256 - 782 -78
MANUAL
40- 4256 - 803 -80
MANUAL
50- 4256 - 821 -82
MANUAL
50- 4256- 841 -84
MANUAL
50- 4256 - 861 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 1145 - 000 -00 MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
02 -28 -90 PAGE 14
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
160,000.00 *
RRRRRR
*** -CKS
058767
03/01/90
1,774.87
DELTA DENTAL
INSURANCE
10- 4260 - 510 -51
MANUAL
1,774.87 *
RRR *RR
RRR -CKS
058825
03/01/90
21.00
COMM PUBLIC SAFETY
LICENSING FEE
10- 4642 - 420 -42
MANUAL
21.00
RRRRRR
RRR -CKS
058E11
03/08/90
2.18-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
058E11
03/08/90
.92-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058EII
03/08/90
18.73-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058E11
03/08/90
1.88-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058E11
03/08/90
15.72-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058E11
03/08/90
109.24
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058E11
03/08/90
45.99
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058E11
03/08/90
936.69
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058E11
03/08/90
785.84
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058E11
03/08/90
93.99
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1,932.32
058E26
03/08/90
.40
ED PHILLIPS
50 4628- 822 -82
* ** -CKS
058E26
03/08/90
4.10-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
1.75-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
2.43-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
17.46-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
2.98-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
87.94
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
205.14
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
873.22
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
121.56
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626- 842 -84
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
149.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90•
270.98
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
266.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
678.75
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
866.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
326.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
549.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058E26
03/08/90
415.45
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058E26
03/01/90
199.50
ED PHILLIPS
BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058.E26
03/01/9.0
42.80
ED PHILLIPS
BEER
50- 4632- 862 -86
MANUAL
5,025.87
**
RRRRRR
RRR -CKS
058G82
03/08/90
47.91-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058G82
03/08/90
2.73-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058G82
03/08/90
83.08-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058682
03/08/90
2,395.44
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
5.10-
JOHNSON
CHECK REGISTER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV
058G82
03/08/90
136.52
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
058G82
03/08/90
4,153.79
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 862 -86
058G82
03/08/90
78.00-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 842 -84
058G82
03/08/90
16.34-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
50- 3710 - 842 -84
058J62
6,457.69 *
5.66-
JOHNSON
WINE
* * * * **
058J62
03/08/90
5.10-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
058J62
03/08/90
64.92-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
058J62
03/08/90
6.53-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
058J62
03/08/90
12.15-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
8.62-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710- 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
108.55-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
5.66-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
058J62
03/08/90
68.49-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
058J62
03/08/90
13.47-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
058J62
03/08/90
20.83
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
058J62
03/08/90
3,245.96
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
05BJ62
03/08/90
5,427.55
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626- 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
33.32
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
3,424.57
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
058J62
03/08/90
20.09
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
058J62
03/08/90
14.70
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
058J62
03/08/90
509.03
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
058J62
03/08/90
4.90
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
058J62
03/08/90
651.59
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
058J62
03/08/90
861.51
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
21.07
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
1,214.52
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
11.76
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
058J62
03/08/90
1,346.25
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
058J62
03/08/90
565.95
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
058J62
03/08/90
15.19
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
058J62
03/08/90
13.72
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
17,109.02 *
* * * * **
058N12
03/01/90
2,257.50
MUTUAL BENEFIT INSURANCE
10- 4158 - 510 -51
2,257.50 *
* * * * **
058P20
03/08/90
2.00
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
058P20
03/08/90
96.95
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
05BP20
03/08/90
97.50
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
058P20
03/08/90
2.00
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
058P20
03/08/90
4.00
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
058P20
03/08/90
253.45
PAUSTIS
& SONS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
058P20
03/01/90
25.00
PAUSTIS
& SONS MIX
50- 4632 - 822 -82
480.90
* * * * **
058P82
03/08/90
6.40-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82'
02 -28 -90 PAGE 15
# P.O. # MESSAGE
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
* ** -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
* ** -CKS
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
02 -28 -90 PAGE 16
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
058P82
03/08/90
10.01-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058P82
03/08/90
1.10-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058P82
03/08/90
2.26-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058P82
03/08/90
4.97-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058P82
03/08/90
320.00
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058P82
03/08/90
500.62
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058P82
03/08/90
54.95
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
058P82
03/08/90
112.90
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058P82
03/08/90
248.49
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
058P82
03/01/90
41.11
PRIOR WINE MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL
1,253.33
RRRRRR
RRR -CKS
058Q16
03/08/90
4.88-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
6.07-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
2.46-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
1.12-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
26.13-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
52.27-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
8.08-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
1.86-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
3.11-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
1.57-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90,
2.46-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
.87-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
6.05-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
47.91-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
1,306.69
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626- 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
243.86
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
155.53
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
2,611.84
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
93.36
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
2,395.87
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
246.00
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
603.95
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
111.60
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
805.60
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
156.75
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
603.05
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
86.80
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058Q16
03/08/90
246.00
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
9,502.06
RRRRRR
RRR -CKS
058T49
03/08/90
6.72-
TOW DISTRIBUTING
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
058T49
03/08/90
82.40
TOW DISTRIBUTING
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058T49
03/08/90
2.25
TOW DISTRIBUTING
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
058T49
03/08/90
274.75
TOW DISTRIBUTING
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
058T49
03/08/90
3.75
TOW DISTRIBUTING
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
356.43
RRRRRR
_
RRR -CKS
065E11
03/08/90
12.02-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
02 -28 -90 PAGE 17
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
065E11
03/08/90
32.88-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E11
03/08/90
21.16-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065E11
03/08/90
1.20-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
065E11
03/08/90
601.08
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065E11
03/08/90
1,644.21
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E11
03/08/90
59.95
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065E11
03/08/90
1,058.20
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
3,296.18
* * * ***
* * *-CKS
065E26
03/08/90
17.29-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
.92-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
15.60-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
6.91-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
345.87
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626- 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
46.39
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
780.36
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
433.31
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
864.82
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
450.35
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
707.70
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
1,247.47
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
1,112.75
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
478.05
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
138.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
25.50
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
645.31
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
229.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
69.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065E26
03/08/90
560.50
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
8,094.61
R R R R R R
* * * -CKS
065G82
03/08/90
33.30-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
22.82-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
30.08-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
29.51-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
110.39-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
13.51-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
42.16-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
39.57-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
73.81-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
55.59-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
16.41-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
065082
03/08/90
1,978.53
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065082
03/08/90
3,690.78
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
2,779.40
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
820.70
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
065G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
50- 4628 - 862-86
CHECK
REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
065G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
065G82
03/08/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
8,802.26
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
k k k k k k
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
065P20
03/08/90
203.34
PAUSTIS & SONS
065P20
03/08/90
5.00
PAUSTIS & SONS
208.34
kktYkkk
065P82
03/08/90
3.83-
PRIOR WINE
065P82
03/08/90
7.94-
PRIOR WINE
065P82
03/08/90
.61-
PRIOR WINE
065P82
03/08/90
8.85-
PRIOR WINE
065P82
03/08/90
191.71
PRIOR WINE
065P82
03/08/90
396.91
PRIOR WINE
065P82
03/08/90
30.45
PRIOR WINE
065P82
03/08/90
442.42
PRIOR WINE
1,040.26
k k k k k k
101010
03/01/90
67.18
6718
10426642042
67.18
k k k k k k
364,012.68
FUND 10 TOTAL
GENERAL FUND
1,354.50
FUND 23 TOTAL
ART CENTER
289.99
FUND 26 TOTAL
SWIMMING POOL FUND
14,792.15.
FUND 27 TOTAL
GOLF COURSE FUND
15,269.03
FUND 28 TOTAL
RECREATION CENTER FUND
604.44
FUND 29 TOTAL
GUN RANGE FUND
14,454.20
FUND 30 TOTAL
EDINBOROUGH PARK
20,007.41
FUND 40 TOTAL
UTILITY FUND
476.61
FUND 41 TOTAL
STORM SEWER UTILITY
219,974.74
222, 22_. 65
FUND 50 TOTAL
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
651,235.75*
TOTAL
02 -28 -90 PAGE 18
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862-86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
5073710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4266 - 420 -42
MANUAL
* ** -CKS .