HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-21_COUNCIL PACKET•
•
M
•
AGENDA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
MAY 21, 1990
7:00 P.M.
(Convene Joint BRA /Council Meeting)
ROLLCALL
I. FEASIBILITY REPORT - 50TH & FRANCE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT - SET HEARING
DATE (6/4/90)
II. ADJOURNMENT OF HRA
EDINA CITY COUNCIL
I. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS All agenda items marked with as 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 April 16, 1990
III. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Affidavits of Notice by Clerk.
Presentation by Engineer. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. If
Council wishes to proceeds, action by Resolution. 3/5 favorable rollcall vote
of all members of Council required to pass if improvement has been petitioned
for; 4/5 favorable rollcall vote required if no petition.
A. . Bituminous Street Surfacing, Concrete Curb and Gutter. Storm Sewer and
Street Lighting Improvement No. BA -291 -,West 69th Street from France
Avenue to Xerxes Avenue (Contd from 5/7/90)
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. Second Reading - Ordinance No. 825 -A34 - Repeal of Heritage Preservation
Overlav District - Ron Clark Construction - Generally located south of
West 70th St and west of Cahill Rd
B. Final Rezoning - R -1 Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2 Planned
Residence District - Ron Clark Construction Generally located south of
West 70th St and west of Cahill Rd
C. Final Plat Approval - Highcroft Ron Clark Construction - Generally
located south of West 70th St and west of Cahill Rd
D. Preliminary Rezoning Approval - PCD -4 Planned Commercial District to PCD -2
Planned Commercial District - Walgreens by Semper Holdings, Inc. - Located
at 4916 France Avenue So (Contd from 5/7/90)
E. Preliminary Plat Approval - Lot 5, Block 1, Muir Woods Addition - Located
at 7120 Valley View Road
F. Report on Siren Ordinance No. 451 - CamvaiQn Signs
G. Update on Massing Issue
Agenda - Edina City Council
May 21, 1990
Page 2
V. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS •
A. Resolution Relating to Issuance of Revenue Bonds Pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 462C for the Purpose of Financing Multi - Family Housing
Development, Giving Preliminary Approval to Development, Approving
Multi- Family Housing Program and Authorizing Preparation Documents
VI. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS
A. Request of R.M.(Red) and Carol Smith, 4001 West,48th Street
B. Request for Quit Claim Deed to Release Temporary Construction Easement for
Sewer - Part of Lot 36, Block 1, Oscar Roberts First Addition - 7201
Heatherton Circle
C. Detox Center - Dr. David Walsh, Fairview Southdale Hospital
D. Letter Regarding Salt Damage to Lawn - Miriam Manfred, 5227 Oaklawn Av
VII. AWARD OF BIDS
A. Air Conditioning - Braemar Catering Kitchen
B. Air Conditioning - Senior Center at Edina Community Center
C. Hoist for Utility Truck
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS
A. Approval of Traffic Safety Committee Minutes of May 15, 1990
B. Report on Cigarette Vending Machines
C. Tree Report - Country Club District •
IX. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES
A. Resolution In Support of Minneapolis Application to Legislative Commission
on Minnesota Resources to Conduct Study of Upper Mississippi River (Contd
from 5/7/90)
X. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL
XI. POST AGENDA AND MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
XII. FINANCE
A. Bond Refunding Proposal - Vernon Terrace
B. Payment of Claims per Check Register dated 05/21/90: Total $1,059,774.68
and confirmation of payment of Claims per Check Register dated 4/30/90:
Total 693,193.58
Mon May 28
Mon June 4
June 12 -15
Mon June 18
Mon July 2
Wed July 4
Mon July 16
SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS
MEMORIAL DAY OBSERVED
Regular Council Meeting
LMC Convention
Regular Council Meeting
Regular Council Meeting
INDEPENDENCE DAY OBSERVED
Regular Council Meeting
City Hall Closed
7:00 p.m. Council Room
Duluth, MN
7:00 p.m. Council Room ,
7:00 p.m. Council Room
City Hall Closed
7:00 p.m. Council Room
o e
• ���bAPOMSbO�
BBB
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
Housing & Redevelopment
To: Authority of Edina /City
Council
From: Gordon Hughes, Executive
Director, HRA
Francis Hoffman, City Engr.
Date: 21 May, 1990
Subject: Feasibility Report
50th & France
Renovations and
Parking Ramp Project
North of W. 49 1/2 St.
Recommendation:
Set a hearing date of June 4, 19.90.
Info /Background
Agenda Item # -- z -
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑
To HRA
❑
To Council
Action 0
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
HRA staff and City staff have reviewed a proposed total renovation of the
50th & France Business Area with the 50th & France Business Association.
Additionally, the staff has reviewed a potential addition of a parking ramp
on the surface lot north of West 49 1/2 Street. The estimated costs of the
two projects are listed below:
50th & France Renovation $ 2,134,400.00
W. 49 1/2 Street Ramp (P -4) $ 924,000.00
Staff believes these projects are feasible and are consistent with the
overall development goals of the City. As such, we recommend a public
hearing on these projects on June 4, 1990.
}
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL
APRIL 16, 1990
ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, ,Rice, Smith and Mayor
Richards.
COMMENDATION PRESENTED TO REPRESENTATIVE MARY FORSYTHE Motion was made by Member
Smith and was seconded by Member Paulus for adoption of the following
commendation:
COMMENDATION
WHEREAS, Mary M. Forsythe was elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives as
a Representative from the City of Edina in 1972; and
WHEREAS, during those eighteen yers in public office, Mary M. Forsythe has served
on_the following committees: Appropriations, Human Services Division, Commerce,
Tourism, Judiciary, Ways and Means, Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal
Policy; and
WHEREAS, Mary M. Forsythe was the first woman to serve as Chair of the full
Appropriations Committee; and
WHEREAS, the mandatory seat belt law, authored by Mary M. Forsythe, has seen
far - reaching effects and will continue to save lives; and
WHEREAS, during her years of public service, Mary M. Forsythe had contributed
greatly to the well -being of the State of Minnesota and to the Legislative
District that she served; and
WHEREAS, Mary M. Forsythe has desekved1v held the resnect and re_ga_rci of the
residents of the City of Edina.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby express its
appreciation to
MARY M. FORSYTHE
for her unselfish and dedicated services as a member of the Minnesota State
Legislature; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be entered into the Minutes of the
Edina City Council and that an appropriate copy be presented to her.
Motion for adoption of the commendation carried unanimously.
DISABILITY AWARENESS WEER PROCLAIMED Motion was made by Member Kelly and was
seconded by Member Paulus for adoption of the following proclamation:
DISABILITY AWARENESS WEEK
WHEREAS, many individuals with disabilities are living independently in our
community and are participating in educational, social, religious and recreational
activities; and
WHEREAS, a significiant effort is being made Statewide to eliminate barriers for
persons who are disabled in the areas of employment, housing, transportation,
education, and public accommodations; and
WHEREAS, City officials and school administrators desire public awareness as to
the issues and concerns facing persons who are disabled; and
WHEREAS, residents of our community need to become more aware of the talents and
abilities of persons who are disabled; and
WHEREAS, the Governor of the State of Minnesota, and each of the South Hennepin
communities, are proclaiming Disability Awareness Week in recognition of the
contributions individuals who are disabled make within the State and the
communities in which they live;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, Mayor of the City of Edina do hereby
proclaim the week of April 22 -28, 1990 as
DISABILITY AWARENESS WEEK
in Edina.' Further, I urge all residents of our City to be more open and attentive
to the needs and abilities of persons with disabilities.
Motion for adoption of the proclamation carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED FOR EARTH DAY 1990 Motion was made by Member Smith and was
seconded by Member Kelly for adoption of the following resolution:
s
Y'
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, almost twenty years ago, more than twenty million Americans joined
together on Earth Day in a demonstration of concern for the environment, and their
collective action resulted in the passage of sweeping new laws to protect our air,
water and land; and
WHEREAS, in the nineteen years since the first Earth Day, despite environmental
improvements, the environmental health of the planet is increasingly endangered,
threatened by Global Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, Growing World Population,
Tropical Deforestation, Ocean Pollution, Toxic Wastes, Desertification, and
Nuclear Waste requiring action by all sectors of society; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 activities and events will educate all citizens on the
importance of acting in an environmentally sensitive fashion by recycling,
conserving energy and water, using efficient transportation, and adopting more
ecologically sound lifestyles; and
WHFRFAS, Earth Day 1990 will educate all citizens on the importance of buying and
using those products least harmful to the environment; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 will educate all citizens on the importance of doing
business with companies that are environmentally sensitive and responsible; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 will educate all citizens on the importance of voting for
those candidates who demonstrate an abiding concern for the environment; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 1990 will educate all citizens on the importance of supporting
the passage of legislation that will help protect the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Edina designate and proclaim April
22, 1990, as Earth Day 1990, and that that day shall be set aside for public
activities promoting preservation of the global environment and launching the
"Decade of the Environment ".
Motion for adoption of the resolution carried unanimously.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made-by Member Smith and was seconded by
Member Kelly to approve and adopt the consent agenda items as presented with the
exception of the removal of items VI.E - Retaining Wall for Braemar Golf Course
Lesson Area and VI.G - Mill Pond Weed Harvesting.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF 3119190 APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith
and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of
March 19, 1990.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
FINAL REZONING TO PSR -4 SENIOR CITIZEN DISTRICT AND ELDER HOMESTEAD PLAT APPROVED
(WALKER METHODIST AND RPI SERVICES. INC.) Affidavits of Notice were presented,
approved and ordered place on file.
Presentation by Planner Planner Craig Larsen presented the request of Walker
Methodist and RPI Services, Inc. for final rezoning to PSR -4 Senior Citizen
District and approval of the plat for Elder Homestead for property located in the
northwest quadrant of Parklawn Avenue and York Avenue. The last time this was
considered was in the middle of 1989. On May 31, 1989 the Community Development
and Planning Commission heard the request for final rezoning and final plat
approval for the project which proposed an 80 -unit assisted living elderly three
story building.
The proposal now before the Council is essentially the same as was heard in 1989;
however, the unit count has been reduced back to the original request for 72
units. Those units will be taken out of the central portion of the building
leaving the footprint and design of the building essentially the same as proposed
previously.
On June 5, 1989, the City Council heard the request of RPI Services, Inc. for tax
increment financing and tax exempt revenue bonds for the Edina Homestead project.
The request was for an annual tax increment subsidy of $70,000. In addition, the
developers requested a tax exempt bond issue to finance the project. Since that
time, Walker Methodist has replaced Ebenezer Society as the proposed owner and
manager of the facility. Walker Methodist and RPI have dropped their request for
tax increment assistance but continue to request tax exempt revenue bonds for the
project.
The project concept is assisted living for the elderly and is considered between a
senior citizen apartment and not as much care as provided by a nursing home.
Staff has expressed a concern that the proposed project may compete with other
elderly projects in the City which have been financed with housing revenue bonds,
i.e. Edina Park Plaza and Vernon Terrace. The Vernon Terrace project is presently
in default. Also, the City approved a bond refunding for Edina Park Plaza to
avoid a default in that project. The concern, therefore, has been that of
providing public financing for a market segment that appears to be over -built at
this time.
In response to those concerns, Walker Methodist has prepared a Market Feasibility
Analysis for the project. The market study distinguishes the project from other
types of elderly housing options, namely nursing care facilities and independent
congregate facilities. It concludes that the proposal responds to an underserved
assisted living market in the Edina area.
The proposed project has many positive aspects. It would facilitate a land
exchange between 7500 York and the Hedberg property which has been in the planning
stages for several years. It would provide a very positive contribution to the
tax increment cash flows in the Southeast Edina area. The withdrawal of the
request for tax increment financing assistance is also very positive. However,
the differences between this project and other elderly projects in the City are
very subtle. Staff is not convinced that approval for this project will be
without negative consequences to other assisted projects in the City. The policy
question, therefore, is whether or not the City should offer tax exempt financing
to a project that may adversely affect other projects that also receive such tax
exempt assitance.
If the project is to go forward the following actions would be required: 1) Final
rezoning to PSR -4 Senior Citizen District, 2) Final plat approval, conditioned
upon the land exchange, and 3) Council direction to proceed with tax exempt
revenue bonds for the project. The bonds would be backed solely by the revenue
produced by the facility and would not be general obligation bonds of the City.
Presentation by Proponents Larry Johnson, Executive Vice President, Walker
Methodist, stated that the proposed project is for 72 units in a three -story brick
veneer building to serve the frail elderly and would fall between independent
apartment and nursing home living. Walker Methodist has been looking at the
project since August of 1989 when they were approached by RPI Services /Craig Avery
to become involved in the project. Walker Methodist has been in the business of
serving seniors for 45 years in housing projects locally and also nationally.
Projects have ranged from independent living, to assisted living, to nursing
homes. , Headquarters are at 37th Street /Bryant Avenue, Minneapolis, with a board
of directors comprised of 37 individuals from the metropolitan area. Walker
Methodist's role is to bring their expertise and experience to the project.
The project would be marketed and managed by Walker Management, Inc., would be a
non - profit type of ownership, and would open for occupancy the summer of 1991.
The developers feel that there is a demand for this type of housing and also that
it is different from other types of elderly housing options in Edina.
James Hesketh, Chairman of the Board, Walker Methodist, stated that ten years ago
the board made a decision to grow. Since then they have developed eight projects
in the Twin Cities area to care for seniors beginning with those who need minimum
services to those in need of the most care. However, they feel there is an
obvious gap in their services which they would like to address, e.g. those
individuals in the 75 to 90 age group who don't quite fit in an independent living
facility or a nursing home.
Nellie Johnson, Director, Walker Health Services, explained how the Edina Elder
Homestead Project would differ from independent apartments and nursing homes in
relation to case management, meal plan, housekeeping, laundry, activities,
personal care and transportation.
Michael Starke, President, Michael J. Starke & Associates, spoke to the Market
Feasibility Analysis he had prepared for Edina Elder Homestead. The market area
boundary on the west is Highway 169, on the east Highway 35W, on the north to Lake
Calhoun and on the south to the Minnesota River. The project would expect to draw
about 70 percent of its residents from this base. Approximately 30 percent of the
elderly households in this market area are Edina residents. It is estimated that
when Edina Elder Homestead is in place 40 to 50 percent of the residents will
actually be Edina residents or will have adult children living in Edina. This
estimate is based on the lifestyle, age, and income profiles of those Edina
households. Three primary inputs were used for the analysis which showed net need
as follows: 1) Households in the market area with a member need assisted and
receiving it from a formal care giver - 127, 2) Persons in nursing homes not
requiring skilled or intermediate care - 205, and 3) Persons age (75 +) and income
qualified ($20,000 +) living in households headed by householders under 65 years of
age - 33. To fill the 72 units Edina Elder Homestead would need to capture about
1 in 8 persons that are age, income and need qualified, that are likely to select
care from a formal care giver.
Keith Jans, Director of Capital Development, Walker Development, summarized the
financing program for the Edina Elder Homestead project as follows: 1) No longer
requesting tax increment financing, 2) Assist with land exchange, 3) Requesting
City to issue tax exempt 501(c)3 bonds in the amount of $6.8 million, bonds to be
secured by the revenues from the project, 4) Bonds to be privately placed with a
bond fund, 5) Minimum denomination of $100,000, and 7) No secondary market.
Council Comments Mayor Richards asked what would happen if there are not
sufficient revenues from the project to retire the bonds. Mr. Jans explained that
the bond funds currently require the developers to put in place a one year debt
service reserve fund. There is also an unconditional operating deficit guarantee
required for the life of the project as part of the bond transaction.
Member Smith asked for clarification as to the status of the ownership
corporation. Mr. Jans said that the parent corporation, Walker, is a non - profit
corporation and that the ownership entity of this project would be a non - profit
501(c)3 corporation. The for - profit elements of Walker provides services to the
non - profit organization. Member Smith asked for the length of the service
contract with the for - profit company. Mr. Jans said the contract for the
management portion is three years; the marketing portion runs until the project
occupancy is stabilized at 93 %. The contract for the development services would
be in place while the project is properly zoned, designed, constructed and
financed.
Member Rice asked the following questions: 1) If Walker Methodist has any
relationship with 7500 York, 2) If any of the units would be other than market
rate, and 3) Who would be at risk financially for the project. Mr. Jans responded
that at the present time they do not have a formal relation with 7500 York. All
units would be market rate. The financial risk would be that of Walker Methodist,
Inc., the parent corporation.
Mayor Richards asked if there would be any fees if the project were approved.
Assistant Manager Hughes said there would likely be a fee negotiated in connection
with the bond issue itself. The normal subdivision dedication fee for this
property was paid along with the Centennial Lakes subdivision fees.
Member Rice asked how many parking spaces are provided for the project and if the
building could ever be used for anything else. Planner Larsen said there are a
limited number of parking spaces because it is perceived that the majority of the
residents will not own cars. The zoning would preclude it from any other use
except senior citizen residence. If another use were ever proposed, the Council
would have control through the rezoning process.
Member Paulus asked if this type of housing is designed for a more permanent
living arrangement versus a temporary situation requiring assisted living
services. Mr. Johnson said that was correct.
Public Comment Edward MacCaffey, 7500 York, stated that he was a member of the
7500 York Board of Directors and the Board had asked him to present a statement
relative to the proposal being considered. In summary, 7500 York strongly
endorses and supports the proposal for an assisted living complex. The proposed
land exchange is also strongly endorsed as it would relieve 7500 York of Outlot A
and would provide for a badly needed extension of their present underground garage
for resident parking. A lesser factor for endorsement of the proposal is that
some of the 7500 York residents have needed temporary convalescence in an assisted
living setting. There is support for a care - giving facility physically closer
than what has been available.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Richards summarized the issues for
Council action as follows: 1) Final rezoning to PSR -4 Senior Citizen District, 2)
Final plat approval, conditioned upon the land exchange, and 3) Council direction
relating to tax exempt revenue bonds for the project.
Member Kelly introduced Ordinance No. 825 -A7 for Second Reading and adoption as
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A27
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825)
BY REZONING PROPERTY TO PSR -4 PLANNED SENIOR RESIDENCE
FROM PRD -4 PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS;
Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding
the following thereto:
"The extent of the Planned Senior Residence District (Sub- District PSR -4)
is enlarged by the addition of the following property:
Outlot A, Ebenezer Society lst Addition
The extent of the PRD -4 Planned Residence District is reduced by removing the
property described above from the PRD -4 District."
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and
publication.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Ordinance adopted.
Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject
to the land exchange:
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL
FOR ELDER HOMESTEAD
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "ELDER HOMESTEAD ", platted by
and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of April 16, 1990, be and
is hereby granted final plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that it hereby
directs the City Attorney and staff to prepare preliminary documents calling for
the sale and issuance of $6.8 million tax exempt 501(c)3 bonds for the Elder
Homestead Project.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 7101 -13 AMUNDSON AVENUE NOT APPROVED Planner Larsen
recalled that the proposal of George Kosmides for final development of 7101 =13
Amundson Avenue was heard several months ago and had been continued because of
concerns raised by the Council and also pending the outcome of tax increment
studies at West 70th Street and Cahill Road. Although the development concept for
the 70th and Cahill tax increment district that had been created does not directly
impact this property, inclusion of this parcel in a redevelopment is not
precluded.
The subject property is 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 single story office - warehouse building which would contain
15,000 square feet, south of Amundson Avenue. Parking will be provided
immediately adjacent to the new building; also some parking may need to be
provided through cross - easements with the existing parking for the easterly
warehouse building.
Presentation by Proponent Frank Reese, architect, stated that he was representing
the proponent, George Kosmides. He made a board presentation of the proposed
project which illustrated the relatively small building proposed to be
constructed. Mr. Reese pointed out that no variances are requested, the proposed
building meets the zoning requirements and additional landscaping will be planted.
The proponent had asked him to design a building that would be more durable and
that would fit in with the commercial district to the north. Building materials'
proposed were face brick walls, aluminium window frames and glass, 20 -year metal
panels on the front and stone panels at the entrances to the building.
Council Comments Mayor Richards questioned whether the parking as proposed would
be adequate for the specific site. Mr. Reese said parking would be provided on
three sides of the building and as proposed would meet the zoning ordinance
requirements of one parking space for each 400 square feet of floor area. Member
Rice asked how much would be used as office and if any of the space would be for
retail uses. Mr. Reese responded that there would be no retail use. They felt the
parking would support 30 -40% of the space as office but at this time they do not
know what mix of tenants they will actually have. Mayor Richards argued that
without knowing who the tenants will be it is difficult to determine if the
parking will be adequate and meet ordinance requirements. Mr. Reese countered
that the owner of the building will have to make sure that as space is leased the
uses will be compatible with the parking so that the last tenant will have
adequate parking also. Member Paulus said she was concerned that the parking
would not be adequate for the future. Member Rice said that he felt that the
market would see very little of the space used as warehouse; that it is too much
for that piece of property and the City would be asking for trouble if approved as
proposed. Mr. Reese said an alternative would be to vacate Amundson Avenue and
cul -de -sac it from the north thereby providing 75 parking spaces for the site.
Paul Kosmides said he agreed that it is valuable property but to let it sit empty
seems inappropriate also. He said.the project is being proposed without the use
of tax increment financing, which will not be the case for the retail area to the
north where the City has recently created a tax increment district. He urged the
Council to support the proposal.
George Kosmides, proponent, submitted that when the property is taken as a whole
it qualifies for all the parking requirements of the City. He said he had
surveyed the commercial area to the north which has retail, offices and a
restaurant totaling 40,000 square feet with a total of 169 parking spaces provided
and did not understand why the Council felt parking was inadequate. Mr. Kosmides
explained that the type of requests he has had from businesses was for 1,000
square feet of office and 1,500 square feet of warehouse that would have two to
three employees working for them. He asked that the Council approve the project.
Planner Larsen clarifed that variances would be required for the project, a
10 -foot parking setback variance along Amundson Avenue where 20 feet is required,
and a 10 -foot setback variance on the south side of the building.
Member Smith questioned what would happen regarding the parking if the buildings
were sold separately. Planner Larsen said if that were to happen in the future
staff would recommend the execution of cross easements for parking.
Mayor Richards commented that he could not support the proposal without some kind
of proof of parking agreement before the fact rather than after. He said that
because this is a speculative building he felt that there would be parking
problems in the future if this was approved. Member Rice said he concurred and
that he could not support the parking setback variance and the present proposal.
Member Rice made a motion to not approve the Final Development Plan for 7101 -13
Amundson Avenue as presented. Motion was seconded by Mayor Richards,-for the
reason that the parking issue has not been resolved.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Nays: Kelly
Motion carried.
NO ACTION TAKEN ON SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A34 TO REPEAL HERITAGE
PRESERVATION OVERLAY DISTRICT: FINAL REZONING TO PRD -2 PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT:
AND FINAL PIAT FOR HIGHCROFT (RON CLARK DEVELOPMENT): REFERRED TO STAFF AND
PLANNING COMMISSION Planner Craig Larsen recalled that at the March 19, 1990
meeting the Council had given preliminary approval for the development of property
generally located south of West 70th Street and west of Cahill Road which included
the following actions: 1) First Reading of Ordinance No. 825 -A34 To Repeal the
Heritage Preservation Overlay District, 2) Preliminary'Rezoning to PRD -2 Planned
Residence District, and 3) Preliminary Plat Approval for Highcroft. The following
six issues were identified that needed to be addressed prior to final approval:
1. Guest parking for the townhouses. The developer believes, based on other
similar projects, that adequate guest parking is provided. Additional surface
parking would reduce landscaping and green space. Staff would agree with this
position. However, the Council may wish to impose a proof of parking agreement to
add spaces if it becomes necessary in the future.
2. Grading _plan to control runoff and erosion. The developer has submitted a
grading and erosion control plan. The plan has been reviewed and approved by the
City Engineer. The developer has also agreed to a conservation easement to
permanently protect the steep slopes on the single family portion of the plat.
3. Emergency vehicle access. The site plan has been reviewed by the.City's Fire
Department. Access for ambulance and fire trucks is accommodated.
4. Conceptual plan to commemorate the historical significance of the corner. The
proponent's architect has submitted three concepts which include elements
requested by the Park Department and the Edina Historical Society. All could be
accommodated without changing the site plan for the townhomes. The locations are:
a) the southeast corner of the townhouse development, b) the northeast corner of
the townhouse development; and c) east across Cahill Road on commercial property.
Following Council action these options would be referred to the Historical Society
and the Heritage Preservation Board. Their recommendation for location of the
commemorative marker will then be brought back to the Council.
5. Lot 7 of the single family plat. Staff believes approval of Lot 7 as
presented would not set a precedent and would recommend approval. The shape of
Lot 7 is a result of the shape and topography of the site. Development of this
lot and adjacent lots would not create a neck lot situation where one home is
constructed in what appears to be the rear yard of adjacent lots. Development
will result in a typical side yard to side yard relationship. Private spaces and
views will not be compromised.
6. Site lines at Village Drive. The City Engineering Department has reviewed the
grading plan and has determined that the development will not cause a site line
problem at the intersection.
The Community Development and Planning Commission considered final rezoning plans
for the townhouses to PRD -2 at its meeting of March 28, 1990. These plans
included final grading and utility plans and a landscaping plan and schedule. The
site plan is unchanged from the plan given preliminary approval by the Council.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the final rezoning.
Council action required for the development to go forward would be: 1) Second
Reading of Ordinance No. 825 -A34 To Repeal Heritage Preservation Overlay District,
2) Second Reading of Ordinance No. 825 -A35 To Add to the Planned Residence
District, PRD -2, and 3) Final Plat Approval for Clark's 2nd Addition, which
includes 13 single family lots, 21 townhouse lots and an outlot for the common
spaces in the townhome component. Staff would recommend final plat approval,
subject to: a) Recorded conservation restriction on steep slopes of single family
lots, b) Subdivision dedication based on a raw land value of $1,800,000, and
c) Executed developer's agreement.
Mayor Richards asked for comments from the developer. Ron Clark, proponent, said
he had nothing to add to the presentation. Mayor Richards advised that the
Council Members had received copies of all letters from neighboring residents
concerning the subject development. The Council then asked questions and
commented on the six issues as stated previously. Boards illustrating the three
concepts and locations to commemorate the historical significance of the corner
were presented and discussed. Mayor Richards then called for public comment on
the overall development proposal.
Public Comments
Henry Rutledge, 5501 Village Drive, expressed concern about losing green spaces in
the area and adequate landscaping for the development. Linda Smithson, 5608 W.
70th Street, asked how the historical marker would be accessed by pedestrians and
vehicles. Lowell Swanson, Edina Highpointe, suggested that public parking be made
part of the plan for the historical marker. Ted Steen, 5524 W. 70th Street, asked
that the Council give consideration to the taxpayers in the neighborhood of whom
90% object to the townhouse portion of the development. Mr. Aksoy, 5600 W. 70th
Street, said that there are 180 neighboring residents who are strongly against the
project because of the density. Linda Smithson, 5608 W. 70th Street, resubmitted
the list of 180 signatures of neighbors who did not approve the density of the
townhomes going into the project. Mile McNally, 7001 Lanham Lane, mentioned that
the townhouses would add to the heavy traffic already in the area and asked the
Council to reconsider its prior action for preliminary approval. Charles
Lawrence, 5701 McGuire Road, said he was concerned about the increased traffic
from the the increased density and covering up of precious green
space. He urged the Council to postpone a decision and look further at the
proposal. Dale Kiedrowski, 5704 W. 70th Street, said he took exception to staff's
position that the single family Lot 7 would not be a neck lot situation. The
opposite would be true; if he were the owner of Lot 8, the house on Lot 7 would
basically be in his back yard. John Helland, 5720 McGuire Road, said he also was
concerned about the density of the proposal. Also, he felt that the wooded area
was unique and open space should be preserved. Further, some pathway access
should be provided to Lewis Park. Jonathan Peterson, 7029 Lanham Lane, said he
was against the proposal because of the density and lack of green space. Thurl
Quigley, 5804 W. 70th Street, mentioned that no parking is allowed on West 70th
Street or Cahill Road which will be a problem for the historical marker area and
guest parking for the townhomes. Also, the development will add to the traffic
problems on West 70th Street and Cahill Road. Further, the proposal is over
utilizing the space and should be referred back to the Planning Commission for
further study. Trudy Meloche, 5820 W. 68th Street, asked that action not be taken
at this meeting so that individuals who have just learned about the proposed
development can be heard.
Council Comments
Mayor Richards said it might be helpful to frame the discussion as to options
available. The Council is charged with representing all the taxpayers of the
community. Regardless of the decision, it is made by five members of the Council
who do listen to the public comments that have been made. It has been suggested
that the proposed development is too dense and that there should be more green
space in that area or that the property should be held as open space with no
development. To put this into focus it is necessary to separate facts from
fiction and review what has gone on with the subject property.
The Southwest Edina Plan, adopted in 1971, and the Comprehensive Plan suggested
that the subject property be developed as quasi - public (school) and medium density
(12 units per acre). In 1981 the Council reviewed the Comprehensive Plan and
reaffirmed that the property be shown as quasi - public (school) and medium density
residential. The school was built in 1947 and in 1983 the school district sold
the school property to private ownership which operated the private Montessori
School from 1984 to 1989. A decision has been made that the property should no
longer function as a school, public or private, and that the school will be
closed. The City Assessor carries a value on the property of $1.8 million and if
the City were to own that as open space, which now is private property, it likely
would have to pay that as a minimum price to acquire it.
The City Council in 1987 again reviewed the Edina Comprehensive Plan and rejected
any type of proposed rezoning for future development as commercial but looked at
several types of multi - family development on the subject site, including
townhomes. At that time, the Council reaffirmed that the property should be
designated as quasi - public and medium density.
The proposal before the Council is for: 1) a single family development of 1.5
units per acre which is the lowest density in the neighborhood, and 2) 5 units per
acre for the townhouse portion of the development, the lowest density for
multi - family in the area.
Mayor Richards concluded by saying that in serving all the citizens that it is not
realistic to talk about no development on this property. It would be
irresponsible for the Council to say there would be open space for this entire
tract at an acquisition cost of $1.8 million at a minimum in light of the existing
open space in the southwest area of the City. What the issue boils down to is
whether the proposed density for the mixed development, e.g. single family
detached and single family attached, is appropriate for the property.
Member Kelly commented that, although she was not present when preliminary
approval was given to the proposed development, she has been involved with the
subject property for a long time and has been under the assumption that this was
always R -1 zoning. Therefore, it is difficult, to consider moving away from single
family development. In looking at this from a social viewpoint, Edina has 12,880
single family homes and with Centennial Lakes will have 8,000 multi - family units.
She felt that the City is getting off balance with 60% single family versus 40%
multi - family.
Member Kelly said that another big issue is the traffic in the area. She said she
feels there has to be some multi: family units on the easterly portion of the
development but there is too much density and not enough green space to preserve
the integrity of the single family neighborhood. For those reasons, Member Kelly
said she could not support the development as proposed.
Member Paulus said that she felt the density issue as presented at this meeting by
the residents has been much more persuasive that it had been at the prior hearing.
She concurred that the townhouse portion of the proposed development is too dense.
The immediate area has very little open space because of the number of
multi - family units that have been built there. Member Paulus stated, however,
that she could not endorse any policy to keep the property as green space because
the City does not have the tax dollars to support a park there. A compromise
would be to reduce the density of the townhouses. To keep the townhouses as
presently proposed at 21 and also site a historical marker on the property would
be disrespectful as to the historic significance because there would not be enough
room for both. She suggested that either the proponent withdraw the proposal for
the townhouses or that it be referred back to the Planning Commission to be
reworked.
Member Smith observed that approval of the proposed rezoning would require four
votes. He suggested that this be referred back with the Council's comments
although he did not agree with all that had been said. He reiterated the
observation made that the Council Members do listen to the comments that have been
made by the residents, have read the minutes of the Planning Commission, and do
understand the issues that have been raised.. However, the area will change and
the property will eventually be developed.
Member Rice said it was apparent that the proposal as presented would not pass and
that he was frustrated by the actions of both the developer and the neighbors. To
insinuate that the Council does not do its homework, does not visit the site, does
not talk to the neighbors, etc. is off base. The comments regarding the problems
at the Highpoint development are believed, but whether the developer misled the
residents is not for the Council to determine. Further, the City may have
contributed to the confusion of the neighborhood regarding the subject property
with the Heritage Preservation Overlay District. Advertising of the project
before approval should not have happened.
Relative to the historic significance, Member Rice said he was less concerned
about that issue than ever. He would not be in favor of school children being
bused to the historical marker because they could see the original Cahill school
building now located at Tupa Park and learn about the early history of Edina
through the current on -going program there for students. He mentioned that the
original site of the old St. Patrick's church was at 70th Street and Wooddale.
With regard to the issue of traffic, Member Rice said he felt the neighborhood was
wrong. Any other use of the property, including the existing use, would generate
more traffic than what is being proposed. He said the proposed density of 2.5
units per acre is not excessive although he did not like some of the massing.
Also, that he would like to see the landscaping plans in detail, but otherwise was
in favor of the proposal.
Member Kelly then made a motion to refer the proposal for the townhouses back to
staff and the Planning Commission for review, specifically as to the nine units
adjoining the single family portion of the development. Motion was seconded by
Member Paulus.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
PRELDUNARY REZONING APPROVAL TO PCD -2 FOR PROPERTY AT 4916 FRANCE AVENUE
CONTINUED TO 5/7190 Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered
placed on file.
Presentation by Planner - Planner Larsen presented the request of Semper Holdings,
Inc. for preliminary rezoning from PCD -4 Planned Commercial District to PCD -2
Planned Commercial District for property generally located at the northwest corner
of France Avenue and West 49 1/2 Street. The subject property is zoned PCD -4 and
is developed with a Mobil Oil gas station, and the gross site area is 18,917
square feet.
A petition has been submitted to rezone the property from PCD -4 to PCD -2, the
general retail rezonng carried by most properties in the 50th and France
Commercial District. The existing gas station would be removed and in its place a
Walgreens drug store would be constructed. He presented graphics showing the
elevations of the building noting that exterior materials would be face brick.
In a Planned Commercial District building parking setbacks are required only from
a property line which is a boundary of the district. In this case, setbacks are
required only from the north boundary line. The proposed redevelopment provides
the required 10 -foot parking setback and exceeds the required 25 foot building
setback.
The proposed building has a gross floor area of 11,300 square feet, which includes
a 3,000 square foot basement storage area. The Zoning Ordinance requires 70
parking spaces for a retail building of this size. The proposed site plan would
provide 16 on -site parking spaces. Thus, a 54 -space parking variance is
requested. Planner Larsen explained that in.1977 the HRA adopted a policy which
would allow expansions; and redevelopment of properties within the commercial area.
The policy would allow the use of public parking facilities to support buildings
with a floor area ratio of. 1.0 or less. The proposed building has a floor area of
0.6 and thus, it conforms to current HRA policies regarding expansions.
All commercial properties in the 50th and France Commercial Area were assessed a
portion of the cost of public parking facilities. Some were charged on existing
floor area, assuming no expansion; others were assessed for expansion potential.
This property was not assessed for expansion potential. It has been City -HRA
policy to assess for expansion based upon net addition demand placed on public
parking facilities. In this case,'approximately $10,700 would be assessed to help
help pay the cost of providing public parking.
The proposed plan is the smaller of two prototype floor plans being developed in
the area for Walgreens. Typically, the stores have between 15 and 25 parking
spaces. With the 16 spaces provided and the availability of public parking
nearby,, staff believes that parking has been adequately addressed and would
recommend approval of the parking variance. The building and its finish materials
and design are compatible with the 50th and France design framework and it is felt
that the store will be a plus to retail activity along West 49 1/2 Street. Staff
would recommend approval of the rezoning, subject to: 1) Final Rezoning, 2)
Approval of landscaping along north property line, and 3) Payment of public
parking assessment prior to issuance of a building permit.
The Community Development and Planning Commission considered the proposal at its
meeting of March 28, 1990. The Planning Commission recommended approval, subject
to the staff conditions and the recommendation that the driveway at West 49 1/2
Street (one way out) be amended from the proposed 20 feet to 12 feet to allow more
space for landscaping and truck delivery.
Presentation for Proponent - David Runyan, stated that he was representing the
proponent, Semper Holdings, Inc. He said that Semper has been working with
Walgreens over the past four years to develop a number of their facilities. In
the last few years they have been looking for a suitable site 'in the Edina area.
After viewing the proposed site and looking at the demographics, this is the first
site that has been approved by Walgreens in Edina. Bernard Murphy, owner of the
Mobil Oil site, has signed a purchase agreement to sell the site to Semper,
contingent on Council approval of the project. Walgreens market area generally is
a one mile radius. As mentioned, Walgreens has two prototype floor plans for
their stores; this is the smaller of the two.
The proposed site is an urban site, not a free standing suburban site. As such
they had to look at the placement of the building on the site. They felt it was
important that the building engage the streetscape so that it picked up the flavor
of the 50th and France commercial area. To set it back would not be appropriate
and also it would be very difficult to meet the parking as laid out because a
25 -foot setback is required next to a residential area.
The design intent for the building is to play off the character of the Stanchfield
building which has the most character of the buildings in the area. That building
has a series of piers, glass fronts, and lighting fixtures on the piers. It is
the proponent's intent to pick up the same kind of motif and module on essentially
three sides of the building.
Typically, for this size building, Walgreens has found that 15 -20 parking spaces
is adequate. Their traffic does not come in waves or peaks but comes sporatically
all day long. People come, park, go in the building, purchase a few items and
leave again. It is apparent that this site could never support parking for 70
cars. Several alternatives for setting the building back on the site were
considered but the results would be loss of parking or building size, making it
not feasible economically. Regarding the entry to the building, from a practical
standpoint it would normally be positioned closest to the parking. From the
standpoint of how is joins the community, it is aimed at 50th & France which gives
it more of a presence and picks up some of the foot traffic that would occur along
France Avenue.
The landscaping on the north side of the building would be'coniferous so that it
would remain green. There is also a small potential for landscaping at the exit
drive onto 49 1/2 Street. The reason for necking the exit drive down is so that
it will not appear to be a two way (in /out) drive. The security lights for the
building will be designed so that it will not affect the residents to the north.
It is felt that this building could be an very handsome addition to the 50th and
France area.
Council Comments - Member Smith said he, personally, did.not the protype design
that Walgreens is proposing to construct on the site. Mr. Runyan explained that
that the design is driven by the fact that there must be wall area for merchandise
inside of the building. The front of the building will have windows that will go
to 10 feet. Along the 49 1/2 Street side there will be windows at 8 feet that
will allow merchandise to appear below the window. On the north side of the
building there will be some brick patterning which together with the lighting will
soften the solid wall.
Member Smith asked how many employees there would be, how the public parking
assessment of $10,700 compares to what was paid by the Edina Theatre, and said he
was concerned about northbound cars wanting to go to Walgreens stacking on France
Avenue at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Runyan said there would be 5 to 6 employees at the store.
With regard to the public parking assessment paid by the Edina Theatre, Planner
Larsen said that assessment was based on constructing an extra level for the theatre.
Member Paulus questioned where the employees of Walgreens would park. She said
that, presently, parking for employees is the biggest problem facing the merchants
now at 50th and France and that this will compound the problem. Member Paulus
added that she also was concerned about the entrance off of France as cars would
stack up and block traffic.
Member Rice asked what the rationale was for the parking variance and if this was
considered a new principal use. Planner Larsen said the Zoning Ordinance provides
for use of public parking to meet off - street requirements in certain cases. In
the past the HRA policy has prevailed which would allow a variance to the
requirements for parking.
Member Rice. also asked what kind of signage would be on the project. Mr. Runyan
responded that, -basically, there would be a "Walgreens" sign on the France Avenue
side and also on the 49 1/2 Street side. Planner Larsen said the sign ordinance
would allow signs on 50% of the window space and that such signs are typical in
the 50th and France commercial area.
Member Rice asked if there would be food sold in the store. Howard Bergerud,
Semper Holdings, stated that there will be no food mart in this particular
Walgreens store. Regarding the exit for cars onto 49 1/2 Street, Member Rice said
he felt this would put pedestrians walking east from Patio Village in a hazardous
situation. Mr. Runyan countered by saying that the drive aisle could be moved to
the east so that a pedestrian would not step out past the wall and get hit.
Mr. Bergerud said they would be willing to work with staff to resolve any concerns
for pedestrians at that location.
Member Kelly asked for more information on the decorative lighting that was
mentioned. Mr. Runyan said the decorative lighting would occur on three sides of
the building and would be on a timer. The north side would also have security
lights on during non - daytime hours which would be reflected downward so as not to
disturb residents in the apartments to the north.
Public Comment
Lisa Kee stated that she and her husband are in the process of opening a
restaurant at 4924 France Avenue South which is across the street from the
proposed Walgreens. She said they were concerned about the appearance of the
building as they are spending time and money to make the restaurant as attractive
as possible to enhance the area.
Marlin Ramler, employer at 50th and France, said he was concerned about traffic
flow and traffic safety for vehicles entering and exiting the site. He mentioned
that there is existing traffic exiting from the parking ramp across the street.
At the present time, traffic stacks up at the traffic light and the additional
traffic to Walgreens would add to the problem. He also questioned whether trucks
would be able to make deliveriesoto the drug store without parking,on the street.
Marge Buss, 4500 Wooddale Avenue, said she and her husband own the Edina Pharmacy
at 3831 W. 50th Street. They objected to the proposed project because: 1) parking
would be insufficient, would add to the overcrowding that exists in the ramps and
they object to the parking variance, 2) building placement would obstruct the view
at the corner, 3) loading area not adequate, 4) concern for future use of the
building, 5) environmental concerns regarding the old underground tanks, and
6) competition for little proprietor from chain drug store.
Perry Anderson, Belleson's at 3908 W. 50th Street, said he has seen a lot of
changes in the 34 years he has owned Belleson's and questioned if this is the
choice that should be made. He said the two concerns for the 50th and France
Commercial Area have been and continue to be parking and traffic and that he felt
the proposed development would add to those problems.
Mr. Runyan responded to several concerns that had been raised: Loading /Unloading -
Building will be serviced by a truck once a week for three hours. Environment -
Ground will be environmentally tested and tanks removed. Future Use - Cannot
respond to that issue. Traffic - Existing service station generates traffic,
traffic to the drug store will be sporatic.
Don Sather stated that he owned the property adjoining this proposed project and
did not object to what is proposed. He recalled that there had been a loading
zone across the street and would strongly recommend that it be put back in so that
trucks could service the existing pizza restaurant and the restaurant that will be
opening at 49 1/2 Street and France Avenue. Also that there should be a warning
signal for pedestrians to alert them to exiting vehicles from the site.
Mayor Richards then asked for action from the Council. Member Smith said he could
not support the project as presented because of the traffic ingress /egress
concerns and also questioned the parking contribution.
Member Kelly said she would like to hear comments from the 50th and France
Business and Professional Association because that area has worked due to the
sharing of concerns and problems by the merchants. She questioned whether a
corporate chain like Walgreens would participate. Also, there have been enough
issues raised as to the lighting, design and siting of the building to suggest
that it be referred back to staff or the Planning Commission for further study.
Member Rice said he would like to see more detail as to building materials, that
it appeared to be too much building for the site, that he had concern about the
building entrance and the parking, that the proposal needed further work.
Mayor Richards commented that the development would add a good corporate citizen
to that corner, that he would like to see more development in the 50th and France
commercial area rather than less and would support the proposal.
Member Kelly made a motion to continue the hearing on the request for rezoning to
PCD -2 District for property at 4916 France Avenue to the meeting-of May 7, 1990 to
allow the proponent to address the issues concerning 1) lighting, ) traffic floe,
3) parking and cost, and 4) design that have been raised by the Council. Motion
was seconded by Member Smith.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Rice
Nays: Richards
Motion carried.
PRELIMINARY REZONING TO PRD -2 AND PRELIMINARY PIAT FOR SHADOW HILL APPROVED
Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner
Larsen presented the request for preliminary rezoning to PRD -2 Planned Residence
District and preliminary plat approval for Shadow Hill, noting that the subject
property is located on the north side of the improved street known as Vernon
Court. The subject property is zoned R -2 and is platted with five double bungalow
lots. Prior to the current zoning, the Planning Commission and Council approved a
PRD -2 zoning for 15 townhouse units. Both of these concepts failed in the
marketplace.
A rezoning petition has been received for PRD -2 zoning to allow for the
construction of 12 "detached" townhomes, a new concept to Edina. It combines
elements of single family detached housing with elements of townhouse design and
management. Each unit will have an individual private lot, making it work like
many small lot single family neighborhoods in the City. However, the units will
have common design and materials with a townhouse type association for
maintenance.
The units are planned as one -story units with all living spaces on one floor
measuring approximately 1,600 square feet. Each unit has an attached two -car
garage and exterior materials would be wood siding with brick accents.
As proposed, the development would comply with all ordinance requirements except
for the sideyard setback on Lot 12. A 10 -foot setback is provided where a 20 -foot
setback is required. Thus, a 10 -foot sideyard setback variance is requested.
Planner Larsen mentioned that this is a very difficult site to develop. The
combination of the hill on the north side and freeway to the south is very
limiting. The two prior development concepts failed; however, this proposal may
have a better chance to succeed because the offering price would be lower to
Acknowledge the site limitations. Staff believes the proposal has merit and would
recommend preliminary approval, subject to: 1) final rezoning, 2) final plat, 3)
subdivision dedication, and 4) engineering specifications for retaining wall. The
proposal was heard by the Community Development and Planning Commission at its
meeting of March 28, 1990 and approval was recommended.
As part of the development the proponent has requested a reallocation of special
assessments levied against the property. Currently, approximately $245,000 is
levied against a single parcel. The reallocation would equally divide the total
into 12 assessments against the proposed individual lots. The assessments would
be satisfied as the lots are developed. The proponent has proposed that the
reassessment be for a five year period with interest remaining at the current
11.5 %. The initial assessment was for 10 years with three years remaining; the
request would result in a two year extension of the assessment. If the - Council
approves the reallocation, conditions to the assessment agreement would be: 1)
County approval, 2) 1008 petition by the developer with waiver of right to appeal,
3) Recording of new specials and release of the existing specials on the property.
Steve Wilson of Schaefer Development, proponent, spoke to the special assessments
on the property. The existing specials have been levied as a single -lump sum on
the property and the request is to divide those on the 12 individual lots. The
request is only for the amount contributable to the special assessments and would
include the principal as well as the interest that has been accruing at the rate
of 11.58 with a 48 penalty. The request does not constitute a subsidy but is a
different way to make payment. The City has the same assurance of payment with
the specials placed on the 12 lots as it would if the specials were left on the
single parcel. The reallocation of the special assessments will allow for the
construction of a housing development which will be marketable, thus enabling the
City to collect in full for the unpaid specials, with interest and penalty.
Member Kelly asked what type of building materials would be used for the project.
Mr. Wilson said they would be cedar siding and brick. The street scape would be
varied by changing the roof lines and the entrances from the front of the garage
to the side of the garage to break up the monotony.
Tom Benson, 6707 Vernon Avenue, said he.
Association who are not objecting to the
He presented a listing of those concerns
sound barrier, lighting, retaining wall,
completion.
represented the Vernon Woods Homeowners
development but have some reservations.
which included density, wooded area,
taxes and special assessment, and
In response to the concerns of Vernon Woods residents, Mr. Wilson observed that
the proposal initially approved was for 15 two -story units which would be more
massive. That would also apply to the 10 unit project proposed previously. He
argued that the townhomes would protect against sound from the crosstown highway
better than the trees. The wooded area will receive particular attention so that
as many trees will be saved as can be and the proposed grade will be the same as
the existing grade. The light standard on the crosstown is similar to the one
behind the Clark development to the east and has been no problem. The retaining
wall will be engineered for safety and durability. Lots 1 and 2 do not make the
density more than the site can handle and a buffer will be left.
Mayor Richards asked about the density on the Clark development to the east.
Planner Larsen said that was double bungalows and was approximately 4.5 units per
acre compared to the subject proposal at 3.5 per acre.
Member Smith asked if there was a way to
the developer and yet maintain leverage
Erickson stated that the present statute
basis if it makes the determination that
ultimately is not jeopardized. The City
of credit.
facilitate the cash flow and accommodate
on the whole development. Attorney
allows the City to allocate on a per lot
the recovery of the special assessment
could ask for security such as a letter
Mayor Richards commented that if the Council approves the project the City should
look to payment of the specials as a whole and not put the City at risk by
segregating and placing the specials on each lot. As to density, he indicated
support for a total of 10 units instead of 12 as proposed.
Member Smith moved preliminary rezoning to PRD -2 Planned Residence District and
preliminary plat approval, subject to: 1) Maximum of 10 units, 2) Surety bond for
payment of special assessments, 3) Waiver of right to appeal special assessments,
4) Final rezoning, 5) Final plat approval, 6) Subdivision dedication, and 7)
Engineering specifications for retaining walls, with First Reading of the
ordinance and adoption of the resolution as follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 825 -A35
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 825)
BY REZONING PROPERTY TO PRD -2 PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT
FROM R -2 DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 825 of the City is amended by adding
the following thereto:
"The extent of the Planned Residence District (PRD -2) is enlarged by the
addition of the following property:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6,
Township 116 North, Range 21 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described
as-follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter; thence South along the West line of said Northeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 709.1 feet more or less to a
point which is distant 814.5 feet North of the Southwest corner of said
Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence Easterly on a deflection
angle to the left of 87 degrees 40 minutes a distance of 676.3 feet; thence
North parallel with the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter to the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
thence West along said North line to the point of beginning, which lies
Northeasterly of the Northerly line of County Road No. 62.
The extent of the R -2 Double Dwelling Unit District is reduced by removing
the property described above from the R -2 District."
Sec. 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and
publication.
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR SHADOW HILLS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "SHADOW HILLS ", platted by Robert E. Hanson and Suzanne F.
Hanson, husband and wife, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council
of April 16, 1990, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion for First Reading of the ordinance and adoption of the resolution was
seconded by Member Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
First Reading granted; resolution adopted.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR BUILDING EXPANSION - OPUS CORPORATIONMSTERN
NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE (5350 WEST 78TH ST & 5309 INDUSTRIAL BLVD) Affidavits
of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner Larsen
presented the request for Final Development Plan approval for building expansion
for Opus Corporation and Western National Mutual Insurance generally located at
Bush Lake Road and Edina Industrial Boulevard, north of 78th Street.
Western National Mutual Insurance currently occupies the 32,400 square foot office
building at 5350 West 78th Street. East of Western National at 5309 Edina
Industrial Boulevard is a 25,725 square foot.multi- tenant office /warehouse
building. Both parcels are zoned Planned Industrial District, PID. Together the
parcels measure 4.069 acres in area.
The proponents are requesting approval of a plan to remove the multi- tenant
building and add approximately 38,000 square feet of office to the existing
Western National building. The addition would be two stories with some parking
under a portion of'the second floor on the north side similar to the existing
building. Currently, at the Western National building parking is approximately
20 stalls below the ordinance requirement. Employees often park along the drive
aisle adjacent to Edina Industrial Boulevard.
Recently, Edina Industrial Boulevard was widened and approximately a quarter of an
acre measuring 21 feet at the widest point was taken by Hennepin County for
expansion. The taking reduced the parking setback and eliminated area for parking
expansion. There are other non - conforming features which would be addressed by
the following elements of the proposed plan:
1) Reconfiguration of the parking lot to add 172 parking stalls to comply
with ordinance requirements;
2) Provision of a loading area out of the drive aisles and screened from
right of way lines;_
3) Upgrading of landscaping;
4) Relocation of the southwest curb cut east to an appropriate distance from
the intersection;
5) Removal of asphalt and building and replacement with additional
greenspace and building at a conforming setback.
Staff would recommend approval subject to: 1) Additional landscape upgrading -along
Edina Industrial Boulevard; 2) Alignment of the northerly curb cut with Bush Lake
Road; 3) NSP approval of easement reconfiguration; and 4) Landscape plan approval
and bond. The Community Development and Planning Committee recommended approval
subject to staff conditions. Planner Larsen concluded his presentation with the
comment that representatives of the proponents were present to answer questions.
Steve Grasso, Project Manager for Opus Corporation, stated that Planner Larsen had
presented a good synopsis of the project. He informed the Council that the
adjacent site has been acquired by Western National.
No public comment or objections being heard, Member Smith introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption, subject to 1) Additional landscape upgrading
along Edina Industrial Boulevard; 2) Alignment of the northerly curb cut with Bush
Lake Road; 3) NSP approval of easement reconfiguration; and 4) Landscape plan
approval and bond:
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
OPUS CORPORATION/WESTERN NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the Final
Development Plan for Opus Corporation/Western National Mutual Insurance, 5350 hest
78th Street and 5309 Edina Industrial Boulevard, presented at the regular meeting
of the City Council of April 16, 1990, be and is hereby approved.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED FOR BUILDING EXPANSION FOR THE GALLERIA (6969
FRANCE AVENUE) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed
on file. Planner Larsen presented the request for Final Development Plan approval
for building expansion of the Galleria, 6969 France Avenue.
Building Expansion - The owners of the Galleria have submitted Final Development
Plans for a planned expansion of the shopping center. The Galleria property
includes the entire block between 69th and 70th Streets and between France and
York Avenues. Currently, the Galleria shopping center occupies the westerly
one -half of the block. The expansion would increase the gross floor area of the
shopping center from 237,000 square feet to 501,000 square feet (42,517 square
feet for Gabberts and 143,403 square feet for the Galleria).
Parking and Traffic - The redeveloped site would require a total of 1798 parking
spaces by the Zoning Ordinance. This would include 372 spaces for the furniture
store and 1426 spaces for the mall and other related uses. The proposed site plan
would provide 1683 spaces. The developer has presented a proof of parking plan
illustrating 1813 spaces. This would be accomplished by restriping the lot with
8.5 foot spaces instead of the proposed 9 foot spaces. This would be similar to
the proof of parking agreement now in place for the Galleria.
The proposed expansion is subject to an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) issued by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). In this case, the ISP is triggered by
the addition of 500 or more parking spaces. The critical element is the
possibility of traffic congestion leading to reduced air quality. On February
21;1990, the MPCA issued the ISP for the project. The finding was that there
would not be congestion leading to reduced air quality as a result of this
project.
Setbacks - The proposed plans illustrate "an addition to the furniture store which
would maintain the existing 40 foot setback from West 69th Street. The PC -3 Zone
requires a minumum building setback of 50 feet. Therefore a 10 -foot building
setback variance is requested. All other building and parking setbacks meet or
exceed ordinance requirements.
South East Edina Transit Way - The owners have agreed to provide a route through
their property for the planned transit way linking Edinborough with Fairview
Southdale Hospital. The transit way would enter the site from the City's existing
transit way south of 70th Street and would go under the building and proceed
across 69th Street and through Southdale.
Design and Materials - The addition to the Galleria would match existing design
and materials. The non - conforming wood exterior of the furniture store would be
replaced with concrete panels or brick. The proposed.materials comply with
ordinance requirments.
Recommendation - The proposed expansion has been anticipated for some time.
Staff believes it is well conceived and will be well executed and would recommend
approval as presented, subject to an executed Proof of Parking Agreement. The
Community Development and Planning Commission considered the final development.
plans at its meeting of March 29, 1990, and unanimously recommended approval.
Presentation by Proponents - Peter Jarvis, BRW, consultant for the project, made
board presentations illustrating the proposed project which included the site
plans, parking, landscaping, elevations, and upper and lower level floor plans.
He explained that the three existing commercial buildings on the easterly half of
the site would be removed, i.e. the theatre, bowling alley and retail building.
The transit way will be accommodated through the center of the site by means of a
tunnel. The architecture will be an extention of the Galleria architecture that
is in place today.
Transit Way Cost Sharing Proposal - Warren Beck, Gabbert and Beck, proponent,
presented a proposal for public financial participation in construction of the
transit way beneath the Galleria project as outlined in his letter of April 10,
1990. As background, Mr. Beck recalled that in 1973 when the Galleria was
originally planned, and shortly after the,Yorktown development plan had been
approved, staff indicated that the City was interested in maintaining some type of
access through the Galleria property in alignment with the Yorktown linear park
for future pedestrian and /or transporation use.
In 1986, when the Centennial Lakes project was being developed, the issue of
access was discussed again. In conjunction with the proposed routing of the
transit way from Edinborough to Southdale, the access across the Galleria parcel
became an obvious issue. At that time, expansion of the Galleria to the east was
contemplated and after discussion with staff a plan was developed which would
result.in depressing a transit way under the Galleria building. Staff had
indicated that the cost associated with providing access under the building could
be considered an improvement for funding under an economic development district
then being created.
The elements of the additional development costs associated with construction of
the depressed parking /transit area include the following as estimated:
Earth Work $ 50,000'
Concrete Work (retaining walls & driveways) 69,000
Structure (supportive floor structure and
associated improvements over transit way) 56,862
$175,862
The cost of a storm sewer system which would be required to service the depressed
area is estimated at $183,700 for a 33" sewer line. While total capacity of the
pipe would not be required for the transit way itself, the elevation required for
the transit way is below the existing storm sewer system which results in the need
to create a storm sewer connection. The resulting total cost is approximately
$350,000. Mr. Beck concluded by proposing that those costs be shared with the
City, approximating $175,000 each.
Mayor Richards asked Assistant Manager Hughes to comment on the proposal for cost
sharing. Assistant Manager Hughes recalled that the City established an economic
development district covering Southdale and the Galleria in 1989. Transit way
improvements were among the capital costs that were included in the economic
development district plan. Therefore, the requested public financial
participation is consistent with the plan. In 1990, the economic development
district will generate approximately $190,000 to pay for this improvement.
Assistant Manager Hughes mentioned that staff has discussed with Council on
several occasions concerns regarding the loss of state paid homestead aid in the
Centennial Lakes /Edinborough districts. One of the means of offsetting this
homestead problem would be the pooling of increments from the economic district
into the Edinborough /Centennial Lakes district. The City's participation in the
Galleria transit way would reduce the amount of excess increment that would be
available for transfer to Centennial Lakes and Edinborough but participation not
in excess of $175,000 would not be a significant impact.
Member Kelly raised the question if Southdale and the hospital also asked for
financial participation relating to the transit system would there be enough
increments from the economic district for that. Assistant Manager Hughes said
that there would be for the same amount of funding. He elaborated that for those
two parcels involved in the district there is already a solution in place for the
transit system.
Member Rice asked if there would be any problems with exhaust from vehicles in the
underground parking. Mr. Jarvis responded that no ventilation would be required.
No further comment or objections to the proposed Galleria expansion was heard.
Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject
to an executed Proof of Parking Agreement:
RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR BUILDING EXPANSION FOR THE GALLERIA
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that the Final
Development Plan for the Galleria, 6969 France Avenue South, presented at the
regular meeting of the City Council of April 16, 1990, be and is hereby approved.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Rice.
. Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
Member Paulus introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION
IN CONSTRUCTION OF TRANSIT WAY BENEATH GALLERIA
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota that it hereby
approves the cost sharing proposal for the construction of the transit way beneath
the Galleria expansion as presented;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney be authorized and directed to
prepare the necessary documents to facilitate financial participation in transit
way construction costs not to exceed $175,000.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Rice.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A2 TO DELETE AUTOMATIC TERMINATION PROVISION FOR WINE LICENSES
ADOPTED Member Rice moved Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 902 -A2 as
follows:
ORDINANCE NO. 902 -A7
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 -Al is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
Sec. 2. This or shall be in full force and effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Kelly.
Rollcall:'
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Ordinance adopted.
STRATEGY DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO RESIDENT'S COMPLAINTS CONCERNING WALNUT RIDGE
PARK Manager Rosland referenced a memorandum dated April 13, 1990 from Chief
Swanson concerning complaints about Walnut Ridge Park that had been made by
Barbara Arnold, 6515 Biscayne Boulevard. At this time, a three -step strategy will
be put in place to deter the disturbance activity. Mrs. Arnold has been contacted
and the problem has been discussed with her on two occasions. The use of extra
patrols and the cooperation of the neighborhood should curb the problem.
CONCERN OF RESIDENT AT 5824 HALIFAX ADDRESSED REGARDING STORM SEWER PROJECT
Engineer Hoffman explained that Mrs. Donald Gooding, 5824 Halifax Avenue, had
contacted him regarding the proposed storm sewer project in the Grimes and Halifax
area. Her concern was about additional water flowing onto the rear of her
property. She had also contacted the neighbors (Norbeck at 5828 Halifax and
Hatlestad at 5900 Halifax) and there was some disagreement as to how they felt the
project should be handled.
Engineer Hoffman advised that, during the Council meeting, the three parties had
met with Mrs. Gooding's attorney and have mutually agreed to extending out the
existing storm sewer system through a small berm and by means of flap gates the
water will be held on the park side of the berm. He said this would not impede
the storm sewer project and would recommend award of bids next on the agenda.
Mayor Richards asked the three parties who were present if they had resolved their
differences. Their response was that they had mutually agreed to the solution as
stated by the City Engineer. Mayor'Richards said that if there is extra cost
involved over and above the normal storm sewer project there may be some cost to
be borne by the three properties involved.
BID AWARDED FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS STS -199. STS -200, STS -201 STS -202 AND
STS -203 Member Kelly moved to approve award of bid for Storm Sewer Improvement
Nos. STS -199 (W. 76th Street & Parklawn Repair - Lake Edina Park), STS -200 (Edina
Manor Area - Grimes A Halifax), STS -201 (Country Club Area), STS -202 (W. 64th
Street & York Pond Area to Xerxes), STS -203 (Yorktown Park Strip) to recommended
low bidder, Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc., at $273,271.00.
Motion was seconded by Member Smith..
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*BID AWARDED FOR SPRINKLER SYSTEM FOR BRAEMAR GOLF DOME Motion was made by Member
Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid for sprinkler system for
Braemar Golf Dome to recommended low bidder, Olsen Fire Protection, Inc., at
$9,475.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID REJECTED FOR GOLF CARS: TO BE REBID Notion was made by Member Smith and was
seconded by Member Kelly to reject all bids for 15 golf cars for Braemar Golf
Course and to authorize rebid.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
*BID AWARDED FOR BLACKTOP SURFACE AROUND CORE BUILDING - VAN VALKENBURG PARK.
Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid
for blacktop surface around core building at Van Valkenburg Park to recommended
low bidder, Plehal Blacktopping, Inc., at $7,970,000.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
BID FOR RETAINING WALL AT BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE LESSON ARE CONTINUED TO 517190
Mayor Richards asked what is being proposed for the retaining wall. Park and
Recreation Director Kojetin said it would be a five foot wood wall 340 feet in
length to be constructed outside of the fence of the driving range at the north
end. Mayor Richards raised the question if an earth berm would be more natural
and in keeping with the character of the facility. Manager Rosland suggested that
this be continued so that staff could look at it further.
Member Smith made a motion to continue award of bid for the retaining wall at
Braemar Golf Course Lesson Area to the meeting of May 7, 1990. Motion was
seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards'
Motion carried.
*BID AWARDED FOR STORM SEWER AND ELECTRICAL TRENCHING - BRAEMAR SOCCER/FOOTBALL
FIELD Notion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly for award
of bid for storm sewer and electrical trenching for Braemar soccer /football field
to recommended low bidder, Perkins Landscape Contractors, at $14,892.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
AWARD OF BID FOR MILL POND WEED HARVESTING CONTINUED TO 5/7/90 Manager Rosland
recommended that the award of bid for Mill Pond Weed Harvesting be continued so
that staff could evaluate the low bidder. Member Rice made a motion to continue
award of bid for Mill Pond Weed Harvesting to the meeting of May 7, 1990. Motion
was seconded by Member Kelly.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
BIDS AWARDED FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND POLICE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE
COVERAGE Manager Rosland presented sole.bids for public officials liability and
police professional liability insurance as follows, noting that the market place
remains limited for these types of coverage:
Public Officials Liability
National Casualty Company
$10,500 for City of Edina
4,725 for Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority
Law Enforcement Liability
National Casualty'Company - $24,618
The City's agent has submitted applications to the major competitors and staff
would recommend award of bids, subject to receipt of lower bid prior to May 1.
Member Kelly made a motion for award of bid to National Casualty Company for
Public Officials Liability Insurance at $10,500 for City of Edina and $4,725 for
Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority, and for Law Enforcement Liability
Insurance at $24,618, subject to receipt of lower bid prior to May 1, 1990.
Motion was seconded by Member Smith.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
*BID AWARDED FOR GREENS MOVER Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by
Member Belly for award of bid for a greens mower to recommended low bidder, MTI
Distributing, at $7,545.00.
Motion carried on rollcall vote.
*BID AWARDED FOR REMOVAL OF DISEASED TREES /STUMPS AND TRIMMING OF BOULEVARD TREES
Motion was made by Member Smith and vas seconded by Member Belly for award of bid
for diseased trees, stumps and trimming of boulevard trees to recommended low
bidder, Precision Landscape & Tree as follows: Trimming - $2.91/DBH in., Removal -
$8.96/DBH in., Grinding - $1.96/DBH in.
Motion carried on rollcall vote.
FEASIBILITY REPORT PRESENTED FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -291 (Y 69TH FROM
FRANCE TO MUMS) AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -47 (WEST 42ND STREET FROM FRANCE
TO WEST CITY LIMITS): HEARING DATE SET FOR 517/90 Engineer Hoffman presented a
feasibility report for two projects which have been petitioned for or requested by
adjacent property owners. Estimated construction costs are as follows:
Street Improvement No. BA -291 $1,067,123.43
W. 69th Street from France to Xerxes
Sidewalk Improvement No. S -47 123,208.92
W. 42nd Street from France to West City Limits
The projects would be funded by state aid and special assessment. Staff would
recommend setting a hearing date of May 7, 1990 for these projects.
Member Belly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
STREET IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -291
1. The City Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report as to
the feasibility of the proposed Street Improvement described in the form of Notice
of Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such improvement, said
report is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file in the office of the
City Clerk.
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, May 7, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the Edina City
Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in said
improvements.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time,
place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official.nevspaper onece
a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be not less
than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to all affected
properties in substantially the following form:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
WEST 69TH STREET FROM FRANCE AVENUE
TO XERXES AVENUE
BITUMINOUS STREET SURFACING, CONCRETE CURB AND
GUTTER, STORM SEVER AND STREET LIGHTING
IMPROVEMENT NO. BA -291
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall on Monday, May 7, 1990 at
7:00 p.m. to consider road improvements on West 69th Street from France Avenue to
Xerxes Avenue. These improvements are the result of the redesign of street based
on the redevelopment of the Gabbert & Beck block and Southdale's plans, and will
include bituminous street surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, storm sever and
street lighting. This hearing is being conducted under the authority granted by
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
The estimated construction cost of the project is $1,067,123.43. The project is
proposed to be funded by assessment of $40.00 per assessable unit, with the
balance being paid for by state aid and storm water utility funds. These proposed
assessments would be divided over a ten year period with interest accumulating on
the unpaid balance. The proposed project would be constructed in 1990.
Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is
listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited by
the improvement.
The legal description of the proposed improvement is as follows:
Tract C, RLS 1455; the Southerly 220' of Tract 4, Tract H, the Westerly 310, and
Easterly 230.88' of Tract M, RLS 629; Tracts A & D, RLS 1171; Tracts A & B, RLS
1366; and Tract A, RLS 1466.
Any inquiries, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement
may be forwarded to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the
hearing or presented at the hearing itself. If you desire additional information,
please clal me at 927 -8861 between 8:00 A.K. and 4:30 P.K., Monday through Friday.
The City Council can authorize the proposed project immediately upon the close of
the hearing.
Francis J. Hoffman, P.E.
Director of Public Works and City Engineer
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
Member Kelly introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RE90LUTIOM PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. 5 -47
1. The City Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report as to
the feasibility of the proposed Sidewalk Improvement described in the form of
Notice of Hearing set forth below, and as to the estimated cost of such
improvement, said report is hereby approved and directed to be placed on file in
the office of the City Clerk.
2. This Council shall meet on Monday, May 7, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. in the Edina City
Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in said
improvements.
3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time,
place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper onece
a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be not less
than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to all affected
properties in substantially the following form:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -47
The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall on Monday, May 17, 1990,
at 7:00 P.M. to hold a formal Public Hearing on the construction of sidewalk on
West 42nd Street from France Avenue to the West City Limits of Edina. This
hearing has been called as a result of a petition from 91 residents in this area
for better pedestrian access to Weber Park, school bus stops, the France Avenue
MTC bus stop and generally as a connector route. This hearing is being conducted
under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The proposed
sidewalk will be located on the south side from the west City Limits on West 42nd
Street to Grimes Avenue. East of Grimes, the sidewalk would be on the north side
of West 42nd Street going to France Avenue.
This is considered a formal hearing since it is proposed that the entire cost of
the improvement be paid from assessments. Under present City policy, maintenance
(snow removal) of the sidewalk will be the responsibility of the adjacent property
owners. The estimated construction cost of the project is $95,275.86. The
proposed assessment would be between $245.56 and $560.46 per lot, depending on the
acutual assessment area.
The first proposed assessment area is the largest suggested area and includes all
petitioners for this project. See attached map.
The second proposed assessement area is a smaller suggested area which does not
include all the petitioners but would be more consistent with the potential
assessment district for this type of project. See attached map.
These proposed assessments would be divided over a ten year period with interest
accumulating on the unpaid balance.
The sidewalk is proposed to be five feet wide and constructed on concrete. The
alignment will be varied to protect eaisting.property features to the greatest
extent possible. The proposed project would be constructed in 1990.
Your receipt of this notice is an indication that property whose ownership is
listed to you is among those properties which are considered to be benefited by
the improvement.
The area that may be assessed for the proposed improvement is as follows:
Tract A, RLS 567; Tracts A, B, C, D & E, RLS 650; Tracts A & B, RLS 1517; Lots 1
thru 3 & 8 thru 11, Blk. 1, Lots 1 thru 9, Blk. 2, & Lots 1 thru 9, Blk. 3,
Morningside Oaks Addn.; Lots 1 thru 10 & 12 & 13, Blk. 1, Lots l thru 19 & 22 thru
26, Blk. 2, Lots l thru 19 & 22 thru 26, Blk. 3, & Lots 1 thru 18 & 21 thru 26,
Blk. 4, Minikanda Vista Third Addn.; Lots 1 thru 14, 16 & 17 & 19 & 20, William
Scott's Addn.; Lots 1 thru 4, Blk. 1, William Scott's Addn. Peterson Replat; Lots
1 thru 12, A and B Addn.; Lots 1 & 2, Blk. 1, Lots 1 & 2, Blk. 2, and Outlots 1
and 2, Morningside Manor; Lots 1 thru 8, Blk. 1, & Lots 1 thru 12, Blk. 2,
Mickelsen's Re- arrangement Morningside Minn.; Lots 1 thru 5, Wooddale Heights 2nd
Addn.; Lots 1 thru 26, Blk. 1, Lots 1 thru 26 Blk. 2, and Lots 8 thru 19, Blk. 3,
Crocker & Crowell's First Addn.; Lots 1 & 2, ilk. 1, Morine's Addn.; and Lots 14
thru 78, Morningside Addn.
Any inquiries, comments and /or suggestions you may have regarding this improvement
may be forwarded to the City Council or Engineering Department prior to the
hearing or presented at the hearing itself. If you desire additional information,
please call me at 927 -8861 between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday.
The City Council can authorize the proposed project immediately upon the close of
the hearing.
Francis J. Hoffman, P.E.
Director of Public Works and City Engineer.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Paulus.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
DISCUSSION ON TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS UPDATE DEFERRED TO .5/7/90 Because of the
late hour, Manager Rosland suggested that the discussion on update of the tax
increment districts be deferred to the meeting of May 7, 1990. The Council
unanimously.agreed that the matter be deferred to May 7, 1990.
DOG LICENSE RENEWAL PROCESS DEFERRED TO 5/7190 Because of the late hour, the
Council agreed to defer discussion on the dog license renewal process to the
meeting of May 7, 1990.
APPOINTMENTS MADE TO RECYCLING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF APPEALS Mayor Richards
advised that he intended to appoint Inna Hayes to the Recycling Commission and Don
Patton to the Board of Appeals to fill existing vacancies.
Notion was made by Member Paulus for consent of the Mayor's appointment of Inna
Hayes to the Recycling Commission to fill an unexpired term to 2/1/91. Motion was
seconded by Member Smith.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
Motion was made by Member Kelly for consent of the Mayor's appointment of Donald
Patton to the Board of Appeals to fill an unexpired term to 2/1/92. Motion was
seconded by Member Rice.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
REYES LETTER REQUESTING PUBLIC SALE OF LAND PARCEL REFERRED TO STAFF Member Smith
motion was seconded by Member Rice to refer the letter from E. David Reyes, 616
West 53rd Street, Minneapolis, MN, requesting that a small parcel of land be place
for public sale, to staff to study and recommendation.
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Motion carried.
UPDATE GIVEN ON I -494 EIS PROCESS: RESOLUTION ADOPTED URGING COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE
Planner Larsen informed the Council that Hennepin County has withdrawn from
participation in the I -494 EIS process. The County had previously committed to
fund 108 of.the EIS cost. The stated reason for withdrawing their participation
is the decision'to not include Light Rail Transit in the EIS. Light Rail Transit
was removed as a viable option before of the low ridership projections.
The five community Joint Powers Organization has asked the five Councils to
formally request the County to reconsider and participate in the study by adoption
of a resolution. The resolution would be sent to the County Board with copies to
legislators and MNDOT. Member Paulus said it is really frustrating to have the
County withdraw when they have 18 county trunk highways involved. It really was
the Light Rail authorities that said they were pulling out and that not all the
County Commissioners may be aware of that.
Member Paulus introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY PARTICIPATION
IN THE I -494 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS
WHEREAS, in 1986, work began on the I -494 Corridor Study in response to the need
to improve the capacity and safety of I -494 and its interchanges. This study was
initiated by the cooperative efforts of the Metropolitan Council, MNDOT, the
Regional Transit Board, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, Hennepin County and
the cities of Richfield, Bloomington, Edina, Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. The
multi- agency cooperation was demonstrated by shared funding as well as
representation throughout the study process.
WHEREAS, the transit component of the I -494 Corridor Study considered Light Rail
Transit as an alternative transit mode that needed analysis. However; based upon
the Long Range Transit Capital Improvements Study prepared by the Metropolitan
Council, the year 2000 transit ridership in the I -494 corridor was shown to be
relatively low; thus Light Rail Transit was not considered to be a financially
responsible option.
WHEREAS, the I -494 Corridor Study was adopted by all agencies including Hennepin
County. The primary recommendation of the study was that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) should be completed for the portion of I -494 lying between the
Minnesota River and Carlson Parkway in Minnetonka. The financial and
implementation portion of the study stated that Hennepin County provide partial
funding for the I -494 EIS and preliminary design; participate in negotiations for
cost sharing agreements for interchanges where the intersecting road is a county
road; and participate on an EIS Project Management Team.
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board approved the I -494 Corridor Study which
included the recommendation of the paragraph above in 1987.
WHEREAS, in 1989,'work commenced on the I -494 EIS with Hennepin County staff
participating on the Project Management Team. Hennepin County was a party to an
interagency,agreement that set forth the responsibilities for the cost of the EIS.
The I -494 EIS is the first in the metropolitan area where numerous governmental
agencies as well as the private sector (Improve I -494) has agreed to financially
participate in the preparation of this type of study.
WHEREAS, the I -494 EIS is a joint effort that recognizes that every political
entity that contributes traffic to this section of I -494 stands to benefit from
improvement of the facility.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina that the
Hennepin County Board is urged participate in the I -494 EIS process for the
following reasons:
A. The I -494 EIS process represents a cooperative effort between state,
regional, local governments and the private sector to initiate needed
regional roadway improvements.
B. The cost sharing agreements between the multiple agencies is unique and
demonstrates intergovernmental cooperation.
C. Hennepin County participation within the project is needed and valuable,
given the twelve county roads that will be studied as part of the EIS
process.
ADOPTED this 16th day of April, 1990.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Smith.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards
Resolution adopted.
Member Paulus mentioned that she would like the reporter for the Edina Sun - Current
to be aware of the County's withdrawing their support on the EIS so the public
could be informed.
MANHOLE COVER AT DALE DRIVE NOTED MENTIONED Member Rice said the manhole cover at
Dale Drive needs attention. Engineer Hoffman said staff is in the process of
looking at all the manholes to determine which ones need work.
CITY CRITIZED FOR ESTABLISHING TAX INCREMENT DISTRICTS Member Kelly mentioned
that at the recent AMM committee meeting she had attended the City of Edina was
critized for its recent establishment of the three tax increment districts.
SHHSC MEETING COMMENTS NOTED Member Kelly reported that at a recent meeting of
South Hennepin Human Services Council Board someone from the City of Richfield had
made the comment that Edina was bringing low income people in by building
Edinborough and Centennial Lakes which would be an additional burden on SHHSC
services.
DENSITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS DISCUSSED Member Kelly said that in considering
the recently proposed Ron Clark Development at 70th and Cahill and the Walgreens
proposal the issue is not really density as defined by units per acre but really
is lot coverage. She asked when staff would be bringing back a report to deal
with the massing issue. Manager Rosland said. that would be on the Council agenda
on May 7, 1990.
With regard to the massing issue, Member Paulus asked the Council to look at the
house in the 4600 block on Browndale that has recently added a second story on the
rear. She said the backside of the home appears massive. If the backdoor
neighbor should build a similar addition it would create a feeling of being almost
walled in.
OBJECTION TO LONG AGENDAS RAISED Member Kelly said she objected to the long
agendas the Council has been having and that staff should consider some way to
limit them. Manager Rosland said staff would be uncomfortable in making that kind
of decision and that the public hearings are set by action of the Council.
CORRESPONDENCE NOTED Mayor Richards passed to the Council the following recent
correspondence received: 1) Note of appreciation from Ceil Smith, Assistant to
Manager, for flowers sent following recent surgery, and 2) Note of appreciation
from the family of Larry Oppold.
Mayor Richards referred to a copy of a letter written by Marsh. Halberg,
Prosecuting Attorney for the City, addressed to Shirley Melander regarding her
complaint of sale of pornography at Shinders in Edina. He said he would take
issue with the attorney's decision not to issue charges because he felt that was a
policy decision that should be made by the Council.
EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE CONDUCTED Manager Rosland referred to the report of Chief
Swanson dated April 9, 1990, on the emergency plan exercise conducted on Tornado
Awareness Day, April 5, 1990. He said the report has been provided so that the
Council is made aware that the City is ready to respond to emergency situations.
VOLUNTEERS' ANNUAL RECEPTION SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 17 Manager Rosland reminded the
Council that the All Volunteers' Annual Reception is scheduled for Tuesday, April
17 at 5:00 p.m. at Braemar Clubhouse.
*CIAIMS PAID Notion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to
approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register
dated 04/16/90 and consisting of 32 pages: General Fund $209,843.87,
Communications $10.70, Art Center $3,916:27, Capital Fund $2,361.51, Swimming Pool
Fund $1,085.00, Golf Course Fund $40,776.23, Recreation Center Fund $7,958.69, Gun
Range Fund $270.35, Edinborough Park $12,050.18, Utility Fund $9,248.74, Storm
Sewer Utility $16,934.45, Liquor Dispensary Fund $87,593.28, Construction Fund
$137,433.80, IMP Bond Redemption #2 $12,164.20, Total $541,647.27.
Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes.
There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the
meeting adjourned at 1:25 a.m.
City Clerk
a
'i
4,91N�,J
oe�y�
Iry �0 En
• rN�bR
less
PORNt�O •
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Francis Hoffmann
City Engineer / /►►��
Date: 21 May, 1990
Subject: West 69th Street
Reconstruction -
France Avenue to
Xerxes Avenue
Public Hearing for
Improvement Project
BA -291
Recommendation:
Agenda Item # III . A.
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑
To HRA
R]
To Council
Action
Motion
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
A. Authorize Improvement Project BA -291.
B. Approve NO PARKING ANY TIME resolution for both sides of West 69th
Street (State Aid requirement).
Info/Background-
Staff has prepared reconstruction plans for West 69th Street from France
Avenue to Xerxes Avenue (see attached sketch). The project would consist of
new street with concrete curb and gutter, street lighting, sidewalk on the
south side with a crossing to Southdale, and trees in the median. The storm
sewer modifications will be on the east end of the project which will.
connect the piping to the Adams Hill /Centennial Lakes system. This will
assist in lowering the flood potential along the homes in the Southdale Road
area and the Southdale Office Center. These plans are consistent with the
expansion of the Galleria block. Also, staff has met with Southdale
Shopping Center management and they are in agreement with the proposed
layout for reconstruction.
Report /Recommendation
West 69th Street Reconstruction
France Avenue to Xerxes Avenue,
Public Hearing for Improvement
Project No. BA -291
Page Two
The proposed project would be a total reconstruction of the street with some
storm sewer modifications. The estimated project cost is $1,067,123.43.
The estimated project cost is proposed to be funded in the following manner:
Special Assessment $192,000.00 at $40.00 per Assessable Foot
State Aid $675,000.00
Stormwater Utility $200,000.00
This project is part of our capital improvements program. The staff will
make a full presentation with graphics at the Council meeting.
DR. i WEST I'
A im st •
z
RE\\. S I ON RC
r
WOOD 'ALE
C
m E P
0 AV
0
Cb
.OGG AVE -1
CA
:10 cz POINT DR
rn
OAK L A IVN
i.4
- OR. -- Ii ID
C
,b
C —0
'STER AVUI
RTON I n 11A
"I DR.
BLVD
so
150
LA
�
`po
im SAND S4-L
o AVE. :
ch (IN
YORK AVE.
7! F7 7-7 7-1
I I I
RICHFIELD
z
169 143
'
z 0 if
Z.SHCROFT ASHCROF T AVE 0
-4 .0
:r
.ST. JOHN'S AVE ST JOHN'S - -II
: 'AVE 14 Sl JO.IN'S :i
IM�ILLER
VY
A �l
� //4 FA!,@fAX X AVE
4150 jOODALE x AVE.
0
L
0
- -
- ---- IF Z.JLA is
;L-kELLOGG 0 #j KELLOGG I
1100 -
x O4KLAWN
AVE
LAW __Y_ I r _ _ _ _ _ ___ j I_-_ __
OA K
BROOLK)LIEW AVE DR OQKVIEA j
PARK II
z
c7) K) Rb��
0
II IV
JPEACEDALE
-MEA
Z
HALIFAX
CD
HALIFAX AVE 0 ro Z( HALIFAX
/
IAE� -4 e)
GRIMES _ J� �.', N: -4 .
LE
i E.
FRANCE A.,
p
49 AVE. [WING CIR
CHOWEN
0
BEARD OWE� AVE
I--L JL.
BEARD.-
co
ABBOTT I ~ AVE. :. III Ih
ZENITH _ �[--- _- -- -] .. AVE- _''I li (,`1N� � .�
�I �I'.. - -- YORK--- -- - -]L = - - - --- r —._ I _ IL _ AVE,
XERXES .*-* . . . . . . ....
71
MINNEAPOLIS
NAf-
ID
z
4n D)
DREW AVE.
F-
rt
;o
fa
'o
x
F-
x
(D
BARR'E
YORK AVE.
7! F7 7-7 7-1
I I I
RICHFIELD
z
169 143
'
z 0 if
Z.SHCROFT ASHCROF T AVE 0
-4 .0
:r
.ST. JOHN'S AVE ST JOHN'S - -II
: 'AVE 14 Sl JO.IN'S :i
IM�ILLER
VY
A �l
� //4 FA!,@fAX X AVE
4150 jOODALE x AVE.
0
L
0
- -
- ---- IF Z.JLA is
;L-kELLOGG 0 #j KELLOGG I
1100 -
x O4KLAWN
AVE
LAW __Y_ I r _ _ _ _ _ ___ j I_-_ __
OA K
BROOLK)LIEW AVE DR OQKVIEA j
PARK II
z
c7) K) Rb��
0
II IV
JPEACEDALE
-MEA
Z
HALIFAX
CD
HALIFAX AVE 0 ro Z( HALIFAX
/
IAE� -4 e)
GRIMES _ J� �.', N: -4 .
LE
i E.
FRANCE A.,
p
49 AVE. [WING CIR
CHOWEN
0
BEARD OWE� AVE
I--L JL.
BEARD.-
co
ABBOTT I ~ AVE. :. III Ih
ZENITH _ �[--- _- -- -] .. AVE- _''I li (,`1N� � .�
�I �I'.. - -- YORK--- -- - -]L = - - - --- r —._ I _ IL _ AVE,
XERXES .*-* . . . . . . ....
71
MINNEAPOLIS
NAf-
Agenda Item III.A.
Gabbert & Beck
3510 WEST 70TH STREET, EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435
(6121925.4321
May 21, 1990
City Council
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Re: 69th Street Renovation Project
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writing in behalf of Gabbert and Gabbert Company which owns
the real estate which adjoins 69th Street between France and York
Avenues. This section of 69th Street is the subject of a public
hearing considering the reconstruction of 69th Street and an
associated curb and gutter improvement assessment proposed in the
amount of $40 per front foot.
We have had an opportunity to review these plans with city staff
and find they are consistent with our plans to expand the
Galleria. Therefore we fully support the improvement of 69th
Street and urge that you proceed with the project promptly.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
G BERT AND ABBERT COMPANY
(,-
7aren Beck
General Partner
WB /rlk
FAX 612/925 -2965
19
!1
o e 71
C
.�° REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
• i,��era�wt"V •
To; Kenneth Rosland
From. Craig Larsen
Date. May 21, 1990
Subject. Final Rezoning, R -1,
to PRD -2, Final Plat
Approval, Highcroft
Addition, and Second
Reading Ordinance 825 -
A34, Ron Clark Const.,
70th Street and Cahill
Road.
Agenda Item #1V.
A, B, C'.
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
❑
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
Discussion
Recommendation: Approval of Final Rezoning, .Final Plat and Second
Reading of Ordinance repealing Heritage Preservation Zoning subject to:
1. Developers Agreement
2. Executed slope easement and easement for commemorative marker.
3. Subdivision Dedication based on unimproved land value of $1,800,000.
INFO /BACKGROUND
At it's May 2, 1990, meeting the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval
of the request for Final Rezoning Approval.
The Historical Society, the Heritage Preservation Board and Park Board have
considered the design and location of the Cahill Settlement historic marker.
All three Boards-are recommending the marker be constructed in the northeast
corner of the townhouse development. A site plan incorporating the marker and
the recommended design are attached for your review.
DRAFT'
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
EDINA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, G. Johnson, Faust, Hale, L. Johnson, Byron,
Workinger, McClelland, Runyan, Palmer, G. Johnson,
Ingwalson
MEMBERS ABSENT: V. Shaw
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, City Planner
Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Commissioner Runyan moved for approval of the March 28, 1990, Planning
Commission Minutes. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye.
Motion carried. Chairman Johnson asked the secretary to note in the minutes of
March 28, 1990, that he abstained on the vote on the Tax Increment Districts,
44th and France and Valley View and Wooddale. He voted on the West 70th and
Cahill Road Tax Increment District.
II. OLD BUSINESS:
Z -90 -1 Ron Clark Construction, Inc.
Rezoning, R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District, to PRD -2,
Planned Residence District.
General
Location: West 70th Street and Cahill Road
Mr. Larsen reported to the Commission the City Council, at its April 16, 1990,
meeting, referred the subject proposal back to the Commission. The proposal
remains the same as the one recommended for approval by the Commission on March
28, 1990.
Mr. Larsen explained since the last Commission meeting three conceptual plans
have been designed to commemorate the history of the Cahill settlement.
Mr. Larsen concluded that staff recommends the Commission reaffirm its March 28,
1990, motion approving the Final Rezoning for the development.
The proponent, Mr. Ron Clark, his representatives, Nancy Horn and Mike Gair were
present. Interested neighbors were present.
Chairman G. Johnson questioned if the Commission is to act on just the townhouse
portion of the plan. Mr. Larsen said that is correct.
1
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) met
regarding Mr. Clark's proposal and focused their discussion on the proposed
location of the historical marker. Mr. Larsen reported that the HPB recommended
that the historical marker be constructed on the north east corner of the site,
which is 70th and Cahill. Mr. Larsen asked the Commission to note that the HPB
indicated a preference for Plan B.
Mr. Gair introduced to the Commission design plans for the three proposed
locations for the commemorative park and marker. He briefly explained that each
location indicates that the commemorative area /marker will be built into the
berm. Plan A, as it is depicted, proposes a crescent shaped retaining wall
built into the berm. A hedge will center on top of the berm, with a boulder
retaining wall, including a planter, and alwall consisting of the concrete
blocks from the church foundation. Mr. Gair added, the wall will house five
plaques which will highlight the Cahill Settlement. Continuing, Mr. Gair said,
Plan B, has a hedge row as an accent to the upper level and a boulder wall, with
a planting bed on top of a low wall with a ledge for seating. He pointed out
this plan incorporates'a obelisk shaped structure, constructed of the foundation
blocks from the church. This structure would contain plaques commemorating the
history of the Cahill Settlement and the peak would be similar to the peak of
the original church steeple. Mr. Gair explained to the Commission the final
plan, Plan C, also has a crescent shaped design, as in Plan A, but would be
outlined by a hedge row along the top and sides, followed by a retaining wall,
incorporating the foundation from the church. Plaques would be attached to this
wall and at the base of the display wall, a planter is proposed and a final low
wall which would provide seating. Concluding, Mr. Gair said the HPB as Mr.
Larsen has indicated expressed favor for Plan B.
Mr. Mike Gair continued his presentation focusing on the townhouse proposal,
asking the Commission to note the change that has been made to the plans
concerning the most westerly located four unit townhouse cluster on the site.
Continuing, Mr. Gair said the change is a reduction in height of the most
southerly located townhouse unit from two story's to one story. Mr. Gair went
on to explain that the proposed landscaping on the site has been corrected, and
increased, and will be implemented with flexibility, allowing the neighbors on
West 70th Street input on vegetation placement.
Chairman G. Johnson questioned why they chose to reduce the height of the
townhouse farthest away from West 70th Street. Mr. Gair explained that the
setback from West 70th Street to the nearest westerly townhouse unit is 90 feet
and with adequate landscaping they felt the impact to the properties across the
street would be reduced. Continuing, Mr. Clark explained that the terrain in
that area makes it impossible to reduce the height of those buildings to become
walkouts. As the terrain changes it became possible to reduce the height of the
end townhouse creating a walkout unit. Mr. Clark noted there is not a feasible
way to create walkout situations for the other three townhouse units.
Commissioner Faust said in her opinion the massiveness of the footprints of the
townhouses is a problem. She added the numbers may seem to work on paper, but
in reality, it may appear to crowded.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Larsen to clarify for him how the proposed
flexibility in landscaping would occur. He Added he wants to make sure an
adequate amount of landscaping is implemented on this site.
2
Mr. Larsen explained that for Planned Residence Districts the City requires a
landscaping bond and a detailed landscaping plan that must be submitted at final
approval and implemented during construction. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said Mr.
Clark is submitting the required plan and in implementing the approved plan he
will add additional landscaping materials from the input of neighbors. The
developer may not reduce the amount of landscaping material or its size. Mr.
Gair clarified that the landscaping plan. would be implemented and added to.
Commissioner Ingwalson asked who would make the determination on the plantings.
Mr. Clark said that would be his responsibility.
Commissioner McClelland asked how the Parkland Dedication would be handled,
would Mr. Clark finance construction of the park and pay a parkland dedication
fee. Mr. Larsen said at this time, that is what is recommended. Commissioner
McClelland commented that she feels the peak of the commemorate obelisk is to
high. She also expressed concern that teens may vandalize it. Commissioner
McClelland asked if the Park Department would have input on the proposed
commemorate area and it's maintenance. Mr. Larsen said the Park Department will
review Mr. Clark's plans.
Mr. Ralph Lindell, 7017 Antrim Road told the Commission he feels the site is too
dense, he added he wants to see the area maintain it's open, airy feeling. He
pointed out the continuity of Cahill Road will change because of this
development.
Mr. Scheerer,,5224 West 70th Street, told the Commission that reducing the
height of one unit will have no impact on the property owners along West 70th
Street.
Linda Smithson, 5608 West 70th Street, told the Commission she believes the
issue before them this evening is density. Continuing, she pointed out
regardless of the numbers, the proposal in reality will be too tight. She
submitted to the Commission a signed petition with 182 names opposing the
proposal.
Mr. Hellund, 5720 McGuire Road, told the Board the area where Mr. Clark proposes
to develop has been used as an neighborhood access to Lewis Park. Continuing,
Mr. Hellund said the density of the townhouses is out of character for the
neighborhood. Mr. Hellund suggested that Mr. Clark plant more deciduous trees.
_Mr. Quigley, 5804 West 70th Street told the Commission in his opinion, that he
agrees with Mrs. Smithson, density is the issue and the resulting lack of
greenspace if the development is approved as presented.
Commissioner Runyan told the Commission, in his opinion, he does not consider
that this proposal is too dense. He commented that much discussion has centered
around the proposed commemorative area, and in his opinion, this area is for
foot traffic and for the enjoyment of residents in the neighborhood. He added
he believes very few people will drive to that location and want to park and
view the commemorate kiosk. Commissioner Runyan pointed out that with Planned
Residence Districts, Staff, Commission, and Council all have more control over
what is developed, especially regarding landscaping. Single Family Unit
Districts do not require any review for landscaping. Continuing, he added Mr.
Clarks suggestion to work with the neighbors in the placement of landscaping is
3
a plus that staff can ensure is properly implemented. Continuing, Commissioner
Runyan said guest parking for the townhouses should be in their driveways,
adding he would rather see more greenspace instead of asphalt. Concluding, Mr.
Runyan said in his opinion, single family homes should never be a buffer for a
commercial area.
Commissioner Palmer said he agrees with Commissioner Runyan's observations. He
noted that in his opinion single family homes are not an'appropriate land use
developed right up to a commercial area.
Commissioner McClelland said in her opinion, the density of the townhouse
portion is still too high and should be lower. She said scaling down just one
unit, just doesn't do it. She added she feels the developer did not adequately
address the council's suggestions and concerns. She pointed out every piece of
land in Edina does not have to be developed to the maximum density. She
concluded, as she has indicated before, that she cannot support the proposal as
presented.
Commissioner Workinger told the Commission the developer has made good changes
to the landscaping plan, but added in his opinion the density is out of
character with the neighborhood.
Commissioner L. Johnson told the Commission that he did a rough draft layout of
the townhouse portion of the site if it were to be developed with single family
homes. He said he concluded that between 10 -15 single family homes could be
developed in this area versus the proposed 21 townhouse units. Continuing,
Commissioner L. Johnson said double dwelling units could be developed at 18
units in this area. Concluding Commissioner L. Johnson said massing may not be
as severe as what is believed. He acknowledged that the proponent has not gone
very far in addressing the concerns expressed by the Council, but that is their
choice.
Commissioner Ingwalson explained that he has voted for this project and on the
whole, feels it is good for Edina. Commissioner Ingwalson did express concern
that the Council's issues were not adequately addressed. He added he supports
what is presented but wants to make sure landscaping is adequately addressed,
implemented, and that placement of landscaping materials is done with
sensitivity to the concerns of the neighbors.
Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend Final Rezoning Approval subject to staff
conditions. Commissioner Runyan seconded the motion. Ayes, Runyan, Palmer,
Byron, L. Johnson, Ingwalson, G. Johnson. Nays, Faust, Hale, McClelland,
Workinger. Motion carried.
4
• u• w •r
Y
a�
0
o�
s' rU
IF OIL
coirRs
i
RM CLAW
•1N �LAtA
mrti r •M••
ri� ••Nq
I�
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
sum
M
n
iL
rY.aww•La ww •'
eI••..•/i•! !o-o•N •au f�.rn. •YYw•n.a' tw•
---
ens
run.w en.w
uNw
a
lrnw ioanar.+.* ouvn «w niw ••ic.��Na• • !:
she
•wa
/M
•
AN ona ynscu! n.aYn.r! Lw•
•1•
NI
Lt
Ne.MNi nN• n..N rw�ww u"
"�""�
=vs-�
Ner
b
Ns.rr nN• nNUa NwNe•w r'
s•.
� �¢�
rte_
c•
i.
ese•wm•raa'A.+� na..nww• n•
Nu..e
C•e
4
cO\Ow•O Ol..N •r.U� n(yw.ieY.! •'
Y•
��-
w4
LO
AWL MW Ac•L 4iMIIwY
•M•
—
K
7
ww► ry frw IWru4 Nwwai L'
...
�"
Vl
R
W <Oi JiMinY- .IW'r..W l.ef ratni' •'
Y►
r__c
•ci
r
••w .w.� .vw..a �r.w..o! crw •,... •...w• i••
i.re.. nw.i..a Ju«�...,.. �! •wu•wr: . N•
ra
.n
vn
.W
cm,K w.•a CMw.r.a •iu..- n.u..i 'Ywncn.' Y•
M
C V
w1L
Y
Y
Nrli.. CO.•...r wM! wLri.wM i.'
FW.1M. • N4.1' i•'
M
M
I
_ —_ +- � —
f� � � — _
)!
4•w.0 M�'Y W IdYa�
�YaV /b.MrW PrHRRaw r..'wee.iw.m i.•
1Oi
.
`— _ —� 1 —.
ron +-
II wLL
l.s..l NW 10 d 1pOr.
*m4.
�'1-. NNV•.
O wu
lww. •�....lcwr•. w...+Te ww• iu uNia �
�. w
•1 ..a.
h O Y .N•. Yv+rW wl�FOr�l..U...�.�• ...
•1 W� w wi. Y0 w .w1 f0 Fwoi � le b . wa. ('�oal•�
iM.V•
�
�OVM
v r..i .o�/..
sl MYw iw M• ww non .iNO.�M ••i�.a 1..I.p yua
ii« rv.w. �`.
• u• w •r
Y
a�
0
o�
s' rU
IF OIL
coirRs
i
RM CLAW
•1N �LAtA
mrti r •M••
ri� ••Nq
I�
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
sum
M
am
F, A.
L-1
A m a
. ElIMMMISTA-9
4". lei
10
, a,
00A
m(n EOW III " L k i ---lu
19 ALM� 0 � 00 20 0
rc ab 0 P Z z 1?0
�vf► �►-� r��
•
u I w
U
- - �= r - W. 0th STREET
HIGHCROFT_TOWNHOMES
4. j I m BL
.
z. o 14 Sa g L4
' BOCK ; �
10. A / " �.. 9� use / / /� %� — — -- a VILLAGE DR f u' III
1 r"
%/ �■ �. 3 ^ II III /
�.9
I/ atoQ' r:
�
ill III
�i
\ \
i
Imo• 4 L bOI vl' _
Development Summary
Q / I HIGHCROFT HIGHCROFT TOWNHOMES/
J SINGLE FAMILY ACRES 83 AC TOWNNOYE ACRCS 4.2 AC
J i SINGLE FAMILY LOT AREA 7.8 AC TOWNNOYE LOTS 71 LOTS
9011 OF SITE OUTLOT A
I R.O.W. 0.8 AC IOwNNOYE UN ITS xl
I 1111. OF SITE SITE AREA PER UNIT 7492 SO. FT.
S.F. LOTS 13 LOTS LOT AREA PER UNIT 2490 SO. FT.
YIN. LOT SIZE 10,000 SOFT. :ULDn1G AREA 7189.8 50. FT. /
AS LOT SIZE 47.400 SOFT. UILDE10 COVERAGE 24.51,
MEDIAN "IT 71.700 00. FT. USEABLE SITE AREA PER .400 SO. FT
SETBACK R -1 -en lNran 9SE REZONED D NDS
O:9D R Ar4NOAR9e nroNaoRNOOe SETBACK ED ID R
pu
`Or •V•+ e,
GROSS DENSITY 13 UN /AC • GROSS DENSITY S UN /AC
I
R
LL
Lot Tabulation
US MLODTI Jila� ®i® YI19 IM 1 lM la! -1
I m• uo� sN� .rI u.w
e ur no' sN• .ro u.wo
s ur uo� Nr .0 Ie.lm
T lN' 110' NY .I! ]e,lm
e ne� ue� m' .0 so.sm
r Ne� 0' e• .m Nsm
e ur no' ur .0 n.sm
1 Ib' 110 Ne' Ir }r.rm
IS IN, Irl' NI' N tl.lm
n us' n!� Nr ro u.rm
Is In' IIo sN .Il Il.rm
RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION
6114 EDINA INDUSTRIAL OLVD.
EDINA, MN 36473
-ala!asm TO
WE: Q�� ,.IO.� 4
of g
NORiM
0 20 SO 100 ISO FEET
Li L�
cc
r ROM •— CONTROL. GRAVEL L NBTRUCTION
I`r.•oArw uSR a L ctrl 6 rin. ¢ ��. - _ I SIL FENCE 1 ENTRANCE
a
AV IL
-CONSTRUCTION �^�• W. 0th STREET
M•57'e. rt,.0' �� ENTRANCE
— -
� 'I -•_� / r I IIJI �.0." �.0.II,.e J
' � NI v 7f.0 • f —�
/�� ",� �.• 9. 9 y VILLAGE DR.
REYO�S'ILE
;9E►Ny�`0 9A ,/ Cirele ' � EXISTING V/ALL •I I
1 1 r�orrTav 6.
FT FIT.
I I— •\_._ "_— 1 —eeo— ��ar�.� so -LO
�jj T 4
I sar rticr - r..•c.l .aer r.orreror- p 1 -r { :4.:
1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
& EROSION CONTROL PLAN _ }
RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION
' •+i•'i "` ° -\ - SI/A lDINA INDY6TRIAL BLVD. •yaE' REV 1.10.9)
•+ lDINA, YMSSA76 _cEV 2.: ^= mob'
••r -- f�iA ®107
- , NORTH «
csmL coRsrnulr ENrNANQ for ■NCI�fG■nA 0 26 50 100 150 FEET
Agenda Item N.A.B.C.
Dale Kiedrowski
5704 West 70th Street
May 21, 1990
Mayor Richards and Council members:
I would like to present some new information to help resolve concerns
and foster agreements to proceed with this basic overall development
concept. None of this information has been given to the planning
commission due to insufficient data and discrepancies in available data.
We have taken 5 months to look at this project, I feel we should take
the extra time to resolve issues that everyone will be looking at for
the next 50 years.
The developer has provided me with computer generated data which
is in the benefit-of the developer. The existing neighborhood data
available is rounded down to the nearest 100 square feet. Therefore
the comparisons made are in favor of the development proposal.
FIRST: Concept of Appearance:
GUIDELINES OF SINGLE FAMILY AREA LAND USE
Density per gross acreage does not provide the
needed information to the reality of a crowded
new single family area that will be brought about
by four simple facts.
Fact 1: The higher home costs will bring physically
larger homes than the current neighborhood
and they will be sitting on a lot with less
square footage to build on.
Case in point:
Lot 1,2 & 3 have 2% less land to build on
compared to their immediate existing two
neighbors to the west. That's a 2% drop
in available land for a 67% increase
in the number of larger sized homes.
The development is building three larger
homes on a site that is less that the immediate
two smaller homes directly adjacent.
See figure 1 and table 1.
Fact 2: Usable land for building is below the
average and median lot size of the neighborhood
within 500 feet of site. This'is comparing
the 38 existing single family homes to the 13
homes of the proposed development. Thirty -six
percent of the lot space is not suitable for
building which shows the crowded reality of this
proposal. See figure 2 and table 2.
Fact 3: The massing of the single family development
will be on a much larger scale than that of
the neighborhood. The neighboring development
of Lee Valley Circle is a realistic comparison
showing that densities and usable land of this
proposal are inferior. See figure 3 and table 3.
Fact 4: Eighty -five percent of the existing homes have a
building set -back from the front lot line of at
least 50 feet. In the new development, 60% have
a 30 foot set -back, or 40% closer to the street.
All of these facts show the reality of the crowded
single family proposal that is being considered. A
reduction of the number of lots appears to be a reasonable
solution to this concern of land use and city -wide
guidelines.
SECOND: Concept of Ordinances:
VARIANCES FOR SINGLE FAMILY AREA
Ordinances are an equitable, concise and deliberate
way the community has to promote the proper
development of it's environment. I would ask the
city not to grant the three variances asked for in
this development because it is not promoting the
proper development of the -City of Edina. No hardship
has been provided for the approval of such variances.
The variances are:
Lot 7
Lot 13
Inferior lot width 50' from street
(110' required, 30' provided)
Inferior lot width perimeter ratio
(.1 required, .032 provided)
Inferior lot depth at center line
(150' required, 120' provided)
I feel that this proposal does not have, nor has it
shown, any hardship to justify any of the three
variances so asked for. The need for these variances
are created by the location and design of the
cul -de -sac and not on any unique topography of the site
as once believed in the January 31st meeting of.the
Planning Commission. See figure 4 and table 4.
A possible recommendation is not to eliminate the
highly desired lot #7, but to divide lot #8 (in which
its back yard is tenuous due to a prior developed
retaining wall) into lot 7 and the northerly lots.
This will eliminate all the variances and provide
more distance between the single family area and
the townhouse area which better differentiates the
two dissimilar areas. This recommendation would
also eliminate the house of lot 8 being in the
"front yard" of lot.7's house. See figure 5.
In summary:
The reality of a crowded single family development has been proven
relating to the guidelines of this city's land use. The creation of
substandard lots within this proposal is a result of a plan that
itself constricts the use of the land and is not a result of any
topographic hardship.
- Pertaining to the- single family area of the development, ordinances
are the minimum standard and I feel that the variances requested should
not be approved on this parcel of land that is large enough to be
divided in such a way that no Variances are needed .or required. I
feel, as do the ordinances dictate, that this single family development
should be less than 13 lots; 12 lots maximizes the development and
stays within the city ordinances established. If no changes are made
to the current development plans, the city has no valid reason to
designate the easterly 8.6 acres of this site from Quasi- Public to
Single Family Residential on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map or
such rezoning.
Your consideration of these facts is essential to create a single
family development that is within the expectation of the entire City
of Edina.
Thank youl
Dale Kiedrowski
6'J
U
C3 C
�A
,P
Table 1
Total Square Feet
Total Lot Acres
Street Easement
Total Acres
Units /Acre
Average Lot Size
Median Lot Size
Figure 1
In
o
tans L.O.
�r
Ie'•t 919.9 r • f
' I Clrel• � aT
a'aa� ; � t • 1I I �
ties, o ,
�• . _ 11111 .rte
JOE
Lot 6
Lot Area S.F.
Planned
Usable
Usable
per Arch.
Conservation
Land
Land of
Easement
Neighbors
1
16,843
0
16,843
33,000
2
16,871
0
16,871
22,500
3
22,817
6,100
16,717
56,531
6,100
50,431
55,500
1.30
0.14
1.16
1.27
0.07
asaaa
(11X)
0.07
0.07
1.37
aasaa
1.23
aaaaa
1.34
2.2
2.4
1.5
18,844
16,810
27,750
16,871
16,843
27,750
Lot 1 Varience
Lot Area S.P.
Planned
Usable
Land
per Arch.
Conservation
Land
13,200
17,000
17,000
Basment
17,000
22,100
1 0
16,843
0
16,843
17,000
2 0
16,871
0
16,871
16,100
3 0
22,817
6,100
16,717
20,400
4 0
54,935
44,700
10,235
18,700
5 0
37,623
27,500
10,123
15,600
6 0
34,543
15,700
18,843
10,000
7 TWO
35,864
17,700
18,164
232,500
8 0
22,563
9,300
13,263
9 0
22,069
0
22,069
10 0
19,136
0
19,136
2.1
11 0
18,195
0
18,195
12 0
17,050
0
17,050
13 One
21,198
0
21,198
Total Square Feet
339,707
121,000
218,707
Total Lot Acres
7.80
2.78
5.02
Street Easement
0.72
(36X)
0.72
Total Acres
•8.52
5.74
5.74
Units /Acre
1.5
2.3
2.1
Average Lot Size
26,131
16,824
18,226
Nedian Lot Size
22,069
17,050
Table 2
r1 figures
for 11 lots
Above figures
for 12 lots
Figure 2
Lots within 500 feet of development:
Usable
Usable
Land
Land
S. of 70th
N. of 70th
13,200
17,000
17,000
12,600
17,000
22,100
12,000
17,000
20,400
20,000
17,000
15,300
27,500
17,000
14,400
16,100
17,000
18,700
14,200
18,700
20,400
32,000
18,700
22,000
33,000
18,700
22,500
22,500
18,300
14,400
15,600
18,700
11,700
19,500
17,000
10,000
14,400
20,400
252,600
232,500
208,900
694,000
15.93
2.10
18.03
2.1
18,263
18,300
Above figures
for 38 lots
t --
r "-
p� 59
1 1
• t �� �� 7- a.�, � _ , 14 125 F
Irk ON
4V
Art
1000
Figure 3
Table 3
I� r ~�
WIN I�Im
�
�t
1ON
IV.
`.
Lot i Varience
Lot Area S.F.
Planned
Usable
Lot Area S.F.
per Arch.
Conservation
Land
Lee Valley Circle
Easement
1
0
16,843
0
16,843
24,000
2
0
16,871
0
16,871
27,000
3
0
22,817
6,100
16,717
19,000
4
0
54,935
44,700
10,235
15,800
5
0
37,623
27,500
10,123
32,000
6
0
34,543
15,700
18,843
33,000
7
Tvo
35,864
17,700
18,164
22,500
8
0
22,563
9,300
13,263
19,500
9
0
22,069
0
22,069
15,600
10
0
19,136
0
19,136
14,300
11
0
18,195
0
18,195
18,200
12
0
17,050
0
17,050
14,400
13
One
21,198
0
21,198
Total Square Feet
339,707
121,000
218,707
255,300
Total Lot Acres
7.80
2.78
5.02
5.86
Street Easement
0.72
(36X)
0.72
0.91
Total Acres
8.52
a5a74
5.74 X6.77
Units /Acre
1.5
2.3
2.1 1.8
Average Lot Size
26,131
16,824
18,226 21,275
Median Lot Size
22,069
17,050
19,500
Above figures Above figures Above figures
for 13 lots for 12 lots for 12 lots
111 I' 1'
r1,
. 1 10
_
Table 4
Figure 4
Lot # Lot
Width
@ 50,
1
110
2
110
3
110
4
110
5
110
6
110
7
30
8
110
9
110
10
124
11
110
12
110
Total 1254.0
Lot
Width
@ 50'
110
110
110
110
110
110
120
120
124
110
120
1254.0
Avg Lot Width 104.5 114.0
bill
OF
lk,
toy
A 1%
May 16, 1990
Mayor Fred.Richards
Edina, City Hall
4801 [nest 50th St.
Edina, Mn 55424
and the Edina City Council
Agenda Item IV.A.B.C.
Dear Mayor Richards and Members City Council;
This is written to express concern for, and to urge yours and the full
council membership's full support and vote against the developement
within the Cahill School natural area, 70th and Cahill, Edina.
As long time residents, thirty some years, we have become aware of
the rapid growth of Edina in all areas. While the natural environ-
ment dwindles, places of wilderness and wildlife are reduced, a
very important quality of living is gone forever, and irreversible.
Edina has now, with your help, the opportunity to hold on to a
small part of the natural world to enhance a unique experience for
all residents of Edina for generations to come.
The enjoyment to learn and appreciate other forms of life and beauty
cannot be found in building and continued sameness of expansion, and
is becoming more scarce and less accessible. Children, especially need
this chance to reverse the trend of losing nature for their children.
I urge you to retain the full preservation of the Cahill School natural
area, to help fullfill the loss of countless areas fallen to increas-
ing developements. To expand the tax base as a reason is not critical
in Edina, to my knowledge, and the benefits of such a developement is
in the form of personal profit for a few. Whereas this unique and
valuable miniature wilderness is a legacy for all Edinians now, their
children and for future residents in years to come.
Please, if I may request that this letter be acknowledged and recorded
at the appropriate City Council meeting. Thank you for your time and
attention in this vital matter.
Sincerely,
Bette Kent
5913 Ewing Ave. So.
Edina, Mn 55410
I. - .
Councilwoman Peggy Kelly
Councilwoman Jane Paulus
Dear Councilwomen,
Thank you for your support in trying to make the 70th St.
development a project with excellence. We are writing on behalf
of the surrounding neighbors who have concern about the quality of
proposed development by Ron Clark.
The proposal coming back to City Council on May 21st contains
only one cosmetic change since the original reduction and
reorientation of the townhomes at the February 28th Planning
Commission meeting. The concern of the neighborhood has always
been and remains the crowding and density of the overall project,
particularly the center section adjacent to the single family
homes.
We are anxious to have this process move forward and believe
that a compromise solution is one in character with the
neighborhood and which addresses the issues voiced by Planning
Commission, City Council and the citizens. We believe the
solution in character with the neighborhood is close to the current
number of units proposed for the property and the massing issue
will be resolved by the the reduction we suggest.
On several occasions we have offered to meet with the
developer to discuss our perspectives but have received no
response. We are stymied as to how to bring about a compromise
because inquiries and suggestion from Planning Commission and City
Council have been weakly addressed by the developer.
The remaining outstanding issues needing resolution are
1. Density /massing of the townhomes on the property
2. Elimination of variances on single family homes
3. Adequate parking for townhome units and guests.
4. Preservation of the mature oak trees and the conservation
easement
5. Plans for the historical marker
6. Public access to the park and minimal loss of the wildlife
habitat
Attached is a compromise plan drawing which will be presented
to Council Monday by the neighborhood. It contains 17 units and is
consistent with the plan put forth by Helen McClelland at Planning
Commission meeting in February. It reorients the units providing
much better setbacks and open space. The first 300ft. of the Clark
plan is unchanged, only the center section is revised. (This drawing
does not show the elimination of lot 8 which may be necessary to
remove the single family lot variances.)
We would like you to take a position which continues the
rezoning issue back to Planning Commission with clear direction on
how compromise can be reached on these issues. If, as a council,
you cannot direct the developer or plan commission, then we would
ask that the rezoning be rejected since the developer has not
demonstrated a willingness to compromise.
We are aware of council member concerns about the landowner
defaulting and the property becoming becoming an eyesore and a
reduced tax generator. This argument is extraneous to the
discussion of the development proposal and should hold no weight
in influencing rezoning. There are other developers desirous of
Edina property that should be able to work with neighbors'
concerns.
We are also aware of council member concerns about threat of_
c,
lawsuit by the developer if zoning isn't granted in keeping with
the comprehensive plan. No where is the developer being denied the
right to develop. Only the first30.0 ft. -west of Cahill carried
an R -3 medium density. The balance was underlying R -1 having been
quasi public land use.
Because the city and the developer chose to deal with this
parcel as a single project, the extention of the R -3 zoning 480 ft.
further up 70th St. cannot be assumed as a fair expectation of the
contractor. If this logic were applied, the underlying R -1 could
also be used as the guiding factor. The developer is actually
asking for higher density on the center 480 ft. than the
comprehensive plan. The proposal is also in opposition to the
provision that "Single family- -will be the dominant land- use ", and
that -- the density -of the- surrounding-single family homes - (which is
_1.8 -to 2.1- unit / acre) - -be -the influence on -the density of a- buffer.
These facts call for a compromise proposal which has
considerably fewer units, less mass, nominal public attributes and
fits the character of the single family neighborhood.
We are sure you also would like to end the ping pong match
between the planning commission and the council. The reason this
has been going on for almost six months is because arguments by the
citizens and validated by the commissioners and council members
have resulted in insignificant movement by the developer since late
February. The developer must be held accountable when requesting
rezoning and three variances. The issues are real and clear, the
solution is reachable but it must be one of excellence and not
crowding.
John Helland
inda Smithson
for the attached list of 240 neighbors /tax payers /constituents
S � 1
NAME
Mr. Terry Adams
Mrs. Karen Agner
Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Agner
Mr. and Mrs. Rand D. Aksamit
Dr. and Mrs. M.M. Aksoy
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Alavens
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Altman
Mr. Stephen A. Anderson
Mr. David Aronoble
Mr. and Mrs. Gary Aulik
Mr. and Mrs. Torence L. Becker
Dr. and Mrs. Allen Van Beek
Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Beltrand
Mr. and Mrs. David P. Berenson
Mr. and Mrs. David F. Bittner
Mr. and Mrs. John Blair
Mr. and Mrs. Charles S. Bland
Mr. and Mrs. Bofenkamp
Mr. and Mrs. John Bohan
Mr. Darrell H. Boyd
Mr. and Mrs. Bruce B. Bredehoft
Mr. and Mrs. Helmut Breuer
Dr. and Mrs. Warren E. Brown
Mr. and Mrs. Stavros Canakes
Mr. Bruce E. Carlson
Mr. and Mrs. Peter Choukalas
Mr. and Mrs. L.D. Compton
Mr. and Mrs. John Couillard
ADDRESS
JAN 31
5812
W. 70th Street
yes
5501
Village Drive
7017
Lanham.Lane
7005
Lanham Lane
yes
5600
W. 70th Street
yes
5501
Village Drive
yes
7021
Lanham Lane
5506
W. 70th St.
yes
5508
W. 70th St.
5920
Lee Valley Road
5596
W. 70th Street
yew
7115
Antrim Ct.
5816
W. 70th Street
5617
McGuire Road
yes
5820
W. 70th Street
yes
6021
Erin Terrace.
7000
Kerry Road
7024
Lanham Lane
7000 Lanham Lane
7204 Shannon Drive
yes, mailed
7100
Lanham Lane
yes
7304
Tara Road
7028
Lanham Lane
7011
Lee Valley Circle
yes
5716
W. 70th Street
yes
5708
W. 70th Street
yes
7009
Lanham Lane
5700
W. 70th Street
yes
MARCH 20
`A
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
Mr. and Mrs. Wm. H. Cunningham 5501 Village Drive
NAME
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curle
Mr. and Mrs. Russell J. Daniels
Mr. and Mrs. Duane E. Delegard
Mr. and Mrs. William H. Doepke
Mr. and Mrs. John W. Duffy
Mr. and Mrs. David J. Elasky
The Larson /McNeice Family
Dr. and Mrs. Harrison H. Farley
Mr. and Mrs. Matt Faulkner
Mr. and Mrs. Ed Fitzpatrick
Mr. and Mrs. Lee E. Frank
Mr. and Mrs. Ferdinand Frieden
Mr. and Mrs. M.M. Garrison
Mr. Charles O. Geadelmann
Mr. and Mrs. Richard I. Giertsen
Ms. Cathie De Grood
Mr. and Mrs. Louis Gross
Mr. and Mrs. P.B. Grossman
Ms. Barbara Halvorson
Mr. and Mrs. David Hargrove
Mr. Nathan Harrison
Mr. and Mrs. John K. Helland
Dr. and Mrs. Miles Hirschey
Mr. and Mrs. Ray Holzworth
Mrs. Elizabeth J. Howe
ADDRESS
JAN 31
5601
McGuire Rd.
yes
5705
McGuire Rd.
yes
7209
Lanham Lane
5920
W. 70th Street
yes
7041
Lanham Lane
yes
5916
Lee Valley Road
7013
Lee Valley Circle
yes
6013
Dublin Circle
7104
Tralee Drive
6913
Limerick Lane
yes
7040
Lanham Lane
7017
Lee Valley Circle
yes
7025
Lanham Lane
6912
Hillside Lane
yes
7045
Lanham Lane
yes
5500
W. 70th st.
7012
Kerry Road
7300
Lanham Lane
5721
McGuire Rd.
5900
W. 70th Street
yes
6825
Brook
5720
McGuire Rd.
5501
Village Drive
yes
6905
Antrim Road
5605
McGuire Rd.
yes
2
MARCH 20
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
K
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
NAME
ADDRESS
JAN 31
Mrs. B.
Igelsrud
7015
Lee Valley Circle
Mr.
and Mrs. Todd Huebscher
5709
McGuire Rd. yes 2
Mr.
and Mrs. Stan Hughes
6016
Erin Terrace 2
.Mr.
and Mrs. Edward G. Hustad
5801
McGuire Rd. 2
Mr.
Kurt Ibach
5502
W. 70th St. 1
NAME
ADDRESS
JAN 31
Mrs. B.
Igelsrud
7015
Lee Valley Circle
yes
Dr.
and
Mrs.
James E. Indrehus
7015
Lanham Lane
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Charles M. Jacobson
6801
Chapel Lane
Ms.
Linda Johnson
5720
W. 70th Street
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Dale Johnson
7021
Lee Valley Circle
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
R. Laurence Johnson
7105
Lanham Lane
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Wm. D. Johnston
5501
Village Drive
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Alan Johnston
5616
W. 70th Street
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Thomas Jungels
7109
Antrim Ct.
Dr.
and
Mrs.
Martin B. Kaplan
7116
Lanham Lane
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Mitz Kawaguchi
5808
W. 70th Street
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Dale Kiedrowski
5704
W. 70th Street
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Herschel E. Kitchen
7004
Lanham Lane
yes
Mr.
Saul
Kollins
5501
Village Drive
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Gene Kragness
5712
W. 70th Street
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Lloyd Kugler
5717
McGuire Rd.
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Robert Kwietkowski
6008
Dublin Circle
Dr.
John
LaBree
6000
Dublin Circle
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Henry J. Langer
7101
Antrim Court
Mr.
Larry
Law
4 Antrim Terrace
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Charles T. Lawrence
5701
McGuire Rd.
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Iry Levine
7000
Antrim Road
MARCH 20
1
2
2
1
`A
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
K
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
NAME
Mr. and Mrs. Neil McLouth
Mr. and Mrs. Miles W. McNally
Mr. and Mrs. Tom Meloche
Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd D. Meyer
Mr. and Mrs. Charles G. Munster
Ms. Patricia L. Olander
Mr. and Mrs. Robert R. Oilmann
Mr, and Mrs. Jonathan Pederson
Mr, and Mrs. Daniel N. Phillips
Mr. and Mrs. R.L. Pierce
Mr, and Mrs. David L. Potter
Mr. Lee A. Prolous
Mr. and Mrs. Thurl Quigley
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Regli
Mr. James Ridley
Mr, and Mrs. E.T. Rine
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald P. Rishavy
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Rolfes
Mr. Odd Rovick
ADDRESS
JAN 31
7015 Lee Valley Circle yes
7001 Lanham Lane
5820 W. 68th St.
6001 Dublin Circle
5921 Erin Terrace
7001 Lee Valley Circle yes
7008 Lanham Lane yes
MARCH 20
7029 Lanham Lane yes,sent own ltr
5716 McGuire Rd.
7113 Lanham Lane
5805 McGuire Rd.
5506 W. 70th St.
5804 W. 70th Street
5616 McGuire Rd. yes
5426 Creek View Lane yes
7016 Lanham Lane yes
5817 McGuire Rd.
7105 Tralee Drive
5501 Village Drive
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
Mr,
and
Mrs.
Steve Lindahl
7017
Antrim Road 2
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Gordon E. Lindberg
6001
Erin Terrace 2
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Ralph Linvill
7005
Antrim Road 2
Mr,
and
Mrs.
P.S. Maas
7123
Antrim Ct. 2
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Robert T. Maley
5612
McGuire Rd. yes 2
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Duane Matthias
5913
Erin Terrace 2
Mr_,
and
Mrs.
Joseph McFarland
6913
Antrim Road 2
NAME
Mr. and Mrs. Neil McLouth
Mr. and Mrs. Miles W. McNally
Mr. and Mrs. Tom Meloche
Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd D. Meyer
Mr. and Mrs. Charles G. Munster
Ms. Patricia L. Olander
Mr. and Mrs. Robert R. Oilmann
Mr, and Mrs. Jonathan Pederson
Mr, and Mrs. Daniel N. Phillips
Mr. and Mrs. R.L. Pierce
Mr, and Mrs. David L. Potter
Mr. Lee A. Prolous
Mr. and Mrs. Thurl Quigley
Mr. and Mrs. Fred Regli
Mr. James Ridley
Mr, and Mrs. E.T. Rine
Mr. and Mrs. Gerald P. Rishavy
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Rolfes
Mr. Odd Rovick
ADDRESS
JAN 31
7015 Lee Valley Circle yes
7001 Lanham Lane
5820 W. 68th St.
6001 Dublin Circle
5921 Erin Terrace
7001 Lee Valley Circle yes
7008 Lanham Lane yes
MARCH 20
7029 Lanham Lane yes,sent own ltr
5716 McGuire Rd.
7113 Lanham Lane
5805 McGuire Rd.
5506 W. 70th St.
5804 W. 70th Street
5616 McGuire Rd. yes
5426 Creek View Lane yes
7016 Lanham Lane yes
5817 McGuire Rd.
7105 Tralee Drive
5501 Village Drive
2
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
Mr.
Henry Rutledge
5501
Village Drive
5524
Dr.
M. Sanderson
5528
W. 70th Street
yes
Mr.
and Mrs. A. Schneider
7033
Lanham Lane
yes
Mrs.
Rita Seasly
5604
W. 70th Street
yes
Mr.
Gerald E. Slavin
5501
Village Drive
7000
Mr.
and Mrs. Scott Smith
7012
Lee Valley Circle
yes
Mr.
and Mrs. Del Smith
5613
Brook Drive
Lee Stevens
Mr.
and Mrs. Stephen A. Smithson
5608
W. 70th Street
yes
Dr.
and Mrs. Richard J. Stafford
7220
Tara Road
yes
Mr.
and Mrs. Greg Stattine
7016
Kerry Road
5501
NAME
ADDRESS
JAN 31
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Ted Steen
5524
W. 70th Street
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Clarence Steinback
5508
McGuire Rd.
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Everett J. Stelzner
7012
Lanham Lane
Mr.
James A.
Steven
7000
Lee Valley Circle
yes
Mr.
B.Michael Stuppy and Ms. Alison
Stevens7101 Lanham
Lane
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Lee Stevens
5721
W. 70th Street
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Wayne Sundberg
5613
McGuire Rd.
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Lowell W. Swanson
5501
Village Drive
Mr.
and
Mrs.
R. E. Swanson
5512
McGuire Rd.
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Michael E. Traeger
7105
Antrim Ct.
Mr..Chuck
Tschimperle
6005
Dublin Circle
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Wayne L. Twito
7117
Tralee Drive
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Thomas L. Ulmen
6008
Erin Terrace
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Remo Vagnoni
7105
Shannon Drive
Ms.
Linda K.
Ward
5704
McGuire Rd.
yes
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Keith Warfield
5422
Creekview Lane
yes
yes
2
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
MARCH 20
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
K
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
Mr. and Mrs. John Werness
Mrs. Dee Wilkie
Mr. and Mrs. Russell M. Willeke
Mr. and Mrs. Kermit H. Wilson
Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Winnick
TOTALS:
5501 Village Drive
5501 Village Drive
7108 Lanham Lane
7001 Antrim Rd.
7117 Lanham Lane
2
1
1
2
2
241.00
/ LAm
III
r - r
`---= - --• :�_ = W. 0th STREET
� � •�■■�a a�a� ■ a o� ��a a a+al. a aa�� •
-oo-, ,f �- �� NIGHCROFT_ OME§ 'N
It
13.
ig�
ii
Q. �•. �� i /ter
'�' .. ' r �� 4y 7. /
.1, OUTLOT /
t VILLAGE DR.
cl
a
aQ
C.)
1
� h
wa��fi (r
S� L4
—w. opt sTREFr
_ _ � /i•�� /� � �� HIGHCROFT �9wNM6MES �
1
13. 1�I /( �! ��I /�• r Lam` ( / /� /� ��� �� ``
Oc
Iy1 1 2� w
10. OUTLOT All'
Now
J 1 9, n.e q b VILLAGE DR. u
3 \ -
A11 '\\tdga0� Mlpb �1�� -' '
Ir
IT
1 ;011
Sol
Nl
t) ■TOtpOII10Rt SORrraT
WNC
OROiT MIONCROfT TOWNNOtlE9
$.IU rAKET ACRES M.0 AC To AM V ac
i
'Al LOT AIMA 1J AC TOrr101i LOTH SILOTS OT • _
r I R&W."AC
90% W SfTE Arrr0li YIRre 11
t" or MITI on 5656 R. 5611 lass w R.
1 i LIP. LOTS IS LOTH LOT AREA RR OIrT 1.00 R.
ERIL LOT I= 56.000 Il l►. 0uaowM ARM S1S0, t0. rT. �
is Y■ LOT SAa 41.400 SOJT. SYRJMO cOT11M01 E•.SS \
I - - HICIA 1 OT 11.100 Mn Ff. Ia•AK• arm AREA RR Am W. r7
Coal 0•1 NTT ftuolm D Ill
I 541"ce •IAROAM• rru•oA■ow YI•ALA AA••AML
rr1 •ICI N WOYA I�YI •.OI N'
r •I•r1 •' A I N• I W r NMt N'
■I•s� r N 561 Nrw • w rnr� r Ir w
pr rr N' 561 .r • ur wt. eN Ir N'
. I OROSS DaxWf IA UWAC OROSS OSRSITT S IY /AC
I
W
PRELIMINARY PLAT
RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION
•156 IOWA RIa 8:TRIAL SLTO.
MMINA. rR 1 {•S•
�_ ,l /t l•�•C 4
RIOT
s 8
■SATs
0 IS So 100 I"fwff
I I
Lot Trbrlrtbr
I, Mill Al
m�
rm ��.
o •.A 1
I w•' Ir
r•
'.0
r.r
1 N• Ir
111'
.0
s.r
I r• Ir
v
.0
r.r
1 r' Ir'
v
• .0
■.r
/ N' Ir
Q
.Y
■.r
r w• r•
r•
.e
r.r
1 Ir Ir
W
.r
■.r
■ Ir Yr
w•
.■
r.r
Y Ir' IK
r•
.r
rar
u IIr Ir
or
11
r.r
_
u In• Ir
rr
.r
r.r
PRELIMINARY PLAT
RON CLARK CONSTRUCTION
•156 IOWA RIa 8:TRIAL SLTO.
MMINA. rR 1 {•S•
�_ ,l /t l•�•C 4
RIOT
s 8
■SATs
0 IS So 100 I"fwff
11 i
Ii%
SM.
SICO INCORPORATED
7525 Cahill Road, P.O. Box 1169, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 USA
May 10, 1990
Jane Laub Paulus
Councilmember, City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
Dear Councilmember Paulus:
I have been a resident of Edina since 1954, and have owned a
business in Edina since 1955. While I have not been active in the
Edina political and civic matter these last few years, I chaired
the Edina Governmental Commission in 1973 -74 and was Founding
President of the Edina Foundation. These experiences have given
me some background for making observations regarding the
controversy of property development at 70th and Cahill.
Clearly, I am opposed to commercializing this area which is
completely out of spirit with the norms for Edina. I can recall
the precepts, and I believe they were, more or less, formalized
during my tenure as Chairman of the Edina Governmental Commission,
regarding development of the area west of Cahill Road. It is true,
circumstances have changed; however with the latest information I
have (as of Wednesday evening, May 9), the concentration of people
and structures, even if a compromise develops, will be out -of -tune
and just plain lacking in common sense if adopted.
I moved to Edina a year prior to moving my factory here because of
the quality neighborhoods. I urge you to give honest and serious
thought to the long -term effects of the current problems.
I am a businessman also and I can appreciate the urgency and need
to maximize the return on invested capital for the developer. To
me there is strong appeal in this direction; however, I think the
issue is more fundamental and basic than one person's personal
interest.
Phone: 612 - 941 -1700
FAX: 612 - 941 -6737 Manufacturing: 7525 Cahill Road, Minneapolis and 100 Exchange Avenue,
TWX: WILSICO EDNA 910 - 576 -1771 Conway, Arkansas 72032 USA, Phone: 501 - 327 -6728
''Ilm 1 llll;j';Ji
Jane Laub Paulus - 2 - May 10, 1990
During these years in Edina, I admired the stability, foresight and
the cooperative and honest way the City Council, the Mayor and the
City Manager handled matters of this nature. When I built my home
at 70th and Antrim Road, and then the factory'on Cahill near Dewey
Hill Road, I had some of these same problems, but even in those
cases, when at the time, it seemed the demands were unreasonable,
I was able to have nothing but respect for the village
administrators and their attitudes of responsibility for the
maintenance of Edina as a quality place to live and bring up
children.
Even though the concept itself is wrong, at the very least the
wishes of the local community regarding the density should be
recognized and respected.
Sincerely,
Kermit H. Wilson
RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL
.FOR CLARKS 2ND ADDITION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "CLARKS 2ND ADDITION ", platted by R.E.S., Inc., a Minnesota
corporation, and American National Bank and Trust Company, a national banking
association, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of May 21,
1990 be and is hereby granted final plat approval.
ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1990.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do
hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct
copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular
Meeting of May 21, 1990 and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 9th day of July, 1990.
yi ;
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
' t•
_14a
o te
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item # TV- D.
From: Craig Larsen
Date: May 21, 1990
Subject: Z -90 -3, Rezoning from
PCD -4, to PCD -2, Sempe'r
Holdings, 4916 France
Avenue South, for
Walgreens.
Recommendation:
Consent
I j
Information Only
0
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
0
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
L__x1
Ordinance
El
Discussion
Approval of Preliminary Rezoning subject to Final Rezoning and Parking Assessment.
INFO /BACKGROUND
The 'request was heard by the City Council and continued at its April 16, 1990,
meeting. Since that time the proponents have met with City Staff and the Board
of the 50th and France Association. In response to comments and criticisms of
the City Council and the Association the proponents have submitted revised plans
for Council review. Changes to the proposed development are listed below.
1. The building has rotated 90 degrees so that the long axis is now
along France Avenue.
2. Building length has been reduced from 110 feet to 105 feet with a
resulting reduction in floor area of 390 square feet.
3. Parking area is relocated to the west side of the building with
the main access off 49th Street. Circulation is changed from one -way
to two -way and the number of spaces is increased from 16 to 17.
4. The blind corner at the southwesterly corner of the property has
been removed providing a safer condition for pedestrians on 49 1/2
Street.
Page Two
Semper Holdings, Inc.
5. The show /display windows are not located on the 49 1/2 Street side of the
building. The long axis along France Avenue will be treated with opaque
glass panels instead of brick. Upper windows will remain transparent.
In addition to site plan and design concerns, questions were raised as to the
amount of the parking assessment. Attached to this report is a memo from Gordon
Hughes explaining the history of our assessment practices. If the Council
decides to continue past practice the parking assessment would be $9,430. The
amount has been lowered due to the reduction in building size and the addition
of one parking space on site.
O Vr �1
Cn I
0 � ' a� REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
\�Ra1'e�'tO
To: Mayor and Council
From: Gordon L. Hughes
Assistant City Manager
Date: May 21, 1990
Subject:
Walgreen's by Semper
Holdings, Inc.
Recommendation:
Info/Background-
Agenda Item # Iv. D.
Consent ❑
Information Only 0
Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA
❑ To Council
Action ❑ Motion
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
❑ Discussion
At the April 16, 1990, public hearing concerning the Walgreen's proposal, a
question arose concerning the $2.15 /sq. ft. assessment for parking
purposes. The purpose of this memo is to explain the history of this
proposed assessment.
In 1975, the City and HRA undertook the 50th & France commercial area
redevelopment project. This project included the provision of off - street
parking, landscaping, sidewalk improvements and a variety of utility
improvements. 20% of the cost of this project.was paid through special
assessments against commercial area properties. The amount of this
assessment was $2.15 /sq. ft. of floor area. Properties that were assessed
included not only existing buildings, but also proposed expansions and new
buildings, such as the Carillon Building, Edina Five -0, and the Doctor's
Building at 3939 West 50th Street.
Report /Recommendation, Walgreen's by Semper Holdings, Inc.
May 21, 1990
Page Two
Since 1975, some building expansions have occurred that were not envisioned
by the 50th and France redevelopment plan. The second floor addition to
the Edina Realty building and the proposed Walgreen's development are
examples -of such expansions. In the late 1970's, the HRA agreed to permit
such expansions (assuming that they met with City approval), provided that
the City receive a $2.15 /sq. ft. payment for the expanded area. The
purpose of this payment was to put such new and expanded buildings on the
same footing, from an assessment standpoint, as the original buildings at
50th and France. This payment does not bear a direct relationship to the
cost of future public parking that may be required at 50th and France.
Presumably, the cost of such future parking would be borne by the
benefitted properties, including those that have expanded. The $2.15
payment should be viewed much like a connection charge which the City
requires for hooking -up to a sanitary sewer or water main which had been
built and previously assessed to other properties.
The Council could consider the fact that 15 years have elapsed since
the original assessment. As such, the Council could increase the $2.15 /sq.
ft. charge by some interest factor. This has not been done, however, in
prior cases such as Edina Realty. We would be glad to supply more
information concerning this issue at your request.
EXISTING APE BUILDING
EXISTNC BUILDING J
r .�wN ZI O
I Ln
<
' a W
Im Z)
•. r.k
: EXISTING N
BLRLDG, - ! I`
U
(� Z
PROPOSED WALGRIEENS BUILDING
- =aevo avr
I
� v
I i• l
49 1/2 STREET WEST
1 *1
1517E PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION
EXISTING ZONING - PC4
ZONING REQUESTED- PC2
SM AREA - 18,917 SF
.434 ACRES
I BUILDING SUT -
FIRST FLOOR - 8.200 SF
BASEMENT - - 3,000 SF
j
PARKING PROVIDED - 17 CARS
BUILDING SETBACK -
NORTH PROPERTY LINE - 3F
DRIVING LANE SETBACK
I NORTH PROPERTY LINE - RY
i
NORTH
n
W M ru
AEC M W 3 AM4 ouw� IL
woaW rn uo e
• ro,i
U Dn
WT f. mo
PROPOSED BUILDING
FOR
WALGREENS
EDNA. MINNESOTA
SITE PLAN
t
FIRST FLOOR
BASEMENT FLOORf
PREFNISHED
"AL" UP
mm
BRIO(
r,M�E
6'
EAST ELEVATION
1i
IMVERY
a � r
TC4! M 1.11
1
- - - -
-- •
COVERS
-
��IYii��
-
W1.r YYCil ll/li.lp YIIiIm11�. .1.�IIlY��I111i11p�111TX�WIY..�
mam-
f0tST ...
_
,.._
_ ._
a3 ASS,
...
SOUTH ELEVATION
. OR
NORTH W�14 my ELEVATION
PREFNISHED
UP FLA"
FACE BRICK
t
BASEMENF FLOOR
r-�
WEST ELEVATION
W-r& N Ip r
Ili R1IIM�WQ1 Oi1P K
uoil[crs on w,view
PROPOSED BLRLDNG
FOR
WALGREENS
EnNA. MNNESOIA
ELEVATIONS
50th &
FRANCE
BUSINESS i PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box. 24122 Edina. Minnesota 55424
RE: RESOLUTION &.MOTION [CONSTRUCTION OF WALGREEN'S IN DOWNTOWN EDINA]
RESOLUTION: The 50th and France Downtown Edina Business and
Professional Association does hereby resolve to empower Mr. Hosmer
Brown AttorneyxW -at Law, upon the unanimous request
of the Board of Directors, to represent the named Association, its
Board of Directors and its Associate members; to deliver to and address
the City Council [City of Edina] at it's next scheduled meeting on
Monday night, 21 May 1990 to commence at 7:00 P.M., for the purpose of
presenting the following MOTION [moved, seconded and unanimously
passed] at the Thursday morning, 26 April 1990 Board of Directors
Meeting of the aforementioned Association. Mr. Brown is further
empowered to represent, in the best interest of the Association and its
members, the issues herein addressed.
MOTION: The 50th and France Downtown Edina Business and Professional
Association [referred to herein as the "Association "] moves that we,
the Board of Directors representing the members of the Association,
favor the building of the WALGREEN'S store on the northwest corner of
France Avenue South at West 49 1/2 Street [on the lot currently
occupied by France Avenue Mobile] contingent on the following:
1). due to the current and projected traffic situation the Association
requests that;
a). a left hand turn semaphore arrow be installed at the
intersection of France Avenue South at West 49 1/2 Street, in the north
bound lane on France Avenue South and
b). a left hand turn semaphore arrow be installed at the
intersection of France Avenue South at•West 50th Street, in the south
bound lane on France Avenue South
2). that the Association requests, that the LOADING ZONE originally in
.front of Harvey Hanson Realty in the east bound lane on West 49 1/2
Street be reinstated
3). the Association requests, that in light of the current parking
tuation; the impending new restaurant; renovation of the Peterson
Mall and the building of- Walgreen's, that the City Council make a
commitment to the construction of a NEW RAMP on the north side of West
49 1/2 Street [in the current location of the two hour municipal lot
immediately to the west of the Edina Realty building]; that structure
being two (2) levels [at the time of initial completion] with the
capability for construction of a third level should the need arise
4). that the second rendering of
(Plan B or View II) as shown to
traffic flow [on to and off
perpendicular [right angle parking
as the most desirable plan
SECONDED / PASSED UNANIMOUSLY
26 April 1990
the "smaller" Walgreen's structure.
the Association with the two way
of West 49 1/2 Street] and the
on Walgreen's premises] be accepted
Alan Siegman, Associa ion President
-N,
H
A.
�1
o� e
J �o
• RPOM�t'0 •
iaee
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
Kenneth Rosland
Agenda .Item #
IV.
E.
From:
Craig Larsen
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Date:
May 21, 1990
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
S -90 -3, Lot 5, Block 1,
To Council
Muir Woods, 7120 Valley
View Road. J_ .
Action
❑
Motion
Cunningham.
KI
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Recommendation:
Preliminary Plat Approval Subject to:
1. Final Plat Approval.
2. Subdivision Dedication.
3. Utility Connection Charges, if any.
4. Slope Easement.
INFO /BACKGROUND
Refer to attached Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report.
P q DRAFT
C 1
S -90 -3 Preliminary Plat Approval for Subdivision of Lot 5, Block 1,
Muir Woods.
J. A. Cunningham, 7120 Valley View Road
Mr. Larsen informed the Commission Lot 5, Block 1, Muir Woods is a developed
.single family lot with an area of 81,703 square feet. The proposed subdivision
would create one, additional new lot. The resulting two lots would have areas
of 40,073 square feet and 41,630 square feet.
Mr. Larsen explained the "neighborhood" as defined by City Ordinance No. 804
includes 27 developed single family lots.
Mr. Larsen told the Commission the City Subdivision Ordinance (No. 804) sets the
neighborhood median lot area, width, and depth as minimum standards for proposed
new lots. Both lots in the proposed subdivision exceed the neighborhood
requirements. In addition both lots exceed the minimum lot area to perimeter
ratio of 0.1.
Mr. Larsen pointed out the proposed subdivision is essentially identical to a
subdivision given preliminary approval by the Commission and Council in 1987.
The proponents did not return for final approval within the required one year
period. Thus the proposal was automatically denied.
Mr. Larsen concluded the proposed subdivision meets or exceeds requirements of
the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. No variances are required. The proposal
is essentially the same as one previously approved. The only difference being
that the new proposal would not save the existing dwelling. Staff recommends
approval subject to:
1. Final plat approval.
2. Subdivision Dedication.
3. Utility connection charges.
The proponent, Ms. Cunningham was present.
Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Larsen why staff approved the plan as presented
regarding the driveway placement.
Mr. Larsen said some of the issues staff took into consideration were the steep
slopes, which is typical of Muir Woods developments, and that there are more
homes and curb cuts on the other side of Valley View as it loops, then on the
side where there is park property.
Commissioner L. Johnson said he does not want to see any disturbance to the
vegetation on this site. He asked Mr. Larsen if he felt there would be some
disturbance of vegetation as a result of this subdivision. Mr. Larsen said with
all developments there will be some disturbance-and in this case it will occur
on the park side.
f
Commissioner McClelland asked Ms. Cunningham if the old house would be torn
down. Ms. Cunningham, said at this time she has not considered this. Mr.
Larsen explained what was submitted to staff was the original proposal for
subdivision, and on the previous proposal, the house was earmarked to be raised.
Commissioner L. Johnson said in his opinion the house should be raised and the
driveway constructed to serve both properties, with minimal slope and vegetation
disturbance. Commissioner L. Johnson asked Mr. Larsen who would ensure that the
driveway is properly'constructed. Mr. Larsen said the engineering department
would review the driveway placement.
Commissioner L. Johnson said he does not want to see this site developed
without the steep slopes protected, in the form of a scenic easement, and with
one common driveway. Commissioner Palmer added that he agreed with Commissioner
L. Johnson's suggestion, indicating he is in favor of some sort of slope
easement or scenic easement. Commissioner L. Johnson said he would like to see
a slope or scenic easement on both sides of the property.
Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen if the property is subdividable again
due to its size. Mr. Larsen said that is possible because of the size of the
two lots, but it is not desirable, due to the steep slopes.
Commissioner Palmer moved to recommend approval subject to the staff conditions
and the additional recommendation that an scenic slope conservation easement be
implemented to protect the steep, wooded slopes on the property, which would
protect lots 1 and 2.
A brief-discussion ensued with the Commission discussing if there should be a
number (30 ft around the perimeter of the site).chosen for the slope easement.
Commissioner L. Johnson moved to recommend preliminary plat approval subject to
the staff conditions, and the recommendations that the outlot on the site remain
an outlot, and that a scenic easement for Lots 1 and 2 be implemented to protect
the wooded slopes and vegetation on the east and west edges of the lot, it is
further recommended that this is open to intent and staff is aware of the intent
of this motion. Commissioner Palmer seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale, Faust,
Byron, Ingwalson, Runyan, Workinger, Palmer, L. Johnson, G. Johnson. Abstained;
McClelland. Motion carried.
1�
LOCATION MAP,
1.
u
u
0
,.
« �I
BALLPARK ;
COMPLEX, ;
P
BRAEMAR PARK
SU13DIVISION
NUMBER S -09 -3
L O C A TI O N West of Valley View Road and north of Braemar Boulevard
R E 0 U E S T Subdivision of Lot 5, Muir Woods
EDINA PLANMUG DERARTME16
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 2, 1990
STAFF REPORT
5 -90 -3 Preliminary Plat Approval for Subdivision of Lot 5, Block 1,
Muir Woods.
J. A. Cunningham, 7120 Valley View Road
Lot 5, Block 1, Muir Woods is a developed single family lot with'an area of
81,703 square feet. The proposed subdivision would create one, additional new
lot. The resulting two lots would have areas of 40,073 square feet and 41,630
square feet.
The "neighborhood" as defined by City Ordinance No. 804 includes 27 developed
single family lots. Median areas and dimensions for the neighborhood are
follows:
Median lot area: 14,500 square feet
Median lot width: 93 feet
Median lot depth: 152 feet
The two lots in the proposed subdivision have the following areas and
dimensions:
The City Subdivision Ordinance (No. 804) sets the neighborhood median lot area,
width, and depth as minimum standards for proposed new lots. Both lots in the
proposed subdivision exceed the neighborhood requirements. In addition both
lots exceed the minimum lot area to perimeter ratio of 0.1.
The proposed subdivision is essentially identical to a subdivision given
preliminary approval by the Commission and Council in 1987. The proponents did
not return for final approval within the required one year period. Thus the
proposal was automatically denied.
Recommendation:
Lot 1.
Lot
2
Lot
area:
40,073 s.f.
41,630
s.f.
Lot
width:
145 feet
265
feet
Lot
depth:
260 feet
157
feet
Lot
width to perimeter ratio:
0.19
0.30
The City Subdivision Ordinance (No. 804) sets the neighborhood median lot area,
width, and depth as minimum standards for proposed new lots. Both lots in the
proposed subdivision exceed the neighborhood requirements. In addition both
lots exceed the minimum lot area to perimeter ratio of 0.1.
The proposed subdivision is essentially identical to a subdivision given
preliminary approval by the Commission and Council in 1987. The proponents did
not return for final approval within the required one year period. Thus the
proposal was automatically denied.
Recommendation:
The proposed subdivision meets or exceeds requirements of the Subdivision and
Zoning Ordinances. No variances are required. The proposal is essentially the
.same as one previously approved. The only difference being that the new
proposal would not save the existing dwelling. Staff recommends approval
subject to:
1. Final plat approval.
2. Subdivision Dedication.
3. Utility connection charges.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
for
J. A. CUNNINGHAM
n•1, ��•m u�Jd
1i 11 ,Ij 1
•a1 1•aa ....
•e<•a/ Y• aw•a•ar••.wf t \• .o.w..'••.srra.
••uw1• eor.w. •.
6111.
1111
..nralr tlrws /•I
� a'r• i1 1
1 1
Wr I .fill Lull,
o,a/I.•r ., .r..o •n.Ir .
�� �� i,l
1
s1rr..,u Ala \
11.1;1 it
. 1
10, »I M • a•• a.. IY,.•N M •
•1.141
•
�' I, 1
19iI r• /fl
;
'111
I
AMU *1 All W a Air— — Mu•.r
�.
ZY
11
ail aat.ln
1
Wr a . I•ai ...! .. u,
erulw 1!t !i1�fLY
WIa•I.1• Wlfr.11
.•Y M.r1• •rw�a a•»w1. ••.a.. ,. •r••Wa
N
»
2
rWa,•rr..r. +.fulorl I r,aaW
� q
��
aar� r stJ11r. w e••• W I.
•v ••
SCAL( I Yi. • SO I.
rort� la[ ur�,eawaal.lrl••".•ral, a,aals I / t
�soti► w�a�r su�wAS �
�wwa�/•.•.r. +.�+.. r� ram
♦q•' f
VIEW
h
!II
I �•
I
r
r
i I
1
,I • ,! `� � w•.i ar.r rani s...r
1L
A •( 1
I
,o
1 r1oA.�r.r r.. ar •1 r r •.r,..•a�r. r
+�r�ar•.r.rr.r •.1M �I+rarM�.r
_ter rtil�_
17 • 6613 6609
662 5 621 '
?001..,
o -
o
700s, I10l; a a o
700% - 701 7 17 700
- 7021 _ 699
7013 700
--
029)( 137 ,�,' y�•
Y 7009:- ^ `W� x
r017 J ��
r021'. trt
iR 033 Dula 7000f _
7 42 a . 033
1025 714 / 0 10 A001
T
-ti
NEIGHBORHOOD:
1411 lots in the Single Dwelling Unit District as established by the Zoning Ordinance
which are wholly or partially withIn500 feet of the perimeter proposed plat or
subdivision,
except; however, those lots used for publicly owned parks, playgrounds, athletic
facilities and golf courses, and except those lots used for conditional uses as
established by the Zoning Ordinance.
If the neighborhood includes only a part of a lot, then the whole of that lot or shall be
included in the neighborhood. As to streets on the perimeter of the proposed: plat or
subdivision, the 500 feet shah be measured from-the common line of the street and the-
proposed plat or subdivision.
710 03
`3
713 T1356
Y�
Tt
. _ 710
7145
17
,..
..713 ° ,(
F
1 !'. 14
1 33
710 •
1
713
.. T1
�
s y
6 M
e s
s
2.X Q
,-
110010I11 tlS -
r0u0Tw roc 713
•
.,712
i
712
'- 712
-ti
NEIGHBORHOOD:
1411 lots in the Single Dwelling Unit District as established by the Zoning Ordinance
which are wholly or partially withIn500 feet of the perimeter proposed plat or
subdivision,
except; however, those lots used for publicly owned parks, playgrounds, athletic
facilities and golf courses, and except those lots used for conditional uses as
established by the Zoning Ordinance.
If the neighborhood includes only a part of a lot, then the whole of that lot or shall be
included in the neighborhood. As to streets on the perimeter of the proposed: plat or
subdivision, the 500 feet shah be measured from-the common line of the street and the-
proposed plat or subdivision.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR LOT 5. MUIR WOODS (ROBERT GRIFFITH). Affidavits of
Notice were presented by Clerk, approved and ordered placed on file. Planner
Craig Larsen presented the request for preliminary plat approval for Lot 5, Muir
Woods, generally located north of Braemar Boulevard and east and west of Valley
View Road, noting that the public hearing was continued from March 16, 1987. The
J subject parcel is approximately two acres in size and is developed with a single
family dwelling in the central portion of the property. The subdivision request
proposed to create one new buildable lot. The new lot-would measure 41,630 square
feet in area and the lot for the existing dwelling would contain 40,073 square
feet. Mr. Larsen pointed out that the topography of the new lot is quite severe.
Grades of 40 percent or more occur adjacent to the street on both the east and
west side. In order to provide a manageable grade for a driveway to the new lot,
an easement over the easterly portion of the lot for the existing dwelling is
proposed. This easement area will allow the construction of a driveway with a
grade of approximately 15 percent. The request was heard by the Community
Development and Planning Commission at its meeting of January 28, 1987 and the
Commission recommended approval for these reasons: a) the lots are very large and
there will-be adequate spacing between the existing homes to the north and south,
b) the property driveways are steep but not unlike other driveways in the area, c)
locating the new drive on the east side is preferred since the property across the
street is park p- roperty. The Commission recommended approval of the preliminary
plat conditioned on: 1) final plat approval,' 2) subdivision dedication, and 3)
payment of utility connection charges. Mr. Larsen advised that following the
hearing by the Commission it was discovered that there were some existing deed
restrictions on the property whereby other property owners in the Muir Woods plat
had to sign off before any further subdivision could be made. The public hearing
by the Council on the preliminary plat was continued to allow the proponent to
negotiate the deed restrictions. He reported that the parties involved have
reached an agreement with regard to negotiating an amendment to the deed
restrictions between now and final plat approval. Mr. Larsen said that the
proponent, Robert Griffith, was present to answer questions. No comment or
objections being heard, Member Turner introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
FOR LOT 5, MUIR WOODS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that
certain plat entitled "LOT 5, MUIR WOODS ", platted by Robert T. Griffith and
presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of April 20, 1987, be and is
hereby granted preliminary plat approval.
Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Smith.
Rollcall:
Ayes: Kelly, Richards, Smith, Turner, Courtney
Resolution adopted.
U)
O
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Rosland
Age nda Item #
IV.
F. ,
From: Craig Larsen
Consent
0
'
OI
Information Only
0
Date: May 21, 1990
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject: Campaign Signs
El
U)
O
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Rosland
Age nda Item #
IV.
F. ,
From: Craig Larsen
Consent
0
Information Only
0
Date: May 21, 1990
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject: Campaign Signs
El
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
INFO /BACKGROUND
The legislature, in its 1990 session, amended the "Fair Campaign Practices Act"
to address "non - commercial" signs. The effect of the amendment is to prevent
cities from regulating, apparently in any way, signs posted between August 1,
and ten days after the election, in a general election year. We currently
regulate the location, size, and number of signs posted on private property. I
have attached our presented ordinance and the new statute for your information.
The statute refers to non - commercial signs, but the amendment is to the Fair
Campaign Practices Act. The statute does not define non - commercial signs. In
the opinion of the City Attorney it is reasonable to restrict non - commercial
signs to campaign material. (see attached letter). We will also continue to
require that signs be posted only on private property.
N
ORDINANCE INTO. 451 -A4
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 451
TO ESTABLISH SIZE LIMITATIONS FOR
TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
Section 1. Sec. 3, Paragraph (i) of Ordinance No. 451 is
hereby amended to read' as follows:
"(i) Campaign signs posted by a bona fide candidate for
..political office or.by a person or group promoting
a political issue or a political candidate may be
Placed on private property in any district provided
only one such sign per street frontage per candidate
is posted. The maximum area for political signs is
6 square feet, except temporary nonaccessory free-
standing signs herein permitted in Section 4. Campaign
signs may be posted for a period not to exceed 60 days
prior to the election and shall be removed within 7
days following the date of the election."
Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect
upon its passage and publication.
First Reading: August 2, 1976
Second Reading: August 16, 1976
Published In the Edina Sun on September 8, 1976
(signed) JAMES VAN VALKENBURG
Mayor
ATTEST:
(signed) FLORENCE B. HALLBERG
Citv Clerk
8 deliver two sets of summary statements; all unused -and spoiled
9 white, pink, canary, and gray ballots; and the envelopes
10 containing the white, pink, canary, and gray ballots either
11 directly to the municipal clerk for transmittal to the county
12 auditor's office or directly to the county auditor's office as
13 soon as possible after the vote counting is completed but no
14 later than 24 hours after the end of the hours for voting. One
15 or more election judges shall deliver the remaining set of
16 summary statements and returns, all unused and spoiled municipal
17 and school district ballots, the envelopes containing municipal
18 and school district ballots, and all other things furnished by
19 the municipal or school district clerk, to the municipal or
20 school district clerk's office within 24 hours after the end of
21 the hours for voting. The municipal or school district clerk
22 shall return all polling place rosters and completed voter
23 registration cards to the county auditor within 48 hours after
24 the end of the hours for voting.
25 Sec. 30. [211B.045] [NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNS EXEMPTION.]
26 In any municipality with an ordinance that regulates the Q
27 size of noncommercial signs, notwithstanding the provisions of 1
28 that ordinance, all noncommercial signs of any size may be
29 posted from August 1 in a state general election year until ten
30 days'following the state general election.
31 Sec. 31. Minnesota Statutes 1988, section 367.03,
32 subdivision 1, is amended to read:
33 Subdivision 1. [OFFICERS, TERMS.] Except in towns
34 operating under option A, there shall be elected in each town
35 three supervisors as provided in this section. Where a new town
36 has been or may be organized and supervisors have been or may be
21
350 PARK AVENUE
NEW, YORK, NEW YORK 10022
(212)415 -9200
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W.
WASMNOTON, D. C. 20036
(202)657 -0700
3 GRACECHURCH STREET
LONDON BC3V OAT, ENGLAND
01- 929 -3334
36, HUE TRONCHET
75009 PARIS, PRANCE
01- 42- 66 -59 -49
_ FAR EAST FINANCE CENTER - - -
HONG KONG
852 -5- 6612555
Mr. Craig Larsen
City Planner
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Craig:
DORSEY & WHITNEY
A PARTNERSHIP INCL -0 P-5-0- COaPOa ONS
2200 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 33402
(612) 340 -2600
TELEX 29 -0605
FAX (612) 340 -2868
THOMAS S. ERICKSON
. 812 - 9442869
May 11, 1990
Re: Chapter No. 585, 1990 Minnesota Session Laws
Fair Campaign Practices Act
340 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
HOCHESTE R, MINNESOTA 55903
(507) 288 -3156
315 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
(612)475-0373
1200 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59103
(406)252 -3800
201 DAVIDSON BUILDING
GREAT PALLS, MONTANA 59401
(406)727 -3632
127 EAST FRONT STREET
MISSOULA, MONTANA 59602
(406) 721 -6025
Enclosed herewith is a copy of the above referenced Chapter No. 585:
Section 30 of that Chapter amends Chapter 211B of the Minnesota State Statutes, the
Fair Campaign Practices Act, to add a section as follows:
"In any municipality with an ordinace that regulates the size of
non - commercial signs, notwithstanding the provisions of that ordinance, all
non - commercial signs of any size may be posted from August 1 in the State
general election year until ten days following the State general election."
The effective date of the Statute is the date following final enactment.
It was signed into law by the Govenor on May 3, 1990, and filed in the Secretary of
State's office on May 4, 1990. Therefore, that law is now in effect.
It does, as you will note, allow "all' non - commercial signs. However, I
am of the opinion that the City has control over location of the signs and that it
would be a fair interpretation of the Statute to restrict the "non - commercial" signs
to "campaign material." Campaign material, as defined in Chapter 211B is "any
DoI?SEY & WHITNEY
Mr. Craig Larsen
May 11, 1990
Page 2
literature, publication, or material tending to influence voting at a primary or other
election "
Chapter 585 has made other changes relative to the election laws which
Marc Daehn may find of interest.
If I can be of any further help in connection with this Act, please let me
know.
Ve truly yours,
Thomas S. Erickson
ajm
enclosure
CC. Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager
4,91N�.r'lr
o e 71
Vj
o
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Rosland
From: Craig Larsen
Date: May 21, 1990
Subject: Follow Up On Massing
Research
INFO /BACKGROUND
Agenda Item # Iv • c,-
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑
To HRA
❑
To Council
Action ❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Based upon the City Council action of May 7, 1990, staff is pursuing the
following areas of research on the "massing issue ":
A. Urban Land Institute research service. Looking for alternative
approaches to development limits on single family lots.
B. LMC research service. Looking for similar information as ULI
but on state level.
C. Contacting similarly situated suburban communities nationwide to
see if they have experienced similar problems. Contact by
Planning Department.
D. Review of Building Scale Study for the City of Lake Forest, Il.,
by Lane Kendig, Inc. A copy of the study is attached for your
review.
In conducting the research we will be looking for the traditional as well as the
non - traditional approaches to restrict development on single family lots.
Examples of traditional approaches would be setbacks, lot coverage and height
limitations. Non - traditional approaches may include, Floor Area Ratios, cubic
area limits, and rules to insure compatibility in an existing neighborhood.
The result of our research will be a draft ordinance for Council consideration
which would be more restrictive than our present Ordinance.
}
y�
A separate, but related issue is the historical integrity of the Country Club
area as it relates to its place.on the National Register of Historic Places.
The Heritage Preservation Board will be reviewing recent construction activity
in the area. The result of the Board's review may include recommendations for
some form of design control. This would, of course, be subject to review and
approval by the City Council.
it
BUILDING SCALE STUDY
FOR
LAKE FOREST. _?J-1 Ll NlfQIS
Of LA k�
z �o
0 ti
aTE�
Prepared by
�lTrr
Lane Kendig, inc.
ftrtarnwxe Comefxs in r% r jj
1. O+
'` lc
4 :.Building Scale Study For Lake Foresi, Illinois
Table of Contents
Introduction.......................................................................... ............................... 1
Land Use Intensity Measures ...............................................
...............................
2
BuildingCoverage ...............................................................
3
...............................
Impervious Surface Ratio ....................................................
4
...............................
FloorArea Ratio ................................................................
5
................:..............
Landscape Surface Ratio ......................................................
6
..:............................
BuildingVolume Ratio ........................................................
7
...............................
LandscapeVolume Ratio .....................................................
9
...............................
SiteVolume Ratio ............................................................. ............................... 11
Data Collection and Analysis ............................................. ............................... . 14
Alternative Implementation Strategies ............................. ............................... 24
Planned Developments ....................................................... ............................... 28
Recommendations.............................................................. ............................... 29
1y
v
btrod rction
The City of Lake Forest has - become
concerned with the scale of some of
the new homes and accessory uses
being built in the City. This concern
has recently surfaced in the field of
planning and it is likely to become in-
creasingly common. A few other
communities (Provincetown, Massa-
chusetts; Town and Country, Mis-
souri; and Long Grove, Illinois) have
begun to address the problem. It is a
1 valid concern, because a shift inbuild-
ing scale can alter the character of a
community.
One of the central themes of suburban
planning is the struggle to maintain
the character of the community. Lake
Forest has been successful over many
years in controlling development so as
to preserve its character. The charac-
terof a neighborhood is made up of the
relationship between the size of the lot
and both the volume occupied by
buildings and accessory structures,
and the volume of landscaping.
Downtown Lake Forest has an Urban
character, with buildings built to the
sidewalk and covering most of the site
to a height of two to three stories.
Most of the rest of Lake Forest is
Suburban in character and there are
some areas that we would classify as
having a lower intensity form of sub-
urban, Suburban Estate. In the urban
areas the buildings dominate the land-
scape present on each lot. In suburban
areas the landscape and buildings are
Brrildiift� Scale Strrdy
for
Lake Forest, Illinois
LA
generally in balance. Balance refers
to the mass of development approx-
imately equaling the mass of vegeta-
tion (natural grasslands, . wetlands,
trees and shrubs). In suburban estate
areas the landscape is generally domi-
nant. In the older residential areas of
Lake Forest, development generally
fits this pattern.
Several things are happening in newer
developments in the City that are
viewed as a threat to Lake Forest's
traditional character. First, many of
the new sites are cleared or they are
located in old fields where there are no
trees. Thus, the balance between
landscape and buildings that charac-
terizes traditional suburban develop-
ment in Lake Forest is absent. The
second factor is an increase in the size
of the homes on lots in a given zoning
district. This too destroys the balance
by reducing the area available for
landscaping while increasing the
building volume. The Planned Rcsi-
dential Development (PRD) regula-
tions, in their present form, also have
a tendency to adversely affect the
balance. In theory, PRD develop -
ments should not have such an impact,
but a poor grasp of the building scale
implications of PRD's has resulted in
projects which approach an urban
character. The PRD concept is not
wrong, but its execution under the
Present regulations has lead to build-
ing scale problems. Poorly designed
PRD's do not utilize designated open
spaces to the advantage of the home
owners. For example, buffers, wet-
lands and floodplains are permitted to
count toward fulfilling a PRD's open
space requirement, without regard to
theiractual contribution to the charac-
ter of the development as a whole.
Finally, the new homes are built in
subdivisions where the development
occurs quickly so that there is an im-
mediate maximum visual impact.
Working these factors togetherresults
in a dramatic shift in the balance that
is present in olderareas of town, hence
a changing -character is correctly ob-
served by residents.
The combined effect of these factors is
real and of sufficient strength to pro-
duce a measurable change in commu-
nity character. There are quite dra-
matic examples in nearby communi-
ties where new development, without
an increase in density, has changed the
character of areas from suburban to
low grade u rban (Libertyville) or from
countryside to suburban (Long
Grove). In this report we will quantify
the changes in character that are oc-
curring in Lake Forest.
Before doing so Nvc must provide
some information on the types of
measures that will be used. A number
of these may be familiar to those in-
volved in planning, others are recently
devised ways of evaluating develop
a�
ai
ment. These concepts make it pos-
sible to quantify changes in character
and to review alternative approaches
to regulating development so that the
desired character of Lake Forest can
be preserved.
Lake Forest has two basic choices in
terms of addressing this issue. Before
discussing these, it must be stated that
some of the immediate effects of de-
velopment will disappear with time as
vegetation grows and alters the char-
acter of the development by changing
the balance between the structures and
the landscape materials. The prob-
lems with this approach are that it
takes 30 to 50 years to achieve the
desired balance between develop-
ment and landscaping, that it is some -
whatdependenton thedecisions of the
ividividual landowner, ard' Aat it does '
nothing to ameliorate the effects of
poor site design. One of the two
options is to develop regulations that
ensure the desired character will be
preserved in new development. The
other alternative is to do nothing and
allow the character of the City to
change into something more common
in the Chicago metropolitan area —
suburban sprawl. This draft report
will .revie* a number of alternative
measures that can be used to add;-ess
this issue.
Land Use Intensity Measures
Traditional Residential Standards--Density and Setbacks
In residential districts the traditional
control of intensity is lot size which
is translated into density (dwelling
units peracre). For the mostpart, the
setbacks which define the building
envelopes do little to restrict the in-
tensity to which a site can be devel-
oped. In Lake Forest, the building
envelopes would permit between
29% (R -5 District) and 48% (R -1
District) of a site to be covered by
residences, a fact that is constrained
by a maximum building coverage
provision of 30 %. The total cover-
T"
age of a site by buildings, drives,
walks, pools, decks, patios, and tennis
courts can range from 42% (R -1 Dis-
trict) to 59% (R -5 District). This
finding is not surprising since the set-
back regulations are intended to pro-
vide for minimum building separa-
tion, and not intended to be a bulk
control. The use of two story dwell-
ings means that floor area ratios
(FARs) in Lake Forest could, in the-
ory, approach .60 in all the districts.
These standards can of course be al-
tered to create a desired intensity, but
2
that means more rigid placement of
the buildings.
In response to this dilemma involving
the inability of traditional residential
development standards, it is useful to
explore some of the standards com-
monly used for nonresidential uses.
These are building coverage, floor
area ratio, landscape ratio (the oppo-
site of impervious surface ratio),
building volume ratios, landscape
volume ratios, and site volume ratios:
This is probably the oldest of the
intensity measures for nonresidential
uses. In some ordinances, it may be
refcrrcd. to 1s "lo ►1overage,^ Build -
ing coverage mmisures the. ratio or
Percentage of the site or lot that is
covered by the building. Building
coverage is always a number that
cannot exceed one (for ratios) or 100
percent. (See Figure 1.) Two typical
definitions are:
11 Building Coverage: The ratio
derived by dividing the area covered
by the building(s) by the area of the
site.
•y�
Building CoveLr=
2) Ruildinn Cover e: The percent
of a site that is covered by the
building(s).
• n l • iy
Building coverage (if used alone)
cannot adequately indicate intensity
or bulk. Building coverage is an area
measurement dealing with only two of
the three dimensions necessary to
define bulk. It can, therefore, provide
information or control building bulk
only in conjunction with a standard
governing maximum height. Conse-
quently, it requires a calculation to
_� •tip
Figure I
N
BUILDING COVERAGE
(BC)
translate this requirement to a bulk
standard. A further drawback is that
building coverage does not relate di-
rectly to driveway, patio, deck, walk,
or court coverage. Since, in Lake
Forest, these activities can occupy
substantial portions of the site, build-
ing coverage is only a crude approxi-
mation of the actual use of a site.
OM
3 �°
Impervious surface ratio (ISR) goes
one step beyond building coverage by
accounting for the aria of a site cov-
ered not only with strsctures, but also
by other impervious -surfaces. Like
building coverage it cannot exceed
one (for ratios) or 100 percent. (See
Figure 2.) Two common definitions
are:
1) Impervious Surf ce: The ratio
derived by dividing the area covered
by all impervious surfaces by the area
of the site.
S 11 `+
t �.' ►::'t67f'L�r�
Jmoervious Surface Ratio
2) Tmoervious Surface! The per-
cent of the site that is covered by im-
pervious surfaces.
n Iv i
Impervious surface measures cannot
control development intensity to an
adequate extent because, like building
coverage, this measure does not ac-
count for multiple story structures.
Furthermore, no distinction is made
between flat paved surfaces, low lying
surfaces such as wood decks, and
tom" '•t
Figure 2
x'
c-
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
RATIO (ISR)
4
structures. Again, such a measure
results in only a crude level of control
over development intensity.
A
Floor area ratio (FAR) was developed
as a more precise and adaptable mess-
tire of .development intensity thar
building coverage. While building
coverage and impervious surface
controls require other measures for
the number of stories or height to de-
termine bulk, the FAR'takes into ac-
count the number of stories and there-
fore is supposed to be a good measure
of building bulk. In theory, a one -
story building and a three -story build-
ing with the same FAR would have
nearly identical volumes or bulks.
The FAR simply relates total floor
area to site or lot area (see Figure 3)
and is often defined as follows:
Floor Area Ratio: A ratio de
rived by dividing the total floor area
of a building by the area of the site.
S.:
� L
? J.
1 -i f y ` ci
Floor Area Ratio
It should be noted that the definition of
floor area becomes critical when
comparingFARs. FAR was originally
developed :;u use in office an(' com-
mercial intensities. There are actually
two ways to measure residential FAR.
One measures floor area to the exte-
rior walls and includes the garage
area, while the other subtracts the
garage. The same sort of problem
occurs with porches.
Since an FAR of one (1.0) is the
equivalent of a one -story building
covering the entire site, the measure
seems to be easily understood. How-
ever, most laymen and many planners
have trouble relating FAR to real life
projects or to desired intensities of
use. Even when buildings have simi-
lar use as with single- family de-
cached residences, predicting bulk is
difficult. Roof pitch, cathedral ceil-
ings and clerestories complicate the
relationship between floor area and
actual bulk Thus, although the initial
idea was that FAR would more accu-
rately portray bulk than simple build-
ing coverage, that notion is limited by
the multileveled, but still two-dimen-
sional, nature of FARs.
There are other difficulties when an
FAR, or building coverage ratio is
used as the principal means of control-
ling a building's toWeffect. The FAR
and building coverage ratio also fails
to directly measure the impact of
driveways, patios, decks, and courts
on the character of the site.
i � 1,
Figure 3
FLOOR AREA RATIO
(FAR)
5
T
As originally conceived, the land-
scape surface ratio (LSR) was derived
from the ISR. In this case, the LSR
would simply have been the remain-
.'der obtained by subtracting the ISR
from one (1.0). While this is a simple
method of estimating the amount of
green area on a site, it is valid only if
there are no impervious surfaces such
as patios and walks that escape count-
ing.
Landscape Surface Ratio- The
area of land devoted to pervious land-
scaping divided by the area of the site.
(See Figure 4.)
LSR should be considered as a method
T"
Landscape Surface Ratio.
to regulate intensity of residential uses
in low intensity urban areas as well as
suburban and. rural areas. The LSR
has an important role of its own as a
counterbalance 0 the bulk of the
dwelling on the site. Landscaped
areas, particularly those containing a
number of trees, may create a screen
that blocks views of a building. In
some cases, a group of trees may serve
as a counterbalance to the mass of the
building.
While the LSR can indicate the poten-
tial landscaping area available, it is
only a two- dimensional measure that
does not address the bulk of the land-
scaped area, which is determined by
W-141
the type of landscape material, its size,
or the number of trees and shrubs.
Nevertheless, a change in the LSR,
with FAR held constant, will clearly
be an indicator of the potential visual
impact of a development on its neigh-
bors. A smaller LSR, all other factors
being equal, generally indicates a
greater potential for adverse character
impacts, while a larger value in-
creases the potential to reduce the
impact. In suburban and some urban
situations, landscaping and adequate
green spaces are essential.
Figure 4
LANDSCAPE SURIACE
RATIO (LSR)
6
r
Figure 4
LANDSCAPE SURIACE
RATIO (LSR)
6
0
A-
The building volume ratio (BVR) was
developed by Lane Kendig, Inc. dur-
ing continued research on perform -
ance.standards. It is a response to the
problems thatresultfrom trjing to use
FAR and ISR standards to generate
classes of uses that have similar inten-
sities. (See Land-Use Classification in
Performance Zoning,, It became evi-
dent that the older measures, such as
FAR, were so flawed by nonuni-
formity that the system became un-
duly complicated. The BVRisafactor
intended to measure bulk directly.
Simply stated, BVR is the sum of the
volumes of buildings: the volume of
parking, loading, and exterior storage
areas divided by site area. Forresiden-
tial development, driveways, patios,
walks, decks and court areas would be
taken into account. In its final form,
the actual definition is more complex
and contains an adjustment factor to
make it similar to the more familiar
FAR. (See Figure 5.)
Building Volume Ratio-. The
volume of the buildings plus the vol-
ume of parking areas, truck loading
areas, drives, recreational structures,
and any exterior storage areas, divided
by 10, with that result divided by the
area of the site or lot, or
(VB +VP +VL +VE +VR +V T) /1 o
BVR=
A
where:
BVR = Building volume ratio.
VB = Volume of building at the exte
rior walls.
Building Volume Ratio
VP = Volume of vehicle areas (area of
parking areas and drives x 5.0 ft.) a
measure generally not needed in resi-
dential areas.
VL = Volume of loading areas (area of
loading area and drives x height of
largest trucks to be used) not used in
residential areas.
VE = Volume of exterior storage (area
of storage areas and drives x height of
tallest material stacks) not generally
used in residential areas.
VR = Volume of recreational areas
(area of decks, patios, walks, pools,
etc. x 2.0 feet).
VT= Volume of fenced courts (area of
fenced courts x 10 feet).
A = Site or lot area.
The constant, 10, was introduced into
this formula so that a B VR of one (1.0)
was equal to a building covering the
entire site to a height of 10 feet. The
value of five feet for calculating the
volume of parking areas and drives
was selected because automobiles
range from under four feet to nearly
five feet in height. Vans and four -
wheel drive vehicles are nearly all
more than five feet in height. In the
absence of a study of the average
height of vehicles in a parking lot, five
feet is a convenient value and one that
is not far off. Because the type of truck
is more apt to vary by land -use type,
see following illustration
7
that value has not been preassigned.
S mall delivery trucks rarely exceed 10
feet in (ieight, while larger trucks may
be in the 12- to 14 -foot range. State
!mde:pass dezign standards will pro-
vide the maximums for most of these
uses. The value of two feet was se-
lected for calculating the volume of
walks and recreational areas because
they tend to be minimally intrusive.
Finally, the value of 10 was selected
for fenced courts (tennis) as that is
their average height.
Dividing the volume by 10 results in a
B VR concept that is closely related to
the more familiar FAR. However, the
provisions that account for parking
and otherdrive areas in the B VR make
any direct comparison with FAR a
complicated exercise because a sig-
nificant portion of the bulk of many
developments is in parking and drive
areas. The B VR is the only measure of
the factual bulk of all land uses on a
site. All others are surrogates for total
bulk. The drawback of the B VR is the
complexity of the calculation and the
great difficulty of intuitively translat-
ing a BVR to leasable space or living
area, a factor of great interest to devel-
opers.
_V,
Figure 5
BUILDING VOLUME
RATIOI (BVR)
i
�Z4
-nit.
IN
13
Imt
J7.
_V,
Figure 5
BUILDING VOLUME
RATIOI (BVR)
i
The landscape volume ratio (LVR) is
intended to provide a method of meas-
uring the effect of landscaping bulk in
much the same way B VR measures the
bulk of the built, environment. The
LVR must account for the area occu-
pied by landscaping, its density, and
the height of the plant material. (See
Figure 6). The definition is similar to
that used for the BVR.
Landscape Volume Ratio- The area
covered by landscaping multiplied by
the percent of that area covered by
shrubs, trees, and groundcover and the
height of such vegetation. The area
and height of new planting is based on
the estimated size of plant material
five years after installation. That vol-
ume is divided by 10, and the result is
divided by the total area of the site or
lot, or:
(VT +VG +VB) /10
LVR =
A
where:
LVR = Landscape Volume Ratio.
VT = Volume of trees, and shrubs
(area defined by tree drip lines x aver-
age height of the vegetation five years
after installation).
VG = Volumeofgroundcover(ofprai-
rie, wetlands and grasslands) (area x
average height of plants).
VB = Volume of berms (area x average
height of berm for each berm).
A = Area of site.
Landscape Volume Ratio
The quality of landscaping is highly
variable. A site could be landscaped
primarily with lawn and occasional
trees,or located ina wooded area. The
trees planted on a site can be whips
about the diameter of a finger or trees
eight to ten inches in diameter. In the
Pacific Northwest, it may be possible
to lose a three -story building under the
canopy ofa tree, while in otherparts of
the West, native vegetation may not
be sufficient to screen a one -story
building. A native prairie or grassland
in the central or eastern part of the
country could be two to seven feet tall
and could also become an effective
screening element. The area covered
and the height of the canopy compen-
sate for these variations, both in the
type of planting and the ability of the
vegetation to createa volume that is an
effective screen. The definition per-
mits a five -year grow -in period to
better assess the overall impact of the
newly planted landscape materials.
The main difficulty with LVR is
measuring the actual volume of the
landscape material. It would be well
to develop a guide in cooperation with
local nurserymen. A canopy tree three
inches in diameter is likely to average
10 to 15 feet in height when planted
and will grow some three to four feet
over a rive -year period. These rules
are needed since many landscape
plans would show the plants as they
would look after 20 to 40 years. Gain-
ing a better understanding of initial
appearance of plantings would clearly
tee following illurtration
bebeneficial. Such aguide would also
be very useful to developers and
I+omeowners as a general reference
!uol.
In areas where vegetative screens are
possible, the LVR represents an im-
portant measure. While it is not the
principal means of measuring the in-
tensity of a use, it can be an important
tool to further community character
goals. It can be used by the planner to
set a minimum requirement for plant
material and would not show up in.the
development intensity regulations un-
less density bonuses were connected
to landscaping.
61M
T
Figure 6
LANDSCAPE VOLUME RATIO
(LVR)
10
J
Site Volume Ratio (SVR) is a means of
integrating B VR and LVR into a single
performance standard. There are three
ways to determine the SVR. The first
method is simply to compare the two
measures.(See Figure 7). In the second
method, a mathematical computation
is made. The third method uses graph-
ics. All three methods are illustrated
here for three sites that have the same
BVR values but different amounts of
landscaping. (See Table I and Figures
7 and 8).
On Site A. only 10 percent of the land-
scaped surface is planted to an average
height of 20 feet. The percentage of the
landscaped surface covered is in-
creased to 40 percent on Site B. On Site
C, it is assumed that the original forest
cover with an average canopy height of
SO feet is preserved over 80 percent of
the landscaped surface.
Site Volume Ratio
Simply comparing the figures, it is
clear thatthe building on S ire A will be
highly visible and that the landscaping
present is, at best, a foil for the Build-
ing: On Sit.e. 3, the landscape volume
is one -half of the building volume and
is significant in mitigating the impact
of the building on surrounding uses.
The building in the woodland on Site
C will be. screened very effectively.
Using the formula, SVR = LVR -
BVR, it is possible to calculate the
SVR to show the balance between
landscaping and the building.' Al-
though the number is generally too
complex for somebody to pick a de-
sired or required SVR and work back-
wards, it can be used to determine the
combination of other standards to
keep design and layout of buildings in
character with their surroundings. It
can be used in performance ordi-
Figure 7
ILLUSTRATIVE METHOD
- SITE A
nances. A performance -type ordi-
nance would contain a basic set of
intensity standards, landscaping re-
quirements, and the calculated SVR.
The text would permit developers to
deviate from the fixed standards so
long as the SVR remained the same or
increased. There is one obvious fact
that leaps out—whenever the SVR is
positive, there is more landscape vol-
ume than building volume. The
graphic method of comparison is
shown in Figure 8. The graphic ap-
proach is excellent because of its sim-
plicity and is recommended for use in
testimony.
SITE B SITE C
11
A
TABLE 1
MATHEMATICAL METHOD
THE EFFECT OF LANDSCAPE COVERAGE ON
SITE VOLUME RATIO
I
12
Site A
Site B
Site C
' B'v R
.637
.637
.637
LVR
.090
.358
1.792
SVR
-.547
.27
+1.155
FAR
.300
.300
.300
BC
.150
.150
.150
LSR
.448
.448
.448
ISR
.552
.552
.552
% LSR
10%
40%
80%
Height of Vegetation
20ft.
20ft.
Soft.
I
12
f
Y
.v
m
1.
1.
.1
0
1.(
FIGURE 8
GRAPHIC METHOD
® LANDSCAPE VOLUME RATIO (LVR)
BUILDING VOLUME RATIO (BVR)
SITE VOLUME RATIO (SVR)
13
:m
It is important to understand what is
happening in Lake Forest with regard
to building scale. Tothatendourfum,
with the assistance of City Staff, iden-
tified lots in the R -1 through R-4
zoning classifications that were in-
tended to provide examples of the
developments that were the focus of
local concern and others that repre-
sented the more traditional intensity
of development. Data on floor area,
building coverage and landscaped
surface ratios were developed for
most of the sample from data on City
Records. On some of the older build-
ings the data was incomplete and not
all the calculations were made. The
results are clear enough, however, so
that no further field work is needed.
The fast finding that is obvious is that
there are a significant amount of lots
within each zoning district that do not
meet the minimum lot area require-
ments of the zoning district. Some of
those occur in planned developments
and are thus consistent with zoning,
others are existing nonconforming
lots that were legally built upon. The
percentage of the sample in this cate-
gory was somewhat of a surprise, but
itindicates that theproblem is likely to
be more visible because of the number
of smaller lots now being created in
the City.
The numberof smaller lots also serves
to focus on the problem of planned de-
velopments. Ideally the open space in
a planned developemcnt should offset
the effect of the smaller lots. How-
ever, in Onwcntsia Gardens the open
space is largely thesurrounding berms
that mask the development from
Route 41 and Westicigh. In The
Ponds the open space is all unbuild-
�
Data Collection and Analysis
able Iand concentrated at one end of
the development. In the theory of
cluster design, the open space should
be as close to each unit as possible.
Unfortunately, in these planned de-
velopments the open space is highly
concentrated so that itcan mitigate the
impact of the building volumes on
neither the individual lots, nor the
project as a whole. The City needs to
keep the scale issue in mind as it re-
views PUDs and may even want to add
specific criteria to the PUD ordinance
to address this.
The analysis was broken into two sec-
tions. The first reviews the data based
on zoning districts and cross- refer-
enced to lot size within each districts.
(Tables 2 and 3) In the second part, lot
size was the basis of the review and
zoning was cross - referenced. (See -
Tables 4 and 5.)
There is an inverse relationship be-
tween lot size, and both floor area ratio
(FAR) and building coverage (BC).
As lot size decreases, the FAR and BC
increase. and vice versa. A positive
relationship is found between lot size
and the landscaped surface ratio
(LSR): as the lot size increases so dots
the LSR. These trends occur within
each zoningdistrictas well as between
different zoning districts. (See Tables
3 and 5.)
When comparing the ratios of all four
zones in Table 3, R -1 has the highest
FARs and BC ratios and the lowest
LSRs. The differences bctwcen zones
was not as great as expected because
of the nurnbcrofsubstandard lots. Out
of nineteen units in the R -1 sample,
14
seven of the hGus,.s went leca:cd en
substandard lots. Zone R-2 had seven-
teen substandard lots in it out of the
total twenty. Twenty -two units were
sampled in the R -3 zone, of which
fourteen were on substandard lots.
Five of the ten units sampled in the R-
4 category were located on substan-
dard lots, with the substandard lots
averaging about one -third the size of
the standard lots. The LSR ranged
from .546 -.811 in zone R -1, .703 -.818
in R -2, and from .772 -.869 in R -3.
Zone R-4 has similar LSRs to those of
R -3, ranging between .758 -.855.
This clearly demonstrates the urbani-
zation problem created by increased
building bulk. Even though the size of
the unit typically increases with lot
size, the impacton landscaped surface
ratios is positive because the building,
bulk increases at a slower rate than lot
area. This means that the lots that do
not meet district minimum not only
result in more total units that would be
deemed crowding, but they also have
a more urban character: The two
forces combine to increase the impact.
Overall, in each zoning district, the
lots that conform to the zone lot size
requirements have more desirable
ratios than the substandard lots.
Table 5 breaks the data down by lot
size versus zone, in order to control for
inconsistencies within the sample
regarding conformance with the stan-
dards of the various districts. The
same relationships between lot size
and FAR, BC and LSR arc present
when the zoning districts arc not ac-
counted for. A few definite breaks
between the lot sizes and their ratios
are present: lots with greater than
30,000 square feet have significantly
f
lower FARs and BC ratios; in addi-
tion, the LSR is significantly higher
than those of the smaller lots. The
second clear break appears in lots of
less than 10,000 square feet.
The impact of vegetation is one of the
most obvious impacts on community
character. We have used only a few
test cases to illustrate this point. The
presence or absence of mature or in-
tense vegetation dramatically alters
the site volume ratios of properties
that otherwise have similar floor ar-
eas, building coverages and landscape
surfaceratios. By inference, itis clear
that the impact of increased intensity
can be mitigated quite successfully by
vegetation, although it would require
a rethinking of current landscaping
requirements of the Lake Forest Zon-
ing Ordinance.
IrLconclusion, it is apparent that Lake
Forest's character is being impacted
by building scale problems. While the
height and setback regulations, in
theory, represent a form of control, the
impacts are occuring at a level of site
development well below that permit-
ted by the maximum building enve-
lope possible under the zoning. For
example, the building envelope for R-
I would permit a building coverage of
15
.48 while the highest rates are only
.33. Thus, the problem is present and
theregulations are still notcontrolling
it.
This should not be a great surprise
since these regulations wereprimarily
intended to pr,,ride minimum build -
ing sepr..atiot: r„id cnly tangentially
Icontrol building bulk. Further, it is
clear that vegetation is very impor-
Itant, yet zoning does not currently
address this issue in any significant
fashion.
T
TABLE 2
MEANS BY ZONE
R -1
R -2
Mean
No.
Mean
Site
Mean
Living
Total
Floor
Mean
Number
Mean
Mean
Lot Size
Cat
Category
of
Lots
Area
Area
Area
of
Building
Total
Lot.
ft.)
Lots
(sf)
(sf)
(sf)
Stories
Coverage
Coverage
>16,250
5
24,838
3,319
3,699
Stories
Coverage
Coverage
2
2,570
5,470
>13,813
1
15,895
-
2,400
1.5
2,400
3,168
>9,520
6
.10,951
2,501
3,022
2
1,915
2,997
>8,938
4
9,281
2,850
3,280
2
2,819
4,217
<8,938
3
6,920
2,821
3,383
2
2,225
3,057
Zone
Mean
19
13,878
2,885
3,278
2
2,352
3,923
R -2
Ti
«•J
Mean
No.
Mean
Mean
Total
Mean
Mean
Lot Size
of
Site
Area
Living
Floor
Number
Mean
Total
Category
Lots
(sf)
Area
(sf)
Area
of
Building
Lot
(sq. ft.)
(sf)
Stories
Coverage
Coverage
2:23,000
3
30,410
3,867
4,663
2
3,135
6,337
>19,550
1
20,405
4,160
4,686
2
2,911
3,711
>16,100
7
17,175
3,043
3,527
2
2,377
3,508
>12,650
7
14,557
2,617
3,100
2
2,038
3,102
<12,650
2
6,225
1,698
2,139
2
1,310
1,850
Zone
Mean
20
17,310
2,939
3,467
2
2.292
3,634
Ti
«•J
17
TABLE 2 continued
R -3
Mean
Mean
Mean
Total
Mean
Mean
No.
Site
Living
Floor
Number
- Mean
Total
Lot Size
of
Area
Area
Area
of
Building
Lot
Category
Lots
(sf)
(sf)
(sf)
Stories
Coverage
Coverage
(sq. ft.)
-
>44,000
5
51,731
4,330
5,069
2
3,209
8,446
>37,400
4
41,150
3,786
4,782
2
3,960
61821
>30,800
2
35,918
3,693
5,900
2
3,177
5,558
>24,200
2
27,900
4,465
4,988
2
3,499
4,674
<24,200
9
20,042
3,647
4,236
2
2,725
4,352
Zone
22
33,239
3,934
4,742
2
3,171
5,540
Mean
R -4
Mean
Mean
Mean
Total
Mean
Mean
No.
Site
Living
Floor
Number
Mean
Total
Lot Size
of
Area
Area
Area
of
Building
Lot
Category
Lots
(sf)
(sf)
(sf)
Stories
Coverage
Coverage
(sq. ft.)
>66,000
2
96,150
8,500
9,953
2
6,351
20,855
>56,100
5
61,609
4,463
5,221
2
4,422
8,826
>46,200
0
>36,300
0
<36,300
3
22,659
3,043
2,954
1
3,634
5,420
Zone
10
56,832
4,845
5,769
2
4,572
10,210
Mean
17
�J
f
18
TABLE 3
CALCULATED VALUES; MEANS BY ZONE
ZONE R -1
Landscaped
Number of
Floor Area Floor Area
Building
Surface
LOT SIZE
Lots
Ratio -1 Ratio -2
Coverage
Ratio
?16,250
5
.150 .179
.109
.778
>13,813
1
- .151
.151
.801
? 9,520
6
.224 .270
.174
.722
? 8.938
4
.304 .350
.303
.546
< 8,938
3
.377 .451
.328
.549
Tot. Mean
19
.238 .273
.207
.676
ZONE R -2
Landscaped
Number of
Floor Area Floor Area
Building
Surface
LOT SIZE
Lots
Ratio -1 Ratio -2
Coverage
Ratio
?23,000
3
.128 .155
.104
.793
?19,550
1
.204 .230
.143
.818
?16,100
7
.177 .206
.138
.795
?12,650
7
..180 .214
.140
.788
<12,650
2
.273 .343
.210
.703
Tot. Mean
20
.182 .216
.141
.784
Floor Area Ratio -1 =
floor arcs mLn Ui garages and porches was
used in calculating the ratio.
Floor Area Ratio -2 =
floor area in I ins garages and porches was
used in calculating the ratio.
18
t '
Table 3, continued
CALCULATED VALUES; MEANS BY ZONE
ZONE R -3
ZONE R -4
Landscaped
Number of
Floor Area
Floor Area
Building
Surface
LOT SIZE
Lots
Ratio -1
Ratio -2
Coverage
Ratio
>44,000
5
.088
.103
.063
.869
-- >37,400
4
.090
.114
.096
.835
>30,800
2
.153
.168
.089
.844
>24,200
2
.160
.179
.125
.832
<24,200
9
.164
.192
.144
.772
Tot. Mean
22
.130
.154
.102
.820
ZONE R -4
Floor Area Ratio -1 = floor area minus garages and porches was
used in calculating the ratio.
Floor Area Ratio -2 = floor area iDjdLLdLnZ91Mgcs and porches was
used in calculating the ratio.
11
19 -
Landscaped
Number of
Floor Area
Floor Area
Building
Surface
LOT SIZE
Lots
Ratio -1
Ratio -2
Coverage
Ratio
>66,000
2
.092
.109
.069
.783
>56,100
5
.072
.085
.072
.855
>46,000
0
- >36,300
0
<369000
3
.130
.145
,162
.758
Tot. Mcan
10
.093
.103
.098
.811
Floor Area Ratio -1 = floor area minus garages and porches was
used in calculating the ratio.
Floor Area Ratio -2 = floor area iDjdLLdLnZ91Mgcs and porches was
used in calculating the ratio.
11
19 -
A
TABLE 4
MEANS BY LOT SIZE
20
Total
Tot.
Tot.
# of
Site
Liv.
Fl.
# of
Bldg.
Lot
LOT SIZE
ZONE
Lots
Area
Area
Area
Fis.
Cov.
Cov.
>100,000
R-4
1
119,340
9,11,00
10,41.!
2
6,954
25,813
>60,000
- R-4
4
65,448
5,379
6,330
2
4,402
8,749
R -3
1
60,616
-
-
2
2,715
7,090
Mean
64,481
5,379
6,330
2
4,065
8,417
>40,000
R-4
2
59,608
4,300
5,125
1.5
5,125
12,514
R -3
7
46,248
4,096
4,974
2
3,637
6,836
R -1
1
41,964
3,375
3,815
2
3,780
7,880
Mean
48,491
4,065
4,879
2
3,919
8,076
>30,000
R -3
3
36,912
3,693
5,900
2
.3,353
5,747
R -2
1
33,182
3,400
4,216
2
2,763
7,931
Mean
35,980
3,596
5,058
2
3,205
6,293
>20,000
R-4
3
22,695
3,043
2,954
1
3,667
5,420
R -3
8
24,257
3,873
4,441
2
3,033
4,859
R -2
3
26,150
4,120
4,820
2
3,185
4,930
R -1
2
24,121
4,100
1,184
3
1,991
5,524
_
Mean
24,296
3,765
4,280
2
3,050
5,074
>15,000
R -3
1
19,055
3,700
4,300
2
2,756
4,103
R -2
11
16,466
2,860
3,339
2
2,232
3,457
R -1
3
16,626
2,900
3,066
2
2,496
3,863
Mean
16,670
2,925
3,349
2
2,320
3,581
.?J2,500
R -3
1
13,090
-
-
-
2,116
2,868
R -2
3
13,667
2,722
3,220
2
2,115
2,747
R -1
1
13,500
1,954
2,634
1
2,634
2,886
Mean
13,518
2,530
3,073
2
2,219
2,799
20
s
TABLE 4, continued
MEANS BY LOT SIZE
21
b
Total
Tot.
Tot.
# of
Site
Liv.
Fl.
# of
Bldg.
Lot
LOT SIZE
ZONE
Lots
Area
Area
Area
Fls.
Cov.
Cov.
?10,000
R -1
4
10,614
2,683
3,151
2
1,826
2,746
*.8,500
R -3
1
9,975
-
-
-
2,386
3,186
R -1
6
9,252
2,967
3,488
2
2,556
4,061
Mean
9,356
2,967
3,488
2
2,532
3,936
< 8,500
R -2
2
6,225
1,698
2,139
2
1,310
1,850
R -1
2
6,060
2,443
2,863
2
2,082
2,891
Mean
6,142
1,946
2,380
2
1,696
2,371
21
b
f
TABLE 5
MEANS BY LOT SIZE- CALCULATED VALUES
ap
Floor Area Ratio -1= floor area minus garagcs and porchcs was
used in calculating the ratio.
Floor Area Ratio -2 = floor amkincluding garages and porches
was used in calculating the ratio.
22
Landscaped
# of
Floor Area
Floor Area
Building
Surface
LOT SIZE .
ZONE
Lots
Ratio -1
Ratio -2
Coverage
Ratio
>100,000
R4
1
.077
.087
.058`
.784
>80,000
>60,000
R-4 -
4
.081
.096
.067
.870
R -3
1
-
-
.045
.883
Mean
.081
.096
.063
.872
140,000
R-4
2
.072
.086
.086
.790
R -3
7
.089
.107
.080
.851
R -1
1
.080
.091
.080
.812
Mean
.084
.100
.081
.835
130,000
R -3
3
.153
.168
.091
.844
R -2
1
.102
.127
.083
.761
Mean
.128
.148
'.089
.823
>20,000
R-4
3
.130
.145
.162
.758
R -3
8
.159
.183
.126
.799
R -2
3
.162
.189
.124
.812
R -1
2
.179.
.221
.084
.766
_
Mean
.155
.182
.127
.789
>15,000
R -3
1
.194
.226
.145
.784
R -2
11
.173
.203
.135
.790
R -1
3
.171
.185
.150
.783
Mean
.175
.201
.139
.788
ap
Floor Area Ratio -1= floor area minus garagcs and porchcs was
used in calculating the ratio.
Floor Area Ratio -2 = floor amkincluding garages and porches
was used in calculating the ratio.
22
f
TABLE 5, continued
MEANS BY LOT SIZE - CALCULATED VALUES
# of Floor Area Floor Area Building
LOT SIZE ZONE Lots Ratio -1 Ratio -2 Coverage
.310 .379 27
. 9
Floor Area Ratio -1= floor area mina arages and porches was
used in calculating the ratio.
Floor Area Ratio -2 = floor area including garages and porches
was used in calculating the ratio.
23
Landscaped
Surface
Ratio
.781
.799
.786
.793
.742
.681
.562
.579
.703
.519
.612
A
>12,500 R
R -3 1
1 -
- -
- '
'.162
R-2 3
3 .
.199 .
.235 .
.155
R -1 1
1 .
.145 .
.195 .
.195
Mean .
.185 .
.225 .
.164
>10,000 R
R -1 3
3 .
.250 .
.295 .
.172
>8,500 R
R -3 1
1 -
- -
- .
.239
R -1 6
6 .
.326 .
.384 -
- .277
Mean 3
326 .
.384 .
.271
<8,500 R
R -2 2
2 .
.273 .
.343 .
.210
R -1 2
2 .
.384 .
.450 .
.347
Mean .
. 9
Floor Area Ratio -1= floor area mina arages and porches was
used in calculating the ratio.
Floor Area Ratio -2 = floor area including garages and porches
was used in calculating the ratio.
23
Landscaped
Surface
Ratio
.781
.799
.786
.793
.742
.681
.562
.579
.703
.519
.612
A
Alternative Implementation Strategies
There is of course the alternative of
doing nothing and hoping that when
all the voluntarily provided plantings
in the yards mature in twenty or more
years the problem will begin to disap-
pear. There certainly is evidence of
this occuring in older suburban areas
throughout the metropolitan area. If
we track back thirty or more years to
a development that had no trees when
it was built, its present character has
been softened greatly through the
growth of plant material. Most of the
discussion in this paper, however, will
be concentrated on proactive implem-
entation strategies that can be used by
the City.
The choice of the measure will pro-
duce very different results when ap-
plied to an actual set of facts. In order
to illustrate the workings of all the al-
temadves, we have developed a series
of cases for a 20,000 square foot lot in
the R -2 district. The house in all cases
is a4,000 square foot home with a 600
square foot garage, both with 12 in 12
roof pitches. In the first case the
dwelling is a two story unit. The
second case involves a ranch home.
The third and fourth cases add recrea-
tion facilities —a swimming pool and
its deck, and a tennis court respec-
tively, to the two story home site used
in the first case. Each of the two
recreational facilities used in cases
three and four use the same lot area,
9,200 square feet. The tennis court has
a 10 foot high fence surrounding it,
while the pool is at- grade. All cases
have a driveway that covers 1,200
square feet. The fifth alternative dif-
fers from all the other sites which are
assumed not to have any existing trees
that are preserved. In the fifth case,
the home is built on a wooded lot with
1P4
preserved mature trees having a can-
opy heightof50feet. Table6contains
a full quantitative analysis of each of
these scenarios.
Floor Area or L•andscaDe Surface
E21:10
The simplest regulatory method is to
adopt supplemental intensity meas-
ures in addition to the lot.size or
density measures presently used by
the City. The most logical measures
are either a maximum floor area ratio
or a minimum landscape surface ratio
for the district. The results from either
approach is that when a building gets
too large, the lot owner will have to
acquire more land. For example, in
the R -2 district the minimum lot size
is 20,000 square feet. If a floor area
ratio of .2 were adopted then the
maximum size of the building would
be 4,000 square feet. If someone
wanted to build a 5,000 square foot
house then they would need to find a
lot containing 25,000 square feet.
Similar results could be produced
using an impervious surface ratio or a
landscape surface ratio. Once set in
the ordinance there would be an abso-
lute control.
If the floor area ratio is selected by
itself, the impact of the accessory uses
such as drives, walks, patios and decks
that do not involve a building will go
unregulated. All five of the previous
scenarios would be possible if a floor
area ratio of .2 were selected, pro -
vidcd garages were not counted as
floor area. Thus, the impact of a pool
deck, which could more than double
the amount of impervious surface or
24
halve the amount of Landscaped swr-
face would go unregulated. If the
floor area ratio is used, the definition
of floor area becomes important. If
garages are counted as floor area, the
FAR would have to increase to .23 to
accommodate our alternatives. The
definition of what constitutes a base-
ment floor also becomes critical. For
example, if this measure is used and
the house was on a sloped lot that
permitted a walkout basement, the
ranch house (case 2) could conceiva-
bly have a floorarea twice that permit-
ted by the floor area ratio. From at
leastone view point this configuration
would also increase the building to a
two story appearance.
If the landscape surface ratio is se-
lected then total development site
coverage can be controlled, but the
building volumes could vary dramati-
cally. For case one, the landscape
surface ratio would be .81. To meet a
similarLSR measure, the ranch house
would have to be reduced to 2,000
square feet of floor area, or to be built
on a lot of 30,527 square feet. If the
LSR was set to accommodate the pool
used in case three, the required land-
scaped surface ratio would have to be
.35 or less. The building volume ratio
changes dramatically as can be seen
by comparing the house with the pool,
case three, with the house with the
tennis court, case four. If the pool in
case three was be Icft off and the build-
ing doubled, a building volume of
121,600 would result, compared to the
two story at 65,000, and the two story
with tennis court at 157,600.
Thus, used singly, both of these meas-
ures contain a major loophole. This
f
can be controlled by using both stan-
dards in conjunction with one -an-
other. The only task that would re-
main at that point would be the devel-
opment of the actual standards which
would determine what would be per-
mitted. However, none of these
measures deals with the vegetation
issue.
Landscape Regulations
There are several ways to approach
the vegetation issue. Vegetation can
be a required element of the subdivi-
sion or zoning regulations. For ex-
ample, two street trees per lot having
an initial planting size of 4" would
have a volume of approximately
2,262 cubic feet or a site volume ratio
on a 20,000 square foot lot of .023.
Thus, this minimal landscaping stan-
dard would change the site volume
ratio only slightly. These trees would
double in volume in 6 -8 years. It is
clear that by setting landscaping re_
quirements on each lot, or through the
preservation of an equal amount of
existing vegetation, it is possible to
affect the balance between_ buildings
and landscape which is a very impor-
tant element in the suburban or estate
character. The illustration of two
street trees per lot is a minimum sort of
standard. Regulations could require,
not only the provision of street trees,
but, minimum plantings of trees and
shrubs on the lots as well. If eight trees
were required per lot, plus the two
street trees, a significantly different
balance is achieved. This would result
in the case 1 house having its site
volume ratio (LVR -BVR) increase
from -.328 to -.238 with the installa-
tion of the plant material. If the impact
of the plant material is based on the
eventual doubling of tree size, then the
change would be from -.328 to -.148:
a significant change in character.
In the R -3, R-4 and R -5 districts it is
possible to create a much more rural
character by requiring the establish -
mentofa hedgerow in the streetright-
cf- -way. The hedge row serves as a
t. Asual screen to the homes and signif i-
cantly alters the charac- ter of an area.
On the smaller lots this same concept
is possible, but much more difficult to
accomplish since the lots are so small.
This would mean having 8 trees in-
stead of 2 in the right -of -way and 8
treeson lotwhich results in a -.147 site
volume ratio upon planting and +.034
after the plants have doubled in size.
This represents a dramatic change in
character over what is currently re-
quired as a minimum.
Taken on its own, a given landscaping
standard is directed only at softening
the impact of buildings. It does not in
any way regulate the coverage of a lot
or the volume of the buildings. How-
ever, in combination with landscape
surface and floor area regulations tree
planting requirements can establish a
very effective set of controls that will
produce a predictable (and desirable)
community character.
There is one important problem that
needs to be addressed in calculating
the impact of plant materials. How is
the impact to be measured? On any
wet site willows will produce a heavy
mature canopy in a short time as
compared to the time required by oaks
or maples on a drier site. Different
tree species also have very different
shapes. Finally, there are important
differences between evergreen and
deciduous trees. In any planting
scheme specific assumptions will
have to be made on the type of plant
material and how to account for the
growth of the plant material. It is im-
possible to produce in an old corn
field the feel of the Sheridan or Green
25
Bay Road areas of Lake Forest where
there are many trees over 75 years
old. The required plantings will have
to be based on a character that is
achieved 5 or more years after plant-
ing.
Site Volume Ratio
The use of site volume ratios requires
that there be a numerical relationship
established for each district based on
the volume of plant material and the
volume of the development. This is
obviously the most precise measure
of the character of an area. In com-
paring the site volume ratios of alter-
natives 1 and 5, the extremes of iden-
tical development with and without
vegetation can be seen —with site
volume ratios being -.328 and +2.172
respectively. The advantage of going
to site volume as an intensity measure
is that it provides far greater flexibil-
ity to the developer or property
owner. The flexibility is created,
because there are architectural and
landscape techniques that can be used
to alter the site volumes. For ex-
ample, roof designs could be used to
reduce volume of a structure. Using
a 6 in 12 pitch roof, instead of a 12 in
12, alters the building volume down-
ward from .328 to .288. In addition,
there are ways of altering the volume
of a building by setting a floor below
grade. Finally, the impact of in-
creascdbuilding volumecan be offset
by increased landscape plantings.
The difficulty with the site volume
ratio is that it is complicated and re-
quires a significant amount of math to
determine what is possible. On the
other hand, this measure need not be
used as the primary regulatory stan-
dard. In writing development rcgula-
T
c
tions it is possible to conduct a test, as
illustrated in our examples presented
in Table 6, and determine how the
application of more commonly used
development standards (such as a
combination of LSR, FAR and land-
scaping requirements) affect the po-
tential S VRs for each of the five resi-
dential zoning districts. All develop-
ers or homebuilders who met the stan-
dards of the ordinance would get their
permits issued administratively.
For the landowner who feels the regu-
lations are too restrictive, the Plan-
ning Commission or architectural
review board could grant a deviation
pursuant to standards in the ordinance
which required the landowner to in-
crease the amount of landscaping to
match the increased amount of devel-
opment —thus maintaining a constant
SVR within the zoning district. An-
other alternative would be to require
IT
the provision of double the landscape
volume for a given increase in the
building volume once a certain
amount of development is reached on
the subject property. That means the
landscaping would have to increase as
fast or faster than the building area, or
that the architectural design would
have less volume per square foot of
floor area. Furthermore, such a com-
bined approach requires that detailed
site volume calculations need only be
performed when the amount of de-
sired development exceeds base line
standards for the district— thereby
minimizing administrative work.
.In such instances, the City could re-
quire the petitioner to hire a City -
approved consultant to determine the
required landscaping standards and to
inspect the site for the provision of
required landscaping prior to occu-
pancy permit issuance. Fees for such
26
services would be paid by the peti-
tioner. This approach would serve to
assure the desired character, provide a
greater degree of development flexi-
bility, minimize administrativeaction
(using the base lint trigger), keer City
staff responsibilities at a riir.;n:am,✓
and pass review and inspection costs
on to the petitioner.
The use of a fixed base line standard
and a procedure for seeking relief
under a more complex set of evalu-
ation rules when the desired level of
development goes beyond the trigger
point seems to be the most compre-
hensive approach in that it represents
the best of all the systems not only for
protection of community character,
but also in terms of freedom to home
purchasers to build what they want.
The landowners can make tradeoffs
and thus have to prioritize their de-
sires.
r
• r
27
TXPE OF DEV,
TABLE 6
FIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
1 2 3 4
2-story 1 -story z_Svn°°t 2- st/tennis
5
2_st. /wooded
lot area .
20,000,
.420,000
20,000
20,000
20,000
house FA
4,006
-4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000
2
bldg. cov.
2,000
4,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
garage
600
600
600
600
600
pool/deck area
-
-
9,200
-
-
tennis area
_
9,200
_
preserved
vegetation
veg. height
none
-
none
none
none
yes
drive area
1,200
-
1,200
-
1,200
-
1,200
50
1,200
BC
.13
.23
.13
.13
ISR
.19
.29
.65
.65
.13
LSR
.81
.71
.35
.35
.19
FAR w/o garage
.20
.20
.20
.20
.81
FAR w /garage
.23
.23
.23
.23
.20
.23
bldg. area
32x62.5
40x100
32x62.5
32x62.5
32x62.5
roof height
16
20
16
16
16
hL to roof
20
10
20
20
20
house vol.*
56,000
60,000
56,000
56,000
56,000
garage vol. **
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
9,600
other vol.
-
-
18,400
92,000
-
BV total
65,600
69,600
83,400
157,600
65,600
landscaping
none
none
none
none
height
-
-
-
-
.50
50 ft.
LV
-
500,000
_ BVR
.328
.348
.328
.788
LVR
0
0
0
0
.328
2.5
SVR
-.328
-.348
-.328
-.788
2.172
* _ (40,000x 16,000) alL.1,3,4, and 5
(40,000x20,000) alt. 2
** _ (600x11) +(5x600)
BC= building coverage
LV= landscape volume
ISR= impervious surface ratio
BVR=
building volume ratio
LSR= landscape surface ratio
LVR=
landscape
volume ratio
FAR = floor area ratio
BV= building volume
SVR =sift volume ratio
.ie
27
LakeForesthas been using this device
for some time. Unfortunately, the
results lead one to believe that the
issue of building scale has not been a
concern in the approval process. In-
troducing scale considerations into
the planned development approval
process is not difficult. Planned de-
velopment is a conditional use process
and improvements to the approach
could be made simply by staff and the
planning board insisting on scale
being an important design factor. It
would be better if the language of the
Ordinance could be amended to iden-
tify scale asa specific design issue that
must be addressed if the developer.is
to have the project approved. Withei-
ther the informal or formal approach
to introducing scale into the process,
all or some of the tools discussed in
this report could then be used by staff
to test the proposed plan and see if it
meets the objectives of the City.
The development community would
have to respond to such an approach
with more careful control of building
scale, better design, and increased
landscaping. They will most likely
oppose these types of changes based
T.
Planned Developments
upon both increased costs (of land-
scaping) and having to be more aware
of community concerns. However, ,
developers would soon get used to the
new system. There would be a learn-
ing curve where both the City and de-
velopers would learn how to use the
new standards, and with most learning
curves the learning would involve
making adjustments based on mis-
takes.
From the Planning Commission's and
staff view, there are several design
concepts that should be enforced in
planned developments. More effec-
tive street landscaping to betterscreen
building mass is essential. It is also
important to ,ensure that the open
space is used in a manner that reduces
the impact of small lots. In Onwentsia
Gardens much of the open space is
contained in berms that screen the de-
velopment from Route 41 and Wes -
tleigh. While that is effective for out-
side observers, once one is in the de-
velopment there are no open areas or
vegetative masses to provide relief.
Breaks in the streetscape that intro-
duce open areas and tree masses
would be the result of an open space
28
concept that brings the open space as
close to the individual unit aspossible.
The two PUD's that were reviewed
averaged 23 percentopen space. This
figure should be increased somewhat
to gain the needed sp;;: w
The provision of open space is not
enough on its own. There is a need for
heavy landscaping in the open areas
and ensuring that the open spaces are
located near the homes in order to
break up the development into clus-
ters thereby reducing the visual im-
pact of the smaller clustered lots. In
many of the older parts of the City, the
front yards have natural growth or
dense hedges in the front yards. There
are some areas where existing trees
are being saved in new developments.
On the other hand the standard prac-
tice seems to be lawns with a couple of
trees an foundation plantings. If the
scale concern is real then even in de-
velopments that do not have existing
trees, the hedgerows should be in-
stalled. While it will take time for
these to mature, it yields a better final
solution.
4'
0,
Our first recommendation is that
the City of Lake Forest adopt maxi-
mum Floor Area Ratios (FAR) and
minimum Landscaped Surface
Ratios (LSR) for each of its resi-
dential districts. In developing
these, the City should use the other
measures that have been proposed -
-BC, B VR, LVR, and SVR - -so that
the impact of the regulations is
fully understood.
A second recommendation is that
the City adopt more stringent land-
scaping regulations which encour-
age dense screening in the front
yards.
Recommendations
A third recommendation would in-
volve revising the PRD regulations
to require building scale,1U4.3cap-
ing and location of open space to be
more fully considered that has been
the case to date.
The FAR, LSR and landscaping
elements should be considered as a
package. While the more complex
measures such as site volume ra-
tios are more precise, we recom-
mend that they should be used only
to calibrate the original regulations
and to review proposed variations
or exceptions.
29
In the' PRD provisions, there
should be a requirement for more
intensive street landscaping than is
required in the underlying residen-
tial district. In addition, the open
spaces must be located and land-
scaped to reduce the impact of the
smaller lots that are permitted.
If these things are done the scale
problems that the City has idcnti-
fied will be corrected
IT
.« r
fk
0.
)'Zn'
Q
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor and Council
From: Gordon L. Hughes
Assistant City Manager
Date: May 21, 1990
Subject:
Public Hearing - Proposed
Issuance of Revenue Bonds
Recommendation:
Info /Background:
Agenda Item # °' A..
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑
To HRA
0
To Council
Action ❑
Motion
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
In accordance with the City Council's direction of April 16, 1990, we have
scheduled a public hearing and have prepared the necessary documents for
the consideration for the subject revenue bond issue. The attached draft
resolution provides for the approval of the housing program for the
project. It also grants preliminary approval to the project including the
issuance of revenue bonds for project financing and authorizes the
submission of the housing program to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
If the Council adopts this resolution, final bond documents will then be
prepared. Assuming approval by the MHFA, we expect that the Council would
consider final approval in 60 to 90 days. The Council should particularly
note Section 2.05 and 2.06 of the resolution. Section 2.05 provides that
the developers will pay all cost associated with the issuance of the bonds
whether or not the development program is carried out. Section 2.06 notes
that the City retains the right to not issue the bonds if it determines
that the issuance is not in our best interest..
Report /Recommendation - Proposed Issuance of Revenue Bonds
May 21, 1990
Page Two
Also attached is a letter from Keith Jans of Walker Methodist which
addresses three i'ssues which staff has raised concerning the proposal.
This letter verifies that Walker Methodist, Inc., will guarantee to pay all
operating deficits and debt service on the bonds. The letter also proposes
a City fee in connection with the bond issue of $25,000.00. This is
proportional to the fee that the City has received for other bond issues in
the City.
Mr. Jans' letter also addresses the concept of a covenant that the property
will remain taxable during the life of the bonds. As you know, this
property is within the South East Edina Tax Increment Financing District
and, as such, the collection of tax increments from the development is
important. Mr. Jans' letter verifies that Walker will'agree not to pursue
a tax exempt . classification for the property during the time that the bonds
are outstanding. This covenant, however, would be conditioned upon certain
tax increment collection levels being achieved. In staff's opinion, this
covenant should be unconditional.
If the Council wishes to proceed with these revenue bonds, staff recommends
adoption of the attached resolution conditioned upon a guarantee from
Walker Methodist, a City fee of $25,000.00, and an unconditional covenant
that the property will remain taxable during the life of the bonds.
its adoption:
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
FINANCING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT; GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
TO THE DEVELOPMENT, APPROVING A
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota
(the "City ") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. .
1.01. By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as
amended (the "Act "), the City is authorized to plan, administer, issue and sell
revenue bonds or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more
multifamily housing developments within its boundaries which revenue bonds or
obligations shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development or other
security pledged therefor.
1.02. The Act provides that, prior to issuing revenue bonds or
obligations to finance a multifamily housing development, the City must develop a
housing plan and, after holding a public hearing thereon after notice published at
least thirty days prior thereto, submit the housing plan for review to the
Metropolitan Council.
1.03. Pursuant to the Act, this Council has adopted a housing plan.
1.04. The Act further provides that the City may plan, administer and
make or purchase a loan or loans to finance one or more developments of the kinds
described in subdivisions 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act upon adoption of
a program setting forth the information required by subdivision 6 of Section 462C.05
of the Act after a public hearing thereon after fifteen days published notice and upon
approval by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as provided by Section 462C.01
of the Act on the basis of the considerations stated in Section 462C.04 of the Act.
1.05. Representatives of Walker Assisted Living Corporation I, a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Developer "), have advised this Council of its
desire to acquire land located within the geographical limits of the City at the
northwest corner of the intersection of York Avenue South and Parklawn Avenue
and construct and equip thereon a multifamily rental housing development
containing approximately 72 units, together with parking and related and
subordinate facilities designed for rental primarily to persons 55 or older and for
frail elderly who require managed assistance with daily activities but do not need to
be institutionalized (the "Development "). Total development and financing costs
are presently estimated by the Developer to be approximately $6,900,000.
1.06. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City
issue its revenue bonds in one or more series (the 'Bonds ") pursuant to the
authority of the Act in such aggregate principal amount as may be necessary to
finance all or a portion of the costs of the Development and make the proceeds of
the bonds available to the Developer, directly or indirectly, for the acquisition,
construction and equipping of the Development, subject to agreement by the
Developer to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the Bonds.
1.07. A multifamily housing program has been prepared pursuant to
the requirements of subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05 of the Act for the Development
and the issuance of the Bonds (the "Program "), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
A hereto. A copy of the Program has been submitted to the Metropolitan Council
for review and comment as required by the Act.
1.08. At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on May 21, 1990, in
accordance with the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, on the Program, any comments on the Program submitted by the
Metropolitan Council were presented to the Council and all parties who appeared at
the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the
Program and interested persons were given the opportunity to submit written
comments to the City before the time of the hearing.
Section 2. Approvals and Authorization.
2.01. The Program is hereby approved and it is hereby found and
determined that it would be in the best interests of the City- to issue the Bonds under
the provisions of the Act in an amount currently estimated to be $6,900,000 to
finance all or a portion of the cost of the Development.
2.02. The Development and the issuance of the Bonds to finance the
development is hereby given preliminary approval by the City. The Bonds shall not
be issued until the Program has been reviewed by the Minnesota Housing Financing
Agency as provided by the Act until the other requirements of the Act have been
satisfied, until the requirements of Section 145 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code ") and all other provisions of the Code, necessary in
order to assure the tax exemption of the interest on any of the Bonds the interest on
which is intended to be excludable from federal income taxation have been satisfied,
Fa
,l
and until the City, the Developer and the purchaser or purchasers of the Bonds have
agreed upon the details of the Bonds and the provisions for their payment. The
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on each Bond, when, as and if issued,
shall be payable solely from the revenues of the Development and the property
pledged to the payment thereof and shall not constitute a debt of the City within the
meaning of any constitutional and statutory limitation. The City Attorney and
other officers of the City are authorized to initiate preparation of such documents as
may be appropriate to the financing of the Development setting forth the detailed
terms of the Bonds, the security therefor and the provisions for payment of the
principal, premium, if any, and interest thereon in compliance with state and
federal statutes and regulations.
2.03. Pursuant to subdivision 1 of Section 462C.07 of the Act, in the
making of the loan to finance acquisition, construction and equipment of the
Development and the issuance of the Bonds or other obligations of the City, the City
may exercise, within its corporate limits, any of the powers of the Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency may exercise under Chapter 462A, Minnesota Statutes,
without limitation under the provisions of Chapter, 475, Minnesota Statutes.
2.04. In accordance with Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Act,,the
Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to cause the Program to
be submitted to the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency for review. The Mayor,
City Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City are
hereby authorized and directed to provide the Minnesota Housing Financing
Agency with any preliminary information needed for this purpose.
2.05. The Developer has agreed to pay directly or through the City any
and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Development whether or
not the Program is rejected by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; whether or
not the Development is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bonds are
issued.
2.06. The City retains the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from
participation and, accordingly, not issue the Bonds should the City at any time prior
to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to issue
the Bonds.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota
this 21st day of May, 1990.
3
t
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
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 the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted and was signed by
the Mayor whose signature was attested by the City Clerk.
4
EXHIBIT A
PROGRAM FOR A
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
EDINA, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act ") the City of
Edina (the "City ") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of
multifamily housing developments under the circumstances and within the
limitations set forth in the Act. In particular, Section 462C.05, subd. 1(a), provides
that the City may assist in the acquisition of a site and the construction of a new
development. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 authorizes such programs for a
multifamily housing development to be financed by revenue bonds issued by the
City.
It is proposed that the City issue one or more series of multifamily
housing revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition and construction of
a 72 -unit multifamily housing development located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of York Avenue South and Parklawn Avenue in the City (the
"Project "). The Project will be owned by Walker Assisted Living Corporation I, a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower "). The Borrower is an affiliate of
Walker Residence Group. The Project will be rented primarily to persons 55 or
older and is designed for frail elderly who require managed assistance with daily
activities but do not need to be institutionalized. Assisted living services will be
provided to the occupants of the Project, including the availability of three meals
daily, housekeeping, transportation, security, social and recreational activities and
managed care services.
Living units in the Project will consist of a series of separate cluster
groups with four or five units per cluster, each surrounding a common social area.
The cluster group will contain a mixture of studio and one - bedroom units including
kitchens. The units will be specially designed for frail elderly persons. The
common area amenities include a main parlor, dining room, library and social
activities room.
In establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program ") the
City has considered the information contained in the City's 462C housing plan, of
which this Program forms a part (the "Housing Plan"), including particularly (1) the
availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (2) the
availability and affordability of private market financing for the acquisition of multi-
family housing units (3) the recent housing trends and future needs of persons and
families residing and expected to reside in the City.
The City, in adopting this Program, has further considered the Program
and its compliance with the Housing Plan and its objectives and the cost to the City.
SUBSECTION A. Program For Financing the Project. It is proposed
that the City facilitate the financing of the Project. To do this, the City expects to
issue the Bonds, the proceeds of which will be lent to the Borrower and applied to
pay the costs of the Project.
It is contemplated that the Bonds shall mature in not more than thirty
(30) years and will be priced to the market at time of issuance. The principal amount
of Bonds to be issued will not exceed $6,900,000.
The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the
Program. The City intends to select and contract with a trustee experienced in trust
matters to administer the Bonds.
Insofar as the City will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel,
bond counsel, the trustee, and others, all of whom will be reimbursed from bond
proceeds or amounts paid by the Borrower, no administrative costs will be paid
from the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will not be general
obligation bonds of the City, but are expected to be paid from revenues of the Project
and any additional collateral pledged by the Borrower or an affiliate.
SUBSECTION B. Standards and Requirements Relating to o the
Financing of the Project Pursuant to this Program. The following standards and
requirements shall apply with respect to the operation of the Project by the Borrower
pursuant to this Program:
1. The proceeds of the sale of the Bonds will be used to finance the
Project, pay costs of issuance of the Bonds and establish a reserve fund for the Bonds:
The funds will be made available to the Borrower pursuant to the terms of the Bond
offering, which may include certain covenants to be entered into between the City
and the Borrower.
2. The Borrower will not arbitrarily reject an application from a
proposed tenant because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital
status, age or status with regard to public assistance or disability.
3. The Project will be operated primarily for the benefit of elderly
persons.
SUBSECTION C. Severability. The provisions of this Program are
severable and if any of its provision, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held
unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or
2
otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision
of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.
SUBSECTION D. Amendment. The City shall not amend this
Program while Bonds authorized hereby are outstanding to the detriment of the
holders of such Bonds.
3
Karen A. Struve
�.lrir;q E.rrcr,liry lljjicer
Larry A. Johnson
E.rcculirr Virr, 1- �-vsident
May 17, 1990
I�
Wakr
fall
MANAGEMENT AND
IIF VF:LOPMENT. INC.
Mr. Gordon Hughes
HRA Executive Director
Janet A. Lindbo City of Edina
Vir'r, President 4801 West 50th Street
S'Oor Housi,cy
Edina, MN 55424
SUBJECT: Edina Proposal
Ken Ward ' Dear Gordon:
Vice i'ratiic ela
211c,rkoinY I am writing in response to the issues outlined in your
letter to Larry Johnson of May 10, 1990. My response
on the issues is as follows:
Issue 1 - The structure of the proposed guarantee for
Keith S. Jans
the bond issue.
[ i,'cclor
Capik,l Devellgm nt
The covenants and guarantees associated with
the type of bond financing being pursued for
our project are typically governed by the
underwriting criteria of the institutional
purchaser.
Nellie Johnson
Ui rcc'l ur
Hrc,lllr Svrcices
There are two areas of a transaction which
are critical to the security of the bonds.
The first is a potential shortfall of revenue
to cover operating costs. The second is the
lack of available funds to pay for annual
Directors:
debt service costs.
.James Hesketh
°
( "Imi r
Gerald Kanne
In the guaranty agreement, Walker Methodist,
Vicv Omit-
Inc., the Parent corporation of the
Donald Dreblow
organization, will guaranty to pay for all
Scrrcrr „.t� Trcnsurr''
operating deficits and debt service on the
Richard Gaumnitz
Norma Larson
bonds. As additional security for the bond
William McReavy
holders, we have included a one year debt
Kathy Probelski
service reserve fund in our capital budget.
Robert Rustvold
Howard Shenehon
Issue 2 - A City fee.
It is my understanding that in two previous
bond issues, which ranged in size from
- •.bsidiaryof.. $12, 000, 000 to $15, 000, 000, the City received
IkerMe.Iliodkt.Inc. a fee of $50,000. Accordingly, based on a
proposed bond issue of up to $6,800,000, we
would anticipate paying a fee of $25,000.
Parent Company for.
N\4rlker ManxCement. Inc.
Foundations for Success in Senior Services
1t5tlker Develupnuent. Inc. 3737 Bryant Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55409 • FAX 612/827 -8431, Telephone 612 /827 -5931
Mr. Gordon Hughes
City of Edina
Page 2
Issue 3 - A covenant that the property will remain taxable during
the life of the bonds.
For the term of the bonds, Walker will agree not to
reclassify the land to a tax - exempt status.
However, in the event the tax increment financing
district is producing revenues in excess of the coverage
required by statute at the time of closing of our bonds,
based on the amount of tax increment bonded indebtedness
at the time our bonds are issued, by an amount which
equals or exceeds the amount of tax increment revenue
being generated by our property; and, there is statutory
authority to file for reclassification to tax - exempt
status, Walker reserves the right to pursue a
reclassification -
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me
at 827 -8344.
Sincerely,
Keith ns
Director of Capital Development
KSJ:mep
cc: Karen Struve
Larry Johnson
David Grant
Craig Avery
Larry ,Olson
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS
PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FINANCING A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT;
GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT, APPROVING A
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City ") as
follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. By the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the
"Act "), the City is authorized to plan, administer, issue and sell revenue bonds
or obligations to make or purchase loans to finance one or more multifamily
housing developments within its boundaries which revenue bonds or obligations
shall be payable solely from the revenues of the development or other security
pledged therefor.
1.02. The Act provides that, prior to issuing revenue bonds or obligations
to finance a multifamily housing development, the City must develop a housing
plan, and after holding a public hearing thereon after notice published at least
thirty days prior thereto, submit the housing plan for review to the Metropolitan
Council.
1.03. Pursuant to the Act, this Council has adopted a housing plan.
1.04. The Act further provides that the City may plan, administer and make
or purchase a loan or loans to finance one or more developments of the kinds
described in subdivisions 2,3,4 and 7 of Section 462C.05 of the Act upon adoption
of a program setting forth the information required by subdivision 6 of Section
462C.05 of the Act after a public hearing thereon after fifteen days published
notice and upon approval by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency as provided by
Section 462C.01 of the Act on the basis of the considerations stated in Section
462C.04 of the Act.
1.05. Representatives of Walker Assisted Living Corporation I, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the "Developer "), have advised this Council of its desire
to acquire land located within the geographical limits of the City at the
northwest corner of the intersection of York Avenue South and Parklawn Avenue and
construct and equip thereon a multifamily rental housing development containing
approximately 72 units, together with parking and related and subordinate
facilities designed for rental primarily to persons 55 or older and for frail
elderly who require managed assistance with daily activities but do not need to be
institutionalized (the "Development "). Total development and financing costs are
presented estimated by the Developer to be approximately $6,000,000.
1.06. Representatives of the Developer have requested that the City issue
its revenue bonds in one or more series (the "Bonds ") pursuant to the authority of
the Act in such aggregate principal amount as may be necessary to finance all or a
portion of the costs of the Development and make the proceeds of the bonds
available to the Developer, directly or indirectly, for the acquisition,
construction and equipping of the Development, subject to agreement by the
Developer to pay promptly the principal of and interest on the Bonds.
1.07. A multifamily housing program has been prepared pursuant to the
requirements of subdivision 5 of Section 462C.05 of the Act for the Development
and the issuance of the Bonds (the "Program "), a copy of which is attached as
Exhibit A hereto. A copy of the Program has been submitted to the Metropolitan
Council for review and comment as required by the Act.
1.08. At a public hearing, duly noticed and held on May 21, 1990, in
accordance with the Act and Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, on the Program, any comments on the Program submitted by the
Metropolitan Council were presented to the Council and all parties who appeared at
the hearing were given an opportunity to express their views with respect to the
Program and interested persons were given the opportunity to submit written
comments to the City before the time of the hearing.
Section 2. Approvals and Authorization.
2.01. The Program is hereby approved and it is hereby found and determined
that it would be in the best interests of the City to issue the Bonds under the
provisions of the Act in an amount currently estimated to be $6,900,000 to finance
all or a portion of the cost of the Development.
2.02. The Development and the issuance of the Bonds to finance the
development is hereby given preliminary approval by the City. The Bonds shall not
be issued until the Program has been reviewed by the Minnesota Housing Financing
Agency as provided by the Act until the other requirements of the Act have been
satisfied, until the requirements of Section 145 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended (the "Code ") and all other provisions of the Code, necessary in
order to assure the tax exemption of the interest on any of the Bonds be interest
on which is intended to be excludable from federal income taxation have been
satisfied, and until the City, the Developer and the purchaser or purchasers of
the Bonds have agreed upon the details of the Bonds and the provisions for their
payment. The principal of, premium, if any, and interest on each Bond, when, as
and if issued, shall be payable solely from the revenues of the Development and
the property pledged to the payment thereof and shall not constitute a debt of the
City within the meaning of any constitutional and statutory limitation. The City
Attorney and other officers of the City are authorized to initiate preparation of
such documents as may be appropriate to the financing of the Development setting
forth the detailed terms of the Bonds, the security therefor and the provisions
for payment of the principal, premium, if any, and interest thereon in compliance
with state and federal statutes and regulations.
2.03. Pursuant to subdivision 1 of Section 462C.07 of the Act, in the making
of the loan to finance acquisition, construction and equipment of the Development
and the issuance of the Bonds or other obligations of the City, the City may
exercise, within its corporate limits, any of the powers of the Minnesota Housing
Finance Agency may exercise under Chapter 462A, Minnesota Statutes, without
limitation under the provisions of Chapter 475, Minnesota Statutes.
2.04. In accordance with Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Act, the
Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to cause the Program to
be submitted to the Minnesota Housing Financing Agency for review. The Mayor,
City Manager, City Attorney and other officers, employees and agents of the City
are hereby authorized and directed to provide the Minnesota Housing Financing
Agency with any preliminary information needed for this purpose.
2.05. The Developer has agreed to pay directly or through the City any and
all costs incurred by the City in connection with the Development whether or not
the Program is rejected by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; whether or not
the Development is carried to completion; and whether or not the Bonds are issued.
2.06. The City retains the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from
participation, and, accordingly, not issue the Bonds should the City at any time
prior to the issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the
City not to issue the Bonds.
Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota this
21st day of May, 1990.
EXHIBIT A
PROGRAM FOR A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
EDINA, MINNESOTA
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C (the "Act ") the City of Edina
(the "City ") has been authorized to develop and administer programs of multifamily
housing developments under the circumstances and within the limitations set forth
in the Act. In particular, Section 462C.05, subd. 1(a), provides that the City
may assist in the acquisition of a site and the construction of a new development.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 462C.07 authorizes such programs for a multifamily
housing development to be financed by revenue bonds issued by the City.
It is proposed that the City issue one or more series of multifamily housing
revenue bonds (the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition and construction of a
72 -unit multifamily housing development located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of York Avenue South and Parklawn Avenue in the City (the "Project ").
The Project will be owned by Walker Assisted Living Corporation I, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the "Borrower "). The Borrower is an affiliate of Walker
Residence Group. The Project will be rented primarily to persons 55 or older and
is designed for frail elderly who require managed assistance with daily activities
but do not need to be institutionalized. Assisted living services will be
provided to the occupants of the Project, including the availability of three
meals daily, housekeeping, transportation, security, social and recreational
activities and managed care services.
Living units in the Project will consist of a series of separate cluster
groups with four or five units per cluster, each surrounding a common social area.
The cluster group will contain a mixture of studio and one - bedroom units including
kitchens. The units will be specially designed for frail elderly persons. The
common area amenities include a main parlor, dining room, library and social
activities room.
In establishing this multifamily housing program (the "Program ") the City has
considered the information contained in the City's 462C housing plan, of which
this Program forms a part (the "Housing Plan "), including particularly (1) the
availability and affordability of other government housing programs; (2) the
availability and affordability of private market financing for the acquisition of
multifamily housing units (3) the recent housing trends and future needs of
persons and families residing and expected to reside in the City.
The City, in adopting this Program, has further considered the Program and
its compliance with the Housing Plan and its objectives and the cost to the City.
SUBSECTION A. Program for Financing the Project. It is proposed that the
City facilitate the financing of the Project. To do this, the City expects to
issue the Bonds, the proceeds of which will be lent to the Borrower and applied to
pay the costs of the Project.
It is contemplated that the Bonds shall mature in not more than thirty (30)
years and will be priced to-the market at the time of issuance. The principal
amount of Bonds to be issued will not exceed $6,900,000.
The City will hire no additional staff for the administration of the Program,
The City intends to select and contract with a trustee experienced in trust
matters to administer the Bonds.
Insofar as the City will be contracting with underwriters, legal counsel,
bond counsel, the trustee, and others, all'of whom will be reimbursed from bond
proceeds or amounts paid by the Borrower, no administrative costs will be paid
from ;the City's budget with respect to this Program. The Bonds will.not be
general obligation bonds of t_he_Ci_ty, but are expected_ to b_e__paid_ from revenues_ -of
the Project and any additional collateral pledged by the Borrower or,an affiliate.
SUBSECTION B. Standards and Requirements Relating to the Financing of the
Project Pursuant to this Program. 'The following standards and requirements shall
apply with respect.to the operation of the Project by the Borrower-pursuant to
this Program:
1. The proceeds of.the sale of the Bonds will be used to finance the
Project, pay costs of issuance of the Bonds and establish a reserve fund for the
Bonds. The funds will be made available to the Borrower pursuant to the terms of
the Bond offering, which may include certain covenants to be entered into between
the City and the Borrower.
2. The Borrower will not arbitrarily reject an application from a proposed
tenant because of race, color, creed, religionC, national origin, sex;'marital
status, age or status with regard to public assistance or disability.
3. The Project will be operated primarily for the benefit of elderly
persons.
SUBSECTION C. Severability. The provisions of this Program are severable
and if any of its provision, sentences, clauses or paragraphs shall be held
unconstitutional, contrary to statute, exceeding the authority of the City or
otherwise illegal or inoperative by any court of competent jurisdiction, the
decision of such court shall not affect or impair any,of the remaining provisions.
SUBSECTION D. Amendment. The City shall not amend this Program while Bonds
authorized hereby are outstanding to the detriment of the holders of the Bonds.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA )
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do
hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a,true and correct
copy of the REsolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular
Meeting of May 21, 1990, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting.
WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 24th day of April, 1991.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO
ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO REFUND MULTIFAMILY
MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS (VERNON TERRACE
PROJECT) OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City ") previously
issued its Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Vernon Terrace
Project) dated as of December 1, 1986 (the "Prior Bonds ") , the
proceeds of which were loaned to Grandview Development Company
Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Original
Company "); and
WHEREAS, a corporation owned or.controlled by the trustees of
the Electrical Workers Local No. 292 Annuity Plan and Electrical
Workers Local No. 292 Pension Fund (the "Company ") proposes to
purchase the project financed with the Prior Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Company has requested the City to grant
preliminary approval for issuance of bonds (the "Refunding Bonds ")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C to refund in whole or
part the Prior Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows:
1. The City hereby gives approval to the issuance of the
Refunding Bonds.
2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, (a) all terms and
conditions of the Refunding Bonds and any security therefor shall
be in substance and form satisfactory to the City; (b) adoption of
this Resolution shall not establish any legal obligation of the
City to issue any or all of the Refunding Bonds; (c) the City
retains the right not to issue all or any portion of the Refunding
Bonds should the City or its Council determine prior to issuance
of the Refunding Bonds that it is in the best interest of the City
not to issue all Refunding Bonds; (d) the Refunding Bonds shall be
limited obligations of the City payable solely from the revenues
and funds pledged thereto and shall never constitute a charge, lien
or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of the City,
except revenues and amounts specifically pledged to the payment
thereof, and shall not constitute a general obligation or debt of
the City within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory
limitation.
3. The officers and employees of the City are hereby
authorized to execute and deliver such other agreements,
certificates or instruments, and take such other actions as may be
necessary and desirable to proceed with issuance of the Refunding
Bonds.
Adopted May 21, 1990.
Attest:
Clerk
2
Mayor
Agenda Item V.A
HENRY HYATT
35 E. WACKER DRIVE
CHICAGO, ILL. 60601
TEL 312 - 726 4083
FAX No. 312/726-0091
To: Mayor Frederick Richards
From: Henry Hyatt
Date: May 18, 199
Re: Elder Homestead -- Edina
The attached material is for your information. This
development is directly competitive to Edina Park Plaza, and it
could undermine the financial security of the City's $170,000
annual loan to us and our ability to meet the financial
requirements of the tax assessment and park fee agreements if this
project undermines our financial position'. Vernon Terrace already
has hurt us enough.
There is no market niche for this project.
HH /reb
Attachments
ji7&
Edina Park Plaza
O F E D I N B O R O U G H
An ActiveLife'" Retirement Community
April 24, 1990
Mr. Gordon Hughes
Assistant City Manager,
Executive Director
Edina Housing & Development Authority
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Mr. Hughes:
As the owners of Edina Park Plaza of Edinborough, we are writing to express our concern about
the 80 unit Elder Homestead project currently being proposed to the City for the issuance of
501(c) 3 bonds. We are dismayed to learn that the City Council has granted preliminary approval
to this project, and would urge them to reconsider their decision.
As a participant in Edina Park Plaza, the City must be aware of the extremely, difficult market
conditions for elderly housing in the area. Recent studies have indicated that there is a five to
seven year supply of senior housing in the area, and that the overall penetration rate required for
existing projects to reach 93% occupancy in the primary market area of the proposed project
approaches 17 %. Market research has consistently shown that penetration rates of greater than
10% are extremely difficult to achieve.
Edina Park Plaza is currently serving the frail elderly -- the same group that the proposed project
would serve. In fact, we have recently added a full range of assisted living programs to our menu
of services. With an average age of over 81, Edina Park Plaza experiences a turnover rate of over
25% per year.
When we reach full occupancy, projected by the end of 1990, we anticipate an annual turnover of
50 to 60 units per year. To add another 80 units offering the same services would seriously add
to the over supply of this type of housing in the market place, placing the City unnecessarily at risk
in terms of both the recently refunded bonds, and its second mortgage position for Edina Park
Plaza.
3300 Edinborough Way • Edina, Minnesota 55435 • 612/830 -0909 • Management: 612/831 -4084
.,e
Mr. Gordon Hughes
Edina Housing & Development Authority
April 24, 1990
Page Two
The City is also aware of the bond default and vacancy situation at Vernon Terrace, and a recent
market survey indicates a recent history of substantial vacancies at Rembrandt which also has an
assisted living program. FHA has suspended FHA- insurance for market rate elderly housing due
to "soft market" conditions.
If I can provide you or the City Council with more information about the market for assisted living
and retirement housing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Given the serious supply /demand
imbalance in the market place and the potential for undermining the City's financial investment in
Edina Park Plaza, we urge the City not to proceed with a venture that is almost certainly destined
to fail.
Sincerely,
Manny Kramer
i
MK:pfw
bcc: Henry Hyatt
Shelly Baskin
Dan Epstein
Bill DeWoskin
Emily Harris
Larry Wise
Bill Belanger
Denny O'Donnell
3330 Edinborough Way • Edina. Minnesota 55435 • 612/830 -0909 • Management: 612/831 -4084
EDINA PARK PLAZA
OFFERS HOME CARE
R me care covers a wide
ariety of services
offered in the resident's
home. Home is here at
Edina Park Plaza. Each
home care program is
individually designed to fit
a resident's specific needs.
Skilled nursing services are
provided by a registered
nurse. Personal care and
homemaking services are
performed by trained
home health aides under
the supervision of a
registered nurse. All these
services are available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week,
through Edina Park Plaza's
service provider, Good
Neighbor.
STAYWELL
Ruth Forberg appreciated the
assistance provided by Good Neighbor
CNA, Jarrin Fredrichs.
Good Neighbor provides many kinds of services, such as
the following:
• Skilled nursing assessment
• Registered Nurse case management
• Medication set up by a Registered Nurse
• Assistance with bathing/personal care.
• Assistance with meal preparation
• Assistance with grocery shopping
• Accompaniment to doctor's appointment
• Pet services -- walking, sitting, bathing, etc.
• Miscellaneous services including car
washing, and assistance with
correspondence
• Dietician consultation for special diets
• Medication reminders
At Edina Park Plaza you can have the feeling of security knowing a
comprehensive array of home care services are available if you need them.
Services are delivered right to your door, your place of residence, your HOME.
92
GOOD NEIGHBOR
Setting New Standards in Senior Care
64We ru.. - -- 0
lue only
lue C`�C � pecso"a \Cate
Andpy
ea � \d 9e� �c� these �mP °�t �e P hey
om c0 rK p \aZaW a there to s ab�g
„the service a Edna p \d a \ways bm�nde�s *a's s
artments eons c0� ton re W that `�
PP owing s °m and med� trat0l, \ Kwal he
Kn r We \dec�t
With 9rp0mo0 °\ vs 8sk as i tAO eels indep str \\ Gve
reNet tot dmgs p\ata, M she needs and to�abom
Were W
Edrnapark \
surronn he can gpkOp,merP chat s tea \ \y
bern9 • Ae s akes.kt
becaus non an a?estaUrant m And \ m ore'
°Whet oW \ete.�he dto socra \rz ao °r parKm
and com o her dreg �bor0�9I s in
to KeeQ o edi °ys E me\
ry Mom my Krds °A FOR N p MPS ()N.
�MPKE � Ook E °,
pER `P p,RSMENjS
�P
RE a3Q,o9� tMws p1
CARE AQpN
HE PENSpNp �1aZa
t �aY�MM�N��K
�dLn � o � G H e
6 ID I N 6 0 Edina, MN 55435 �...
tai
3330 Edinboro fno
ugh
& oak At 494
Between
n
l
o e 1 ch
N� O
fir, •..f.. �y
' • IN�bAPOMt'J
iBe6
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
KEN ROSLAND, MANAGER
A 9
Agenda Item #
VI.A
From:
Consent
MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK
Information Only
Date:
i
MAY 18, 1990
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
LOT 19, WHITE OAKS
❑
To Council
'
FOURTH ADDITION
4001 West 48th Street
Action
x J
Motion
Resolution
Ordinance
Discussion
Recommendation:
Info /Background:
See attached letter from Tom Erickson regarding the request of the Smiths
who live at 4001 West. 48th Street. A copy of the deed dated July 6, 1939 is
also attached with other data.
330 PARE AVENUE
NEW YORE, NEW YORE 10022
( 212)415-9200
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036
(202)837 -0700
3 GRACECHURCH STREET
LONDON EC3V OAT, ENGLAND
01- 929 -3334
36, RUE TRONCHET
75009 PARIS, PRANCE
01- 42- 66 -59 -49
PAR EAST FINANCE CENTER
HONG KONG
852 -5- 8612555
Mr. Fran Hoffman
City of Edina
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
Dear Fran:
DOBSEY & WHITNEY
A PA -85HIP I- LUDINO P- SSIONAL CO8M-IONS
2200 FIRST BANK PLACE EAST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
( 612) 340-2600
TELEX 29 -0605
FAX (612) 340 -2868
THOMAS S. ERICSSON
61ZS4as659
May 17,1990
Re: Part of Lot 19, White Oaks Fourth Addition
340 FIRST NATIONAL BANE BUILDING
ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA 33903
(507)288 -3856
315 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
(612) 475-0373
1200 FIRST INTERSTATE CENTER
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59103
(406)252 -3800
201 DAVIDSON BUILDING
GREAT PALLS, MONTANA 59401
(406)727 -3632
127 EAST FRONT STREET
MISSOULA, MONTANA 59802
(406)721 -6025
Mr. and Mrs. Smith who live at 4001 West 48th Street in Edina have
requested that the City vacate what they believe to be a public road easement
adjoining their property on the East. The description of the property in question is
the West 40 feet of the East 50 feet of Lot 19, White Oaks Fourth Addition. You have
given to Marc Daehn who, in turn, has given to me a map of the area and a copy of a
quitclaim deed dated July 6, 1939, from J. Frank Ecklund and Catherine T. Ecklund,
husband and wife, to the Village of Edina conveying said 40 -foot strip. The
description of that conveyance is considerably longer and more detailed than the
one used above in this letter. Also, that deed was given subject to restrictions that
the City shall use the 40 feet only for ingress and egress to adjoining properties and
that the roadway constructed and maintained upon the 40 foot strip shall not be
more than 25 feet wide with a 7-1/2 foot boulevard on each side.
It appears, from the information that you have given me, that the City
owns the property in fee simple and not just an easement for road purposes. If that
is the case and if the City no longer desires to retain ownership of that 40 -foot strip,
the properties can be conveyed by quitclaim deed to any person the City desires.
Conveyance, however, would have to be made subject to the restrictions, except
however, to the extent they may be cancelled or terminated by application of the
Minnesota 30 -year law or 40 -year law (the deed, as stated above, is dated July 6, 1939).
0
DoRsEY & WHITNEY
Mr. Fran Hoffman
May 17,1990
Page 2
However, it is possible that the grant to the City could be of only an
easement because of the ingress and egress restriction. If the City received only an
easement, then vacation of an easement would be the proper process. It is also
possible, if the city decides it has no need for ingress and egress over the 40 foot strip,
that the property would revert to the grantors, their heirs and assigns, and not to the
adjoining owners.
Whether the City wants to retain the strip of land is, of course, a policy
decision which will have to be made by the City Council. Should the City Council
decide it does not need the strip of land then I recommend that the City proceed to
vacate the strip as if it were a public street. In addition, once vacated, the City should
convey the strip by quit claim deed to those parties desiring ownership, presumably
one -half to each adjoining owner on the east and west sides of the strip. The
grantees in the deed then can attempt to resolve the issues of ownership and the
continuing enforceability of the restrictions.
If there is anything further you wish me to do, please let me know
Very truly yours,
Thomas S. Erickson
TSE:ljm
Enclosures
cc: Ms. Marc Daehn, City Clerk
Mr. Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager
gs liolc�,
G\
o
eaas a , ..
InervIdUM "j%.Su"
Form No. r. ° • • •• �•••
Ml�n.eey UnNenw cawvrmle0 slanb (IM).
� � 3nbemre, .lfade this — .... _ ...... S h ................:
.day of....... ..... I,13,11L.. ................:._.......... 19 39 .
between_ - ...................._..................----...._._....-..-.._..................-,.................. ........................_......
J. prank 3cklund and Catherine T. Ecklund. cuebend and wife,
of the County of. Aenneyi4- _ ......................... ------- and State of. ..................
Yinae�ota
Part-W--of the first part, ands.... yi. R._ S.. A.C._ eE... O. la/ A._......./ il��ir�. s. r.. �........Ce.�P...e.�S.!F.r.�.eN
-- ........_...-•- .... .......................... ......
of the County o %_ ... - ........ _1e =coin_ ....................... _ -ad. State of_ ...... Nianeeota -. -- - -- .........................._...
part.y_.. —_ _of the second part,
Ef ntSM0, That the said part_1.0.2 ......of the first part, in coneideratiorn of the sun. of
�e_�n113r_And_.otaer val�la consideration _DOERS,
to them — __--in hand paid by the said part of the second part, the receipt whereof is
hereby acknowledged, 4°.......... - -. -t - �t s Grant. Bargain. Quitclaim, and Convey unto the said port�Y
• of the second part. 10 _31 '0} 1� and awifw, Forever, all the traet___..or parcel---of land lying
and being in the Co a ....._ -and State of .Vinnasota. deseribed as follows,
g County of.--- -Z...AA @V.tn -
- to-wit:
111 that part of Lot Nineteen (19), ;/Hite Cake Fourth (4th) Addition.
Hennepin County. Minnesota, described as follows, vis; Commencing at a point on the
Northerly (front) line of said Lot Nineteen (19) distant Ten (10) Feet Westerly as
measured along toe said Northerly line from the Northeasterly corner of said Lot
Nineteen (19); thence Westerly along the said Northerly line of said lot a distance
of Forty (40) Feet; thence Southerly in a straight line parallel with the Westerly
line of said Lot Nineteen (19) to a point in the Southerly (rear) line of said Lot
distant Twenty -Five (25) Feet Masterly measured along the said Southerly line of
said Lot from the Southwesterly corner thereof; hence masterly Forty (40) Feet
along said Southerly line; thence Northerly in a straight line parallel with the
Easterly line of said Lot Nineteen (19) to the point of beglming;-all according to
the survey and plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of
Deeds within and for Hennepin Comity. Minnesota.
i This conveyance is made subject to the following express restrictions. which
1 restrictions the Grantee �
accepts, and, as part of the consideration hereof, hereby assumes and agrees to
carry out. vis= That the premises herein conveyed shall be used oily for purposes of
ingress and egress to seslats adjoining property , and for
Ino other purpose; and that any roadway, driveway. or walkway constructed or maintained
over and upon said premises herein conveyed shall be not more than twenty-five 25
(feet wide as graded. constructed. or maintained, and that there shall be a boulevard
strip on each side of any such roadway, driveway, or walkway at least seven and one -half
\(7) feet in width.
90 40t Mb b MR& OX &aft. Together with all the hereditarnente and appurtenances there-
unto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to the said the second part, -_..A**_ �•
and assigns, Forever. ire s..cc.r.•e+
Ja IUSUnMW The said part_19.t_...vf the first part ha39.Jwreunto art their
haa,dri -the day and year first above written.
In Presence of
4r.•...._._.._ . ............................... ...................
c6tate of Ainnegota, 1
-... .. — ..... _ ........
--
....... ..... .•........ ..... 1._ --
`AS.
County of - - ...................... f
. �C
on this............... /0.._...... -day of .. 1P. before rue.
a..._.._....... No- OBry. .P.Ublic......... ...... ,._....- __.wit . and for said County. per tonally appeoired
T.-. prsnlc- Ecklund.and..Gataeriu4..T . ok1Mc ---
�t�bltAiA.- e�..wiYe,....... ...........
- - --
-.- ....... ................. ....... ............... ......... .................... .............................. ............................... _...........------•.--
to ne known to be the persons ...... -._.. described in, and who executed the foregoing inetrurnent,
............................... ....... .................... .......-- --- -- ---. and acknowledged
Sum Nedl
the same as_-..._.,.- v$@i= ...... _ .... _ ... free act and dead ............... .........._.- ....._..._...._ —....
.Votard t�awniy..ilhua.
!iM�r PeYin Hrspoi•wsr� Yl:s
+�:� Gowunissim
$Alnnp'-'% Form No.
1 00 No - — -- - -------------------
0 QUIT CLAIM D
Individual to ludlTm
J, FRANK
.......... . ......
TO
VILLAGE OF ED
.. ....... . .. . .. .. .......
Office of Register of Deeds,
Otatt Of Iffilt!"to.
' PW
Co&fy Of-.--. jiJENNE
. . . . . . ..................................... .. . I
I hereby certify that the within Dead
wa$filed In thin 6W for record on Me
day of.
.
19.... at . ..
and I.
duty reeorded in Hook
of Deeds, Pajfe . .. 16 7 . ......... ate.
ARTHUR P
.At
Refloler oi"b*
Bp�5Z2� "J ="' ' .__. . Pp
Taxes for the year 19 on the lands
describrd tvilhin., paid Chia ............ . ..... . ......
dayof.- ... ... I . . . ...... 1 19..- ....._..
........... ... .. .......................
County Treasurer.
By... . . ........ ................ ...... .. .. ..........
Taxes paid and Transfer entered this
d4y of . . ....
. .. ............... .............................................
County df4lltor.
By............ ..................
I
I I
WHITZ OAKS FOURTH A3)3)N
W—.—" Ft. —of B. 50 Ft.
LO t 19
RANSW (etji CA ED
SEP 5 .19N
P. E oft AVOITOR
r
a
X
a
S
66
60
4
-5.
(36)_
(32)
( 120)
( 123) (23) ; ( 19)
48TH
ST
IN
: i
-
F
—
5.
5
9
�.
e
-- --- - - -- --
---- -- -
ti
- -- -- --------
545 ;
miff
,ttN ,id�Al
,
(7
z
PAW R
zee: z
.
a
n 8
8
(48)
z
( 49;
(5)
480
r
ze. z
7
50 -----
C=
4819
(/)
re e
S„
-�
7 0
zz
e
4824
Q
s
13)
r
4 -
W
��u
y,
4830
;
C)
)
821ts
SIS
a7o
55
Q
4846
C-)
C
Z
t6-
e)
(10)
re.
821flil
Ain
LL.
82
9
•uT
I�� ®��
®I
Q ® ®�
(39) 485
- e
'
T
71 7f
]'' 9
2'
-_-------'_
'r7
�43)
(la) l
(1 )4854
:.
4137)
3940
W
W
920 918
A
._
49TH
s A
P.
ST
.s
a4
��
�
393513125
7S
;
a..
60
(105)
o
(Iti) _
(i10)
er , S
�(3) �1l S Fit (I) (2')
'•
c
W
'
I
..
c
•
7 .n nl• .
;..-...-...-..
o
• _.
7
nl _II
-------
.QT
i
ANN I
108)
t
VYIr O<
l( 75
(3O)
:LOT rx
'LOT S4
r�
(I
( c
_
,of 7e
(34)
O)
(
2
(35)
rr
48���•�
: 39
-CL
f h
OPP" r"
„ /
1---
.ty
1e2
49 1/2 ST W
-----
A- ,:9 - - - --
a
X
a
(
i
66
60
4
(36)_
(32)
( 120)
( 123) (23) ; ( 19)
e9N
: i
-
I 2s�
- -- ,
LOT 71
$ n � e° �. - --- -- ----
-- --- - - -- --
---- -- -
ti
- -- -- --------
545 ;
;
��
,
(20
1
PAW R
PART IF r- -i
.
a
(
i
PETITIOw To VACATE STREET
TO THt HONGRAi;LL COLAC I L OF TEE CITY LF Ei:I
LATEC /10 / 9 It
The: unucrsigned reprebL; nt that they are the majority of owners of real property
aLutt ing on thu line of Let iq W'es+ y0ff -.
u .T- c1� - - -- to __ and
petition that said portion oT sa ic•. street Ue vi catc.�_' + T;- r cts and reasons for this
application are as fol loj,s: ,1,'5 tic p,;bljc ja,;;pesc_, 'The- hc,rkew'.I%!r; L.C„Id it ke -ft
►ZV►nf r ^�ne,� i�rrt(�r igg' i.,►l��h h45 C•C(Clec{ 'tke- yellr5ai- the e 1c) c:•f Y112. -,rrzli/e t,vru.ry. ivlc!,7
IvY►�L''i T4/lt� ��'pG II L �fQ / {/� • %it I,IL . ^.M�. tiv :TGrlr. �/1eCriiC� /► ti Q-4 (.�
In ccnsid fat ion 0 vacating ��� stre't; asrh r ih Pet ition"U7tQ unders�15nec� �`'''''�r
jointly and severally waive any and all claims for any danages resulting from the C`''I«r'
vacating and discontinuing of said street.
SIGi:ATURE CF CWI;Ei;:,
`/.j
t�
This petition was circulated Lv
ADDRESS
g2.9.-4S4's
CESCRIFTIC:`: CF P CIERTY
o e�
Cn
J•'N�RPON`tsJ
,Sao
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To:
MAYOR AND COUNCIL
� Agenda Item #
yI •A
From:
MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK
Consent
u
Information Only
Date:
MAY 21, 1990
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
Subject:
LOT 19, WHITE OAKS.
E
To Council
FOURTH ADDITION
4001 West 48th Street
Action
—�
iU
Motion
I
Resolution
r—�
Ordinance
Discussion
Recommendation:
Info /Background
R.M. (Red) Smith, Jr., 4001 West 48th Street, stopped in my office this morning
and asked me to advise the Council that he is withdrawing his request for the
City to vacate the public road easement adjoining 4001 West 48th Street.
He said the property has been sold and the new property owner may pursue this
this at a later date.
I
. 4 gZl��l��
o e� tit
O
• �Nn7RPOM��°� •
lase
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Francis Hoffman
City Engineer
Date: 21 May, 1990
Subject: Release of Temporary
Construction
Recommendation:
Agenda Item # I— B.
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA
[� To Council
Action ❑ Motion
❑ Resolution
❑ Ordinance
❑ Discussion
Release Temporary Construction Easement on Lot 36, Block 1, Oscar Roberts
First Addition.
Info /Background
The City obtained a temporary construction easement for a sanitary sewer in
1957. The easement was. to end upon completion of the pipe construction.
However, since it lacked an end date on the easement, a problem has risen
and the request is to clear the issue by quit claim from the City. Therefore,
we recommend granting the quit claim deed as requested.
U1 lL Y
CENTER
May 17, 1990
City of Edina
Attn: Marcella
City Clerks Office
RE: 7201 Heatherton Circle, Edina, MN
Marcella:
7600 Parklawn Avenue
Edina, Minnesota 55435 -5174
(612) 835 -7600
Per our conversation, enclosed is a copy of the title
binder which indicates the problem we have with the
portion of the easement which was created for construction
purposes only.
Attached is a Quit Claim Deed which needs to be executed
to release the construction portion.
Please take this to the City.Council and obtain a signature
so that we may close on this property as scheduled on
May 24, 1990 at 12:30 p.m.
Thank you very much for your kind assistance in this
matter.
Sincerely, --
Barbara Fisher, REALTOR
Closing Department
REALTY CENTER, INC.
BF /b
Enclosure
Personal Interest
Professional Results
....
Page No. 2 ....,� {
9. Sewer easement over the.North 30 feet of the East 3/4 of the South 1/2
of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 28 North, Range 24 West* }
except road, as shown in Doc. No. 525875.
10. Above Doc. also contins an ambigiou onstruction easement description
which reads as follows- Together with a construction easement for
entry onto the land of the North Sixty (fi3O) feet of above land the East
Three- fourths (E 3/4) of the South One -half (S 1/2) of the Northeast
Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Thirty -one (31). Township Twenty -eight (28)
North, Range Twenty -four (24) West, except road, which construction',
easement hall cease and.,.terminate, upon 'the completion of the sewer:,
Cecontract modification amendment. or' release of above Doc. will be
required or it will be shown,on thei4inal policy as an'exception.
If there are any questions Concerning this Commitment,! please call Michele
Meier at 339 -5185. ,, ,
Aires Doff
Won
a l�m
BASEMENT FOR 3ANIU RY SEWER
THIS INSTRUMENT, -Made thisS _day. of ' , 19§4, by
and between r�'Q iliaf■d�`:C. "�OiIA� �ffi'+$!�t
j of the County of Hennepin
and State of Minnesota, parties of the first part, and the Village of Edina,
a municipal corporation organized under the laws of .the State of Mi..nfi setar,
party of the second part;
h'ITNESSETH, That the said parties of the first part, in considera-
tion of One and no /100 (1.00) Dollars, to them-in hand paid by the said party
of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do Grant)
Bargain, Sell, .Convey and Warrant to said party of the second part an Easement
in perpetuity for sanitary sewer purposes, including the right to enter for the
purpose of constructing, maintaining, altering, repairing and reconstructing
a sanitary sewer system in and over the following described property situate in
the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, to -wit:
(t sm at the doitth aw"t (8j) of am 1exam"t
ON~ 11ML% at Assuaa lh&tvk� (314
t now -SEMBPWOON (W
Mate ft -seed.
'�� ed1� a �oslta® �sewm�t ate � m1e
*0 in& ter as loarlh e3sdOpr (60) test - et ibe .fat
L. the met W ad eemem - aos G'W
lbmhip t NW*o BMW loom' (�)
West's "not V614 Imeh swetvesum see mmt shall
cease and ate vpm Us of the neow
e0nt mate
It is the intention and agreement of the Parties hereto that the party
of the second hart shall in the construction, or maintenance of said sanitary
sewer replace any shrubs or sod removed by any excavation in connection with such
construction or maintenance work, in as nearly as possible the same condition as
before such excavation.
And it Is Wad that ho part of the eost of the above sever shall
be assoned 0~ the &wwUnd proWtw.
IN WITNESS.WHEREOF, The said parties of the first part have hereunto
set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.
In- Presence of:
OL
_A� -
Ll LIZ"
.- 2z'z".. -.4. . E -
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN _
On thi day of , A.D. 19.,�, before
me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
and
to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that they executed the same as their free act
and deed.
(Notarial Seal)
JACK BIGLER,
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minn.
My Com-mission Expires Jan. 4,1963.
-- - -•=-r _.�,5�';��s�8'�� .:fleas.- - �.. - —
525875
f0{BTERED YO PAU
OF-REWMAIll OITLES
OF MINNESOTA F T
or "Imumm
r cerfNI that the wIfbIn Ingfrumed
was ske in ms onict on the
27 der of MAN A. D. 1957st
V 0o
�Dell'tlTY fifi�l� �
ENTERED
MAR 261957
ROBERT F. FITZSIMMONS, A11011d.
HEN P COUNTY, MINN.
DEPUTY
Form No. 32•M QUITCLAIM DEED
Corporation or Partnership
to Joint Tenants
Minnesota Uniform GonveYancing Blanks (1878)
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate
of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required
Certificate of Real Estate Value No.
,19
County Auditor
by
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ 1.65
Date: May , 19 90
Miller-Davis Co.. Minneapoin
(reserved for recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, City of Edina, formerly Village of Edina
,a Mu n i n i nal rorporatickmder the laws of
Minnesota , Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to Amarj it S. Brar and
Rimin Rrar, hushand and wife, and Shakuntla Santram , Grantees
as joint tenants, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows:
That part of Lot 36, Block 1, Oscar Roberts First Addition lying within
the South 30 feet of the North 60 feet of the East 3/4
of the South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 28 North,
Range 24 West.
The purpose of this deed is to release the temporary construction
easement granted to the Village of Edina, now City of Edina, in and
over the above described 30 foot strip of land by easement for Sanitary
Sewer dated March 5, 1957, and filed as Document No. 525875, Office of
the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Thee consideration for this deed is $500.00 or less.
(if more space is needed, continue on back)
together with all heredltaments and appurtenances belonging thereto.
City of Edina
By
Its _ Mayor
By
Its City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
SS.
COUNTY OF Hennepin
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of May '19 90
by — and
the Mayor and City Clerk
'
of City _of Edina ,a Municipal Corporation
under the laws of Minnesota , on behalf of the - Municipal Corporation
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK)
� I
SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Tax Statements for the real property described in this instrument should
be sent to (include n&me and address of Grantee):
Amarjit S. & Bimla Brar
Shakuntla Santram
7201 Heatherton Circle
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS): Edina, MN 55435
i
REALTY CENTER, INC.
7600 Parklawn Avenue S.
Edina, MN 55435
4
STATUS REPORT
South Suburban Detoxification Services
Minnesota counties are mandated by state law to provide
detoxification services for county residents or persons found
inebriated in the county. In response to a request from
Hennepin County in 1980 Fairview Southdale Hospital opened the
Fairview Receiving and Evaluation Center (F.R.E.C.). In the
past ten years F.R.E.C. has provided safe detoxification for
over 16,000 persons with the demand increasing each year.
The detox center is counted on by the southwest suburban
communities for two reasons. First, it provides a safe
environment for inebriated persons to detoxify and receive
referrals for additional help. Secondly, it provides a
resource for the community police departments to bring
intoxicated individuals who are creating a public nuisance or
a threat to safety. Most admissions are brought in by police
and have been picked up for public intoxication, a driving
offense or for involvement in a domestic dispute.
F.R.E.C. services the southwest suburbs. The people are
brought in from the suburbs and the majority reside there.
(See attachment A) 83% of admissions are first time
admissions signifying that F.R.E.C. serves a population
amenable to further help. 75% receive a referral for further
assistance. F.R.E.C. enables the police to maintain a safe
and tranquil community while at the same time provides
effective help for the intoxicated person.
THE PRESENT PROBLEM
In a cost cutting measure the Hennepin County Board of
Commissioners has voted to reduce suburban detox capacity by
46 %. They have voted to discontinue the contract with
F.R.E.C. effective May 31, 1990. Should F.R.E.C. close the
southwest suburbs would be without detox services in the
community. The two remaining centers in downtown Minneapolis
and Plymouth are difficult to access because of the time
needed for travel by police. Even if the access problem were
solved there is inadequate capacity.
The southwest suburban communities are very concerned and many
leaders would like to pursue a political solution by going
back to the commissioners to get funding restored. Fairview
Southdale Hospital is willing to maintain operation of this
important service beyond May 31, 1990 should the political
solution require additional time. The financial impact of
doing that is considerable. Therefore there is significant
urgency in rallying the political support as quickly as
possible.
May 10, 1990
FACTS
CUTS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY SUBURBAN DETOXIFICATION SERVICES
-- Suburban detoxification services in Hennepin County will be
cut 46 percent (from 41 beds to 22 beds) effective June 1.
-- In mid -April the Hennepin County commissioners voted to cut
the annual budget for suburban detoxification from $940,000
to $640,000.
-- Hennepin County funds for suburban detoxification will go
only to Union City Mission Care in Plymouth. Fairview
Receiving and Evaluation Center in Eden Prairie will receive
no Hennepin County funding, putting the program in jeopardy
of closing. See attached sheet for numbers of people from
southwestern Twin Cities suburbs who received care at
Fairview Detox.
-- In November, 2020 Adolescent Receiving Center
(detoxification for adolescents) near downtown Minneapolis
closed because of lack of Hennepin County funding. If you
include their 14 beds, a total of 60 percent of the detox
beds in the county have been cut (from 55 beds to 22 beds)
FACT SHEET
Fairview Receiving and Evaluation Center
Detoxification Services
-- Provides sub -acute detoxification, assessment and referral services; includes
24 -hour nursing care
-- Established in 1980, served more than 17,000 patients
-- Location: in Eden Prairie (Hwy. 169 & Valley View Road) in southwest Hennepin
County
-- 19- person capacity
-- The center cared for 10 percent more patients in 1989 than in 1988 (2,100 in
1988. and 2,300 in 1989)
-- Hennepin County pays for 65 percent of center's patients (those from Hennepin
County unable to pay); remaining 35 percent comes from insurance, Scott and
Carver counties and self -pay
-- Average length of stay 2.03 days; shortened from 1988's 2.4 days, due to
increased efficiencies, resulting in ability to care for more patients
-- 75 percent of patients are between ages of 18 - 44
-- 22 percent of patients are women
-- Cocaine -using patients increased dramatically; in 1986, 2 percent of patients
said they'd used cocaine compared with 9 percent in 1989
Recividism:
-- 83% of those admitted do not return
-- In the center's 10 -year history, 2 percent of the patients have been at the
center more than 5 times
-- .02% of the patients have been at the center more than 15 times
5/10/90
I
Jeff Spartz
Ist District
(Term expires Jan. 1991)
Randy Johnson
2nd District
ITerrn expires Jan. 1993)
John Keefe
3rd District
(Term expires fan. 1993)
John E. Derus
4th District
(Term expires Jan. 1991)
Tad Jude
5th District
(Terre expires Jan. 1993)
Sam S. Sivanich,
Chairman
6th District
(Term expires Jan. 1991)
Mark Andrew,
Vice Chairman
7th District
ITcrm expires Ian. 1991)
Hennepin County Commissioner Districts
Produced by die I lennepin Counly Public Affairs rkpartment.
IIErIrrEPlrr ilennepin Counly does not dimthrdnate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex,
handicap, marital status, affectional preference, public assistance status, aindital recorJ, or
national origin. If you believe you have discriminated against by I lennepin County, contact the
Affirmative Action Programs Drpadment, A•303 Governinent Center, Minneapolis, hiN 55487,
(612) 3484096 or 1DD (612) 348.5467.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
` Procedures and Organization
A few words about Hennepin County govemment
The Hennepin County Board Is the governing body of Hennepin County.
The county provides a wide variety of services including health
programs, social services, financial assistance, law enforcement, courts,
corrections, transportation, solid waste management, and suburban
libraries.
The County Board's responsibilities include establishing a county budget
and lax levy; establishing policies for delivery of services; approving
contracts; and appointing key staff members.
I lennepin County has about one million residents, an annual budget of
$970 million and 8,500 employees. Other than the state itself, It is the
largest unit of government in Minnesota. Of the nation's more than 3,000
counties, l lennepin Is one of only about 15 that have triple A Qedit
ratings from both Moody's and Standard & Poc r's.
Meet the County Board
Each Commissioner Is elected for a four -Year term from one of the seven
districts in I lennepin County. Commissioners are:
a
,
Jell spans Randy Johnson John Keefe John E Derus Tad Jude
1318-3085) (38-3088) (30,30871 1348-3086) 131&.VVtl1
In District 2nd District 3rd District 4th District Rh District
SamS.slvanlel% Nls,k,tnd,e .
Chairman %7ceChai,man
43483082) (34s - .1030)
6th District 7th District
The Board Room and Commissioners' offices are located at:
Printed on recycled paper A•2400 Government Center
300 S. Sixth St.
Minneapolis, NIN 55487 -0240
RESOLUTION
- The Hennepin County.Board of Commissioners has voted not to extend the
contract for the Fairview Receiving and Evaluation Center beyond May 31,
1990, and
- One suburban facility does not have adequate capacity to serve the needs
of the suburban communities, and
- The distance of the Plymouth facility presents time and personnel
problems, and
- The community relies on Fairview Receiving and Evaluation Center to
provide safe detoxification for inebriated persons, and
- Intoxicated people who cannot be admitted to a detoxification center
present a threat and danger to the safety and tranquility of the
community, and
The role of detox is to provide early intervention and prevention of harm
to others, and
- The south suburban communities of Hennepin County have the largest
population and receive the lowest level of detoxification services, and
- The City of Edina understands the need for certain Hennepin County budget
cuts;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Edina City Council asks the Hennepin
County Board of Commissioners to continue the funding for detoxification services
with the Fairview Receiving and Evaluation Center in Eden Prairie, but that this
funding be done so that available funds for all Hennepin County detox centers are
distributed on a pro -rata basis.
ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1990.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS
CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk of the City of Edina,
Minnesota, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its regular meeting on April
16, 1990 and as recorded in the Minutes of said regular meeting.
Marcella M. Daehn
City Clerk
Muwm N. Malt
5227 Oak{aum Avenue
E inzMN55424 VI .D
OIL-
de
via
all
Ace
M
1p. N A. fir f
o e r.
71 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
Hry �may,
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM : Bob Kojetin, Director.Park and Recreation.
VIA: Kenneth Rosland. City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE. May 14, 1990
VII.A.
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Roof ton air conditioning for Braemar Golf Course
Company catering kitchen.
Amount of Quote or &d .
1. .Flare Heating & Air Conditioning
$5,335.00
2.' Gopher Heating
2. $6,871.00
3• Thermex
$, $5,974.00
4..
4
5.
5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR'BID: .
Flare Heating and Air Conditioning $5,335.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
.The catering kitchen and old kitchen of Braemar Clubhouse was never
air conditioned with original improvement of
Braemar Clubhouse.
This would be. a rooftop air conditioner for
the catering kitchen.
l ,
The Recommended bid is
within budget not
Wallin, Finapke Director
Kenneth Roslanh City Manager
At
n REQUEST FOR. PURCHASE
TO :' Mayor Richards and City Council
FROM: Bob Kojetin, Director
VIA: Kenneth Rosland. City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE. May 18, 19.9.0
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
Air Conditioning for Senior
Center at Edina Community
Company
Amount of. Quote or Bid
1. Flare Heating and Air'Conditioning
1 $6,703.00
2. Air Comfort,. Inc.
2. $'5,000.00
3. ARI PIechanical Services, Inc.
3. $15,000.00
4.
4
5.
5
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
Flare Heating and Air Conditioning $6,703.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This air conditioner is to be placed on the roof
of the third floor of
the'Senior Center over the School Board room and
School Board faculty
lounge area. This does not include electrical to
the unit but will be
worked out with the City.and the School District
at the time of installation
Signat re Department
The Recommended bid is
within budget not w' n get • o Wallin, Fin
Kenneth Rosl nd City Manag
Director
ter
° C REQUEST FOR PURCHASE
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM. Francis J. Hoffman, Director of Public Works
VIA:. Kenneth Rosland City Manager
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000
DATE 21 May, 1990
AGENDA ITEM V I I 155D .0 .
ITEM DESCRIPTION: Hoist for Utility Vehicle. 70 -267
Company Amount of Quote or &d
1. LaHass Mfg. & Sales, Inc. 1. $ 6,985..00..
2'• J. Craft, Inc. 2. $ 7,823.00
3. 3:
4. 4.
5. 5.
RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID:
LaHass Mfg. & Sales, Inc. $ 6,985.00
GENERAL INFORMATION:
This purchase is to install a hoist.on the utility
box of Vehicle 70 -267. This purchase is funded by
utility funds. This purchase is a replacement of
an existing hoist on the unit.
Public Works Utility
Signatur' Department
The Recommended bid is
--,°r
within budget not within
Kenneth Rosland, City
.e Dir
MINUTES
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
MAY 15, 1990
9:00 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Fran Hoffman, Chairman
Alison Fuhr
Gordon Hughes
Bob Sherman
MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Swanson
OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Schneider, 5200 Halifax Avenue
Mr. Ron Fosburgh, 6423 Colony Way, #1F
Mr. Mike Hogan, 5808 Johnson Place
Ms. Jean Colwell, 5401 Oaklawn Avenue
Mr. and Mrs. Dennis LaFrance, 5357 Oaklawn Avenue
Ms. Cindy Robb, 5337 Oaklawn Avenue
Ms. Marlys Halls, 6330 Barrie Road
Ms. Maria Mitschke, 6423 Colony Way
Ms. Helen Burrichter, 6423 Colony Way
Ms. Sandy Witzel, 6400 Oaklawn Avenue
Ms. Sue Love, 6423 Colony Way
Ms. Lynn Timmer, 5348 Oaklawn Avenue
Mr. and Mrs. Warren Faxon, 6423 Colony Way
Mr. Mike Hogan, 5808 Johnson Drive
Captain Leonard Kleven, Edina Police - Department
Ms. Joan Waterstreet, Edina Police Department
Officer Brandon Deshler, Traffic Enforcement Unit, Edina Police
SECTION A
Requests on which the Committee recommends approval as requested or modified,
and the Council's authorization of recommended action.
(1) Discuss pedestrian safety concerns on West 50th Street between Halifax
and France Avenues.
Continued from March 1990 meeting.
ACTION TAKEN:
Mr. Hoffman reviewed the discussion which took place at the March meeting.
We were, at that time, looking at possibly changing how the intersection
works, possibly banning right turns on red lights, and also checking into
pedestrian safety. Mr. Hoffman stated that he felt we could not ban right
turns on red during peak hours, and that he was not sure about stopping
traffic all ways to allow for pedestrian crossing. He felt that any major
changes might best be adhered to if they "accompanied the major re- construc-
tion phase of 50th and France in the next year. Also he suggested the
possibility of banning right turns on red between the hours of 9:00 AM and
3:00 PM. He was still concerned with the fact that drivers tend not to
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 15, 1990 - - - -- — - -- -
Page 2 - -
yield to pedestrians and also cut "behind" pedestrians once they have
started to cross.
Mrs. Fuhr questioned if Mr. Hoffman would ban right turn on red just from
Halifax Avenue, and also asked if any "foot patrol" had been conducted since
the March meeting. Mr. Hoffman answered that he would think all four
directions would have the right turn ban. Captain Kleven offered that,
due to resource limitations within the Police Department, Police Reserves
had been patrolling on foot in the area on Fridays through Sundays.
Officer Deshler said that even though the crosswalks are marked and the
signs are lit, his observation is that most pedestrians will still wait for
clear crossing. He also stated that he personally had not observed many
pedestrian crosswalk violators. He was more concerned with the fact that
West 50th Street from France to Halifax has become almost cluttered with
signs, light posts, planters, etc. that it is almost impossible for a ped-
estrian to be seen until he or she has fully stepped off the curb.
Mr. Hughes asked if the merchants had any input. Mr. Hoffman replied that
their main concerns seemed to be more in the area of adequate parking, etc
A citizen at this point stated that his major complaint was actually that
vehicles turning right on red rarely come to a complete stop before pro-
ceeding which is what makes crossing during the pedestrian sequence so
hazardous. Others agreed with him. He asked if this was a violation and
if citations had been written for this conduct in the past. Captain Kleven
replied affirmatively to both questions. He also stated that emphasis could
be placed on enforcement of turning violations, but warned that parking a
squad in the area might actually impede traffic.
Mr. Hughes' concern was that half way down the block (between Halifax and
France) we have "STOP FOR PEDESTRIAN" signs that drivers choose to ignore.
He felt that "NO RIGHT TURNS ON RED" signing would also be ignored and also
might add a false sense of security to crossing pedestrians. However, Mrs.
Fuhr felt that there was a definite need in the area and what could we do
now.
Mr. Hughes moved to have this item forwarded to the Police Department for
enforcement efforts at their discretion. Mr. Sherman seconded the motion.
Motion carried 3 -1.
(2) Request for limited parking signs at West 65th Street and Barrie Road.
Request received from Marlys Halls, Site Manager, The Colony of Edina
Condominiums, 6330 Barrie Road, and 16 local residents.
ACTION TAKEN:
Mr. Hoffman reviewed the agenda request. Captain Kleven then stated that
he had spoken with Ms. Halls on two occasions and the concerns were really
with the paid parking at the hospital lot and the employees who were using
this area for all day parking. His suggestion was to ban.parking one space
south of the driveway and restrict the street parking to 2 hours as in the
lots.
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 15, 1990
Page 3
Mr. Hoffman asked the residents present if they felt 2 hours was adequate
for them and their potential visitors or if possibly a 4 -hour restriction
might make more sense. Captain Kleven offered that due to shift changes,
etc., in the Police Department, 2 -hour parking restrictions were much more
easy to enforce then a 4 -hour restriction. Mr. Sherman suggested going with
the 2 -hour restriction and possibly having The Colony write a letter to
the-.- hospital with regard to their employees parking in the area. Mr. Hoffman
believed that this would do little good. Also discussed were restriction
of any parking or the use of a 3 -hour restriction.
Mr. Hughes moved to prohibit parking on the west side of Barrie Road
approximately 25 feet south of the driveway of 6423 Barrie Road and to
restrict parking to 3 hours on the west side from this point to West 65th
Street. Ms. Fuhr seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0.
(3) Request for "NO PARKING - NO STOPPING - ANYTIME" signs on the west side of
the east frontage road in front of the Edina Community Center.
Request received from Lily Schroeder, Principal, Edina Kindergarten Center,
5701 Normandale Road.
ACTION TAKEN:
Captain Kleven stated that he had discussed this situation with Ms. Schroeder.
We had posted "NO PARKING" on the east side of the frontage road and now
vehicles were using the west side as a "drop -off" area, making it even
more dangerous for the children.
Ms. Fuhr moved to install "NO PARKING - NO STOPPING - ANYTIME" signs on the
west side of the east frontage road in front of the Edina Community Center.
Mr. Hughes seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0.
SECTION B
Requests on which the Committee recommends denial of request.
(1) Discuss traffic safety concerns on West 54th Street, France Avenue to
Wooddale Avenue.
Continued from November 1989 meeting.
ACTION TAKEN:
Captain Kleven began by reviewing the motion from the November 1989 meeting.
At that time, the Committee denied the request for "STOP" signs, approved
the installation of 25 m.p.h. advisory signs, and approved continued enforce-
ment efforts on West 54th Street. Since that time, the Traffic Enforcement
Unit had performed nine hours of enforcement and issued 12 speed and one
non - moving citation, and conducted 10 speed surveys in April 1990..
Mr. Hoffman reviewed and compared the speed survey results from September
of 1989 and April of 1990. Of 1,000 vehicles surveyed in 1989, the 85th
percentile speed was 33 m.p.h. At that time, 15 of the surveyed vehicles
were in excess of 40 m.p.h. Of 1,500 vehicles surveyed in 1990, the 85th
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 15, 1990
Page 4
percentile speed was 31 -32 m.p.h. Also, only two of the 1,500 vehicles
were in excess of 40 m.p.h. It was Mr. Hoffman's suspicion that the signs
were not as effective as the enforcement efforts in achieving this reduc-
tion. He also offered that for a collector roadway in Edina, he felt that
the levels were consistent with others.
Mr. LaFrance, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that even through the
speeds seem to have reduced since enforcement efforts, there is still con-
cern regarding speeders (particularly those going westbound on West 54th)
and pedestrians are still having trouble crossing West 54th. He felt
that a "STOP" sign is, in fact, warranted at the bottom of the hill at
West. 54th and Minnehaha Boulevard. He also stated that the combination
of the 25 m.p.h. advisory signs adjacent to the 30 m.p.h. posted speed
limit signs gave a conflicting message to motorists.
Another resident was concerned that possibly the MTC buses were not being
surveyed as they appear to be traveling quite fast, and also that the
surveys were not conducted on weekends when there is a higher volume of
pedestrians and bikers. Captain Kleven assured her that all types of
vehicles to include garbage trucks, school buses, etc. would have been
surveyed should they have used West 54th during the survey periods.
Mr. Hoffman also checked the survey results and reported that surveys
had been conducted on two weekends, with eight westbound vehicles
traveling at 33 m.p.h. per one survey and 12 vehicles also traveling at
33 m.p.h. on the second survey. A resident also argued that the surveys
and enforcement efforts did not seem to be consistent with what the residents
were experiencing. Mr. Hoffman pointed out that although the Committee
could appreciate the comment, the Committee's function is to make recommend-
ations to the City Council regarding similarities or dissimilarities based
on collector or residential street expectations.
Officer Deshler said that his experience would suggest.over one year of
enforcement efforts have had a positive effect in the area. What used to
be a 45 m.p.h. area has now been reduced to 25 to 31 m.p.h. The Captain
also added that for the 10 surveys in April of 1990, an unmarked vehicle
with a non - police person was used and no enforcement efforts were made.
This should have a positive influence on obtaining a fair and true survey.
The opinions were as follows: Ms. Fuhr favored the installation of "STOP"
signs. Mr. Hoffman would leave it as is until reconstruction during the
next few years and until such time that the road was built up in the creek
area and then install a 3 -way "STOP" at Minnehaha Boulevard. He did not
feel warrants exist at this time. Captain Kleven stated that, strictly
from a "public safety" standpoint, the safest location should installation
be approved would be at Minnehaha Boulevard.
Mr. Sherman moved to install "STOP" signs on West 54th Street at Minnehaha
Boulevard. Mrs. Fuhr seconded the motion, amended to include the removal
of 30 m.p.h. signing which had led to confusion. Mr. Sherman accepted her
amendment. Motion denied 2 -2.
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES
May 15, 1990
Page 5
SECTION C
Requests which are deferred to a later date or referred to others.
(1) Request to upgrade the intersection of Johnson Drive and Grove Street from
a 2 -way to a 4 -way "STOP ".
Petition received from 36 local residents.
ACTION TAKEN:
Mr. Hoffman stated that Grove Street now stops at Johnson Drive, with
Johnson being a through street. Captain Kleven reviewed the accident
history at the intersection. There was only one reportable accident at
the intersection in 1987 which was "STOP" sign related. In addition,
there was a 1989 accident involving a child on a bicycle farther up Grove
Street at Oak Lane and in 1985 there were two accidents, one at the driveway
of 5621 and one at the driveway of 5628 Johnson Drive.
Mr. Hogan, a resident of the neighborhood, commented that there had not
been any changes in the topography of the area. However, he said that
vehicles southbound on Johnson Drive did have limited site distance,
that he felt the traffic had increased due to "shortcutting" to bypass
the Tracy Avenue stoplight, and that several students at Countryside
Elementary also crossed Johnson Drive daily on their way to school.
Mr. Hoffman asked if we had done increased enforcement in the area..
Captain Kleven replied that enforcement efforts have been confined more
to the area of Tracy and Warden. Officer Deshler also stated that the
most offenders in the area are observed when school releases in the after-
noon. Mr. Hoffman suggested continuing a month for review and possible
speed and volume surveys.
Mrs. Fuhr moved to continue one month for additional study. Mr. Sherman
seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0.
EDINA TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
q1
\� '
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Kenneth Rosland
From: David Velde
Date: May 21, 1990
Subject: Report On Cigarette
Vending Machines
Recommendation:
Agenda Item #
B
Consent
❑
Information Only
❑
Mgr. Recommends
❑
To HRA
0
To Council
Action
❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
0
Discussion
Adopt Ordinance No. 1322 to prohibit the sale of cigarettes from vending
machines in the City of Edina.
INFO /BACKGROUND
As of March 16, 1990, 13 communities in Minnesota have banned the sale of
cigarettes by vending machines. Bloomington, Richfield, and St. Louis Park are
three neighboring communities who have passed ordinances to prohibit cigarette
sales by vending machines. Fourteen other communities have adopted Ordinances
that restrict vending machine sales to certain locations such as bars,
workplaces or other areas not frequented by minors. Seven other communities are
considering total bans or restricted areas for cigarette sales by vending
machines.
The Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee met on April 12, 1990, to
consider an Ordinance which would prohibit the sale of cigarettes from vending
machines in Edina. The Committee recommended the adoption of the attached
Ordinance.
MINUTES OF THE EDINA COMMUNITY HEALTH
SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
HELD ON APRIL 12, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M.
EDINA CITY HALL MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Eileen Cooke, Chair; Matthew Peterson; Virginia McCollister;
Robert Wilkins; Sally Tang; Dr. Richard Cohan; Pam Moody;
and Spencer Turner
MEMBERS ABSENT: - Sharon Aadalen, Mary Strazz, and Ann Francis
OTHERS PRESENT: Berit Peterson, Edina School District Nurse; Elliott
Marston, Edina Health Department Sanitarian; and David
Velde, Edina CHS Administrator
I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:
Sally Tang offered a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Dr. Cohan
offered a second to the motion. All voted aye; motion carried..
II. REPORTS:
A. Proposed Ban on Cigarette Vending Machine
David Velde reviewed the Ordinance Amendment which is being prepared to ban the
sale of cigarettes in Edina from vending machines.
Mr. Wilkins asked whether this ban would affect the sale of other items through
vending machines.
David Velde said it would only affect the sale of cigarettes.
Mr. Wilkins asked how many communities have implemented a ban such as this on
cigarette machines.
David Velde said he was aware of several other communities who have adopted
ordinances restricting or banning vending machine sales of cigarettes.
Sally Tang asked whether this ban would be a problem by banning cigarette
vending machines when they have just been licensed.
David Velde said that there may be some objections, but the city would reimburse
the operation pro rata for the unused portion of the license.
Robert Wilkins offered a motion recommending a ban on sales of cigarettes from
vending machines in the City of Edina.
Eileen Cooke offered a second to the motion. All voted aye; motion carried.
v Committee - M
19
U
ORDINANCE NO. 1322
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Imposing a Penalty and Repealing
Ordinance No. 1321
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigarettes for
retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail unless such person shall have in effect
a valid license to do so obtained from the City of Edina.
Section 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The provisions of
Ordinance No. 141 of the City, including the enforcement and penalty provisions
thereof, shall apply to all licenses required by this ordinance and to the
holders of such licenses.
Section 2. Applications. The applicant shall state the following in the
application for a license in addition to the information required by Ordinance
No. 141:
(a) The applicant's name and business address;
(b) The telephone number at the business where cigarettes are to be sold;
and
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is proposed to
be conducted;
Section 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be as provided in Ordinance
No. 171 of the City.
Section 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a movable
place of business.
(b) No person shall sell any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette containing any
controlled substance as defined'in Ordinance No. 1014 of The City except
nicotine or tobacco.
(d) No person shall permit any vending machine to be used to sell
cigarettes to any person.
Section 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his /her
deputy shall notify the City Manager or his /her designated representative of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Section 7. Penalty. Any person violation this ordinance shall be subject
to the penalties set forth in Ordinance No. 175 of the City. Such penalties may
be imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or impounding of
a. vending machine or machines.
Section 8. Repealer. Ordinance No. 1321 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon it passage and
publication.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
,provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within 11 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any_ other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within 1 1 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of, 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing- opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within I 1 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case. to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1% License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale_ of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within I 1 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to-do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within I 1 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within 11 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or. revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license fo do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within 11 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case. to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a'partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within 1 l months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to S I for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed; bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained-from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a- vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within I 1 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either. case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within 11 months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar-
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License Fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in ' person, and $12 for each vending
235
machine. When the license will expire within l l months or less
from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to S I for each
month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna,
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
ORDINANCE NO. 1321
An Ordinance Licensing and Regulating
the Sale of Cigarettes, Including Sales
By Vending Machines, and Imposing a Penalty.
Section 1. License Required. No person shall keep cigar - machine. When the license will expire within 11 months or less
ettes for retail sale or sell cigarettes at retail, or maintain a from date of issue, the fee shall be reduced to $1 for each
vending machine for the sale of cigarettes, unless he shall have month or portion of a month the license will be in effect.
in effect a valid license to do so obtained from the Village.
Sec. 2. License Procedure and Control; Penalties. The
provisions of Ordinance No. 141 of the Village, including the
penalty provisions thereof, shall apply to all licenses required
by this ordinance and to the holders of such licenses.
Sec. 3. Applications. The applicant shall state the following
in the application for a license:
(a) His name and business and home addresses, or, if the
applicant is a partnership, association or corporation, the name
and address of such partnership, association or corporation.
(b) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and business
and home addresses of all partners; if the applicant is an
association or a corporation, the names and business and home
addresses of the majority of the owners thereof;
(c) The location or locations where the sale of cigarettes is
proposed to be conducted; and
(d) If the application is for a vending machine license, the
information required by Section 8 of said Ordinance No. 141.
Sec. 4. License fee. The license fee shall be $12 for each
location for sales made in person, and $12 for each vending
235
Sec. 5. Rules and Regulations.
(a) No license shall be issued for the sale of cigarettes at a
movable place of business.
(b) No person shall sell, or permit any vending machine to
be used to sell, any cigarette to any person under the age of 18
years.
(c) No person shall sell or keep for sale any cigarette
containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna.
strychnia, cocaine, marijuana, or any other deleterious or
poisonous drug except nicotine.
Sec. 6. Violation to be Reported. The Chief of Police or his
deputy shall notify the Village Manager or his deputy of any
violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance.
Sec. 7. Penalty. Any person violating this ordinance shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not
exceeding $300 or imprisonment in the Village or county jail
for a period of not exceeding 90 days, with costs of
prosecution in either case to be added. Such penalty may be
imposed in addition to suspension or revocation of license, or
impounding of a vending machine or machines.
h' REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
I
To: Mayor Richards and City Counci
From: Bob Kojetin, Director
Date: May 18, 1990
Subject: Replanting of trees in
Country Club District.
Recommendation:
Info /Background:
L Agenda Item # 12t• c
Consent ❑
Information Only 0
Mgr . Recommends ❑ To HRA
❑
To Council
Action ❑
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
Mr. Dornblaser had submitted a letter to Mayor Richards in the Fall of 1989
requesting the consideration of replanting the trees that have been removed
because of Dutch Elm in the Country Club District. I have been in contact
with Mr. Bright Dornblaser and in our discussion we focused around the type of
tree to be planted. His concern was that we continue the cathedral look of
the Elm Tree. In our reserach there were no other trees that give this type of look
except the Elm. The National Elm Institute has a program of introducing the Elm
back into the communities throughout the United States. These Elm trees have been
seedlings from a group of resistant Elm trees in the Wisconsin area. They are now
distributing these to different Boy Scouts and Community groups in cities and
reintroducing the American Elm. The seedlings are only 3 to 6 foot whips. I have
been in contact with the Country Club Neighborhood Association. We have now
set a date of May 30, 1990 at the Edina City Hall to discuss the tree planting
of Flms in the Country Club area. At this time I will discuss all of the
background information that I have requested from the National Elm Institute
including costs. In my conversations so far the residents have all been
positive in consideration of replanting Elms.
A
w���111
A.
4e�`
REPORT /RECOMMENDATION
To: Mayor & City Council
From: Francis Hoffman
City Engineer
Date: 21 May, 1990
Subject: Minneapolis Request for
Support of Contamination
Study
Recommendation:
Support resolution /or no action.
Info/Background-
Agenda Item # L-A-
Consent ❑
Information Only ❑
Mgr. Recommends ❑
To HRA
0
To Council
Action 0
Motion
❑
Resolution
❑
Ordinance
❑
Discussion
Attached is the Minneapolis request for City support on the contamination
study (Exhibit A). Additionally, an alternative water supply study is being
conducted which a portion is attached in Exhibit B. Staff believes that the
issues should be reviewed together because one of the prime alternatives in
the Minneapolis study is to have surface water be the main water source with
ground water being the back -up supply. In an interview with a consulting
firm retained by Minneapolis, the staff was interviewed as to the
feasibility of hooking the Edina water system to the Minneapolis system to
make the surface water optimization theory work.
Additionally, attached is an excerpt from a Metropolitan Council report
which suggests regional water system similar to the regional sewer system
operated by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission. Please note
recommendation 14 in the long -term water supply plan.
Staff will be prepared with additional graphics for the Council meeting.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICE
F.enneth Rosiand, 'tana•a•er
1 f Edina
1801 -Otn ti1treet.
- -, t i -1a , �1\ 1,7 -{24
Dear %fr. Gosiand:
EXHIBIT A
HDIM[MilwolpmMom
0 0
? Mff hbg
'q:,ril ' 6, 1.990
The "__'i.t-Y of ',linnenpoli•s recently submitted :�ri application ;o ti:e
Legisiative Commiss :on on Minnesota Resources i -0 COndllet a ;tud
whLeh wi11 :assess the risks u1' c_ontamination (if the tapper
Aississippi River. The 5tUdy, if funded, would begin in 1991 and
be condlrcted over -I two- �-ea.r • ime period. .Attached is a summary of
the entire proposal..
The decision on funding will probably be made in late summer of
i990. As a part of this application, the I'ity is seeking the
support of the cities which currently sire -served by the '•tinneapuiis
?gat or Works. Also attached is a sample resoll;tion which could "De
onsi ;leted I Y -our -its Counoi 1.
t' you have aw- juesti.ons, please givp me -z call It 6 -3 039.
Sincerely,
tti i it iam Barnhart
",overnment Relations
Represent,at i
^.C=
al
'.
- -
SAMPLE RESOLLTION
WHEREAS: The Mississippi River is the primary- source of Seater for
approximately 900,000 people in the TwAl Git le!:
Metrcpoiitan Area; and
WEREaS: The i(etropoi itan Councii in recent reports h -as
rec•cmmenceo decreased reliance on ground water and
.continued utilization of surface [eater; and
WHEREAS: There is currently- no comprehensive watershed protection
program for the Upper Mississippi; and
WHEREAS: The City of Minneapolis has submitted an application to
the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources to.
determine potential sources of contamination for the
Upper Mississippi River, estimate the likiihood of severe
contamination incidents, and identify strategies to
reduce the level of risk: and
WHEREAS: The :'irk of Edina is served by the �linneapoiis ;+at
Works.:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ,.)F THE CITY OF
EDINA THAT:
The City of Edina endorses the application of the City of
Minneapolis to the Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources to assess the risk of contamination of ::he
Upper Mississippi River and urges that the project he
funded.
1991 LCMR Funding Proposal
PROGRAM. TITLE: Assessment of the Risks of Contamination of the Upper Mississippi
Biennial Program J.F. Hayek, P.E.: Director
Total: 5500,000 Manager: Minneapolis water works
205 South 4th Street Minneapolis MN 55415
Minneapolis MN 55415 ?H: 612- 673 -2418
I. narrative. Chemical, biological, or radiological contamination of the Upper
Mississippi River could jeopardize drinking -water supplies and the river ecology. This
project would determine the potential sources of contamination. estimate the likelihood of
severe contamination incidents, and identify strategies to reduce the level of risk.
II. Objectives
A. Inventory of Contaminant Sources in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
1. Narrative. The inventory will produce a document identifying potential contaminant
sources by location, degree of toxicity, quantity, and mode of entry to the river.
2. Amount budgeted for the objective. $200.000
3. Product timeline. Starting Date is July 1. 1991.
a. Review of report on literature review, analysis of previous incidents, and
development of survey scope and procedures. August 1991.
b. Field survey and data collection. August 1991 to July 1992.
Quarterly reports due in October 1991; January 1992;. and April 1992.
c. Review of Final Survey Report. July, 1992.
4. Benefits. (1)The development of baseline contamination data. (2)Data would also be
shared with other researchers and agencies.
B. Impact of Contamination of the Mississippi River.
Narrative. The impact analysis will (a) develop contamination scenarios based on
field data for various flow rates and locations: (b) estimate the extent and duration of .
each scenario and the impact on water treatment; and (c) determine the relative
likelihood of the identified scenarios occurring.
2. Amount budgeted for this objective. $190.000
3. Product timeline. Start date is July. 1991.
a. Report on literature survey and proposed analysis. October 1991
b. Interim report on analysis of field data. January 1992.
c. Summary report on all field data. October 1992.
<. Benefits. (1)The determination of the most serious contamination problems requiring
priority emergency planning and mitigation strategies. (2)The development of innovative
computer modeling techniques.
C. Emervencv Plannine and Mitigation Analvsis
Narrative. This research and interagency coordination effort will (a) develop
mitigation alternatives (improved detection and warning, rerouting of hazardous
materials, drainage control, changes in water treatment procedures or capacity) and. (b)
determine the impact of mitigation strategies on risk reduction (cost - benefit analysis).
2. Amount budgeted. 53301000
3. Product timeline. Start date is June 1992.
a. Interim report on research and proposed methodology. August 1992.
b. Final mitigation report. June 1993.
Quarterly reports due October 1992: January 1993: and April 1993.
4. Benefits. ;:)The basis for recommendations for actions by local ard'state agencies.
(2)Development of multi-agency education and collaboration.
III. Context.
IMPACT
o Approximately 900.000 people in the metropolitan area and 50,000 people in St. Cloud rely
entirely or substantially on the Mississippi for their drinking water.
o Twenty -two communities in the state rely on surface waters other than the Mississippi to
meet their drinking water needs. This project could be replicated to manage the risks to
their water supplies.
o There is currently no comprehensive watershed. protection program for the Upper
Mississippi.
1
o The Metropolitan Council in their report on metro water planning recommended decreased
reliance on ground water and increased use of surface water. Preventing degradation of
river quality would become even more important.
COORDINATION AND FUNDING
o Representatives of the following agencies have endorsed the need for this project and
have agreed to provide research support: the Upper Mississippi Headwaters Board, the
Freshwater Foundation, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, MPCA. MDNR. Metropolitan Council,
Metropolitan waste Control Commission, St. Cloud Mater Works, and St. Paul Water Utility.
o This project will make direct use of data from the Water Quality Monitoring Project of
the Upper Mississippi Headwaters Board and the LCMR- funded Land Use Update Project.
o Minneapolis has committed up to 565.000 in direct matching funds for this project. An
additional 5400.000 has been budgeted by the city for a parallel project to study
alternative water sources. Minneapolis is now seeking additional funding for the project.
EXHIBIT B
ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY INTERVIEWS
BLOOMINGTON. EDINA. GOLDEN VALLEY, CRYSTAL.
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS. HILLTOP. NEW HOPE
1. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS
A. -- Current View of Water Supply Issues
i.. Surface water optimization
ii. Groundwater for peaking and emergency supply
iii. Regionalization
iv. Threats to groundwater quality
B. Suburban Dependency on Minneapolis Advantages /Disadvantages
i. Rates
ii. Administrative
iii. Political-.,
iv. Quality implementation of safe water drinking act
regulations
V. Control
C. Existing Emergency Plans
D. Minneapolis Contingency Needs
i. eBasic perceptions of need
ii. Threats to availability of water
iii. Impact on purchasing community (possible solutions to
problems)
a. water quality incident
b. drought
E. Development of Independent System
i. Replacement/base
ii. Emergency
0003090 /AWSI.WP /TMK 1
2. CHARACTERISTICS OF SYSTEM
A. Sources
i. In place wells /wellhead protection
ii. Supply studies
iii. Planned modifications
B. Interconnection
i. Minneapolis
ii. Adjacent surface water sources
iii. Adjacent groundwater sources
C. Design
i. Independent system layout
ii. Pressures
iii. System analysis
iv. Planned modifications
D. Storage
i. Existing
a. active
b, fire
ii. Planned
E. Treatment
i. Existing
ii. Planned
0003090 /AWSI.WP /TMK 2
3. HISTORIC USE
A. Demand Summaries
i. Annual
ii. Base
iii. Max day /month
iv. Per capita
B. User Class (billing records)
i. Residential
a. single
b. multiple
ii. Commercial
iii. Industrial
a. city supplied
b. independent supply
4. FUTURE DEMAND
A. Population
i. Existing
ii. Projections
iii. Saturation
B. Land Use
i. Existing
ii. Future development class /type
0003090 /AWSI.WP/TMK 3
EXHIBIT C
EXCERPT FROM
METROPOLITAN AREA
SHORT-TERM.
WATER SUPPLY PLAN
Metropolitan Council Report To
The Legislature
February 1, 1990
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Publication No. 590 - 90-035
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
9. The legislature should consider legislation requiring the adoption of the major elements
of the short -term drought response plan outlined in Table 6.
10. A state drought management authority should be established in the State of Minnesota
to respond to drought- related emergencies and to prepare a statewide framework for drought
response. The DNR is a logical choice because of its existing regulatory authorities. If the
DNR is given expanded drought- response authority, a formal state advisory group or standing
drought task force should be established, consisting at least of the MPCA, the Metropolitan
Council, the MWCC, the Mississippi Headwaters Board, NSP, and the cities of Minneapolis and
St. Paul This advisory committee would be expected to consult with the Corps of Engineers on
matters pertaining to the Mississippi River. The drought management authority should establish
a process for dealing with drought statewide and be given adequate resources to properly
monitor the water resource inside and outside of the Metropolitan Area.
11. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105.417, should be expanded to include all major water
users of both surface water and groundwater. No new appropriation permits should be issued
by the DNR unless a contingency plan is prepared by the user. A time limit should be
established within which all existing permits will be reissued with the contingency plan
requirement applied Tile DNR should review its policy on allowing users to "accept the
consequences" in lieu of preparing a contingency plan and the MDH should require a DNR
approved contingency plan before issuing well approvals.
LONG -TERM WATER SUPPLY PLAN
12 Alternative and emergency sources of water supply for the Metropolitan Area, including
those sources evaluated in previous studies, should be re- evaluated on their social,
environmental, economic and political impacts/relevance in order to update feasibility.
13. The long -term plan should evaluate the results of the latest USGS estimates of available
groundwater and adjust the figures to represent the additional capacity lost to contamination.
The plan should also define what level of withdrawal would be considered "optimal".
14. Following the second recommendation above, the plan should evaluate the long -term
feasibility of developing a regionally planned water supply system that would, among other
things, stress a more efficient use of surplus surface water and a shift from the unplanned use
of groundwater, evaluate the feasibility of interconnecting municipal water supply systems in
order to accommodate this shift in water use and provide emergency back -up for most suppliers,
and examine how problems caused by the mixing of surface water and groundwater could be
overcome; determine methods available to store and transfer surface water during periods of
surplus river flow; and evaluate institutional arrangements and financial resources needed to
undertake a regionally - planned supply system.
15. The economic implications of supplying a limited commodity (water) during a period of
shortage should be examined Among implications that need to be reviewed are how the cost
of alternative supplies would be shared among users; how a system incorporating priority uses
with the users' ability to pay and the need to keep the cost of'water low could work; and how
demand could be held down by raising the price of water.
-31-
16. Responsibilities of agencies planning water use and supply for the Metro Area, Greater
Minnesota and state water planning activities should be clarified, with particular attention to
those activities in the upper Mississippi River basin.
17. A water education program should be developed with a focus on "growth managers"- -
planners and decision- makers who guide the growth and development of the region. Public
awareness efforts should also be the focus of educational programs carried out by both
government agencies and water suppliers.
I& A detailed plan that aims to balance water availability with demand should be prepared,
using statistics on the likelihood of obtaining water from various sources under differing climatic
and demand conditions. In cooperation with the' Corps of Engineers, the Metropolitan Council
will continue to project the demand for water as the Metropolitan Area grows.
19. Proposed changes in the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. should be evaluated for their
impact on the development of surface water and groundwater supplies. Specifically, the cost
implications of treating one source versus the other should be examined
20. The Metropolitan Council should collect and distribute information on effective water
conservation techniques available to domestic, industrial and commercial users. It should also
consider methods for implementing conservation of water in the region, including introduction
through a mandatory state building code.
21. The Metropolitan Council should work with the MWCC and the MPCA to assure that a
maximum cooperative effort is made to maintain good water quality in receiving streams during
periods of extreme low flow.
22 Municipal water suppliers should be surveyed to determine the price they charge for
water, the amount of commercial/industrial use of municipal water and the occurrence of well
problems.
-32-
1.
THOMSEN
NYBECK
JOHNSON
BOUQUET
VAN VALKENBURG
OHNSTAD &
SMnl -L P.A.
Y_-ro,A
LAW OFFICE'S
SUITE 600. EDINBOROUGH CORPORATE CENTER EAST
3300 EDINBOROUGH WAY, MINNEAPOLIS (EDINA), MINNESOTA 55435
(612) 635 -7000 • FAX: (612) 635 -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, 111
MARK G. OHNSTAD PHILIP SIEFF HELGE THOMSEN. RETIRED
DONALD D. SMITH DAVID J. MCGEE
May 16, 1990
Mayor Frederick Richards
and Members of the
Edina Council
4801 W. 50th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55424
RE: Vernon Terrace
Electrical Workers Union
Pension Plan
Multifamily Mortgage
Revenue Bonds
Gentlemen and Ladies:
I am enclosing the following:
1. Correspondence from Mr. Richey and First Trust.
2. Appraisal.
3. Preliminary (non- binding) Resolution re Bonds.
As you are aware the current bonds are in default and one of the
original guarantors has filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, and the other is not
financially able to perform.
The proposal is to raise $6,000,000 (net) in new bonds and to pay the
current bondholders 55% of their claims. Court approval will be sought by First
Trust of St Paul who is the current trustee for the bondholders. The trustee
has determined that is the .best likely solution for the bondholders.
The new bonds will be guaranteed by the Pension Funds which I am told
have assets of over $70,000,000.
The building has 118 units rented (out of 146 units) and is showing
progress. At 118 this project will support these new bonds (and their
repayment).
Historically the problem has been twofold: 1) an overbuilding of
units of this type in the Metropolitan area and 2) the long delay from first
contact by a prospect to an ultimate decision to move into Vernon Terrace.
Several questions have been.raised:
1) What does the appraisal indicate? That is enclosed.
2) Are the current bondholders Edina residents? This is presently
unknown but we have asked the trustee for the detail, of this
information and it will be forwarded to you when we receive it.
3) Did the buyer seek out this purchase or did the current owners
seek them?
The Pension Funds have been involved in this project from the
beginning and they have been aware of the problems. Thus I
assume it was a joint decision for them to be involved now. -The
original developers will receive' nothing from these proceeds
(unless they are current bondholders).
4) Will Edina be protected if Mr. Richey's office (Leonard, Street
and Deinard) acts as Bond Counsel? That.law firm is recognized
locally and nationally as qualified bond counsel recently having
been bond counsel for a $112,000,000 issue in the City of
Minneapolis. The attorneys-for the City will be advised of each
step and will have the right to approve all documents (fees for
the City's attorneys will be paid by the Pension Funds).
5) Will there be changes in the frontal appearance of the building?
There are no plans at the present time. When the project is more
liquid this problem will be. addressed. They are aware of your
concerns.
6) Are the current occupants former Edina residents? I will attempt
to obtain that information before your final approval in June.
Please call if you have questions. This will be heard for a
preliminary approval (non- binding) at your May 21, 1990 meeting. Mr. Richey
and I will attend that meeting.. I do, not know if this is an HRA or Council
matter.
9
JVV:jd
cc: Mr. Kent Richey
rr
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO
ISSUANCE OF BONDS TO REFUND MULTIFAMILY
MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS (VERNON TERRACE
PROJECT) OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Edina, Minnesota (the "City ") previously .
issued its Multifamily Mortgage, Revenue Bonds (Vernon Terrace
Project) dated as of December 1, 1986 (the "Prior Bonds ") , the
proceeds of which were loaned to Grandview Development Company
Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Original
Company "); and
WHEREAS, a corporation owned or controlled by the trustees of
the Electrical Workers Local No. 292 Annuity Plan and Electrical
Workers Local No. 292 Pension Fund (the "Company ") proposes to
purchase the project financed with the Prior.Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Company has requested the City to grant
preliminary approval for issuance of bonds (the "Refunding Bonds ")
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C to refund in whole or
part the Prior Bonds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESO: the
City of Edina, Minnesota, as fol
3. The officers and employees of the City are hereby
authorized to execute and deliver such other agreements,
certificates or instruments, and take such other actions as may be
1. The City hereby gives
the
Refunding Bonds.
2. Notwithstanding the
and
conditions of the Refunding Bond
call
be in substance and form satisfa
i of
this Resolution shall not estak
the
City to issue any or all of t]
:ity
retains the right not to issue a
ling
Bonds should the City or its Cc
ince
of the Refunding Bonds that it i
�ity
not to issue all Refunding Bonds
1 be
limited obligations of the City
enues
and funds pledged thereto and sha�� ..�. __ _
:, lien
_
or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property
.
of the City,
except revenues and amounts specifically pledged to
the payment
thereof, and shall not constitute a general obligation or debt of
the City within the meaning of any, constitutional
or statutory
limitation.
3. The officers and employees of the City are hereby
authorized to execute and deliver such other agreements,
certificates or instruments, and take such other actions as may be
necessary and desirable to proceed with issuance of the Refunding
Bonds.
Adopted May 21, 1990.
Attest:
Clerk
E
Mayor
C {
t9
i
Telecopier
!
(612) 347 -9389 .
March 9, 1990
Writer's Direct Dial Number
a
a Mr. Robert French
IBEW -Fund Administrator
Local 292
p 5100 Gamble Drive,
Suite 430
St. Louis Park, MN
55416
IN RE:
Market Value Appraisal
Vernon Terrace Apartments
of Edina
5250 Vernon Avenue
Edina, Minnesota
Dear Mr. French:
As you requested, we have made an investigation and analysis of the above -
referenced property for the purpose of estimating its market value. This
estimate of market value is for the land site and improvements constructed
thereon. This opinion of value is based on a thorough analysis and all of the
pertinent factors bearing on value are felt to have been considered. The
following report of the investigation, analysis, and reasoning employed in our
determination of value is offered herewith.
It is our opinion that the market value of the subject real estate under the
asumptions inherent in this report as of February 1, 1990, was:
FIVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
$5,850,000
Upon your review of the report, we would be happy to discuss the contents with
you if you so desire.
Sincerely, /� // /
Robert G Lunz, RE, MAI Cathleen M. Chobot
Senior 'c esident Senior Staff Appraiser
Appraisal /Consultation Division Appraisal /Consultation Division
dsm
ITOWLE REAL ESTATE COMPANY 330 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55401 (612) 341 -4444
MARKET VALUE APPRAISAL
of the
VERNON TERRACE APARTMENTS
5250 Vernon Avenue
Edina, Minnesota
prepared for
Mr. Robert French
IBEW -Fund Administrator
Local 292
5100 Gamble Drive, Suite 420
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
by
TOWLE REAL ESTATE COMPANY
Appraisal/Consultation Division
Robert G. Lunz, CRE, MAI, Senior Vice President
Cathleen M. Chobot, Senior Staff Appraiser
(copyright 1990)
I
.t y
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .... ............................. ........... i
TITLE PAGE........... ....... ..... ............................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................... ............................... iii
SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS ............................ 1
INTRODUCTION
The Property. 2
Legal Description ................. ............................... 2
Purpose of the Appraisal .......... ............................... 2
Definition of Market Value ........ ............................... 2
Property Rights Being Appraised .. ...... .......... 3
Zoning and Taxes .................. ............................... 3
Ownership History ................. ............................... 4
i LOCATION AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS
Regionand City Data .............. ............................... 5
Neighborhood Description .......... ............................... 10
Description of the Land ........... ............................... 11
Description of the Improvements ... ............................... 12
HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS ........ ............................... 16
COST APPROACH
Land Valuation .................... ............................... 20
Market or Comparative Data Approach ............................ 22
Adjustment Analysis ............. ............................... 30
Adjustment Grid ................. ............................... 31
Comparable Land Sales Location Map ............................. 32
Replacement Cost New .............. ............................... 34
Depreciation Analysis ............. ............................... 35
FinalValue ....................... ............................... 38
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ............ ............................... 39
INCOME APPROACH
IncomeAnalysis .................... ............................... 45
ComparableRentals .............. ............................... 47
OtherIncome .................... ............................... 61
Vacancy and Credit Loss ......... ............................... 61
ExpenseAnalysis .................. ............................... 63
Holding Period ............................ ......... .......... 68
Capitalization of the Net Income Stream .......................... 68
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis ..... ............................... 71
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont'd)
RECONCILIATION AND CONCLUSIONS
Page
FInal Market Value Estimate ....... ............................... 73
CERTIFICATION ........................ ............................... 75
LIMITING CONDITIONS .................. ............................... 76
QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER ...... ............................... 78
EXHIBITS AND ADDENDA
Marshall -Swift Calculator Cost Form
Metropolitan Location Map
Zoning Map
Zoning Code
Floor Plans
Subject Photographs
iv
r
The Property:
Valuation Date:
Date of Inspection:
Land Area:
Zoning:
Gross Building Area:
Description of
the Improvements:
SUMMARY OF
SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Vernon Terrace Apartments of Edina
5250 Vernon Avenue
Edina, Minnesota
February 1, 1990
January 29, 1990
152,427 square feet, or 3.50 acres
PSR -4, Planned Senior Residence District
162,702 square feet Apartment Area
37.972 square feet Underground Parking Area
200,674 square feet Total Area
A 146 -unit senior apartment building of six stories and
an underground parking garage with 94 spaces. The
building, completed in 1988, is concrete framed.
Amenities within the project are extensive and include
security and emergency call service, dining room,
beauty/barber salon, kiosk, party room, exercise, craft
and game rooms, solarium and patio, library, woodworking
shop, conference room, laundry room, and in -house
activities.
Estimated Market Value
of the Land: $ 800,000
Estimated Market Value
of the Improvements: $5,050,000
Final Estimated Market
Value of the
Subject Property: $5,850,000
1
INTRODUCTION
The Property
The property being appraised is a 146 -unit senior apartment complex with a gross
building area of 200,674 feet situated on a 3.50.acre site in Edina, Minnesota.
The.property is generally located in.the northwest quadrant of the intersection
of Vernon Avenue and State Highway 100. The subject apartment complex contains
a .total of 146 apartment units with.94 underground.,,parking stalls. The subject
-- -- property' -s- address - -is -5250- Vernon Avenue and it will be referred to in this
report as "Vernon Terrace ", or as the "subject property".
Legal Description r;
The subject property is ,legally identified as follows:
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 12, Grandview Plateau, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Purpose of the Appraisal
The function and objective of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of
the fee simple interest in the subject as of February 1, 1990. The purpose is
to assist in negotiations for the potential sale of the property.
Definition of Market Value
"Market Value" as used in this report, is defined on Page 33 of The American
a Institute of Real Estate Appraiser's eighth edition of The Appraisal'of Real
Estate as:
"The most probable price in cash, terms equivalent to cash or in other
-- - - - - -- -- precisely_ reveal- a -da terms:, - - for -which -the =- a PP raised ro er't - w ll7'sel--
- - -
in a competitive market under all conditions requisite,,,to fair sale, '
t. with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and for
self interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress."
r
11
Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date
and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
2
1
2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in
what he considers his own best interest.
3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open.market.
- — _ -- - -- - .
4. - - --
5. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community
at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
6. The price. represents a normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special financing amounts and /or terms, services, fees,
costs, or credits incurred in the transaction.
y
- - - -- Proverty-Rights- Being-Ay_praied
The real property rights to be considered in this appraisal are those of the fee
simple ownership interest in the real estate. As used in this report, fee
simple interest is held to encompass and include all of the property rights that
may be lawfully possessed. It is the whole of all ownership rights inherent in
the real estate subject only to the governmental powers of eminent domain,
taxation, police power, escheat and public trust. The fee simple ownership is
also referred to at times as an absolute fee.
Zoning and Taxes
The zoning bearing on the subject property is PSR -4, Planned Senior Residential
District. Principal permitted uses under this zoning classification include
buildings containing four or more dwelling units, all but one of which are
senior citizen dwelling units.. Accessory uses include shops, restaurants and
other services primarily intended for the use and convenience" of residents of
the principal use provided such accessory uses are accessible only from the
interior of and are located on the ground floor of the principal building.
3
s
I
Y f
The subject's property tax code identification number, 1989 taxes payable, and
the assessor's estimated market value (AEMV) as of January 2, 1988 are as
follows:
PID No. Base Taxes
28- 117 -21 -33 -0018 $ 229,076
Land Value $1,000,000
Improvement Value $6.280.000
Total AEMV $7,280,000
Ownership History
Total 1989
Specials Taxes Payable
$ 0 $ 229,076
The subject property was developed by Grandview Development Corporation in 1988.
Financing was provided by First Trust (primary debt) and the IBEW Pension Fund
(secondary debt). The bonds financing the project have been in default since
August 1, 1989.
4
�I V
LOCATION AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS
Region and City Data
The subject property lies in the city of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Hennepin County is one of the seven counties that comprise the Minneapolis -
St. Paul metropolitan area. Minneapolis and its sister city to the east,
St. Paul, form the core of the seven county Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The
Twin Cities' Seven County Metropolitan Area population in 1980 was 1,985,873.
An April 1989 estimate by the Metropolitan Council reported a population of
2,240,513, a 12.8% increase over the eight years. This represents slightly over
half of Minnesota's total population. The population growth for the seven
county metropolitan area is predicted to grow another 9% by 2000. The Twin
Cities ranked sixteenth in total population in the United States in 1988 out of
the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the country. The following table of
metropolitan area demographic statistics shows the area's growth since 1970.
Seven County Metro Area
Demographics
Current
1970 1980 % Change Estimates (Yr) % Change
Population 1,951,228
Households 593,266
Employment 853,293
Unemployment Rate 3.4%
Source: Metropolitan Council
1,985,873 + 1.8% 2,240,513 (89) +12.8%
748,268 +26.6% 807,597 (88) + 7.9%
1,095,630 +28.4% 1,133,500 (85) + 3.4%
4.5% 3.4% (88)
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is situated generally at the confluence of the
Mississippi and Minnesota Rivers in the east central part of Minnesota, and is
the largest and most important urban center in the state. Due to this strategic
geographical location, the Twin Cities act as a large distribution center for
the five state North Central Region of the United States. The Twin Cities are
also a major marketing and convention center for the region encompassing a trade
area of over seven million people. The nearest cities of size comparable to the
Twin Cities are Milwaukee and Chicago, lying respectively 330 and 430 miles
distant to the southeast.
? 5
Transportation facilities for the Twin Cities are excellent by land, water and
air. By land, the Twin Cities area is served by major cross- country freeways,'
Interstates 35E/35W and 94, running north /south and east /west respectively. The
area's circumferential freeway, Interstate 494 /694, provides quick and efficient
access throughout the entire metropolitan area. Additionally, there are five
`main line and two trunk line railroads, three local and four national bus lines.
There are 110 first -class carrier truck -lines for interstate commerce. The Twin
' Cities ports handle in excess of fifteen million.tons annually. The Minneapolis -
Sa. Paul International'Airport 18 serviced by twelve national % international
airlines and eight regional commuter airlines. The':Metropolitan Airport Commis-
sion also operates four additional municipal airports located in Hennepin County.
a ,
The metropolitan area has a strong and well- diversified industrial base. There
are eighteen corporate headquarters based in the area that are ranked Fortune
Magazine as the largest in sales nationwide. This figure ranks the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area fourth among the nation's twenty largest metro areas indicating
its strong local economy.. The economic foundation is broad with agro- business;
computer/high technology systems, machinery manufacturing, graphic arts and
government,.medical and educational . institutions being the largest employers.
e
Minneapolis and St. Paul, as contiguous core cities, encompass the majority of
' the industrial and business concerns located in the Metropolitan Area. The two
cities serve as the processing and distribution point for the large agricultural.
region that is the Upper Midwest. Such large agro- industrial processing firms
as Cargill, Cenex, General Mills, Harvest States Cooperatives, Land O'Lakes,
# International Multifoods, Northrup King, Peavey and Pillsbury all have their
headquarters in the Twin Cities area. The Metropolitan Area is also a major
center for research and data processing firms with the headquarters and.major
'manufacturing facilities.of such companies as Control Data, Cray, Honeywell, 3M.,
and Unisys. A large insurance industry is also based in the Twin Cities with
3 the largest companies here being Blue Cross /Blue Shield, Lutheran Brotherhood,
Minnesota Mutual, Mutual Service, Northwestern National Life, and the St. Paul
Companies. Northwest Airlines, and the Burlington Northern and Soo Line Rail-
roads are major transportation companies with their main offices in the Twin
Cities.
6
1
I
Over the past eight years, the fastest gain in employment in the Minneapolis -
St. Paul SMSA was in the services sector, followed by finance, insurance and real
estate as shown in the following table. This sector generally includes white
collar jobs, its biggest components including health, business and social /profes-
sional services. The annual average unemployment rate in the seven county Twin
Cities area was 3.48 compared with the national average of 58.
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
Mfe.
249.2
247.0
238.1
237.9
257.8
257.6
251.1
254.2
263.9
Constr.
46.0
40.3
36.0
37.3
43.0
46.7
49.3
53.1
52.9
Total 5.98 15.0%
Annual
Ave. .78 1.78
MINNEAPOLIS -ST. PAUL SMSA
NON- AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYMENT
BY INDUSTRY
(1980 -1988)
In
Thousands
TCPU 1
Trade
FIRE (2)
Services(3)
64.8
273.4
70.8
244.4
63.7
273.1
73.6
250.5
61.7
266.4
73.7
252.2
62.1
268.4
75.5
261.3
65.2
288.2
80.9
281.3
67.0
297.2
84.3
295.8
67.4
302.7
88.6
306.1
69.0
316.2
92.0
322.0
70.4
329.5
93.0
333.7
Percent Chanfe (1980 -1988)
8.68 20.5% 31.4% 36:58
1.08 2.38 3.58 4.18
(1) Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities
(2) Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
(3) Includes mining
Source: Minnesota Department of Jobs and Training
Govt.
161.2
160.1
155.1
154.1
158.2
161.7
166.1
171.6
175.8
Total
1109.8
1108.3
1083.2
1083.2
1174.6
1210.3
1231.3
1278.1
1319.2
9.18 18.98
1.08 2.18
The Twin Cities are the financial and banking center for the region. The
U.S. Government's Ninth Federal Reserve Bank is located in Minneapolis, as well
as, the area's two largest commercial bank holding companies, First Bank System
and Norwest Corporation. The Twin Cities are also home for some of the largest
thrift institutions in the country. These would include Twin City Federal,
Midwest Savings Association, and First Minnesota Federal. Other major corporate
headquarters in the Twin Cities include Bemis, Munsingwear, H. B. Fuller,
7
Jostens, National Car Rental, Ecolab, Toro Manufacturing and Dayton- Hudson
Corporation.
Excellent medical facilities are a Twin Cities tradition. There are nearly 3,000
doctors staffing area hospitals. Local facilities provide more than 7,500
hospital beds. Internationally known special care hospitals include the Univer-
sity of Minnesota Medical Center, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, 75 miles to
the south.
More important than the area's resources and services are its people. Twin
Cities employees possess one of the nation's lowest absentee records, at ap-
proximately half the national average. Their credit ratings are the highest in
the nation. Minnesotans rank second in the United States in the number of school
years completed. The extent of the state's educational system is reflected in
i
its sixty plus colleges, including the University of Minnesota, the seventh
largest university system in the - United States with an enrollment of over 90,000
j
students.
The Twin Cities are very sound economically with low unemployment rates, steady
population growth and no untoward dependency on the fortunes of a few large
9 businesses for its well- being. A strong and ever - changing real estate market
goes hand in hand with the overall economic strength of a major metropolitan area
such as the Twin Cities.
i
The city of Edina is a first tier suburb located in Hennepin County south of and
a
adjacent to Minneapolis. The city contains approximately 16.5 square miles and
is located approximately eight miles southwest of the Minneapolis Central
Business District. The city of Bloomington borders Edina on the south, with Eden
Prairie, Minnetonka, and Hopkins on the west, St. Louis Park to the north and
Minneapolis and Richfield to the east. Edina is very well located and generally
bordered by I -494 on the south, Highway 169 on the west, France Avenue and Xerxes
Avenue on the east and approximately West 44th Street on the north.
Edina is known as a prestigious community with high - priced homes and numerous,
high - quality commercial developments. According to the 1989 Multiple Listing
Service report, the average residential home sold for $196,486 ranking Edina
8
second in average sale price for homes in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area.
The average sale price per home for the metropolitan area was $96,499. The city
of Edina had a 1980 population of 46,073 residents. According to the Metropolitan
Counc.il,.the population estimate for 1989 was 44,943. This is a slight decline
from the 1980 figure. Population estimates for 1990 and 2000 are 45,500 and
46,000 respectively. The 1980 Census reported 17,961 households in Edina and
the Metropolitan Council estimates an increase to 19,500 by 1990. According to
1989 population estimates, Edina is the sixth most populated city in Hennepin
County. Population growth is expected to remain fairly stable.
Commercial development on Edina reflects the needs of the city and the region.
A variety of shopping centers and office space are located within the community.
France Avenue South provides the greatest concentration of commercial activity
with various retail centers along it and culminating at Southdale, a major retail
shopping mall with approximately 1,100,000 square feet of retail space.
Southdale is one of the largest shopping centers in the Twin Cities.
Major taxpayers and employers in Edina are listed below:
Employer
Control Data
National Car Rental
Dayton's
Carson, Pirie, Scott
Fairview Hospital
B. Dalton
A T & T
Service /Product
Computers
Car Leasing
Department Store
Department Store
Health Care
Book Store Offices
Communication
Approximate No.
of Employees
Over 500
Over 500
Over 500
Over 500
Over 500
Over 500
101 -250
Source: Edina Chamber of Commerce
i
a
Major highway routes serve the city equally well from an industrial and commer-
cial standpoint. These highways include State Highways 100 and 169 running
north /south, and I -494 and Crosstown Highway 62 running east /west. The city is
also served by public bus transportation and the Minneapolis and St. Paul
International Airport is located approximately seven miles southeast of the
subject property.
0J
Edina is a diversified and economically stable community. The excellent location
and highway access make the community a very desireable area in which to live
or work. Its success is evidenced in its well established high quality
residential areas, industrial and commercial .parks, as well as it retail
strength. Real estate values in the area should remain strong.
Neighborhood Information
The- subject- site - -is- located -on Vernon- Avenue -,- approximately - -one- -third- mile - west -
of State Highway 100.and six miles 'southwest of the Central Business District
of Minneapolis. Vernon Avenue. is a well traveled four- lane,:thoroughfare that
runs northeast /southwest. Primary uses in the neighborhood along this,road are
commercial. Land uses east of the subject along Vernon Avenue include an Amoco
service station, SuperAmerica, First Minnesota, a car wash, a small clinic and
office building, and a neighborhood strip shopping center anchored by Jerry's
SuperValu. Commercial uses and some residential homes are located further north
along Vernon Avenue and the Edina City Hall is situated at the southeast corner
of State Highway 100 and Vernon Avenue (which becomes 50th Street east of Highway
100). Apartment projects including the new Vernon Oaks and the older Highland
Villa and Interlachen Court are located south and west of the subject. Duplexes
are situated immediately behind the subject property along Grandview Lane north
of 53rd Street and single - family residences are situated further south off Vernon
Avenue.
The neighborhood is well served by public transportation and overall access and
identity is considered very good. Bus transportation is available directly
outside the subject property along Vernon Avenue.
In summary., the location is considered excellent for senior housing. Shopping
and services are within close proximity and transportation and access to the
0
property is considered very good. Furthermore, surrounding property uses to the
subject are considered complementary.
i
10
The subject site comprises an area of 152,427 square feet, or 3.50 acres. It
is situated on the west side of Vernon Avenue between West 52nd and 53rd Streets.
The parcel has an irregular shape with approximately 705.23 feet of frontage
along Vernon Avenue. Please refer to the. plat map on the following page for
visual :reference.
- The— subject— site —is— generally_ level and all- -urban utilities are :available.
i
! Direct, access to the property is obtained from Vernon Avenue, a four -lane asphalt
paved thoroughfare with concrete sidewalks, curbs.and gutters. Traffic along
Vernon Avenue, past the subject, averaged 14,500 vehicles per day, according to
a 1988 count.
Surrounding land uses are varied but complementary to the .subject. Duplexes are
situated behind the subject property along Grandview Lane with single family
homes to the north. Commercial properties, including gas stations, a neighbor-
hood shopping center, a car wash, and a clinic, are located east and apartments
are to the south.
The site is improved with an apartment building that covers approximately 25%
of the land. The remaining land area is open space occupied by surface parking,
sidewalks, and landscaping. The property's land to building ratio is .76/1.
From inspection, no boundary encroachment irregularities were evident. The
subject land is assumed capable of supporting building loads. typical of its
neighborhood. Soil tests were not available for the appraisers' review. The
appraisers and Towle Real Estate 'Company make,no representation regarding the
existence or non- existence of hazardous or toxic wastes` or substances.on -site
or underground storage tanks on the property and has not determined what notices
may be required to be given, if any. The subject land conforms well with
surrounding land parcels.
11
I
PLAT MAP
. . ..... .....
..... . ... .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
ShID ..........
ST
uu
wool,
-
I
T�
S
Description of the Improvements
The subject improvements include a six - story, elevatored apartment building
having a gross building area (GBA) of 200,674 square feet, including a full
basement with 94 underground parking spaces. Constructed in 1988, the project
includes 146 one and two bedroom apartment units. There are various one and two
bedroom floor plans. The sizes and types are summarized as follows:
From the above information, the average unit size is 835 square feet. The unit
mix includes 85 one bedroom units and 61 two bedroom units, or a 58% and 42%
i
split, respectively. A floor plan for each unit type and location within the
subject building is located in the Addenda section of this report. An outline
description of the improvements is as follows:
Gross Building Area
First Floor
31,675
sf
Unit Type
Apartment Type
Size(SF)
# of Each
A, H*
One Bedroom
654
53
B
One Bedroom +Den
845
32
C,D,E,I*
Two Bedroom
900
43
F
Two Bedroom +Den
1,050
8
G
Two Bedroom +Den
1,172
4
J
Two Bedroom
1,308
3
K
Two Bedroom +Den
1,499
3
Total
and beams; masonry load
146
* Handicapped
units
Exterior Walls
Concrete block and brick.
From the above information, the average unit size is 835 square feet. The unit
mix includes 85 one bedroom units and 61 two bedroom units, or a 58% and 42%
i
split, respectively. A floor plan for each unit type and location within the
subject building is located in the Addenda section of this report. An outline
description of the improvements is as follows:
Gross Building Area
First Floor
31,675
sf
Second Floor
31,474
sf
Third Floor
31,474
sf
Fourth Floor
31,474
sf
_
Fifth Floor
27,181
sf
Sixth Floor
9,424
sf
Garage
37.972
sf
Total GBA
200,674
sf
Foundation
Concrete footings and foundation.
Frame
Precast concrete columns
and beams; masonry load
bearing walls.
Exterior Walls
Concrete block and brick.
Floor
Poured concrete in garage; precast concrete plank
floors on levels 1 -6.
13
r
Roof
Precast concrete roof with built -up composition.
Windows /Doors Solid core entrance doors with hollow core interior
doors. Front door is glass with metal frame.
Metal framed, double glazed and insulated windows
and patio doors.
Heating & Cooling Hot water gas fired fan coil heating and cooling
system.
Plumbing Each unit has a kitchen and bathroom sink(s), bath
tubs /showers, dishwashers, toilet(s), and garbage
disposals.
Electrical Assumed to meet code requirements.
Fire Protection The building is fully sprinklered.
Interior Finish Steel stud interior partitions covered with gypsum
board, sprayed and textured ceilings; wood trim;
carpet in units, hall and common area; vinyl in
kitchen areas; ceramic tile in bathrooms and
kitchen serving the dining area; incandescent and
fluorescent lighting throughout.
Elevator Two elevators servicing seven floors of the
building.
Loading Rear entrance doors to large kitchen area.
Parking 94 underground spaces, 51 surface parking spaces.
Amenities Dining room with full kitchen
- Solarium
- Exercise room with jacuzzi
- Craft room
- Beauty/barber shop
- Woodwork shop
- Party room with kitchen
- Game room
- Library
Emergency pull cords in each unit
- Kiosk - convenience store
- Patio and garden
- Laundry rooms on each floor
- Conference room
Other With the exception of five B units, each apartment
on floors 2 -6 has a balcony. First floor units
have a patio.
14
{
Site improvements include asphalt paving, landscaping, concrete sidewalks and
curbs, on -site utility piping and exterior lighting.
The building was constructed in 1988 and the overall condition is considered
excellent. The exterior of the building is concrete block and brick, however,
the overall architectural style is considered very basic. This is atypical for
most senior housing apartments which are more upscale in design and appeal.
15
P
I
HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS
Highest and best use is defined in Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, Revised
Edition (compiled and edited by Byrl N. Boyce, Ph.D., copyright 1981, Ballinger
Publishing Company, Pages 126 -127), as follows:
"That reasonable and probable use that supports the highest present value
as defined, as of the effective date of the appraisal."
or as:
"Alternatively, that use, from among reasonably probable and legal alterna-
tive uses, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, and
financially feasible, that results in highest land value."
"The definition immediately above applies specifically to the highest and
? best use of land. It is to be recognized that in cases where a site has
existing improvements on it, the highest and best use may very well be
determined to be different from the existing use. The existing use will
continue, however, unless and until land values in its highest and best use
exceeds the total value of the property in its existing use.
Implied within these definitions is recognition of the contribution of that
specific use to community environment or to community development goals in
addition to wealth maximization of individual property owners. Also implied
is that the determination of highest and best use results from the
appraiser's judgment and analytical skill, i.e., that the use determined
from analysis represents an opinion, not a fact to be found. In appraisal
Practice: the concept of highest and best use represents the premise upon
which value is based In the context of most probable selling price (market
value) another appropriate term to reflect highest and best use would be
most probable use."
In order to estimate a property's value, all the factors that influence and
contribute to value must be considered. The appraisal and economic principles
of supply and demand, substitution, balance and externalities, all contribute
to a property's value. The highest and best use for a property is achieved when
these factors are all in balance.
Highest and best use is first determined for the subject land as vacant.
Th e
first constraints to be considered are the legal applications. The subject
property is zoned PSR -4, Planned Senior Residence District. This zoning
classification allows buildings containing four or more dwelling units with all
but one to be senior citizen dwelling units. The appraisers believe that a
16
The second factor to be considered is the physical features of the property.
The physical and locational characteristics of the subject including land area,
topography, zoning, access and visibility are all suitable, if not advantageous
for an apartment project. Ttie,..site measures 3.50 acres and the topography is
generally level. It is an irregular shaped parcel, but this does not represent
-an impediment to development) ecause it has sufficient depth and street frontage.
It is assumed that there are no soil problems., - site., has direct
frontage on Vernon Avenue.and .it is easily accessible from State Highway 100.
Overall, the physical characteristics of the subject site do not create any
constraints on development.
The subject site is strategically located just off a major highway and it is in
close proximity.to the city's major retail, office, and industrial developments.
Residential uses predominate in the subject neighborhood and include apartments,
duplexes, and single family homes.
The city of Edina is one of the Twin Cities most prestigious suburbs. It boasts
one of the highest average income levels in the state and one of the highest
average home values. The community is fully developed and the population, growth
is expected to remain stable. Demand for residential housing in the area,
however, has historically been very strong given the community's reputation,
services, and tax structure.
According to the Edina Planning Department, there are approximately 3,500
apartment units of all types throughout the city. Since 1985 the subject
property (146 units),' Edina Park Plaza (204 units), and Vernon Oaks (135 units)
were constructed. The subject property and Edina Park Plaza are both senior
apartments in contrast to Vernon Oaks which is a market rate project. Future
planned developments include a. 200 unit apartment building in the northwest
corner of Edina, east of Highway 169 and south of Excelsior Boulevard, and a 70
to 80 unit assisted living project for the frail elderly at York Avenue and 74th
17
Street near Southdale. Edina is reportedly about 988 developed and no other
residential developments are planned as of the appraisal date. Growth in the
community is expected to remain stable, however, the community is aging.
According to the 1988 -89 Community Health Service Plan,. approximately 7,229
persons or 15.88 of the population of Edina was over 65 years of age in 1986.
The. Metropolitan Council for the -Twin Cities reports the young seniors market.
(age 65 -74 years) and the older seniors market (over 75 years) will increase by
24,552 and 19,800, respectively, from 1980 to "1990. It was'further' projected
that'in the year 2000, growth in the young seniors market will be reduced and
the older seniors market will increase significantly'by almost 40,000 (betwee;n
1980 and 2000) . This sector, will require more services and health care,: however,
a significant percentage of this population has very low incomes. In addition
to low incomes, many elderly persons are conservative in spending, and the
a ffordability.of market rate housing with extensive services and activities is
questionable throughout the metropolitan area. Edina has one of the higher per
capita income levels and this type of housing is expected to be a good
alternative for the aging.
Based on an analysis of the site's zoning, surrounding land uses and physical
characteristics, it is the appraisers' opinion that the highest and best use for
the site, as if vacant, is for multi - family development. Zoning further
restricts this to senior residences. This use is supported by the aging
population and income levels in Edina.
The subject site is improved with a 146 -unit senior apartment project. As
improved, the highest and best use of the site is considered its current use.
The subject building is new'and its location and design, .the physical attributes
of'the site, and the demographics of the community support continued use as a
senior apartment project. With the aging population in Edina and the metropoli-
tan area, it can be expected that there will be a growing need for this use.
In the future, however, care needs for the residents may be greater, and an
assisted living concept, which provides more care to the frail elderly and is
an alternative to a nursing home, should be considered.
18
COST APPROACH
The Cost Approach produces an indication of value derived by estimating the value
of the subject site and adding the estimate of the reproduction or replacement
cost of the improvements minus any depreciation present in the property. The
approach is based upon the assumptions that the.cost of creating a building would
normally set an up'pe'r limit of value so long as the improvements represent .the
i highest and best use of the land. The approach is developed by estimating the
— - - value- -of the land as; -.if vacant, estimating the- construction costs .a—n d any
economic, physical or functional depreciation and then correlating these es-
timates into an indication of value.,
Three types of depreciation occur in real estate, they are:
I a.) Physical deterioration resulting from the wear and tear on the proper-
ty.
b.) Functional obsolescence resulting from inadequacies or super- adequacies
of design, style or layout when compared to a new property serving the
same purpose.
c.) Economic obsolescence resulting in a loss of value from causes outside
the property itself.
3
Inherent in the development of the approach is the principle of substitution
which states that no prudent investor would pay more for an existing property
than it would cost to purchase a site and construct a building of equal utility
and desirability.
19
ti
Land Valuation
Market or Comparative Data Approach
The most commonly employed method for valuing vacant land is the comparative or
market data approach. This approach produces an indication of value by comparing
the prices paid, asked and offered in the marketplace on properties that bear
s
characteristics as similar as possible to the property being appraised. It
represents the actions of informed buyers, sellers and investors in the market-
place. The basis of the approach is the principle of substitution, which implies
that a prudent purchaser will not pay more for a property than it will cost him
to buy a similar substitute, or like, property.
The application of the approach requires the appraiser to correlate and analyze
the market data of sales of similar vacant land parcels. A common denominator
or unit of comparison between a similar or comparable property and the subject
property must be determined. Units of comparison, such as price per square foot
of land, price per acre, price per front foot or price per lot or homesite, are
commonly employed in appraisal practice. The soundness of the method depends
upon the following considerations:
a.) The comparability to the subject of each sale being analyzed.
b.) The accuracy of the sale data.
c.) The terms of the sale.
d.) The date of the sale.
The appraiser must then adjust each comparable property's unit of comparison for
every aspect that the comparable property differs materially from that cor-
responding aspect of the subject property. The appraiser almost always adjusts
the characteristics of the comparable to those of the property being appraised,
and this is usually done on a percentage basis. If the comparable is superior
in any way to the subject, it represents a relationship to the subject of more
than 100 %. If the comparable is inferior to the subject, it represents a
relationship to the subject of less than 100 %. Both are adjusted by division.
The adjustment for time is usually made first in order to bring the varying
Ce
transaction dates of the comparables to an equal status current with the
appraisal date. This adjustment is made by simple multiplication. At the end
of this process, the adjustments are reconciled in order to arrive at a net
overall adjustment of each comparable to the subject. Those comparables
+ requiring the least overall and net adjustment are most often held to bear the
most resemblance to the subject, and therefore, are accorded the most relevance
in the final value conclusion.
The following pages show the comparable land sales relied on in estimating the
market value of the subject ground:
i
E
21
i
{
h
a
i
5
Land Valuation
Market Data (cont'd)
Land Comparable No. 1
')-J" .-
1)
p CDA
LAKES PKWY c
V
I! i
tc sAv144
T-�
K
Location:
11445 and 11505 Anderson Lakes Parkway
Eden Prairie, MN
Legal Description:
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Baypoint Two, Hennepin County,
Minnesota PID No. 23- 116 -22 -14 -0039
Sale Date:
May, 1988
Shape /Dimensions:
Irregular, approximately 155 feet of frontage on
Anderson Lakes Parkway
Land Area:
396,265 square feet, or 9.10 acres
No. of Units:
138
Density:
15.16 units /acre
Zoning:
RM -2.5, Multi - Family Residential District
Seller /Purchaser:
Baypoint Manor Phase II, Limited Partnership sold the
land to Sexton and Heim Realty
Sale Price:
$400,000
Price/Unit:
$2,899
Comments:
This land sale is located approximately ten miles
southwest of the subject property in Eden Prairie, a
southwestern second tier suburb. The property is
improved with a luxury apartment complex called Lake
Place. This land parcel is considered inferior in
location, since it is in a second tier suburb further
removed from the Central Business District and overall
access is inferior. The property is also considered
inferior due to its larger size and lower density.
22
Land Valuation
Market Data (cont'd)
Land ComRarable No. 2
Location:
NWQ Anderson Lakes Parkway and Flying Cloud Drive
Eden Prairie, MN
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3, and Lot 1, Block 6,
Fountain Place Apartments
Sale Date:
December, 1987
Shape:
Irregular
Land Area:
765,000 square feet, or 17.48 acres
No. of Units:
490
t
s Density:
28.03 units /acre
Zoning:
Residential
Seller /Purchaser:
Lloyd G. and Joan A. Cherne sold the land to Fountain
Place Apartments Limited Partnership
Sale Price:
$1,620,000
Price/Unit:
$3,306
Comments:
This land sale is located approximately ten miles south
of the subject property. The property has been
developed with the Fountain Place Apartments. This land
parcel is considered inferior to the subject with regard
to location, as well as, size and density. The overall
location is considered inferior since Eden Prairie is
a second tier suburb in contrast to Edina which is a
first tier community. Access to the subject site is
also superior to this comparable.
23
E
3
i
7
.and Valuation
Market Data (cont'd)
Land Comparable No. 3
Location:
Legal Description
Sale Date:
Shape /Dimensions:
Land Area:
No. of .Units:
Density:
Zoning:
Seller /Purchaser:
Sale Price:
Price/Unit:
Comments:
1020 Feltl Court
Hopkins, MN
Lot 1, Block 1, The Hllls of Oakwood, Hennepin County,
Minnesota PID NO. 25- 117 -22 -33 -0005
November, 1987
Irregular, approximately 440 feet of frontage on Feltl
Court
370,811 square feet, or 8.51 acres
150
17.62 units /acre
R -6, High Density Residential District
Mike and Adele Finnermann sold the land to Century North
Construction Company
$532,382, includes $46,412 in unpaid special assessments
$3,549
This property is located approximately three miles east
of the subject on the north side of Smetana Road west
of Feltl Court in Hopkins. This parcel has been
improved with the Greenfield apartment complex. The
property is considered inferior in location, as well
as, size and density. The property is further removed
from major thoroughfares and overall access and identity
are inferior.
24
Land Valuation
Market Data (cont'd)
Land Comparable No. 4
I Ju
art 10 S
CAIASRO"'
It%
101
W
0
sell 10i 31*
ZZI..
,A
Ko
2 f co
C:)
E
4�
v
W
•F-
342J9 i serltso r 40S.45
%74 •&9 LAKE ST N E
Location:
SEC of Highway 169 and Highway 7
Hopkins, MN
Legal Description:
Unplatted, PID No. 19-117-21-21-0006
Sale Date:
July, 1987
Shape:
Irregular, fronting on both Highways 169 and 7
Land Area:
195,216 square feet, or 4.48 acres
No. of Units:
63
Density:
14.06 units/acre
Zoning:
R-4, Medium/High Density Residential District
Seller/Purchaser:.
Hennepin County sold the land to Stobbe Development
Sale Price:
$176,110
Price/Unit:
$2,795
Comments:
This property is located in the southeast corner of
Highway 169 and Highway 7, approximately three miles
northwest of the subject property. This property has
been improved with the Plantation Apartments. The
property is considered inferior in location and density,
but comparable in terms of size.
25
i
f
t
Land Valuation
Market Data (cont'd)
Land Comparable No. 5
r
r r
/ r
r P /
4 r'
m
Q /
r d fL.l •
R
Location:
35th and Xenium Lane North
Plymouth, MN
Legal Description:
Lot 1, Block 1, Stone Hill Addition
PID No. 22- 118 -22 -21 -0007
Sale Date:
May, 1987
Shape:
Irregular
Land Area:
746,2276 square feet, or 17.13 acres
No. of Units:
225
Density:
13.13 units /acre
Zoning:
R -4 PUD, Residential Planned Unit Development
Seller /Purchaser:
Bauer /Prudential sold the land to Northco Partners.
Sale Price:
$977,800, includes $87,800 in unpaid special assessments
Price/Unit:
$4,346
Comments:
This property is located approximately nine miles
northwest of the subject property off Xenium Lane in
Plymouth. It is located just north of the Northwest
Business Center, in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of State Highway 55 and I -494. This
property is considered inferior with regard to size,
location, and density. Stonehill Apartments, a 225 -
unit apartment project was constructed on the site.
The location of this comparable is considered inferior
_since Plymouth is a second tier suburb in comparison
to Edina which is a first tier suburb with superior
access and proximity to the Central Business District.
26
I
Land Valuation
Market Data (cont'd)
Land Comparable No. 6
4'102nd ST
:1 -0 (d)
r ,
10"
16111.z" . ...
E
I Ufa
27
r77
T- ST-
10 Of
T
J
Location:
10332 W. Bloomington Freeway
Bloomington, MN
Legal Description:
Lengthy metes and bounds located in the NW 1/4 of the
NE 1/4 of Section 21, Township 27, Range 24
Sale Date:
October, 1986
Shape/Dimensions:
Irregular, approximately 1,100+/- feet of frontage on
I-35W
Land Area:
1,818,630 square feet, or 41.75 acres
No. of Units:
490+/ -
Density:
11.74 units/acre
Zoning:
MF-PUD, Multi-Family Planned Unit Development District
Seller/Purchaser:
Malrite Communications Group sold the land to Chasewood
Company (Trammell Crow)
Sale Price:
$1,950,000
Price/Unit:
$3,980
Comments:
This property is located on the west side of .I -35W in
Bloomington, approximately seven miles southeast of the
subject. The property is considered comparable in
location, but inferior in size and overall density.
Access and identity from I-35W is considered excellent.
27
Land Valuation
Market Data (cont'd)
Land Comparable No. 7
Location:
�s
: o.
Legal Description:
Sale Date:
+ Shape:
Land Area:
No. of Units:
Density:
Zoning:
Seller /Purchaser:
Sale Price:
Price/Unit:
Comments:
c
�. r• < a
j
4
"
� +r
�r
k r
East side of Babcock Trail,
North of Highway 110 (I -494)
Inver Grove Heights, MR
Lot 12, Block 2, Southview Hills
Dakota County, MN
June, 1986
Irregular
204,732.square feet, or 4.7 acres
30
6.38 units /acre
R -3C, Multi - Family District
Parranto Lafayette sold the property of S.W. Construc-
tion
$140,000
$4,667
This property is located approximately fourteen miles
east of the subject property on the north side of
Highway 110 /I -494 just east of Robert Street in Inver
Grove Heights. This property has been improved with
a 30 -unit condominium complex called Cedarwoods of
Southview. The property is considered inferior with
regard to location, size, and overall density.
28
Land Valuation
Market Data (cont'd)
Land Comparable No. 8
•,L /iT Or NWR/Kf - 1J MIJ'I!O_I L �
!:ITT of wl TOHKA - - �.. ' ��• -128880o6
2830; '-
je
W
� e?
„�; R. L. S. , NO. ; ^�
STSd fT ` �
_ C
1530 I
A0 -C64 22
.r p S sl.n t A
CpN I `rc. ,
`'1' , .tea•
do NO- NO. O .2`. `1i)
cr
opts
p. 520 G
CONDO Z
J w 7
4'Y I� w$`J �11.� N4•••1FyF ,� O (j)
Location: Bounded on all sides but one by Smetana Dr/Rd
Minnetonka, MN
Legal Description: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1530
Sale Date: December, 1985
Shape: Irregular
Land Area: 250,034 square feet, or 5.74 acres
No. of Units: 115
Density: 20.03 units /acre
Zoning: R -5, 12 or more units per acre
Seller /Purchaser: Opus 108 Partnership sold the land to South Hampton
Apartments
Sale Price: $402,500
Price/Unit: $3,500
Comments: This property is located approximately three miles east
of the subject property in the Opus II development
situated in the NWQ of the intersection of Highway 169
and Crosstown Highway 62. The South Hampton apartment
complex has been constructed on this site. The property
was considered inferior in location, size, and overall
density.
29
Land Valuation (cont'd)
Adjustment Analysis
The following is an analysis and explanation of the indicated adjustments made
on each of the comparable land sales cited in this report:
A. Time Adjustment - The time adjustment made on each of the comparables is
based on +48 per year for inflation and appreciation.
B. Access /Exposure /Location Adjustment - These comparison aspects reflect a
number of variant general and specific location factors such as visibility,
city and neighborhood characteristics, abutting property uses, block
situation or corner location, street frontages, and highway access. These
adjustment factors are certainly more of a subjective nature and are based
in good part on the appraiser's judgment and experience.
C. Size Adjustment - Here adjustments were graded to reflect the general
a
marketplace trend that the smaller the land parcel, the higher the per unit
purchase price. This stems from the fact that a larger potential buyer
market exists for the smaller properties in that the capital requirements
to get involved are typically less, and thus, a more competitive market
exists. The adjustments for size are scaled as follows:
Land Area 8 Adiustment
Less than 5 acres 08
5 to 10 acres 58 Inferior
11 to 20 acres 108 Inferior
a More than 20 acres 158 Inferior
D. Density Adjustment - Zoning and density requirements for each site differ.
V
A higher price is typically paid for those sites with a greater density
potential. The adjustments for density have been scaled as follows:
Density 8 Adjustment
5
Less than 10 units /acre 158 Inferior
10 to 20 units /acre 108 Inferior
21 to 30 units /acre 58 Inferior
More than 30 units /acre 08
30
VERNON TERRACE
FEBRUARY 1, 1990
.1
LAND VALUATION
DATA RECAP + ADJUSTMENTS
.................................................................................................................
- OUTLINED
BELOW IS A
RECAP AND ADJUSTMENT OF THE
SURVEYED
COMPARABLE
LAND DATA ITEMS:
COMP NO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.......... .....................
8
SUBJECT
ADDRESS
11145-505
ANDRSN LKS
1020 SEC
HWY 169
35TH &
10332 W
BABCOCK &
SMETANA
5250
ANDRSN LKS
& FLY CLOUD
FELTL CT
& HWY 7
XENIUM N
BLMTN FWY
HWY 110
DR & RD
VERNON
EDEN PR
EDEN PR
HOPKINS
HOPKINS
PLYMOUTH
BLMGTN
IN GRV HTS
MNTKA
EDINA
SALE DATE
5/88
12/87
11/87
7/87
5/87
10/86
6/86
12/85
LAND AREA -SO. FT.
396,265
765,000
370,811
195,216
746,226
1,818,630
204,732
250,034
152,427
-ACRES
9.10
17.56
8.51
4.48
17.13
41.75
4.70
5.74
3.50
ZONING
RM-2.5
RES
R -6
R -4
R -4 PUD
MF -PUD
R-3C
R-5
PSR-4
NO. OF UNITS
138
490
150
63
224
490
30
115
146
DWELLING UNITS /ACRE
15.17
27.90
17.62
14.06
13.08
11.74
6.38
20.03
41.72
SALE PRICE E
400,000
1,620,000
532,382
176,110
977,800
1,950,000
140,000
402,500
SALE PRICE /UNIT S
2,899
3,306
3,549
2,795
4,365
3,980
4,667
3,500
SALE TERMS
................................................................................................................................................
CASH
3 YR MTG
CASH
CASH
6 MO CD
Lo ADJUSTMENTS:
TIME ADJ %
................................................................................................................................................
1.07
1.09
1.09
1.11
1.11
1.14
1.15
1.17
T. ADJ /UNIT S
..................................................................................................................
3,101
3,604
3,880
3,094
4,860
4,537
5,382
4,095
ACC /EXP/LOC ADJ
15% IMF
15% IMF
10% IMF
10% IMF
10% IMF
-
15% IMF
.... ...........
10% IMF
..... .. .. . .....
SIZE ADJ
5% IMF
10% IMF
5% IMF
...
10% IMF
15% IMF
- --
5% IMF
DENSITY /ZONING ADJ
.................................................................................................................
10% IMF
5% IMF
10% IMF
10% IMF
10% IMF
10% IMF
15% INF
10% INF
TOTAL ADJ %
............................................................................................................
0.70
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.70
0.75
0.70
...............................
0.75
ADJ PRICE/UNIT S
4,431
5,148
5,174
3,867
6,943
6,049
7,689
.............
5,460
...... ..........
AVERAGE S 5,595
MEDIAN S 5,317
COMPARABLE LAND SALES MAP
32
Land Valuation (cont'd)
Summary
This land valuation analysis has examined the sales of eight land parcels in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area primarily located in the western and southwestern
suburban communities for estimating the market value of the land component of
the Vernon Terrace Apartments. The land sales exhibited in this report are held
to possess good comparability to the subject's characteristics on an overall
basis. The sales were all intended for the development of market apartments in
comparison to the subject which is limited to elderly housing. No adjustment
has been made for this fact since economic opportunities for the success of {both
types of projects are considered comparable. The eight comparables chosen
exhibited a primary adjusted range of market value between $3,867 and $7,689 per
unit. These parameters bracket a probable market value range of $5,000 to $6,000
per unit. The average sale price was found to be $5,595 per unit with a median
value of $5,317 per unit.
The group of comparables selected are felt to be good indicators of the value
of suburban apartment land. The land sales varied in size, density,
access /exposure, and location, but have been adjusted accordingly. All of the
sales were considered to possess a very good overall similarity to the subject
property and all were given equal weight in the final value analysis.
It is concluded that based on the preceding market evidence, the final market
value estimate for the subject land is $5,500 per unit. The subject land parcel
can then be valued as follows:
146 units x $5,500 /unit — $803,000
Estimated Value of the
Subject Land - rounded to, $800,000
1
33
6
Replacement Cost New
In applying the Cost Approach, the Marshall -Swift Valuation Service was relied
on for estimating the current replacement cost new of an apartment building with
underground parking that is similar construction -as the subject property. The
apartment portion of the subject building can be classified as an average, Class
B, .apartment building. The.underground parking area portion can.,be classified
as an average Class CDS, parking structure. Replacement cost new here is the
- -- - -- cost -of- creating -a- structure -of the- same - size = and -- equal = utility _ as - the- subj.ectT
based on. current prices for state - of - >the -art.. materials. It is the price `of
.coi►structing a true substitute building that may not..be composed of identical
materials or possess an identical design; but would provide an equal factor of
usage. Reproduction cost would'be used for estimating an identical building and
would include any functional obsolescence that might be present in the existing
building.
The calculator cost method was relied on in arriving at a replacement cost new
estimate by means of the Marshall -Swift system. The Marshall -Swift calculator
cost form with the cost estimate calculations is included in the Addenda of this
report. Because the Cost Approach assumes the subject is to be built, an estimate
for entrepreneurial profit should be added as well. This is an indirect "cost"
that is expectable in the marketplace and should be included in the total cost
estimate. However, it can easily be discerned from the value conclusion of this
appraisal, this profit has not been realized. This estimate for entrepreneurial
profit was based on information from local building developers and costs for
comparable buildings. From this analysis, an estimated replacement cost for the
improvements is summarized as follows:
Apartment Building and Parking Garage $11;766,619
Add: Land Improvements 115.000
Sub -Total $11,881,619
Add: Entrepreneurial Profit (10 %) 1.188.162
t
Total Replacement Cost New $13,069,780
34
Depreciation Analysis
Three types of depreciation occur in real estate, they are:
a.) Physical depreciation resulting from the wear and tear on the property.
b.) Functional obsolescence resulting from inadequacies or super- adequacies
of design, style or layout when compared to a new property serving the
same purpose.
and, c.) Economic, or external obsolescence. resulting in a loss of value from
-- causes outside the- property - itself:
Physical Depreciation - The subject property was constructed in 1988. Because
it is new, there is minimal physical depreciation.' The economic life of an
apartment building similar to the subject is 55 years indicating an annual
depreciation of 1.81 %. Applying this to the subject, which is two years old
indicates physical depreciation of 3.62 %. (1.81 %.x 2 years - 3.62), or $473,126.
Functional Obsolescence - The subject property is well designed and individual
floor plans are considered functional. Common areas are also attractive and well
located within the building. No functional obsolescence is considered present.
Economic Obsolescence - External or economic obsolescence is generally caused
by outside factors affecting property value, such as economic forces or
environmental change which affect the supply and demand relationship in the
market. At the appraisal date, the senior apartment market in the Twin Cities
suburban area is considered to.be soft due to the considerable amount of new
apartment units developed over the past few years, as well as, the._competition
from condominiums and cooperatives. Until these new units are absorbed and new
development slows, vacancy rates in the market are expected to be above average.
A typical stabilized vacancy rate for apartment projects in a healthy market is
considered to be approximately 3% to 5 %.
2
The subject property is currently about 25% vacant. Due to the increased
competition and increasing vacancy rates in the Twin Cities market area, the
appraisers consider a 10% vacancy rate to be a reasonable stabilized annual
average rate for the subject property for the foreseeable future. This rate is
35
- -- - - - -
further supported by research of senior housing alternatives which indicated that
tenants typically take up to six months to make a decision to rent or buy. It
is difficult for seniors to commit to anew living situation, however, once they,
have decided, they tend to stay until care needs become too great or they have
passed away.
When considering the subject's current rental structure and vacancy.situation,
z its net operating income estimate is lower., than what is required to achieve a
competitive - return given the replacement cost of the subject improvements. The
depreciated cost of the subject improvements has thus far been calculated as:
Replacement Physical Functional Depreciated
Cost - Depreciation Obsolescence + Land Value Value
$13,069,780 - $473,126 - None Measured + $800,000 $13,396,654
The'total depreciated value of the improvements plus land of $13,396,654 would
require a net income of $1,339,665 to achieve a capitalization rate (Ro) or 10 %,
which is considered to be the minimum acceptable market yield for the subject
at the appraisal date. Rents would have to increase by about 53.2% and the
vacancy reduced to 5% for the subject property to approach such an income stream.
The difference between this theoretical net income amount and the projected net
operating income (see Income Approach to Value) represents economic obsolescence
attributed to the property. Thus, economic obsolescence for the subject can be
calculated as follows:
36
Stabilized Operating Statements
Income: Current
Gross Potential Rent $ 1,461,660 x 1.532
Service and Other Income 40.000
Gross Potential Total Income $ 1,501,660
Less: Vacancy and Credit Loss
Stabilized* @ 10%
(150.166)
Effective Gross Income
$ 1,351,494
Less: Expenses
Management Fee @ 5% of EGI
$ 60,817
Other
716.780 **
j Total Operating Expenses
$ 777.597
Net Operating Income
$ 573,897
- Capitalization Rate
- .10
Indicated Value
$ 5,738,970
r
d
a
a
8
i
fpg
D
@ 5%
Required to
Support Existing
Improvements
$ 2,238,608
40.000
$ 2,278,608
(113.930)
$ 2,164,678
$ 108,233
716.780
$ 825.013
$ 1,339,665
.10
$13,396,654
*Vacancy calculated off rental and garage income only, exclusive of dining
income.
* *Year 1 expenses calculated in Income Approach exclusive of marketing
commissions and one leasing agent.
37
0
4
Net Income Required to Support
the Depreciated Value of the Property $ 1,339,665
Less: Effective NOI @ Stabilized
Vacancy and at Market Rates (573.897)
Net Income Shortfall $ 765,768
Capitalization Rate =. .10
Indicated Economic Obsolescence $ 7,657,680
From this analysis then, the economic obsolescence present in the subject
property has been estimated at $7,658,000.
Final Value
By incorporating the site valuation and replacement cost after accrued
depreciation for the subject property, an indication of value by the Cost
Approach was evolved as follows:
Improvements: Replacement Cost New
Less: Accrued Depreciation
Physical Depreciation $ 473,126
Functional Obsolescence None Measured
Economic Obsolescence $7.658.000
Total Accrued Depreciation
Depreciated Value of the Improvements
Add: Value of the Land from the Market
Indicated Value
Estimated Market Value by
the Cost Approach - rounded to,
38
$13,069,780
(8.131.126)
$ 4,938,654
800.000
$ 5,738,654
$ 5,750,000
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
There are a number of senior housing
options available
today, including
condominiums, cooperatives, apartments with''many
services and
amenities, market
rate and subsidized apartments
with limited amenities, assisted living projects,
and ,nursing homes. Selection.of
the type
of alternative is dependent
upon each
resident's need for care,and
services....A
list of senior housing alternatives
in Minneapolis and throughout
Hennepin County, published by Senior Choices, is
:summarized -_ below_._— Acc_ ording-
to_.this_information,__there area
total _ of_.5, -046
units... . .
# of
Church Affiliation/
Name of Complex
Units
Management
Type of Project
Minneapolis
Becketwood Cooperative
225
Episcopal Church
Cooperative
4300 W. River Parkway
Home of MN
Bethany Apts & Annex
24
Evangelical
Apartments
2309 Hayes Street NE
Covenant Church.
Centre Place
80
Westminster
Apartments
515 Grant Street
Chandler Place
119
Marion Post
Apartments
3700 Chandler
Kenwood
155
Active Life
Apartments
825 Summit
Retirement Communities
Kenwood Isles
133
Ebenezer
Condominiums
1425 W. 24th Street
Society
Kenzington of St. Anthony
150
Health
Condominiums
2601 Kenzie Terrace
Central
Nokomis Square
208
Realty Mgmt.
Cooperative
5015 -35th Avenue South
Services
Park Center Apartments
331
Augustana
Apartments*
1510 -11th Avenue South
Homes
St. Anthony Green
42
Westminster
Condominiums
730 -.3rd Avenue North
Standish Green
45
Walker Mgmt.
Condominiums
2210 East 40th St.
*Limited services.
all
# of
Church Affiliation/
Name of Complex
Units
Management
Type of Project
Minneapolis (cont'd)
Teachers Home
90
Ebenezer
Apartments
2625 Park Avenue South
Walker Place
139
Walker Methodist
Apartments
3701 Bryant Avenue South
Western Hennepin County
Calvary Center Cooperative
119
Realty Mgmt.
Cooperative
7600 Golden Valley Road
Services
Golden Valley
Chapel View
56
Chapel View, Inc.
Apartments
605 Minnetonka Mills Road
Hopkins
Covenant Manor
124
Evangelical
Apartments
5800 St. Croix Avenue
Covenant Church
Golden Valley
Elder Homestead
28
Altcare & Housing
Assisted Living
11400 -4th Street North
Allicance and
Minnetonka
Walker Management
Knollwood Place
153
Jewish Federation
Apartments
3630 Decatur Avenue South
St. Louis Park
Lakeshore Village -The Villa
66
Seniors Mgmt
Apartments
The Court
51
Enterprises, Inc.
Shoreline Drive
Spring Lake Park
Pakkshore Place
206
Walker Mgmt.
Apartments
3663 Park Center Blvd.
St. Louis Park
RidgePointe
273
Pointe
Apartments
12600 Marion Lane
Development
St. Therese of Hopkins
226
St. Therese
Apartments
1101 Feltl Court
of New Hope
Hopkins
all
Name of Complex
Northern Hennepin County
Anthony James
6100 W Broadway
New Hope
Brookwood Manor
6125 N. Lilac Drive
Brooklyn Center
Brookwood Estate Apts.
6201 N. Lilac Drive
Chardon Court
5700 Boone Avenue N
New Hope
Copperfield Hill Apts.
4200 -40th Avenue N
Robbinsdale
Earle Brown Commons
6100 Summit Drive N
Brooklyn Center
Lee Square
4400 -36th Avenue N
Robbinsdale
Marathana Place
5415 -69th Avenue N
Brooklyn Center
North Ridge Apts.
5500 Boone Avenue N
New Hope
St. Therese of New Hope
8008.Bass Lake Rd
New Hope
Southern Hennepin County
Castle Ridge Manor
615 Prairie Center Drive
Eden Prairie
*Limited services.
# of Church Affiliation/
Units
Management
jyne of Project
73
Lang Nelson
Apartments*
Associates
65
ManaDyne
Apartments*
73
ManaDyne
Apartments*
129
Northridge
Apartments
Properties
157
Darrell Farr
Apartments
140 Walker Mgmt. Apartments
124 Ebenezer Cooperatives
65 MN Conservative Apartments
Baptist Church -
200 North Ridge Apartments
Care Center
220 St. Therese Apartments
Home, Inc.
21 Twin City Assisted Living
Christian Home
41
Name of Complex
Edina Park Place
3330 Edinborough Way
Edina
Elim Shore
16570 W. 78th St.
Eden Prairie
Friendship Village
8100 Highwood Drive
Bloomington
Gideon Pond
9901 Penn Avenue S
Bloomington
Lake Shore Drive
6615 Lake Shore Drive
Richfield
Meadowwoods
1401 East 100th St
Bloomington
Rembrandt
3434 Heritage Drive
Edina
7500 York
7500 York Avenue
Edina
Wood Lake Point
6500 Woodlake Drive
Richfield
Apple Valley Villa
14610 Garrett Avenue
Apple Valley
Carefree Living
600 Nicollet Blvd.
Burnsville
*Limited services.
# of
Church Affiliation/
Units
Management
LMe of Project
203
Assisted Life
Apartments
Retirement
Communities
64
Elim Care, Inc.
Apartments
321
Life Care
Nursing Home
Services
101
Presbyterian
Cooperative
Homes
178
HealthOne
Condominiums
108
Martin Luther
Apartments
Manor
112
Cheryl
Apartments
Zitzlsperger
338
Ebenezer
Cooperative
49 Brookside Condominium
Enterprises
208 Lemieux Apartments
80 N/A Assisted Living
Nursing Home
42
The subject building is an apartment project with extensive amenities and
services available to seniors. Constructed in 1988, the project is a relatively
new concept that developed from the projected growth in the elderly population.
The research for this appraisal revealed that there have been no recent sales
of this type of project. Limited data wa's found for nursing. homes and subsidized
apartments, however, 'these ,property types are not comparable_, to the subject.
They are competitive, but'each differs significantly from: the subject with the
amount of services and care provided to the residents. There have been may
market rate sales of apartments with no restriction to seniors, however,,, services
and amenities are limited and the overall concept is not comparable. A senior
apartment building such. as the' subject is a unique community concept with varying
activities and health related services available. Atmore direct comparison to
a market apartment is not considered appropriate. Condominiums and cooperatives
y are sold by unit and sales from these projects are also not, comparable.
Furthermore, there have been no sales of assisted living projects. This is also
a new concept which serves as an intermediate step between independent living
and a nursing home.
Based on this analysis of the senior housing market, and the lack of sales
transaction data, the Sales Comparison Approach was held not to be capable of
development with any kind of reliability.
43
INCOME APPROACH
The Income Approach to value is most applicable to types of real estate that are
owned for investment purposes. Consequently, the Income Approach many times is
of most interest to investors concerned with investment decisions such as return
on invested capital, cash flow and depreciation as it affects the investor's
particular income tax situation.
Properties such as office buildings, apartments and industrial buildings are all
examples of income producing investment properties. The market value of a
particular investment property, such as one of the aforementioned, usually can
be derived from the quality, quantity and durability of the income stream chat
the property produces.
The steps employed in arriving at an indication of value from the Income Approach
are as follows:
2
1. The appraiser first estimates potential Economic Gross Income from the
current market rentals being charged and /or the leases bearing on the
property;
2.- The appraiser then subtracts an estimate of vacancy and turnover, if
applicable, to determine an Effective Gross Income;
3. Next, in order to derive a Net Income figure for the property, the
g appraiser subtracts from the Effective Gross Income fixed expenses,
such as taxes and insurance; operating expenses, such as repairs,
utilities and maintenance; and replacement reserves, such as funds set
aside to install a new roof after a number of years;
4. Annual Debt Service and other interest payments are determined next
if the property is financed;
5. Finally, the appraiser then selects and applies an appropriate .
capitalization rate and method to the Net Income to arrive at an
indication of value from the Income Approach.
The Net Income is money that is left to pay mortgage debt service, equity return
and income taxes if depreciation is insufficient to cover income tax liability.
44
Capitalization is the procedure of taking the net income stream and converting
it into an indication of value. There is no one consistent right way to
capitalize net income. It is the appraiser's job to select the appropriate rate
and method for the particular property being appraised.
Of the various capitalization techniques considered, the appraisers have used
a discounted cash flow /internal rate of return (IRR) model based on an eleven
year projection period. The most probable buyer of an apartment property such
as the subject is an institution or a large real estate syndication. Apartment
properties with their short term leases provide excellent upside potential for
prospective investors. Also, the basic nature of the need for adequate housing
makes them one of the most popular types of income property investments for a
wide range of investors, including individuals, partnerships, and major
institutions, such as life insurance companies and pension funds. For the
discounted cash flow analysis, a ten year holding period was projected for the
subject property. Additionally, an eleventh year of income and expenses was
projected to estimate a future sale or reversion of the subject property after
ten years based on the eleventh year's pro forma net income estimate.
INCOME ANALYSIS
Rental Income - The subject property is a senior apartment project. Rental
income includes monthly rent from 146 apartment units, as well as rent from
underground parking and meal service. In order to judge whether the current
rental rates for the subject apartment units are at market, a survey was
conducted of competitive senior apartment projects in the south and west suburbs.
The six competitive projects surveyed have a combined total of 1,117 units. A
summary of these projects is below, followed by a location map and an individual
description of each.
Project # of Units
Knollwood Place 153
St. Therese of Hopkins 226
Parkshore Place 206
RidgePointe 273
Edina Park Place 203
Chapel View Apts. 56
Total No. of Units 1,117
45
COMPARABLE RENTALS MAP
46
Rent Comparable No. 1
:b
•,X3'
Apartment Name:
Knollwood Place
Location:
3630 Decatur Place
St. Louis Park, MN
Number of Units:
153
Year Built:
1988
Occupancy:
122 units, or 80%
Occupancy was 39% in
April, 1989,
indicating
absorption of 62 units,
or 6.88 units per month
over nine months.
Unit Type Size
Rent*
Rent SF
1 Bedroom 580 sf
$600 /month
$1.03
650 sf
$715 /month
$1.10
665 sf
$650 /month
$ .97
2 Bedroom 895 sf
$880 /month
$ .98
970 sf
$995 /month
$1.03
*No change in rents since April,
1989, when
previously surveyed.
Utilities included:
Heat and water
47
Rent Comparable No. 1 (cont'd)
Parking:
Amenities:
Religious Affiliation:
Concessions:
$40 /month
Lounge on each floor, game room, craft room,
whirlpool, guest rooms, greenhouse, library, sun
room, 24 hour security, outdoor patio, community
room with storage, woodshop, exercise room,
convenience store, vending /snack area, beauty/bar-
ber shop, central laundry room, individual storage
lockers, party kitchen, central kosher kitchen,
meals $6.00 each..
Jewish Federation
None
48
Rent Comparable No. 2
. %sam,em�aim?ta . : arc :•- -
Apartment Name:
St.-'Therese of Hopkins
Location:
1011 Feltl
Court
Hopkins, MN
Number of Units:
226
Year Built:
1988
Occupancy:
113 units,
or 50 %.
Occupancy
was reportedly 35% in April, 1989,
indicating
absorption of
34 units, or
3.77 units
per month
over nine months.
Unit Type
Size
Rent*
Rent SF
1 Bedroom
640 sf
$ 725 /month
$1.13
655 sf
$ 770 /month
$ .85
1 Bdrm /Den
830 sf
$ 890 /month
$1.07
982 sf
$ 970 /month
$ .99
2 Bedroom
969 sf
$ 995 /month
$1.03
1003 sf
$1,100 /month
$1.10
935 sf
$1,040 /month
$1.11
2 Bdrm /Den
1285 sf
$1,350 /month
$1.05
1575 sf
$1,800 /month
$1.14
*Less than
1% increase in one bedroom rental rates.
All other rates
are the same since April,
1989 when
last surveyed.
49
Rent Comparable No. 2 (cont'd)
Utilities Included:
Parking:
Amenities:
F
i
i
Religious Affiliation:
Entrance Fee:
Concessions:
Heat and water
$40 /month
Chapel with daily mass, educational programs,
nursing coordinator, 24 hour emergency call and
security system, housekeeping service, laundry
facilities, storage, weekly transportation to
shopping, game room, exercise room, library, party
room, whirlpool, dining room (meals $5.75 each),
gift shop, beauty shop, coffee shop, priority
admittance to St. Therese of New Hope should it
be required.
Catholic: chapel, in -house priest, and nun on
staff.
None, dropped on August 1, 1989
None
50
a
Rent Comparable No. 3
i
i
i
I
r . 7-� T;
1j r
Apartment Name:
Parkshore
Place
Location:
3663 Park
Center Boulevard
St. Louis
Park, MN
Number of Units:
206
Year Built:
1988
Occupancy:
Approximately
196 units, or 95%
Occupancy
was reportedly 91% in April, 1989.
Property is
considered to be at stabilized
level
of occupancy.
Unit Tye
Size Rent
Rent SF
1 Bedroom
634 - $ 625 -
$ .99 -
757 sf $ 895 /month
$1.18
1 Bdrm /Den
836 - $ 685 -
$ .82 -
933 sf $ 935 /month
$1.00
2 Bedroom
875 - $ 895 -
$1.02 -
1098 sf $1,195 /month
$1.08
Utilities Included:
All except
phone and electricity
51
Rent Comparable No. 3 (cont'd)
Amenities:
Religious Affiliation
Concessions:
24 hour security, emergency call system,
woodworking shop, activities director, billiards
room, cable TV, exercise room, whirlpool, community
plaza, guest room, van transportation, restaurant,
beauty/barber shop, crafts room, library, card
room, adjacent to park and Wolfe Lake.
None, Walker Management
None
52
Rent Comparable No. 4
Apartment Name: RidgePointe
Location: 12600 Marion Lane
Minnetonka, MN
Number of Units:
273.(149 units in Bldg
1, 124 units in
Bldg 2)
Year Built:
1986 and 1988
Occupancy:
80% in Building 1
45% in Building 2
Occupancy was reportedly 75% and 25% in
Buildings
1 and 2 in April, 1989.
Total units rented were
38, or 4.22 units per month over the nine month
period.
Unit Type Size
Rent
Rent SF
1 Bedroom 593 -
$ 625 -
$1.05 -
800 sf
$ 875 /month
$1.09
2 Bedroom 808 -
$ 865 -
$1.07 -
1287 sf
$1,500 /month
$1.17
Utilities Included:
All except electricity
and phone
53
Rent Comparable No. 4 (cont'd)
Amenities: Weekly housekeeping, continental breakfast, daily
transportation, social and educational activities,
garden plots, beauty/barber shop, billiards, card
rooms, convenience store, dry cleaning pickup,
health spa, exercise classes, guest suites, ice
cream parlor, juice bar, library, pharmacist,
podiatrist, walking paths, restaurant (lunches
$2.50, dinner $5.00 -price reduced when taken
frequently); 24 hour security and emergency call
system.
Religious Affiliation: None
Concessions: None
54
Rent Comparable No. 5
Apartment Name:
Location:
Number of Units:
Year Built:
Occupancy:
Utilities Included:
Edina Park Place
3330 Edinborough Way
Edina, MN
203
1987
Approximately 173 units, or 858
Occupancy was reportedly 808 in April, 1989,
indicating an absorption of 11 units, or 1.22 units
per month over the nine month period.
Unit Tyne Size Rent* Rent SF
Various 623 - $1,000 - $1.60 -
1200 sf $1,995 /month $1.66
All except telephone
55
Rent Comparable No. 5 (cont'd)
Parking:
Amenities:
Religious Affiliation:
Concessions:
C
5
$40 /month
Restaurant, spa, beauty/barber shop, gift shop,
art /crafts room, party room, woodworking room, one
acre park "under glass" with swimming pool, tennis
courts, and amphitheater. Rent includes housekeep-
ing.
None
$200 off rent per month of one year lease.
Indicated effective rents are $1.28 to $1.50 per
square foot.
56
Rent Comparable No 6
Apartment Name:
Chapel View Apartments
Location:
605 Minnetonka Mills Road
.Hopkins, MN
Number of Units:
56
Year Built:
1985
Occupancy:
52 units, or 88%
Occupancy was reportedly 80% in
April, 1989,
indicating absorption of
7 units, or
.77 units per
month over nine months.
Unit Type Size
Rent*
Rent SF
Efficiency 420 -
$462 -
$1.10
440 sf
$484 /month
1 Bedroom 540 -
$594 -
$1.10
600 sf
$660 /month
2 Bedroom 675 -
$743 /month
$1.10
840 sf
$924 /month
Utilities Included:
All except electricity and phone.
57
Rent Comparable No. 6 (cont'd)
Parking:
Amenities:
Religious Affiliation:
Concessions:
$40 /month
Dining room,
housekeeping
home.
None
None
58
beauty shop, 24 hour security system,
transportation, attached to nursing
As was mentioned in the description section of this report, the subject property
has one and two bedroom units, with different floor plans. These unit types are
summarized as follows:
Unit Type
Apartment Type
Size -SF
Rental Rates
Rent SF
A, H*
One
Bedroom
654
$ 650 -735
$.99 -1.12
B
One
Bedroom /Den
845
$ 800 -850
$.95 -1.00
C,D,E,I*
Two
Bedroom
900
$ 825 -910
$.92 -1.01
F
Two
Bedroom /Den
1,050
$ 925 -945
$.88- .90
G
Two
Bedroom /Den
1,172
$1,025
$.87
J
Two
Bedroom /Den
1,308
$1,250
$.95
K
Two
Bedroom /Den
1,499
$1,400
$.93
*H and I units
are
equipped for
handicapped
tenants.
As is evidenced above, one bedroom units range from 654 to 845 square feet in
size and rental rates are $.95 to $1.12 per square foot. Two bedrooms range from
900 to 1,499 square feet with rents from $.88 to $1.01 per square foot.
The senior housing projects surveyed are all considered competition to the
subject. The majority of the projects are newer with Knollwood Place, St.
Therese of Hopkins, Parkshore Place and Phase 2 of RidgePointe all constructed
in 1988. Phase 1 of RidgePointe was built in 1986 and Edina Park Place and
Chapel View were constructed in 1987 and 1985, respectively.
When the subject property was undergoing the development process, rental rates
between $1.25 and $1.40 per square foot were projected. As is evidenced from
the rental rates for the competitive buildings, this rate is not attainable in
the current market. Rental rates for the subject property were dropped
approximately one year ago (January, 1989) to their present level. These rates
are considered to be at market and in line with the competition. It must be
noted that these rates do not include parking which is an additional $40 per
month. The parking rate is also considered market based on the competition.
Based on a review of the current rent roll for the subject, as of January, 1990,
the total potential income for the rental units has been calculated at $1,418,400
as follows:
59
VERNON TERRACE
APARTMENT RENTAL INCOME
...............
*UNITS WITHOUT BALCONIES ARE $25.00 /MONTH LESS. (FIVE B•UNITS)
••5 YEAR LEASE WRITTEN FOR CELLULAR ONE. RENTED FOR
STORAGE OF PHONE EQUIPMENT TO SERVE THE EDINA AREA.
.........1ST
FLOOR
......... I.........
2ND FLOOR
......... I.........
3RD FLOOR
......... I.........
4TH FLOOR
......... I.........
5TH FLOOR
......... I.........
6TH FLOOR.........
I ....................�
UNIT
NO. OF
RENT/
TOTAL
NO. OF
RENT/
TOTAL
NO. OF
RENT/
TOTAL
NO. OF
RENT/
TOTAL
NO. OF
RENT/
TOTAL
NO. OF
RENT/
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TYPE
UNITS
........................
MONTH
RENT
...I...........................
UNITS
MONTH
RENT
UNITS
........................
MONTH
RENT
UNITS
MONTH
RENT
UNITS
MONTH
RENT
UNITS
MONTH
RENT
UNITS
RENT
A
4
5650
52,600
10
$670
%6,700
10
$670
...I...........................
(6,700
10
%670
56,700
...............•••.........
12
%700
68,400
..................
2
%735
.........I....................�
11,470
48
&32,570
B
1
6775 •
1
$795
•
1
5795
•
1
%795
•
1
$825
•
•••
•••
...
5
4
5800
(3,975
6
5820
$5,715
6
$820
$5,715
6
$820
$5,715
5
$850
$5,075
• -•
•••
• -•
27
(26,195
C
1
5825
6825
4
1845
53,380
4
5845
53,380
4
$845
$3,380
4
$875
$3,500
2
$910
$1,820
19
$16,285
D
" '
3
%845
$2,535
3
$845
$2,535
3
$845
$2,535
3
$875
$2,625
1
1
800
5910
••
$1,710
1
13
&11,940
E
2
$825
$1,650
2
6845
%1,690
2
$845
$1,690
2
$845
$1,690
•••
• -•
•••
• -•
...
...
8
(6,720
F
2
%925
$1,850
2
$945
51,890
2
$945
61,890
2
$945
$1,890
•••
•••
...
•••
...
...
8
57,520
G
...
•••
...
•••
•••
2
$1,025
52,050 �,
2
$1,025
%2,050
4
(4,100
H
5
$650
$3,250
...
...
... �
...
...
...
...
...
I
2
5835
51,670
...
.. •
...
...
...
...
... �
...
...
.
...
...
.-• �
S
53,250 �
J
...
...
I
...
...
... �
...
...
... �
...
...
... �
2
61,670 �
•••
1
%1,250
$1,250
1
$1,250
$1,250
1
$1,250
$1,250
•••
•••
•••
...
...
...
3
$3,750
K
••.
•..
•••
1
$1,400
$1,400
1
51,400
51,400
1
$1,400
$1,400
••.
...
...
...
...
...
3
S4,200
TOTAL)
21
S15,820
30
S24,560
30
$24,560
30
%24,560
27
521,650
8
$7,050
146
$118,200
x
12 MOS.
...........I
(1,418,400
*UNITS WITHOUT BALCONIES ARE $25.00 /MONTH LESS. (FIVE B•UNITS)
••5 YEAR LEASE WRITTEN FOR CELLULAR ONE. RENTED FOR
STORAGE OF PHONE EQUIPMENT TO SERVE THE EDINA AREA.
T
Other Income - In addition to the rent from the apartment units, income is also
collected from the rental of garages and meal service in the dining room. There
are 94 garage stalls and the market rent is $40 per stall per month. This
indicates a potential income of $45,120 annually.
Meal service is available in the dining room. For ten meals the current price
is $39.95 per month. This is an optional program for the residents. If all
meals were taken by all residents each month and the project were fully occupied,
the total income potential from this revenue source would be $69,992. According
to Mike Pagh, marketing and property manager for the project, however, many of
the residents do not take the meal program. Many of the residents use the plan
only once a week or not at all because of the individual kitchens in each unit.
Mr. Pagh reported that expenses for the meal service have been higher than the
i
income collected by almost 338. Expenses have been about $60,000 and according
to Mr. Pagh, income in 1990 is estimated at approximately $40,000.
Vacancy and Credit
Loss - When
the subject
property
was inspected, there were
reportedly 110 units rented.
This equates
to a current
occupancy of 758.
Vacancy rates and
absorption for the competitive senior
housing projects were
analyzed to estimate lease -up
and vacancy
for- the
subject. .Absorption was
estimated by comparing current
occupancy to
occupancy
in April, 1989, when the
competing projects
were previously surveyed.
This information is summarized as
follows:
i
# of
Current
Occupancy
Units Rented Units
Project
Units Occupancy_
In 4/89
Since 4/89 Rented/Mo.
3
Knollwood Place
153
808
398
62 6.88
St. Therese
226
508
358
34 3.77
Parkshore Place
206
958
918
9 1.00
RidgePointe (1)
149
808
758
31 3.44
(2)
124
458
258
Edina Park Place
203
858
808
11 1.22
Chapel View
56
938
808
7 77
Absorption was strongest at Knollwood Place which experienced increased occupancy
from 398 to 80V in nine months. This was followed by the average absorption at
St. Therese and RidgePointe of 3.77 and 3.44 units per month, respectively.
61
It appears from the above market evidence that absorption is strongest before
the property reaches occupancy of about 8.0%. Once the project has achieved an
adequate level of occupancy, absorption is slower as evidenced by the sig-
.nificantly lower absorption rates of Parkshore Place, Edina Park Place, and
Chapel View.
Occupancy for the subject. in April, 1989 was 41 %, or 60 units. This indicates s
that 50 additional units 'have been rented, for an.absorption of five units per
month over the nine month period. Based on this marketplace experience,
absorption is expected to slow down now that occupancy is approaching 80 %.
From an analysis of absorption for the competitive projects, as well as the
subject, absorption for the subject property of two units per month until
stabilized occupancy is reached has been estimated. In this analysis, a
stabilized occupancy of 90% is :considered reasonable: Competition for senior
housing is strong, and this type of apartment is more affected by turnover
because of the overall age and.health condition of the residents. Given these
parameters occupancy in Year 1 at 83% has been estimated as shown below.
Occupancy in subsequent years has been projected at 90 %.
No. of
Year 1 Units Rented Occupancy
February 110 75%
March 112 77%
April 1.14 78%
May 116 79%
June 118 81%
July 120 82$
August 122 84%
September 124 85%
October 126 86%
November 128 88%
December 130 89%
January 131(stabilized) 90%
Average 83%
62
Expense
Analysis
-
The
subject
property opened in
January, 1988.
Operating
expenses
for
1988,
1989
and the
budget for 1990 are
summarized as
follows:
I
3
VERNON TERRACE
EXPENSE HISTORY
BUDGET
EXPENSE
------------ - - - - --
1988
1989
1990
REAL ESTATE TAXES
--- - - - - --
$229,076
--- - - - - --
$229,076
--- - - - - --
$230,000
ADVERTISING
138,242
7,782
12,000
DINING
27,040
57,286
60,000
ADMINISTRATIVE
166,355
327,655
256,380
MISCELLANEOUS
14,791
7,713
6,000
MARKETING
27,060
30,056
18,000
UTILITIES
102,164
93,520
97,450
INSURANCE
22,855
17,834
18,000
SNOW /RUBBISH
6,257
7 800
' REMOVAL & EXT.
REPAIR & MAINTENANCE
19,486
32,626
32,820
MANAGEMENT
------------ - - - - --
118,009
28,488
57,000
TOTAL EXPENSES
--- - - - - --
$865,078
--- - - - - --
$838,293
--- - - - - --
$795,450
EXPENSES/UNIT
$5,925
$5,742
$5,448
63
f
b
Real Estate Taxes - According to the Edina City Assessor, the
subject's estimated 1989 market value for taxes payable in 1990 has
remained unchanged at $7,280,000. Based on 1988 and 1989 taxes, taxes
for Year 1 have been estimated at $230,000. This equates to taxes of
$1,575 per unit. This expense estimate is further supported by taxes
for the following competitive projects.
1990 Projected # of Tax/
Project Taxes Units Unit
Park Shore Place $300,000 207 $1,449
St. Louis Park
St. Therese of Hopkins $324,000 226 $1,433
Hopkins
Rose Pointe $316,021 190 $1,663
Roseville
The subject taxes are currently based on a value of $7,280,000. This value
by the county assessor is higher than the estimated value determined in
3
this appraisal report. It is the appraisers' opinion that astute property
ownership and management would protest taxes in subsequent years to achieve
t a lower payment more in line with probable value. Based on a tax rate of
3.1466% and an estimated value of $6,250,000, taxes have been estimated at
$197,000 in Year 2. It is expected that other competitive projects will
also protest taxes as they become cognizant of the actual market value of
their properties.
Advertising - Advertising expenses were high in 1988 since this was the
i
first year the project opened. Expenses in 1989 were substantially lower
at $7,782 as a result of more effective advertising strategies. An expense
of $12,000, or $82 per unit has been projected for the subject in 1990.
This expense is higher than the 1989 expense because of a newsletter now
published and mailed throughout the area. According to management, this
newsletter has been an effective marketing tool both within and outside of
the project. The budgeted expense appears reasonable given an estimated
budgeted amount of $22,000, or $106 per unit for Parkshore Place.
64
Dining - Historical operating expenses for the subject dining facility in
1988 and 19889 were reportedly $27,040 and $57,286 respectively. An
expense of $60,000 is considered reasonable based on 1989 expenses and
discussions with Mike Pagh of Great Lakes Management Company, the contract
managing firm for the subject property. The dining service is optional to
residents, however, expenses are not expected to fluctuate as much as
income.
Administration - This category of expenses includes salaries /payroll taxes,
and benefits, legal and accounting fees, resident activities, entertain-
ment, telephone, office supplies, postage, vehicle expenses and kiosk
supplies. Administrative expenses were substantially higher in 1989 due
to high legal and audit fees that were passed through to the partnership.
These fees were extraordinary for the year and the budgeted amount for 1990
is $12,000 in contrast to approximately $107,000 in 1989. Salaries
increased from 1989 to 1990 due to raises and the fact that the property
was not fully staffed in 1989. A part time person to cover the security
window entry was added in 1990. Based on the 1990 budget, with considera-
tion for the historical expenses in 1988 and 1989, an expense of $256,000
was estimated for the subject in Year 1. Two leasing agents are currently
working at the subject property. The second leasing agent will be
eliminated once stabilization has been reached, and thus, administrative
expenses are expected to decline by $18,000 to $238,000 in Year 2.
Miscellaneous - This expense was $14,792 and $7,713 in 1988 and 1989 and
the budgeted amount is $6,000. This category reportedly included some
capital expenditures which should have been capitalized rather than
expensed. It is the appraisers' opinion a more reasonable estimate for
miscellaneous expenses is $2,000.
Marketing - Marketing expenses in 1988 and 1989 were $27,060 and $30,056
respectively. This expense involves payment of a $500 commission to a
leasing agent for each unit rented. This expense is projected to decline
and eventually diminish once the project has reached stabilized occupancy.
65
An expense of $18,000 was budgeted for 1990. However, an expense of
$10,500 in year 1 is more reasonable. This assumes that 21 units are
rented to achieve stabilized occupancy of 90 %. No expense has been
estimated for subsequent years when the project is fully stabilized.
Utilities - Utilities were $,102,164 and $95,520 in 1988 and•1989,.respec-
tively. The 1990 - budgeted amount is $97,450, or $667 per unit. According
to Carol Thomas of Walker Management Company, utilities for Park Shore
- - -- -- Place were budgeted at $657 'per unit for 1990. Based on thi's comparison,
i the subject estimate is considered reasonable and- an annual expense. of
$97,000 has been used here.
Insurance - Insurance costs declined from 1988 to 1989 as rates became more
competitive. The budgeted amount of $18,000, or''$123 per unit is
considered reasonable for the subject. According to Carol Thomas,
insurance costs were budgeted at $21,000, or $104 per unit for Park Shore
Place. The budgeted amount is also supported by an estimate of $16,000 to
$18,000 quoted by the Towle Agency-
Snow Rubbish Removal and Extermination - This expense has been based on
expenses for 1989 of $6,257 and the budgeted amount for 1990 of $7,800.
The budget estimate is based on actual contracts for these services. The
1989 expense is lower because some free rent was provided in exchange for
labor. A reasonable estimate for the subject is considered $7,800.
Revairs and Maintenance - This expense was low in the first year the
project opened at $19,486. In 1989 repairs and maintenance costs increased
to $32,626, or $223 per unit. The budgeted amount for 1990 of $32,820,
rounded to $33,000, is considered reasonable given past operating expenses.,
Management - The subject property is managed by Great. Lakes Management
Company. According to Mike Pagh, president of the company, the management
fee for the subject is 4.5% of effective gross income. This rate has been
used in this analysis.
66
Reserves for Replacement - None of the operating statements included a
reserve for the eventual replacement of items such as kitchen appliances,
carpeting and the roof. These items have a shorter life than most
components of the building and a reserve must be estimated. This reserve
has been calculated for the stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers, carpeting
and roof as follows:
Estimated Current
Replacement
Item Cost
146 stoves
} 146 refrigerators
146 units /carpet
146 dishwashers
Roof
s Carpet - Common Areas
i
Total
$400 x 146
e $
58,400
$400 x 146
— $
58,400
$1000 /unit
— $146,000
$400 x 146 —
$
58,400
3,265
$
36,200
1,298
$
41,000
$398,400
*Based on sinking fund interest rate of 7%
Year 1 Payment
Estimated Required For
Life Reserves*
12
years
$ 3,265
12
years
3,265
7
years
16,870
12
years
3,265
16
years
1,298
7
years
4,738
$32,701
Based on the above analysis, total expenses for the subject in Year 1 are
summarized as follows:
Real Estate Taxes
$230,000
Advertising
$
12,000
Dining
$
60,000
Administrative
$256,000
Miscellaneous
$
2,000
Marketing
$
10,500
Utilities
$
97,000
Insurance
$
18,000
Snow, Rubbish Removal
and Exterminator
$
7,800
Repairs & Maintenance
$
33,000
Management Fee (4.5 %)
$
56,393
Replacement Reserves
32,701
Total Year 1 Expenses
$815,394
Excluding replacement reserves, the expenses equate to $782,693, or $5,361 per
unit in Year 1. Expenses will drop in Year 2 to $256,841, or $5,841 per unit
67
as a result of reduced marketing costs and the elimination of the second leasing
agent. These expenses are considered reasonable based on the range of expenses
for senior apartment projects summarized as follows:
For the eleven year income and expense analysis, expenses have been increased
by 4% annually. Income has been increased by 4% annually starting in Year 3.
No rent increase has been projected for Year 2 because of competition and the
overall overbuilt nature of senior housing. The annual inflation rate of 4% for
both income and expenses is felt to be reflective of the average future
operating income and expense increases based on national economic indicators,
local and regional growth projections, and acceptable investor underwriting
parameters as of the appraisal date.
Holding Period - For this analysis, a ten year projection period was selected.
Additionally, an eleventh year net income was projected in order to estimate a
future sale price or reversion for the subject property at the end of the tenth
year. This sale price or reversion is based on the capitalization of the
eleventh year's net income estimate less expectable capital investments for the
same year, and a sales commission of 2.5% at sale.
Capitalization of the Net Income Stream - Of the various capitalization
techniques considered to evolve an indication of market value by the Income
Approach, the appraisers have used a discounted cash flow /internal rate of
return (IRR) model based on an eleven year projection period and market based
acceptable yield parameters.
68
# of
Per Unit
Project
Units
_Expense
Occupancy
Parkshore Place
207
$4,752 (Budget
1990)
95%
- Manitou Place
43
$5,322 (Budget
1990)
98%
- Rose Pointe
190
$6,219 (Actual
1989)
85%
St. Therese of Hopkins
226
$6,231 *(Budget
1990)
50%
*Includes substantial
marketing
cost of $1,670 per
unit.
For the eleven year income and expense analysis, expenses have been increased
by 4% annually. Income has been increased by 4% annually starting in Year 3.
No rent increase has been projected for Year 2 because of competition and the
overall overbuilt nature of senior housing. The annual inflation rate of 4% for
both income and expenses is felt to be reflective of the average future
operating income and expense increases based on national economic indicators,
local and regional growth projections, and acceptable investor underwriting
parameters as of the appraisal date.
Holding Period - For this analysis, a ten year projection period was selected.
Additionally, an eleventh year net income was projected in order to estimate a
future sale price or reversion for the subject property at the end of the tenth
year. This sale price or reversion is based on the capitalization of the
eleventh year's net income estimate less expectable capital investments for the
same year, and a sales commission of 2.5% at sale.
Capitalization of the Net Income Stream - Of the various capitalization
techniques considered to evolve an indication of market value by the Income
Approach, the appraisers have used a discounted cash flow /internal rate of
return (IRR) model based on an eleven year projection period and market based
acceptable yield parameters.
68
The most probable buyer of an apartment building such as the subject property
is a small partnership group of private individual investors or a single wealthy
investor. Such investors typically are looking for income producing properties
with a high, relatively steady income stream. For the discounted cash flow
analysis, a ten year holding period was projected. This is felt to be a
consistent underwriting basis for such a buyer group. Additionally, an eleventh
year of income and expense was.projected in order to estimate a future sale or
n reversion of the subject property in the tenth year based on the eleventh year's
-- - - - -- -pro - - -orma - net -income - estimate. -- - -- - - - - -- - --
-- - --
.The. discount rate used in a multiple year discounted cash flow analysis reflects
the yield requirements of real estate investors. An investor expects a lull J
recovery of his investment plus a profit or ,return on this capital. Yield rates
are a function of the degree of apparent risk in an investment, the market's
i
attitude with respect to future inflation, _the rate of return earned by
comparable properties and the rate of return on alternative investment
opportunities
The Towle Real Estate Company is an active mortgage banking correspondent for
some fifteen institutional lenders, as well as numerous other major direct
investors and /or syndicators on a nationwide basis. For institutional buyers,
it was discerned that yield rates (IRR's) between 10.00% and 12.00% would be
required to attract capital to market rate apartment properties.
Investment criteria, published in The Appraiser, was also considered. Specific
desired yields for unleveraged acquisition for apartments as of the Third
Quarter, 1989 were reported as follows:
Real Estate Investment Criteria - Apartments
Third Ouarter, 1989
Pre -Tax Overall Yield (IRR) ($) 10 -12%
Going -In Cap. Rate ($) 6.5 -9%
Terminal Cap. Rate ($) 7 -10%
Income and Expense Growth Rate (%) 3 -6%
Source: The Appraiser, Vol. 45 No. 11, November, 1989.
M
Based on this analysis, it is felt that a discount rate of 13% would compel
investors to purchase the subject property as of the appraisal date. A rate
exceeding the preceding delineated range is considered appropriate for the
subject given its current vacancy, its modest size, the high risk associated
with this type of property and current market factors.
Besides the annual cash flow to the ownership position over the projection
period, a lump sum future reversion will revert to the equity position from a
projected sale of the property at the end of the eleventh year. Because
investors tend to base their future equity reversion expectations on current
market prevalences, an analysis of current overall capitalization rates has been
made.
For this discounted cash flow analysis, an overall terminal capitalization rate
of 10% is considered to be appropriate. The overall capitalization rate was
then applied to the projected eleventh year net income stream resulting in a
future sales price estimated at the end of the tenth year. A sales commission
of 2.5% was deducted to arrive at a net reversion to the ownership. A
i discounted cash flow analysis based upon the previous assumptions has been
completed and a summary of this analysis is included on the following page.
I
T
i
ROUNDED TO, 15,850,000
FOOTNOTES
(1) 17% YEAR 1
10% YEARS 2.11
(2) 2 4.5% OF EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
1.04
VERNON TERRACE
VALUATION DATE: FEBRUARY
1, 1998_
ELEVEN YEAR DISCOUNTED CASH
FLOW ANALYSIS
.... ...............................
YEAR 1
YEAR 2
YEAR 3
YEAR 4
YEAR 5
YEAR 6
YEAR 7
YEAR 8
YEAR 9
YEAR 10
YEA4 it
INCCME:
2/90.1/91
2/91.1/92
2/92.1/93
2/93.1/94
2/94.1/95
2/95.1/96
2/96.1/97
2/97.1/98
2/98.1/99
2/99.1/00
2/00.1/01
...................
APT. RENTAL INCOME
....................................................................................................:
$1,416,540
$1,416,540
$1,473,202
51,532,130
$1,593,415
$1,657,151
51,723,438
$1,792,375
...............................
:1,864,070
51,938,633
$2,016,178
GARAGE RENTAL INCOME
145,120
546,925
$48,802
$50,754
$52,784
$54,895
$57,091
559,375
$61,750
564,220
$66,789
...................
TOTAL INCOME
.....................................................................................................
51,461,660
$1,463,465
51,522,003
$1,502,084
$1,646,199
$1,712,047
$1,780,529
51,851,750
...............................
51,925,820
52,002,853
$2,082,967
LESS: VACANCY (1)
($248,482)
(5146,346)
($152,200)
(5158,288)
($164,620)
($171,205)
(5178,053)
($185,175)
($192,582).
($200,285)
($208,297)
ADD: DINING ROOM INCOME
540,000
541,600
$43,264
$44,995
$46,794
548,666
550,613
$52,637
$54,743
$56,932
$59,210
...................
EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
.....................................................................................................
$1,253,178
$1,358,718
$1,413,067
$1,469,590
51,528,373
$1,589,508
$1,653,089
51,719,212
...............................
51,787,981
$1,859,500
51,933,880
LESS EXPENSES:
REAL ESTATE TAXES
5230,000
$197,000
$204,880
5213,075
$221,598
$230,462
$239,681
$249,268
$259,239
5269,608
$280,392
ADVERTISING
$12,000
512,480
$12,979
$13,490
514,038
$14,600
$15,184
$15,791
$16,423
$17,080
$17,763
DINING
$60,000
562,400
$64,896
$67,492
$70,192
$72,999
$75,919
$78,956
$82,114
$85,399
$88,815
ADMINISTRATION
$256,000
$238,000
$247,520
5257,421
5267,718
$278,426
5289,563
$301,146
$313,192
5325,719
5338,748
MISCELLANEOUS
$2,000
$2,080
$2,163
52,250
$2,340
$2,433
$2,531
$2,632
52,737
$2,847
52,960
MARKETING
$10,500
$0
$0
$0
SO
SO
$0
SO
50
$0
SO
UTILITIES
$97,000
$100,880
5104,915
$109,112
$113,476
$118,015
$122,736
$127,645
$132,751
$138,061
$143,584
INSURANCE
518,000
$18,720
$19,469
$20,240
$21,057
$21,900
522,776
$23,687
524,634
525,620
$26,644
SNOW, RUBBISH REMOVAL
57,800
$8,112
$0,436
$8,774
59,125
$9,490
$9,869
$10,264
$10,675
511,102
511,546
3 EXTERMINATOR
REPAIRS /MAINTENANCE
$33,000
$34,320
$35,693
$37,121
530,605
540,150
541,756
$43,426
545,163
546,969
$48,848
MANAGEMENT FEE (2)
$56,393
561,142
563,588
$66,132
568,777
$71,528
$74,389
$77,365
580,459
$83,677
$87,025
REPLACEMENT RESERVES
532,701
$34,009
$35,369
$36,784
$38,256
$39,786
$41,377
$43,032
$44,754
...............................
546,544
548,405
...................
TOTAL EXPENSES
.....................................................................................................
$815,394
$769,143
$799,909
$831,905
$865,182
$899,789
5935,781
5973,212
$1,012,140
...............................
$1,052,626
51,094,731
...................
NET OPERATING INCOME
......................................................................................................
$437,784
$589,575
$613,158
$637,684
$663,192
$689,719
$717,308
$746,000
$775,840
5806,874
5839,149
ADD: 11TH YR REVERSION a
10.00%
$8,391,490
LESS: COST OF SALES 8
2.50%
...............................
($209,787)
...................
CASH FLOW PLUS REVERSION
.........................................................................................
5437,784
5589,575
$613,158
$637,684
$663,192
$689,719
$717,308
$746,000
5775,840
58,988,577
DISCOUNTED 2 13.00%
$5,848,145
ROUNDED TO, 15,850,000
FOOTNOTES
(1) 17% YEAR 1
10% YEARS 2.11
(2) 2 4.5% OF EFFECTIVE GROSS INCOME
i
s
Summary of Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
Valuation Indication at 13% IRR. 10% Ro
Estimated Net Income - 11th Year
Capitalized at 10%
Projected Future Sales Price
Less: Sales Commission (a 2.5%
Future Equity Reversion
Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
Present Value of the 10 Year Cash Flow and
the Future Equity Reversion discounted at 13%
Indicated Market Value by
the Income Approach - rounded to,
72
$ 839,149
10
$8,391,490
(209.787)
$8,181,703
$5,848,145
$5,850,000
1
RECONCILIATION AND CONCLUSIONS
Final Value Estimate
This study has evolved, through the application of the three standard appraisal
approaches to value, the following indications of market value for the subject
property:
Cost Approach $5,750,000
Sales Comparison Approach Not Developable
Income Approach $5,850,000
The Cost Approach develops an indication of value by estimating the construction
cost new to replace the subject property with one of equal utility. From this
replacement cost new estimate, accrued depreciation was subtracted and the value
of the land from the market added to arrive at a value indication from the Cost
Approach. For the subject, the market value of the land, valued as if vacant
and unimproved, was estimated at $5,500 per unit, or $800,000 for the 3.5 acres.
An overall replacement cost new of $13,069,780 was estimated for the subject
improvements based on the costs reported by the Marshall -Swift Valuation
Service. From this cost new figure, total accrued depreciation attributed to
physical deterioration and economic obsolescence was subtracted, and the land
value was added resulting in a total estimated market value by the Cost Approach
g of $5,750,000.
The greatest degree of reliance given this approach is usually in the appraisal
of new properties, where accrued depreciation from physical deterioration and
other forms of obsolescence are minimal assuming the new building represents the
highest and best use of the site. The Cost Approach oftentimes is also highly
useful in the appraisal of single - purpose or specialized real estate that does
not lend itself to alternative applications and where the Income and Market Data
Approaches cannot be adequately developed. The measurement of accrued deprecia-
tion, predominantly a judgment decision by the appraiser, is critical to the
reliability of the approach. Where accrued depreciation is perceived as being
great, the Cost Approach is typically not accorded the heaviest emphasis.
Although the subject property is newer with minimal physical depreciation, there
is a substantial amount of economic obsolescence. This is due to the oversupply
of senior housing in the metropolitan area, as well as the fact that rents above
73
1
what the market could support were projected when the development of the property
was commenced. The Cost Approach is felt to be the slightly less reliable method
here, and its primary function is used as a check against the market value
evolved from the Income Approach.
The subject property is a senior citizen apartment building with extensive
i services and activities. The property is a unique community concept, and
research revealed that there have been no recent sales of this type of project.
Based on an analysis of the senior housing market, and the lack of sales
t
transaction data, the Sales Comparison Approach was not deemed capable of
development with any kind of reliability.
The Income Approach considers the property as a capital investment from which
a desired return of money in the form of both capital recapture and interest (or
profit) is expected. It is the basis upon which investors place great emphasis
as they make deliberate decisions to buy or sell real estate in the everyday
marketplace. It is the subject's ability to generate and return a specific
desired income level that is most often the key factor in determining its value
in the open market.
Through the Income Approach, the appraisers analyzed a ten year net income stream
that the property could generate based on the current net rental rates and
expenses for senior apartments in the market. This net income was then
discounted into an indication of present value. The discounted cash flow
analysis resulted in a market value indication for the subject of $5,850,000,
as rounded. Because the subject is considered an income producing property,
most emphasis has been placed on this approach.
Therefore, it is concluded that the market evidence best substantiates a Final
Value Estimate for Vernon Terrace as of February 1, 1990 of:
FIVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
$5,850,000
Composed of: Land $ 800,000
Improvements $5,050,000
74
r
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned hereby certifies that, except as otherwise noted in this ap-
praisal report:
1.
I have made a careful, personal and thorough inspection of the subject
property.
2.
No one other than the person(s) signing this report have contributed to the
analyses, conclusions and opinions set forth herein except as otherwise
noted in the report.
3.
Neither the employment nor compensation for this appraisal assignment is
contingent upon an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions,
or conclusions in, or use of, this report.
4.
F
I have no present or contemplated interest in the subject property, and I
have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
5.
To the best of the appraiser's knowledge and belief, the statements of fact
'
contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyses,
opinions and conclusions are limited only by the assumptions and limiting
conditions set forth in the report and are my personal, unbiased profes-
sional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.
6.
My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed in conformity with
'
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The undersigned
further certifies that the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were
developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the
requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of
Professional Practice of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers.
7.
The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers conducts a formal program
of continuing education for its designated members. MAI's who meet the
minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic educational cer-
tification. Certification under this program has been met by the signing
appraiser(s).
8.
To the best of the appraiser's knowledge and belief, based on the foregoing
analyses and subject to the limitations and conditions of this report, the
+
t
Market Value of the subject property as of February 1, 1990 was:
FIVE MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
n $5850,000
Respectfull subm tted �
Robe unz CRE, MAI Cathleen M. Chobot
Senior resident Senior Staff Appraiser
Apprai al /Consultation Division Appraisal /Consultation Division
75
r
THIS REPORT IS
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITING CONDITIONS
The legal description furnished us is assumed to be correct. If the exact
description was not available, an "approximate" legal description will be found
in the report, in which case its accuracy should not be relied upon.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. The title is
assumed to be marketable, but we have made no title examination, and items such
as deed restrictions or unusual easements not readily apparent have not been
taken into consideration in the valuation unless divulged by the client and so
stated in the report. All existing liens and encumbrances have been disregarded,
and the property is appraised as though free and clear and under responsible
ownership and competent management unless otherwise stated.
All drawings or sketches are included to assist the reader in visualizing the
property. While every effort is made to maintain accuracy, measurements are
sometimes distorted in reproduction, thus these illustrations should not be used
to obtain exact dimensions. We have made no survey of the property and assume
no responsibility in that regard. We make no claims as to the presence of
hazardous materials either in the construction components of the improvements
or in the land.
Information furnished to us by others, and on which we have relied, is believed
to be correct, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The estimates of value
evolved in this report are based on existing tax laws in place as of the date
of this appraisal.
Estimates herein are based on the present status of the national business
economy, and the current purchasing power of the dollar. It is assumed that
there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environ-
mental regulations and laws unless non - compliance is stated, defined and
considered in the appraisal report.
One (or more) of the signatories of this appraisal report is a Member (or
candidate) of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers of the National
Association of Realtors. The Bylaws and Regulations of the Institute require
each Member and Candidate to control the use and distribution of each appraisal
report signed by such Member or Candidate. Therefore, except as hereinafter
provided, the party for whom this appraisal report was prepared may distribute
copies of this appraisal report, in its entirety, to such third parties as may
be selected by the party for whom this appraisal report was prepared; however,
selected portions of this appraisal report shall not be given to third parties
without the prior written consent of the signatories of this appraisal report.
Further, neither all nor part of the appraisal report shall be disseminated to
the general public by the use of advertising media, public relations media, news
media, sales media or other media for public communication without the prior
written consent of the signatories of this appraisal report.
76
a
r
LIMITING CONDITIONS
(continued)
Testimony as an expert witness or attendance in court because of this appraisal
is not required unless arrangements have been previously made.
The distribution of total value between land and improvements, or statement of
land value alone, applies only under the program of utilization stated in the
report. This may be, but is not necessarily, the existing use. The separate
valuations for land or buildings must not be used in conjunction with any other
appraisal as erroneous conclusions could be drawn. Similarly, where a portion
or fraction of a real estate holding is being appraised, the sum of all
fractional interests or components is not necessarily equal to the sum of the
total interest or property.
77
r
PROFESSIONAL COMPENDIUM
Robert Geo. Lunz
I. Professional Experience
A. Employed-by The.Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, St. Paul from
June, 1970 to June, 1975, in the Mortgage and Real Estate Division of the
Investment Department with the position of mortgage and real estate
investment analyst.
B. Employed by The Towle Real Estate Company, Minneapolis with the present
position of Vice President, Appraisal /Consultation Division since
September, 1975.
C. Resident of and active in the Twin Cities real estate market since June,
1970.
D. Licensed real estate broker, State of Minnesota.
E. Member, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers,(AIREA) - MAI
F. Counselor of Real Estate, (ASREC) - CRE
II. Educational Background
A. Graduate of Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota, 1970,
Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree with a major in the study of economics.
Completion of the entire regimen of required course work for the MAI
designation.
B. Most recent professional real estate course work and related studies:
1. "Standards of Professional Practice" - AIREA, Chicago, 1981
2. "Litigation Value" - AIREA, University of Minnesota, 1985
3. Many other investment economics and real estate valuation oriented
seminars.
III. Memberships
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers
American Society of Real Estate Counselors
Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors
Minneapolis Athletic Club
National Association of Industrial and Office Parks
IV. Clients - Consultation Studies and Appraisal Reports have been
completed for the following institutions and corporations:
Augsburg Publishing Co.
Blue Cross /Blue Shield of Minnesota
First Asset Realty Advisors(FARA)
First Bank Minneapolis
Ford Motor Co.
Graco, Inc.
I D S
Land O'Lakes
Milwaukee Insurance Company
Minneapolis Community Development
Agency (MCDA)
Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co.
Montgomery -Ward Co.
National City Bank of Minneapolis
78
Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Northwestern National Life Insurance
Norwest Bank Minneapolis
The Pillsbury Company
Prudential Realty Group (PRISA)
Radisson Hotels /Carlson Cos.
Saint Paul Dispatch /Pioneer Press
Soo Line Railroad
Super Valu Stores, Inc.
Target Stores
Teachers Insurance & Annuity Assoc.
Trammell Crow Company
WCCO- Midwest Radio & TV
Western Union
APPRAISAL COMPENDIUM
Cathleen M. Chobot
I. Professional Experience
.A. Currently employed by.the Towle Real Estate Company in the Appraisal/
Consulting Division as Senior Staff Appraiser since.August, 1989.
B. Employed by Johnson & Liedl Appraisal as Staff Appraiser, 1988- 1989.
C. - Employed by American Appraisal Associates- _asStaff_Appraiser -,.-
- - -- -- - - -. - 1985 - 1988... -- - -
D. Employed by Newcombe.& Hansen Appraisals Inc., as Staff Appraiser, 1982-
1985.
E. Candidate for the MAI Designation, American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers (AIREA).
II. Education
A. Bachelor of Business Administration with majors in Real Estate and
Marketing from University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1982.
B. Completion of all the AIREA required work for the MAI designation
including Standards of Professional Practice,,Real Estate Appraisal
Principals, Basic Valuation Procedures, Residential Valuation, Capitali-
zation Theory A & B, Case Studies and Report Writing.,
ITI. Clients - Appraisal reports have been completed for the following institutions
and corporations:
ADC Telecommunications
Brandon Financial Corporation
City of Chaska
Conoco Oil Company
Copley Real Estate Advisors
Cowles Media
Donaldson Corporation
FDIC
Fingerhut Corporation
First Bank
First National Bank of Moline
First Wisconsin National Bank
Franklin National Bank
Gibraltor Savings
General Electric
Hennepin County
Jostens, Inc.
Kimberly Clark
Krupp Mortgage Company.
Medtronic`
Meritor Mortgage Company
Mellon Bank
Midwest Savings
National City Bank.
National Partnership Investment Crop.
Occidental Bank of Nebraska
Prudential Realty Group (PRISA)
Soo Line Railroad Company
Space Center, Inc.
The Bank North
Trammell Crow
Twin City Fed,-,il, Banking & Savings
United Artists
United Health Care
79
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
141700
05/07/90
19.54
ALLEN ROTHE
MEETING EXPENSES
19.54
*
141701
05/07/90
40.00
MN CHAPTER IAAI
DUES
40.00
*
141702
05/07/90
23.76
RICHARD MYRE
MEETING EXPENSES
23.76
*
DOUG LEW
141703
05/07/90
68.00
99UG 6Ei'
SALES
68.00
*
141704
05/07/90
50.00
ROYAL SIL -O -ETS
PERFORMANCE
50.00
*
141705
05/07/90
92.80
ADRIANE BRUMFIELD
CRAFT SUPPLIES
92.80
*
141706
05/07/90
30.00
MN CTR FOR BOOK ARTS
REGISTRATION
30.00
*
141707
05/07/90
20.00
DICK JOHNS
BOILER LICENSE
20.00
*
141708
05/07/90
625.77
US STANDARD SIGN CO
SIGN MATERIAL
625.77
*
141709
05/07/90
3,315.40
LINEAR DYNAMICS INC
PAINT
3,315.40
*
141710
05/07/90
42.00
SHIGO /TREES ASSO
REFERENCE BOOK
42.00
*
141711
05/07/90
75.00
CITY OF MPLS
TRAINING
75.00
*
141712
05/07/90
414.09
MUNITECH INC
REPAIRS RECORDERS
414.09
*
141713
05/07/90
6.77
PAPER WAREHOUSE
VOL RECEP /NAPKINS
6.77
*
141714
05/07/90
39.97
AM ARBORIST SUP INC
TREE SUPPLIES
39.97
*
141715
05/07/90
489.20
AM EXCELSIOR CO
EROSION CONTROL
489.20
*
NORWEST BANKS
141716
05/07/90
200.00
ZENET11 PR98W8T e&
PAYING AGENT
141716
05/07/90
28,950.00
BOND INTEREST
29,150.00
*
ZENITH PRODUCTS
141717
05/07/90
104.30
MAAe
BRICKS
104.30
*
141718
05/07/90
147.81
SUSAN FRAME
COST /GOODS SOLD
05 -21 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4206 - 440 -44
10- 4204 - 440 -44
10- 4206 - 440 -44
30- 3501 - 000 -00
30- 4224 - 781 -78
23- 4588 - 611 -61
23- 3500- 000 -00 1012
30- 4204 - 781 -78
10- 4542 - 325 -30 18029 5212
10- 4544 - 335 -30 71924 5682
10- 4204 - 640 -64 7446
10- 4202 - 420 -42
40- 4248- 801 -80 4860 7441
10- 4500- 500 -50
10- 4504 - 644 -64 11783 7515
10- 4562 - 643 -64 170553 7112
10- 1145 - 000 -00 63063
10- 1145 - 000 -00 63063
10- 4540 - 646 -64 1935 6809
23- 4624 - 613 -61
1
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -21 -90 PAGE 2
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
147.81
*
141719
05/07/90
25.00
TC JAZZ SOCIETY
DUES
30- 4204 - 781 -78
25.00
*
141720
05/07/90
158.11
DANIEL SMITH
COST /GOODS SOLD
23- 4624 - 613 -61
7300
158.11
*
i41721
05/07/90
381.25
AUBIN NURSERIES LTD
TREES /SHRUBS
10- 4560 - 644 -64
3201 6505
381.25
*
141722
05/07/90
35.70
MAUREEN BROCKWAY
ART WORK SOLD
23- 3625 - 000 -00
35.70
*
141723
05/07/90
98.00
PAT GEISHEKER
ART WORK SOLD
23- 3625 - 000 -00
98.00
*
141724
05/07/90
50.40
JEAN HAEFELE
ART WORK SOLD
23- 3625 - 000 -00
50.40
*
141725
05/07/90
110.60
SHARON MCKISSON
ART WORK SOLD
23- 3625 - 000 -00
110.60
*
141726
05/07/90
131.25
BETTY BELL PEDDIE
ART WORK SOLD
23- 3625 - 000 -00
-
131.25
*
141727
05/07/90
31.61
SPECIAL EFFECTS
ART WORK SOLD
23- 3625 - 000 -00
31.61
*
141728
05/07/90
61.53
ANN WIDERSTROM
ART WORK SOLD
23- 3625 - 000 -00
"
61.53
*
141729
05/07/90
225.00
KAY SHARKEY
ART WORK SOLD
23- 3625- 000 -00
225.00
*
141730
05/07/90
126.00
BOBO ZINN
AC INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
126.00
*
141731
05/07/90
156.00
CYD WICKER
AC INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
156.00
*
141732
05/07/90
326.00
ADRIENNE WEINBERGER
AC INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
326.00
*
141733
05/07/90
90.00
JANE RIFFEY
AC INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
90.00
*
141734
05/07/90
420.00
MONICA RUDQUIST
AC INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
420.00
*
141735
05/07/90
56.00
BETTY BELL
AC INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
56.00
*
141736
05/07/90
384.00
DOROTHY ODLAND
AC INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
384.00
*
_ V74
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
CHECK REGISTER
23- 4201 - 611 -61
CHECK NO.
DATE -
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
141737
05/07/90
400.00
J THOMAS NELSON
AC
INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
400.00
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
141738
05/07/90
1,152.00-
MARGARET.MCDOWELL
AC
INSTRUCTOR
23- 4201 - 611 -61
1,152.00
10- 4204 - 120 -12
10- 4504 - 301 -30
141739
05/07/90
180.00
NICK LEGEROS
AC
INSTRUCTOR
-
180.00
141740
05/07/90
81.00
PHYLLIS HAYWA
AC
INSTRUCTOR
81.00
141741
05/07/90
234.00
COLLEEN HAAS
AC
INSTRUCTOR
234.0 0
141742,
05/07/90
228.00
MARGARET GUST
AC
INSTRUCTOR
228.00
141743
05/07/90
540.00
JEAN GRAPP
AC
INSTRUCTOR
540.00
141744
05/07/90
450.00
PAT GEISHEKER
AC
INSTRUCTOR
450.00
*
141745
05/07/90
360.00
SUSAN FRAME
AC
INSTRUCTOR
360.00
*
141746
05/07/90
255.00
BILL DIETRICHSON
AC
INSTRUCTOR
255.00
*
141747.
05/07/90
777.00
TOBIE DICKER
AC
INSTRUCTOR
777.00
*
141748
05/07/90
90.00
ADRIANE BRUMFIELD
AC
INSTRUCTOR
90.00
*
141749
05/07/90
180.00
BETSY BRYANT
AC
INSTRUCTOR
180.00
*
141750
05/07/90
218.00
SALLY BURNS
AC
INSTRUCTOR
218.00
*
141751
05/07/90
902.00
MARIAN ALSTAD
AC
INSTRUCTOR
902.00
*
141752
05/07/90
75.00
PRESERVATION FORUM
MEMBERSHIP
75.00
*
141753
05/07/90
119.48
MAPCO SAND /GRAVEL
SAND
MATERIAL
119.48
*
141754
05/07/90
275.31
TURF PRODUCTS
H2O
TANK /FLOWERS
275.31
141755
05/07/90
100.00
CRITTER CONTROL
TRAP
3
05 -21 -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
10- 4204 - 120 -12
10- 4504 - 301 -30
6501
27- 4504 - 664 -66
5701 7499
40- 4248 - 900 -90
02545 7475
3
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
141756
141757
141758
141759
141759
141760
141760
k k k k k k
141762
k k A k k k
141765
141766
141767
141768
141769
141770
141771
141772
141773
141774
05/07/90
05/07/90
05/07/90
05/07/90
05/07/90
05/07/90
05/07/90
AMOUNT
100.00
165.00
165.00
150.00
150.00 *
91.70
91.70 *
319.85
147.42
467.27 *
60.00
80.18
140.18
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
DEALERS AUTO SERV
MARY D WALTERS
NORTHSTAR EAST
MOLLIE PAULSON
MOLLIE PAULSON
NORMA HANLON
NORMA HANLON
SPEAKER /MTG BRACKET
PHONE SERV CONSULT
REFUND
ART WORK SOLD
PERSONNEL SERVICES
AC INSTRUCTOR
CRAFT SUPPLIES
05 -21 -90 PAGE 4
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4248 - 560 -56 3423 7344
10- 4256 - 510 -51
40- 3800 - 000 -00
23- 3625 - 000 -00
23- 4120 - 613 -61
23- 4201 - 611 -61
23- 4588 - 611 -61
05/07/90 120.48 CARPET KING CARPET MATERIAL 27- 1300 - 005 -00 141979 5971
120.48 *
05/09/90
41.30
KANDIYOHI BOTTLED
GENERAL SUPPLIES
23- 4504- 611 -61
7413
41.30
*
05/09/90
483.47
ACCUFORM GOLF LTD
SAND TRAP RAKES
27- 4504 - 664 -66
4208
6990
483.47
*
05/09/90
91.16
UNITED INDUST INC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 781 -78
51033
7047
91.16
*
05/09/90
34.00
CINDY WAKNITZ
MILEAGE
30- 4208 - 781 -78
34.00
*
05/09/90
100.00
NW TENNIS ASSOC
LESSONS
30- 3505 - 000 -00
100.00
*
05/09/90
5.78
PARAGON CABLE
CONTRACT SERVICE
.30- 4288 - 782 -78
7559
5.78
05/09/90
8,093.00
TRI STATE BOBCAT INC
BOBCAT
27- 1340 - 000 -00
4423
6450
8,093.00
05/09/90
27.50
RACO OIL /GREASE CO
HYDRANT GREASE
40- 4504- 803 -80
39427
6936
27.50
*
05/09/90
20.00
COLLEEN BELK
REFUND
10- 1145 - 000 -00
20.00
*
05/09/90
51.51
JIM FRIEDTICHS
MILEAGE
40- 4208 - 806 -80
51.51
*
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
141775
05/09/90
26.68
MN POLICE CHIEF
ADVERTISING
141775
05/09/90
26.66
MN POLICE CHIEF
ADVERTISING
141775
05/09/90
26.66
MN POLICE CHIEF
ADVERTISING
80.00
*
141776
05/09/90
90.00
CLIFF JOHNSON
ADVERTISING
90.00
*
141777
05/09/90
25.30
MPLS OXYGEN COMP
GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.30
*
141778
05/10/90
152.99
BOB KOJETIN
GENERAL SUPPLIES
152.99
*
141779
05/10/90
550.00
NATL REC /PARK ASSN
MEMBERSHIP
550.00
*
141780
05/10/90
105.77
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
PARTS
105.77
*
141781
05/10/90
36.77
MR SIGN
EXCHANGE SIGNS
36.77
*
141782
05/10/90
142.50
HUDSON MAP COMPANY
CITY MAP
142.50
*
141783
05/10/90
70.94
MRS DARREL ALKIRE
REFUND
70.94
*
141784
05/10/90
255.00
CLAIRE HASTINGS
AMBULANCE REFUND
255.00
*
141785
05/10/90
95.00
JAMES SINGLETON
REGISTRATION
95.00
*
141786
05/10/90
129.00
BLOOMINGTON GARDEN
BALES OF HAY
129.00
*
141787
05/10/90
1,080.00
FRONTIER LUMBER
WINE RACKS
1,080.00
*
141788
05/14/90
659.28
DAVID SCHOEN
CONVENTION
659.28
*
1417b9
05/14/90
66.00
BRETT FORBERG
CONTRACT SERV
66.00
*
141790
05/14/90
1,200.00
LIGHTING SPECIALTIES
INSTAL LIGHTS
1,200.00
*
141791
05/14/90
622.13
LUNDS
SERVICES
622.13
*
141792
05/14/90
19.80
STERLING FENCE
REPAIRS
05 -21 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4214- 822 -82
50- 4214 - 842 -84
50- 4214- 862 -86
23- 4214- 611 -61 7412
23- 4504 - 612 -61 214278 7303
10- 4504 - 624 -62
10-4204- 600 -60
10- 4540 - 560 -56 837405 7442
10- 4504- 325 -30 52415 7456
10- 4504- 301 -30 1944 7359
40- 3800 - 000 -00
10- 3180 - 000 -00
10- 4202 - 440 -44
41- 4504 - 900 -90 3852 7256
50- 1300 - 003 -00 8066 6086
50- 4202 - 840 -84
30- 4224 = 781 -78
27- 4248 - 662 -66 13475 7196
10- 4201 - 380 -30 09883
10- 4540 - 642 -64 9703 7524
5
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
141792
05/15/90
141793
05/14/90
141794
05/14/90
141795
05/14/90
141796
05/14/90
141797
05/14/90
141798
05/14/90
141799
05/14/90
141800
05/14/90
* * * * **
*
141802
05/14/90
141803
05/14/90
141804
05/14/90
141804
05/14/90
141805
05/14/90
141806
05/14/90
141807
05/14/90
141808
05/14/90
141809
05/14/90
141810
05/14/90_
AMOUNT
4.85
24.65
*
207.50
FENCE
207.50
*
64.00
REFUND
64.00
*
32.00
PRO SERVICES
32.00
*
985.27
REGISTRATION
985.27
*
12.00
CABLE REPAIRS
12.00
*
30.00
30.00
*
250.00
250.00
*
597.96
597.96
*
150.00
150.00 *
70.00
70.00 *
2,130.95
161.22
2,292.17 *
693_.82
693.82 *
200.00
200.00 *
280.00
280.00 *
600.00
600.00 *
75.00
75.00 *
50.00
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
STERLING FENCE
FENCE
MIDWEST "LSCAPING SUP
TREES /SHRUBS
MARY SMITH
REFUND
WALTER LEVESQUE
REFUND
NANCY KNUDSON
PRO SERVICES
DRIVER /VEHICLE SERV
LICENSE PLATES
HENN CTY TREASURER
REGISTRATION
C &P IMPRESSIONS
STATIONARY
US WEST COMM
CABLE REPAIRS
MN LICENSED BEV ASSO
DEPT OF LABOR /INDUST
MN STATE TREASURER
MN STATE TREASURER
MIRACLE REC EQUIP
JIM FRIEDRICHS
LIZ GEREBI
ESPECIALLY
DC AL FINE
EMMET STARK
SEMINAR
BOILER CERT
BLDG REPORT
BLDG REPORT
REPAIR PARTS
PAYMENT
PAYMENT
RENTAL
SERVICES 6 -21 -90
SERVICES 6 -24 -90
05 -21 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4540 - 646 -64 9708 7588
10- 4560 - 644 -64 20878 5589
28- 3500- 000 -00
28- 3500 - 000 -00
28- 4224 - 701 -70
10- 4504 - 440 -44
10- 4202 - 440 -44
10- 4504 - 440 -44 H1958 6072
10- 4201 - 642 -64 7611
50- 4202 - 840 -84 51090 7064
10- 4260 - 510 -51 131923
10- 3095 - 000 -00
10- 3113- 000 -00
10- 4540 - 646 -64 313286 6730
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
6
* * * -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
05/14/90
AMOUNT
50.00
50.00
50.00
*
40.00
40.00
*
150.00
150.00
*
75.00
75.00
*
100.00
100.00 *
75.00
75.00
*
40.00
40.00
*
75.00
75.00
*
75.00
75.00
*
75.00
75.00
*
30.00
30.00
*
30.00
30.00
*
150.00
150.00
*
40.00
40.00
*
75.00
75.00
*
75.00
75.00
*
50.00
'
50.00*
100.00
100.00
*
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
MPLS COMMODORES
TOM LOBELLO
STONEY LONESOME
ARTHUR WOLF
MERV LYSING
MIKE BROWN
ST ANTHONY
JIM OUSKA
JIM SCHATTAUER
DAVID BROWN
ROSEVILLE BIG BAND
CALHOUN ISLES
FOGER PARRISH
ZUHRAH
HERMINIO DIAZ
ROYAL SCOTTISH
NORTH COUNTRY
KEITH JOHNSON
SERVICES 6 -26 -90
SERVICES 7 -1 -90
SERVICES 7 -1 -90
SERVICES 7 -5 -90
SERVICES 7 -8 -90
SERVICES 7 -10 -90
SERVICES 7 -15 -90
SERVICES 7 -16 -90
SERVICES 7 -19 -90
SERVICES 7 -19 -90
SERVICES 7 -29 -90
SERVICES 6 -3 -90
SERVICES 6 -17 -90
SERVICES 6 -17 -90
SERVICES 6 -18 -90
SERVICES 6 -28 -90
SERVICES 7 -31 -90
SERVICES 6 -17 -90
05 -21 -90 PAGE 7
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE.
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
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
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
CHECK REGISTER
30- 4224 - 781 -78
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
141829
05/14/90
50.00
CATS PAW
SERVICES 9 -25 -90
10- 4201 - 520 -52
50.00
*
50- 4204 - 820 -82
141830
05/14/90
75.00
JAY KARAI
SERVICES 8 -14 -90
50- 4204 - 860 -86
75.00
30- 4201- 781 -78
141831
05/14/90
75.00
OSLO PT 2
SERVICES 6 -9 -90
15414
75.00
90 -3
141832
05/14/90
100.00
MIKAEL RUDOLPH:
SERVICES 9 -13 -90
60- 2040 - 000 -00
100.00
*
60- 2040 - 000 -00
141833
05/14/90
565.00
NOVA ENVIORM SERV
SERVICES
60- 2040 - 000 -00
90 -5
565.00
*
167938
141834
05/14/90
250.00
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL
TAXES
141834
05/14/90
250.00
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL
TAXES
141834
05/14/90
250.00
BUREAU OF ALCOHOL
TAXES
750.00
141835
05/14/90
766.48
PAT GREER
SERVICES
766.48
141836
05/14/90
.875.00
LINDA KOZAK
SERV 5- 9/5 -22 -90
875.00
141837
05/15/90
65.00
AM PUBLIC WORKS ASSN
SUBSCRIPTION
65.00
*
141838
05/15/90
6,198.24
LAYNE MN CO
PAYMENT
6,198.24
*
141839
05/15/90
28,975.00
RICHMAR CONSTRUCTION
PAYMENT
28,975.00
*
141840
05/15/90
36,879.00
OR CONSTRUCTION
PAYMENT
36,879.00
*
141841
05/15/90
6,190.68
VICTOR CARLSON
PAYMENT
6,190.68
*
141842
05/15/90
49,833.55
PROGRESSIVE
PAYMENT
49,833.55
*
141843
05/15/90
29,070.72
LUNDA
PAYMENT
29,070.72
*
141844
05/15/90
35,482.11
ALBER CONSTRUCTION
PAYMENT
35,482.11
*
I
141845
05/15/90
7,048.95
AMERIDATA
COMPUTER /SOFTWARE
141845
05/15/90
50.00
AMERIDATA
COMPUTER /SOFTWARE
7,098.95
141846
05/15/90
485.00
METAFILE INFO',SYST
COMPUTER ACC
8
05 -21 -90 PAGE
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
# MESSAGE
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
30- 4224 - 781 -78
10- 4201 - 520 -52
M3300
50- 4204 - 820 -82
50- 4204 - 840 -84
50- 4204 - 860 -86
30- 4201- 781 -78
30- 4201 - 781 -78
10- 4204 - 260 -26
15414
60- 2040 - 000 -00
90 -3
60- 2040 - 000 -00
90-1
60- 2040 - 000 -00
90 -2
60- 2040 - 000 -00
89 -15
60- 2040 - 000 -00
89 -13
60- 2040 - 000 -00
89 -12
60- 2040 - 000 -00
90 -5
10- 4901 - 260 -26
167938
6142
10- 4901 - 260 -26
168805
6142
10- 4901- 260 -26
33806
6143
8
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -21 -90 PAGE 9
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
485.00 *
141847
05/15/90
28.40
CORINNE E HUNT
AMBULANCE REFUND
10- 3180 - 000 -00
28.40 *
141848
05/15/90
25.00
CITY ENGINEERS ASSO
ANNUAL DUES
10- 4204 - 240 -24
25.00 *
141849
05/15/90
35,786.20
CSI ELECTRIC INC
CONSTRUCTION
60- 1300 - 005 -20
35,786.20 *
141850
05/15/90
1,589.95
O&P CONTRACTING
PAYMENT
60- 2040- 000 -00
89 -14
1,589.95 *
141851
05/15/90
278,896.39
COMMISSIONER OF
LOCAL FUND DEPOSIT
60- 1300 - 280 -04
278,896.39 *
141852
05/15/90
899.99 ago-99
JP FOODSERVICE INC
REPAIRS
27- 4248 - 663 -66
939061
6832
899.99 *"
141853
05/15/90
440.00
FENC -CO INC
FENCE POST
27- 4540 - 667 -66
4740
7314
440.00 *
141854
05/15/90
156.00
EDISON SIGNS
LINERS
27- 4540 - 667 -66
3214 -0
7486
156.00 *
141855
05/15/90
470.00
BING PLUMBING
DRINKING FOUNTAIN
27- 4540 - 667 -66
7592
7694
470.00 *
141856
05/15/90
362.00
PRESTO CLEANING SYST
CLEAN CARPET
27- 4288 - 662 -66
8172
7423
362.00 *
141857
05/15/90
81.35
AILEEN KULAK
MILEAGE
27- 4208 - 661 -66
81.35 *
141858
05/15/90
103.53
DAN DORNSEIF
MILEAGE
27- 4208 - 661 -66
103.53 *
141859
05/15/90
70.10
WEEKEND FREEDOM
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 782 -78
63902
7679
70.10 *
141860
05/15/90
75.00
BELL OF THE NORTH
PERFORMANCE 9 -18 -90
30- 4224 - 781 -78
75.00 *
141861
05/15/90
13,727.00
MILLS ADVERTISING
CITY MAGAZINE
12- 4215 - 434 -43
5077
13,727.00 *
141862
05/15/90
325.00
PRO CARPET AND
CARPET CLEANING
10- 4248 - 440 -44
2017
7224
.325.00 *
141863
05/15/90
1,127.48
JB DATA SUPPLIES
PRINTING
10- 4600 - 510 -51
3637
3839
1,127.48 *
* * * * **
* * * -CKS
141A01
05/10/90
84.38
3M CO
SIGNS
10- 4542 - 325 -30
6713
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -21 -90
PAGE 10
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
141A01
05/07/90
525.95
3M CO
SIGN MATERIAL
10- 4542 - 325 -30
6713
610.33
x * * * **
* ** -CKS
141A07
05/09/90
121.80
ALL -AMER BOTTLING
MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
141A07
05/10/90
134.40
ALL -AMER BOTTLING
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
256.20
* * * R
* ** -CKS
141A09
05/15/90
1,262.72
AAA
TITLE /FILING /PLATES
10- 4310- 560 -56
1,262.72
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141A22
05/10/90
1,646.30
AIR COMFORT INC.
AC REMODEL
23- 1300 - 001 -00
33998
1,646.30
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141A27
05/14/90
55.34
ART GOKEY
MILEAGE
40- 4208 - 806 -80
55.34
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141A29
05/10/90
36.66
ALBINSON
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504- 260 -26
646563
36.66
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141A39
05/10/90
35.84
ALTERNATOR REBUILD
REGULATOR
10- 4540 - 560 -56
7010
7449
141A39
05/10/90
105.12
ALTERNATOR REBUILD
TOOLS
10- 4580 - 301 -30
7008
7264
141A39
05/10/90
115.88
ALTERNATOR REBUILD
PLIERS
10- 4580 - 301 -30
7007
7261
256.84
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141A41
05/14/90
326.00
AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE
MEAT
27- 4624 - 663 -66
5506
141A41
05/14/90
320.98
AMBASSADOR SAUSAGE
MEAT
27- 4624 - 663 -66
5506
646.98
*
141A42
05/10/90
1,200.00
ARTHUR DICKEY ARCH
AC REMODEL
23- 1300 - 001 -00
1,200.00
*
141A43
05/10/90
- 339.99
AM LASER CUT GRAFIX
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 782 -78
65393
7021
339.99
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141A49
05/07/90
207.09
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
10- 4262 - 440 -44
141A49
05/07/90
9.91
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
10- 4262 - 482 -48
141A49
05/07/90
141.74
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
10- 4262- 520 -52
141A49
05/14/90
26.47
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
27- 4262 - 663 -66
5515_
141A49
05/07/90
148.77
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
30- 4262 - 782 -78
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
141A49
05/07/90
207.09
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
14IA49
05/07/90
207.09-
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
141A49
05/07/90
56.84
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
141A49
05/07/90
54.82
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
141A49
05/07/90
80.35
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
141A49
05/07/90
80.35-
AMERICAN LINEN
LAUNDRY
141A49
05/07/90
80.35
AMERICAN LINEN.
LAUNDRY
* * * * **
725:99 *
141A51
05/15/90
28.06
AMERICAN RED CROSS
PRINTING
28.06 *
* * * * **
141A54
05/07/90
35.00
AAGARD
RECYCLING
141A54
05/07/90
35.00
AAGARD
RECYCLING
141A54
05/07/90
35.00
AAGARD
RECYCLING
105.00
* * * * **
141A63
05/14/90
152.32
ERIC ANDERSON
FMI CONFERENCE
141A63
05/14/90
200.00
ERIC ANDERSON
FMI CONFERENCE
141A63
05/14/90
200.00
ERIC ANDERSON
FMI CONFERENCE
552.32 *
* * * * **
141A67
05/10/90
13.29
AQUA ENGINEERING
CLAMP
13.29 *
* * * * **
(2 checks)
141B03
05/14/90
18.78
BENSON
SAFETY GLASSES
141803
05/14/90
94.87
--BENS
GARBAGE
-- i3 -:-6�s
BFI PORTABLE SERVICES
* * * * **
141805
05/07/90
37.50
BACH -BILL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
141805
05/07/90
37.50-
BACH -BILL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
141805
05/07/90
37.50
BACH -BILL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.50
* * * * **
141807
05/07/90
4,328.40
BADGER METER INC
WATER METERS
4,328.40
* * * * **
141809
05/07/90
17.25
BAILEY NURSERIES
TREES
141809
05/07/90
176.25
BAILEY NURSERIES
TREES
05 -21 -90 PAGE 11
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4262 - 440 -44
50- 4262- 440 -44
50- 4262- 821 -82
50- 4262 - 841 -84
50- 4262 - 841 -84
50- 4262 - 841 -84
50- 4262 - 861 -86
* ** -CKS
10- 4600 - 600 -60 1383
* ** -CKS
50- 4250 - 821 -82
50- 4250 - 841 -84
50- 4250 - 861 -86
* ** -CKS
50- 4202 - 820 -82
50- 4202 - 840 -84
50- 4202 - 860 -86
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 318 -30 24661 .7457
10- 4262 - 646 -64 301067
27- 4250 - 663 -66
10- 4504 - 600 -60
30- 4504 - 600 -60
30- 4504- 600 -60
40- 1220 - 000 -00 624960 5189
10- 4560 - 644 -64 5586
10- 4560 - 644 -64 5586
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -21 -90 PAGE 12
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
# MESSAGE
141B09
05/07/90
503.25
BAILEY NURSERIES
TREES /SHRUBS
10- 4560- 644 -64
5586
141609
05/07/90
379.50
BAILEY NURSERIES
TREES
10- 4560 - 644 -64
6623
1,076.25
* *" -CKS
141B17
05/07/90
33,348.15
BFI RECYCLING SYS
RECYCLING CONTRACT
10- 4226 - 507 -50
141B17
05/07/90
182.40
BFI RECYCLING SYS
RECYCLING CONTRACT
10- 4226 - 507 -50
141817
05/07/90
18.24-
BFI RECYCLING SYS
RECYCLING CONTRACT
10- 4226 - 507 -50
141617
05/07/90
18.24
BFI RECYCLING SYS
RECYCLING CONTRACT
10- 4226 - 507 =50
33,530.55 *
* * **
* ** -CKS
141820
05/07/90
498.30
BEACON PRODUCTS CO.
BALLFIELD CHALK
10- 4563- 642 -64
2790
5598
498.30 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141B22
05/14/90'
1,082.10
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
27- 4630 - 663 -66
5505
141B22
05/15/90
382.40
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
27- 4630 - 667 -66
7695
141B22
05/07/90
423.60
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
50- 4630 - 822 -82
141622
05/09/90
2,008.10
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
50- 4630- 842 -84
141B22
05/07/90
1,727.70
BEER WHOLESALERS
BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
5,623.90 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141625
05/07/90
100.00
BENNETT -WAYNE
POLICE SERVICES
10- 4100 - 430 -42
100.00 *
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141827
05/09/90
167.00
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 822 -82
141827
05/09/90
269.00
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 842 -84
141B27
05/09/90
301.00
BERGFORD TRUCKING
LIQUOR DELIVERY
50- 4626 - 862 -86
737.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141630
05/10/90
74.16
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
DISKETTES
10- 4504 - 160 -16
565582
141B30
05/10/90
5.76
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
STAMPS
10- 4504 - 160 -16
565550
141830
05/10/90
17.59
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
CARBON PAPER
10- 4504 - 200 -20
565550
141B30
05/10/90
75.50
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
RIBBONS
10- 4504 - 260 -26
565481
141830
05/10/90
75.46
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
STENO PADS
10- 4504- 510 -51
565736
141830
05/10/90
127.80
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 510 -51
565550
141B30
05/10/90
25.40
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
BULLETIN
10- 4504 - 540 -54
564425
7350
141830
05/10/90
87.92
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
ANSWERING MACH
10- 4504 - 600 -60
565479
141830
05/10/90
59.28
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
FILE /PENS
10- 4516- 140 -14
565550
141830
05/14/90
69.40
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
27- 4516 - 661 -66
564269
7322
141B30
05/14/90
69.40-
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
27- 4516 - 661 -66
564269
7322
141B30
05/14/90
69.40
BERTELSON BROS. INC.
OFFICE SUPPLIES
27- 4516- 661 -66
564269
7322
618.27
* * * * ** * ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
MN
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
141B32
05/07/90
40.00
OF
MN
40.00
k k k k k k
OF
MN
141B42
05/14/90
12.98
141842
05/10/90
249.99
OF
MN
262.97
kkkxxx
OF
MN
141B59
05/10/90
970.17
141B59
05/10/90
156.70
141B59
05/10/90
156.70
141B59
05/10/90
970.16
141859
05/10/90
156.70
141859
05/10/90
668.56
141B59
05/10/90
52.24
141659
05/10/90
626.79
141B59
05/10/90
156.70
141B59
05/10/90
313.39
141859
05/10/90
1,253.57
141859
05/10/90
26.12
141859
05/10/90
26.12
5,533.92 *
k k k* k x
141662
05/07/90
83,472.00
83,472.00 *
xkxxxx
141678
05/14/90
288.14
288.14
xxxxxx
141693
05/07/90
74.43 72 .Be
74.43* -- 99
xxxxxx
141C01
05/09/90
499.97
141001
05/07/90
46.74
xxxkxx
546.71
141C09
05/07/90
266.35
266.35
kkkkkk
141C29
05/14/90
490.00
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
BEST LOCK OF MPLS PRO SERV
BLACK PHOTOGRAPHY
BLACK PHOTOGRAPHY
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BFI
OF
MN
INC
BOYUM EQUIPMENT
BRISSMAN- KENNEDY INC
BRC ELECT /MIDWEST
C & S DISTRIBUTING
C & S DISTRIBUTING
CARLSON PRINTING
CHIPPEWA GRAPHICS
PHOTO FINISHING
CAMERA
05 -21 -90 PAGE 13
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
30- 4201 - 782 -78 3786 7491
10- 4508 - 440 -44 143529
10- 4901 - 540 -54 143517 7360
GARBAGE
10- 4250 - 301 -30
GARBAGE
10- 4250 - 440 -44
GARBAGE
10- 4250, - 520 -52
GARBAGE
10- 4250 - 540 -54
GARBAGE
10- 4250 - 645 -64
GARBAGE
10- 4250- 645 -64
GARBAGE
23- 4250- 612 -61
GARBAGE
27- 4250 - 662 -66
GARBAGE
27- 4250 - 664 -66
GARBAGE
28- 4250 - 702 -70
GARBAGE
30- 4250- 782 -78
GARBAGE
50- 4250 - 841 -84
GARBAGE
50- 4250 - 861 -86
STREET SWEEPER
10- 4901 - 305 -30 1383' 5762
CLEANING SUPPLIES 10- 4512- 520 -52 156367 7547
BALLOT RETURN ENVELP 10- 4504 - 184 -18 451141 7289
COST /GOODS SOLD
COST /GOODS SOLD
BUSINESS CARDS
PRINTING
23- 4624 - 613 - 61105218 7410
23- 4624 - 613 -61 104819 7190
10- 4504 - 510 -51 47780
10- 4201 - 627 -62 8470 7678
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF.EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
141C30
05/09/90
141C30
05/07/90
xxxxxx
141C33
05/15/90
141C33
05/15/90
141C33
05/07/90
xxxxxx
141C36
05/09/90
141C36
05/09/90
141C36
05/09/90
141C37
05/07/90
141C37
05/07/90
xxxxxx
141C39
05/07/90
xxxxxx
141C44
05/14/90
141C44
05/14/90
141C44
05/09/90
141C44
05/07/90
141C44
05/07/90
xxxxxx
141051
05/10/90
141052
05/07/90
xxxxxx
141C89
05/10/90
141C89
05/07/90
141C89
05/07/90
141C89
05/07/90
xxx *xx
AMOUNT
490.00 *
149.50
109.75
259.25 *
184.04
29.81
160.00
373.85 *
12.25
12.25
12.25
36.75 *
38.50
27.97
66.47 *
1,411.67
1,411.67 *
288.50
195.50
261.43
553.19
724.16
2,022.78 *
1,258.60
1,258.60 *
12,000.00
12,000.00 *
129.71
20.64
39.34
48.52
238.21
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
CITY BEER BEER
CITY BEER BEER
CITY OF EDINA
CITY OF EDINA
CITY OF EDINA
CITYWIDE WINDOW SERV
CITYWIDE WINDOW SERV
CITYWIDE WINDOW SERV
CLANCY DRUG INC.
CLANCY DRUG INC.
CLEAN -FLO LAB
COCA COLA BOTTLING
COCA COLA BOTTLING
COCA COLA BOTTLING
COCA COLA BOTTLING
COCA COLA BOTTLING
COMM OF REVENUE
COMM OF TRAN
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO
CUSHMAN MOTOR CO
WATER
WATER
REFUSE
WINDOW CLEANING
WINDOW CLEANING
WINDOW CLEANING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
AQUATIC WEEDS
COKE
COST /GOODS SOLD
MIX
MIX
MIX
FUEL TAX
PRO SERV ENG
05 =21 -90 PAGE 14
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4630 - 842 -84
50- 4630- 862 -86
10- 4258 - 446 -44
10- 4258 - 646 -64
50- 4250 - 821 -82 1910
50- 4248 - 821 -82 9599
50- 4248 - 841 -84 9600
50- 4248 - 861 -86 9601
10- 4504 - 260 -26
10- 4504 - 640 -64
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
10- 4201 - 358 -30 5281 6831
" xxx -CKS
27- 4624 - 663 -66 5507
28- 4624 - 703 -70 7061
50- 4632 - 822 -82
50- 4632 - 842 -84
50- 4632 - 862 -86
10- 4612 - 560 -56 2068
10- 4201- 260 -26 81612
REPAIR PARTS 10- 4540 - 560 -56 42882 6956
PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 42992 6956
REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 43177 7385
REPAIR PARTS 27- 4540 - 664 -66 42381 6422
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
i
05 -21 -90
PAGE 15
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. #
MESSAGE
141D29
05/07/90
149.05
DAVIDSEN DIST. INC.
BEER
50- 4630 - 842 -84
149.05
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141D33
05/15/90
56.87
DAVIS- EUGENE
MILEAGE
10- 4208 - 600 -60
56.87
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141D61
05/07/90
100.00
DICK NISSEN
POLICE SERVICES
10- 4100 - 430 -42
100.00
*x * * **
* ** -CKS
141D78
05/14/90
1,918.00
DEDE HENSEL
PRO SERVICES
28- 4224 - 701 -70
1,918.00
*
141D79
05/14/90
3,480.65
DORSEY & WHITNEY
BOND ISSUE
10- 1145- 000 -00
372668
3,480.65
*
141D °0
05/14/90
105.37
DALE LUNDGREN
MILEAGE
30- 4208 - 781 -78
105.37
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141D90
05/14/90
38.00
DYNAMED
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
10- 4510- 440 -44
556436 7217
38.00
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141E02
05/09/90
809.84
E KRAEMER & SONS INC
GENERAL SUPPLES
10- 4504 - 314 -30
9760
809.84
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141E17
05/09/90
4,249.70
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
BEER
50- 4630 - 822 -82
141E17
05/07/90
8,177.55
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
BEER
50- 4630 - 842 -84
141E17
05/09/90
6,001.35
EAST SIDE BEVERAGE
BEER
50- 4630- 862 -86
18,428.60
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
•141F21
05/14/90
590.00
FLANAGAN SALES
PARK BENCHES
10- 4248 - 646 -64
4471 7574
590.00
* * * * **
*. ** -CKS
141F26
05/14/90
172.74
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL
HOSE GUIDES
40- 4540 - 801 -80
3668 7521
172.74
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141G01
05/10/90
501.19
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
10- 4262 - 301 -30
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
141G01
05/10/90
254.27
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
141G01
05/10/90
156.93
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
141G01
05/10/90
249.76
G & K SERVICES
CLEANING SUPPLIES
141001
05/10/90
87.76
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
141G01
05/09/90
16.08
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
141G01
05/10/90
271.30
G & K SERVICES
LAUNDRY
1,537.29 *
* * * * **
141G15
05/15/90
28.00
GEM TAP SERV
BEER LINES
28.00 *
141G24
05/10/90
286.25
GEN. COMMUNICATIONS
MAINT CONTRACT
141G24
05/14/90
11.00
GEN. COMMUNICATIONS
ANTENNA
141G24
05/14/90
30.00
GEN. COMMUNICATIONS
CARRYING CASE
141G24
05/15/90
568.00
GEN. COMMUNICATIONS
2 WAY RADIO
895.25
* * * * **
141G32
05/14/90
151.50
GOPHER STATE 1 CALL
CALLS
141G32
05/14/90
151.50
GOPHER STATE 1 CALL
CALLS
141G32
05/14/90
454.50
GOPHER STATE 1 CALL
CALLS
757.50
141G38
05/07/90
100.00
GEORGE BUTLER
POLICE SERVICES
100.00
* * * * **
141G42
05/15/90
91.48
GIL HEBARD GUNS
AMMO /GUN RANGE
141G42
05/15/90
187.60
GIL HEBARD GUNS
TARGETS /GUN RANGE
279.08
* * * * **
,141G44
05/07/90
50.00
GLEN SIPE PIANO SERV
SERVICE CONTRACT
50.00
* * * * **
141G79
05/14/90
7,518.00
GREUPNER -JOE
LESSONS
* * * * **
7,518.00
141H05
05/14/90
43.50
H.L. MOORE
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
* * * * **
43.50
05 -21 -90 PAGE 16
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4262- 560 -56
10- 4262- 646 -64
10- 4512- 540 -54
28- 4262- 702 -70
30- 4262- 782 -78
40- 4262- 801 -80
* ** -CKS
27- 4630- 662 -66 5509
* ** -CKS
10- 4294 - 560 -56 33531
10- 4504 - 440 -44 65258 5051
10- 4504 - 440 -44 65259 5051
27- 4504 - 664 -66 65211 6686
* ** -CKS
10- 4318 - 280 -28 490171
10- 4504- 646 - 64490171
40- 4504 - 803 -80 490171
* ** -CKS
10- 4100 - 430 -42
* ** -CKS
29- 4572 - 722 -72 25100 7541
29- 4648 - 722 -72 25100 7541
* ** -CKS
30- 4288 - 782 -78 900502 1493
* ** -CKS
27- 4201 - 661 -66
* ** -CKS
10- 4510 - 440 -44 7218
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -21 -90
PAGE 17
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
141H09
05/07/90
592.00
HALLMAN
40W ENGINE OIL
10- 4618 - 560 -56
52604
7164
592.00
* * * * **
* *. -CKS
141H20
05/14/90
820.00
HARMON CONTRACT
CONTRACT REPAIR
30- 4248 - 782 -78
6591
141H20
05/09/90
98.00
HARMON CONTRACT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504- 782 -78
7561
918.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141H22
05/07/90
100.00
HAROLD SWANSON
POLICE SERVICES
10- 4100 - 430 -42
100.00
* * R
" ** -CKS
141H31
05/15/90
67.50
HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS
PRO SERVICES
30- 4201- 782 -78
3119
7701
67.50
141H32
05/07/90
32.72
HEDGES -DIANA
GENERAL SUPPLIES
23- 4504 - 612 -61
141H32
05/07/90
15.44
HEDGES =DIANA
CRAFT SUPPLIES
23- 4588 - 611 -61
141H32
05/07/90
72.81
HEDGES -DIANA
COMMODITIES /AC
23- 4624 - 613 -61
120.97
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141H34
05/14/90
105.00
HENN COUNTY TREAS.
WOOD CHIPS
10- 4560 - 644 -64
20102
7358
105.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141H37
05/14/90
150.00
HENN TECH CENTER
REGISTRATION
10-4202-440-44'022459
7222
150.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141H42
05/07/90
812.68
HERMAN MILLER INC.
REMODELING
25- 4924 - 520 -52
412322
5887
812.68
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141H63
05/07/90
352.00
HOFFERS INC
FIELD MARKING PAINT
10- 4563 - 642 -64
396834
7262
.
352.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141H65
05/07/90
100.00
HOFFMAN- WILLIAM
POLICE SERVICES
10- 4100 - 430 -42
100.00
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141I59
05/14/90
660.00
INTERIOR COM SYS.
SERVICE CONTRACT
30- 4288 - 782 -78
27152
7624
660.00
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
141I78
05/14/90
141I78
05/15/90
* * * * **
141J09
05/10/90
* * * * **
141J27
05/10/90
141J27
05/09/90
141J27
05/09/90
* * * * **
SUPPLIES
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
141J31
05/10/90
* * * * **
REPAIR
141J35
05/07/90
141J35
05/09/90
141J35
05/15/90
141J41
05/07/90
141J41
05/09/90
AMOUNT
62.00
102.93
164.93 *
65.01
65.01 *
81.16
26.04
25.47
132.67
6.48
136.92
16.47
28.73
38.88
10.45
130.15
30.00
66.58
26.85
156.15
299.90
309.04
149.95
610.00
22.58
66.04
25.13
799.66
284.99
44.98
299.90
3,559.83
447.43
186.50
56.95
690.88
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ISIA CLASS SUPPLIES
ISIA OFFICE SUPPLIES
J.H. LARSON ELEC
JERRYS FOODS
JERRYS FOODS
JERRYS FOODS
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS.HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS HARDWARE
JERRYS PRINTING
JERRYS PRINTING
JERRYS PRINTING
05 -21 -90 PAGE 18
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
28- 4504 - 702 -70 025311
30- 4516 - 781 -78 25490 7387
ELECTRIC PARTS 60 -1300- 016 -20
GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504 - 624 -62
GENERAL SUPPLIES 23- 4504 - 611 -61
GENERAL SUPPLIES 23- 4504- 611 -61
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 260 -26
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 301 -30
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 301 -30
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 322 -30
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 325 -30
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 420 -42
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 440 -44
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 510 -51
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 520 -52
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 560 -56
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 646 -64
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
10- 4504 - 985 -98
REPAIR
PARTS
10- 4540 - 646 -64
TOOLS
10- 4580 - 301 -30
LAWN MOWER
10- 4901 - 510 -51
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
27- 4504 - 661 -66
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
27- 4504 - 661 -66
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
27- 4504 - 662 -66
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
27- 4504 - 664 -66
GENERAL
SUPPLIES
40- 4504 - 801 -80
REPAIR
PARTS
40- 4540 - 805 -80
TOOLS
40- 4580- 802 -80
GENERAL SUPPLIES 10- 4504- 490 -49 2054
PRINTING 23- 4600 - 611 -61 9228
BUSINESS CARDS 29- 4600 - 721 -72 2359
(2 checks)
193.90 JIM HATCH SALES TOOLS
210.00 SNOW-PLOW CONTRACT
49a'99 JERRY'S LANDSCAPE MAINT.
* ** -CKS
7208
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
7495
6667
7702
10- 4580 - 644 -64 10379 6986
50- 4248 - 841 -84 7289
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
xxxxxx
CANTON
141J59
05/14/90
x x x R x x
141J74
05/10/90
141J74
05/14/90
141J74
05/14/90
141J74
05/10/90
xxxxxx
141J99
05/15/90
xxxxxx
141K09
05/09/90
xxxxxx
141K23
05/07/90
xxxxxx
141K35
05/10/90
141K35
05/07/90
141K35
05/14/90
141K35
05/14/90
141K35
05/07/90
141K35
05/07/90
141K35
05/14/90
141K35
05/07/90
141K35
05/14/90
141K35
05/07/90
141K35.
05/09/90
141K35
05/10/90
141K35
05/14/90
xxxx *x
141K57
05/09/90
141K57
05/07/90
141K57
05/07/90
141K57
05/07/90
AMOUNT
210.00
210.00
396.22
18.34
13.45
59.30
487.31
60.00
60.00
45.00
45.00
896.00
896.00
55.64
26.95
28.04
12.69
82.02
11.07
57.85
6.59
142.20
58.86
22.93
43.04
65.17
613.05
2,465.45
4,247.55
4,247.55-
4,247.55
6,713.00
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
JOHN H EKLUND
JUSTUS LUMBER
JUSTUS LUMBER
JUSTUS LUMBER
JUSTUS LUMBER
HAUL BRUSH
LUMBER
LUMBER
LUMBER
PAINT /LUMBER
05 -21 -90 PAGE 19
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
10- 4250 - 644 -64 7609
10- 4604 - 646 -64 33201 6920
27- 4604- 662 -66 46913 7307
27- 4604- 662 -66 45531 7120
30- 4544 - 782 -78 49417 7570
JANET
CANTON
MILEAGE 4725/5 -15 -90
10- 4208 - 160 -16
KAMAN
BEARING & SPLY
CHAIN FOR MOWER
27- 4540 - 664 -66
KELLY
SERVICES INC
TEMP SERV
10- 4201 - 140 -14
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KNOX COMM CREDIT
KUETHER DIST. CO
KUETHER DIST. CO
KUETHER DIST. CO
KUETHER DIST. CO
PLYWOOD
GENERAL SUPPLIES
REPAIRS /LITES
REPAIRS
LUMBER
LUMBER
LUMBER
LUMBER
REPAIR BLEACHERS
LUMBER
COST /GOODS SOLD
SUPPLIES
REPAIRS
BEER
BEER
BBEER
BBEER
10- 4504 - 325 -30
10- 4504 - 646 -64
10- 4540 - 646 -64
10- 4540 - 646 -64
10- 4604 - 646 -64
10- 4604- 646 -64
10- 4604 - 646 -64
10- 4604 - 646 -64
10- 4604 - 646 -64
10- 4604 - 646 -64
23- 4624- 613 -61
27- 4504- 664 -66
28- 4248 - 702 -70
50- 4630 - 822 -82
50- 4630 - 842 -84
50- 4630 - 842 -84
50- 4630 - 842 -84
I- .
610097
609937
608165
605623
610291
638755
612783
609996
607811
638644
610425
608243
608274
7422
7257
7276
7437
7478
7362
7445
7031
7267
7444
7151
7150
7426
7408
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
xxxxxx I xxx -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
141L01
05/14/90
875.00
LINDA KOZAK
SERV 5- 23/6 -5 -90
875.00
141L02
05/14/90
526.41
LABOR RELATIONS ASN.
FEE FOR SERVICE
141L02
05/07/90
197.66
LABOR RELATIONS ASN.
MEDIATION
724.07 *
k k k k k k
141L06
05/15/90
1,943.00-
LAKE RESTORATION
DNR PERMITS
141L06
05/15/90
1,943.00
LAKE RESTORATION
DNR PERMITS
141L06
05/15/90
1,943.00
LAKE RESTORATION
DNR PERMITS
1,943-.00 *
k k k * * k
141L34
05/10/90
33.75
LEEF BROS. INC.
LAUNDRY
33.75 *
k k k k k k
141L38
05/07/90
912.00
LEITNER COMPANY
TOPDRESSING /GRASS
912.00 *
k k k k k k
141L42
05/10/90
147.50
LESCO
SUPPLIES
141L42
05/10/90
255.00
LESCO
SEED
402.50 *
k
::L 46
05/14/90
196.75
LIEN INFECTION CON
SANITATION
196.75 *
k k k k k k
141L56
05/07/90
20.84
LINHOFF
FILM DEVELOPING
141L56
05/14/90
29.09
LINHOFF
DEVELOP FILM
49.93
k k k k k k
141L60
05/09/90
2,656.15
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
141L60
05/09/90
2,407.27
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
141L60
05/09/90
3,764.07
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
141L60
05/09/90
1,335.36
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
141L60
05/09/90
277.84
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
141L60
05/09/90
277.84
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
141L60
05/09/90
277.84
LOGIS
DATA PROCESSING
10,996.37
k k k k k k
141L66
05/10/90
100.79
LONG LAKE FORD TRACT
ELEMENT
05 -21 -90 PAGE 20
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
30- 4201 - 781 -78
10- 4201 - 140 -14
10- 4201 - 140 -14
* ** -CKS
40- 4201 - 902 -90 6720 7514
40- 4201- 902 -90 6720 7514
41- 4201- 902 -90 6720 7514
* ** -CKS
27- 4262 - 664 -66
* ** -CKS
27- 4562 - 664 -66 6834
* ** -CKS
27- 4504 - 664 -66 830442 7391
27- 4562- 664 -66 830442 7391
* ** -CKS
27- 4201 - 663 -66 5512
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 260 -26 168778
10- 4504 - 260 -26 170523
* ** -CKS
10- 4233 - 160 -16
10- 4233 - 200 -20
10- 4233 - 420 -42
40- 4233 - 800 -80
50- 4233 - 820 -82
50- 4233 - 840 -84
50- 4233 - 860 -86
* ** -CKS
10- 4540- 560 -56 103768 7249
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT
141L66
05/10/90
4.89
141L66
05/09/90
23.57
MCGARVEY COFFEE
COFFEE
129.25 *
x * * *x*
33039
7184
141L70
05/14/90
90.00
27- 4624 - 663 -66
298346
90.00 *
*x *x *x
REPAIR
PARTS
141L80
05/14/90
114.45
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
TOOLS
114.45 *
xx *x *x
141L97
05/07/90
100.00
xxxxxx
100.00 *
141M07
05/07/90
4,348.25
141M07
05/07/90
7,081.55
141M07
05/09/90
6,070.50
40- 4540- 801 -80
17,500.30
xll lk *xx
141M16
05/07/90
60.00
141M16
05/09/90
996.54
141M16
05/09/90
681.40
1,737.94
xx *x **
* ** -CKS
MERIT SUPPLY
141M18
05/15/90
198.88 - ise.pe --
141M18
05/14/90
106.78
141M18
05/14/90
458.49* 45�
141M19
05/10/90
1,116.03
141M19
05/10/90
8.92
141M19
05/10/90
335.83
141M19
05/10/90
81.07
141M19
05/10/90
37.59
1,579.44
x *xxxx
141M25
05/10/90
23.25
23.25
141M27 05/10/90 419.60
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
LONG LAKE FORD TRACT WASHER /SEAL
LONG LAKE FORD TRACT REPAIR PARTS
LUCY ROSCHE
CLEANING
LYNDALE GARDEN CTR TURF TOOLS
MERFELD -BERT POLICE SERVICES
MARK VII SALES BEER
MARK VII SALES BEER
MARK VII SALES BEER
05 -21 -90 PAGE 21
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4540 - 560 -56 103646 7176
27- 4540 - 664 -66 104125 7321
* ** -CKS
27- 4201 - 662 -66 30571 4910
* ** -CKS
10- 4580 - 644 -64 33668 7477
* ** -CKS
10- 4100 - 430 -42
* ** -CKS
50- 4630- 822 -82
50- 4630 - 842 -84
50- 4630 - 862 -86
* ** -CKS
MCCAREN DESIGNS PRO SERVICES 30- 4201 - 783 -78 2925 7496
MCCAREN DESIGNS TREES /FLOWERS /SHRUBS 30- 4660 - 782 -78 2932 7548
MCCAREN DESIGNS TREES /FLOWERS /SHRUBS 30- 4660 - 782 -78 2931 7312
* ** -CKS
MCGARVEY COFFEE
COFFEE
27- 4624 - 663-66
304867
7184
MCGARVEY COFFEE
COFFEE
27- 4624 - 663 -66
33039
7184
MCGARVEY COFFEE
COFFEE
27- 4624 - 663 -66
298346
7184
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
REPAIR
PARTS
10- 4540 - 560 -56
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
TOOLS
10- 4580 - 301 -30
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
PARTS
10- 4620 - 560 -56
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
REPAIR
PARTS
27- 4540 - 664 -66
MCGUIRE AUTO SUPPLY
REPAIR
PARTS
40- 4540- 801 -80
* ** -CKS
MED OXYGEN & EQUIP
DEMURRAGE
10- 4274 - 440 -44
1324
See also 142M27
* ** -CKS
MERIT SUPPLY
LIFTER
CONTAINERS
10- 4504 - 645 -64
24210
7460
1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 05 -21 -90 PAGE 22
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
141M27
05/10/96
464.50
MERIT
SUPPLY
141M27
05/14/90
405.00
PARTS
MERIT
141M27
05/10/90
437.25
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
141F127
05/10/90
467.50
MERIT
SUPPLY
141M_7
05/14/90
442.00
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
141M27
05/14/90
391.50
SUPPLY
GENERAL. SUPPLIES
141M27
05/10/90
164.00
MERIT
SUPPLY
141M27
05/07/90
382.10
141M27
05/14/90
498.00
141M27
05/09/90
1,630.80
141M27
05/14/90
136.00
141M27
05/09/90
496.00
* * * * **
222 6,334.25*
141M32
05/15/90
156.47
141M32
05/09/90
169.99
326.46
* * * * **
141M35
05/14/90
14,850.00
14,850.00
* * * * **
141M42
05/07/90
67.61
141M42
05/07/90
766.03
833.64
*
* * * * **
141M44
05/07/90
383.16
* * * * **
383.16
*
141M46
05/14/90
181.50
141M46
05/14/90
160.70
342.20
*
AARt 1tR
141M49
05/14/90
5.00
5.00
*
141M59
05/07/90
14.00
14.00
* * * * **
141M63
05/07/90
132.90
MERIT
SUPPLY
POLYLINERS
MERIT
SUPPLY
EXTRACTOR PARTS
MERIT
SUPPLY
PARTS
MERIT
SUPPLY
CLEANER
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
MAT
MERIT
SUPPLY
TOWELS
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
GENERAL. SUPPLIES
MERIT
SUPPLY
EQUIP /CLEAN
MERIT
SUPPLY
CHAIRS
M AMUNDSON CIGARETTES
M AMUNDSON CIGARETTES
METRO WASTE CONTROL BLDG REPORT
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP
MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP
MIDWEST CHEM SUPPLY 203 TOWELS /LINERS
METZ BAKING CO BREAD
METZ BAKING CO BREAD
EARL MEICHSNER CONFERENCE
MILSCO ENGINEERING REPAIR SUPPLIES
MN. BAR MIX
10- 4504 - 645 -64
10- 4504 - 646 -64
10- 4620 - 560 -56
10- 4620 - 560 -56
27- 4504- 662 -66
27- 4504 - 662 -66
27- 4504 - 664 -66
30- 4504- 782 -78
30- 4504- 782 -78
30- 4504 - 783 -78
50- 1300 - 001 -00
60- 1300 - 005 -20
50- 4632 - 862 -86
50- 4632 - 862 -86
10- 3095 - 490 -49
24170
24258
24140
24163
24245
24196
24184
24186
24261
24197
24255
24229
10- 4524 - 301 -30 3382
10- 4524 - 314 -30 3382
7363
7526
7248
7345
7564
7483
7399
7430
7619
7429
7527
7554
10- 4514 - 520 -52 27847 7398
27- 4624 - 663 -66 5511
27- 4624 - 663 -66 5511
10- 4202 - 482 -48
10- 4540 - 646 -64 427903 7361
50- 4632 - 822 -82
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
141M63
05/09/90
141M63
05/07/90
** ** **
141M69
05/07/90
141M70
05/14/90
REPAIRS
10- 4540 - 643 -64
141M73
05/14/90
* * * * **
10- 4540 - 643 -64
141M80
05/07/90
141M80
05/14/90
141M80
05/14/90
141M80
05/07/90
141M80
05/14/90
141M80
05/14/90
141M80
05/14/90
141M80
05/07/90
141M80
05/07/90
141M80
05/09/90
141M81
05/10/90
141M81
05/07/90
141M81
05/07/90
141M81
05/09/90
* * * * **
141M85
05/14/90
141M85
05/14/90
141M85
05/14/90
141M85
05/15/90
141M85
05/14/90
141M85
05/14/90
141M85
05/14/90
141M98 05/15/90
** * * **
141NO3 05/14/90
AMOUNT
715.42
310.70
1,159.02
161.13
161.13 *
45.00
45.00 *
89.30
89.30
129.20
13.33
25.96
20.65
63.61
46.77
17.70
22.42
13.57
1,700.00
2,053.21
39.78
46.54
90.34
15:90
192.56
42.00-
42.00
42.00
3.19
13.94
7.0.00
59.50
188.63
72,701.42
72,701.42
480.00
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
MN. BAR MIX
MN. BAR MIX
MCC /MIDWEST
MN. CONWAY
MN. ELEVATOR
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN SUBURBAN NEWS
MN. TORO INC.
MN. TORO INC.
MN. TORO INC.
MN. TORO INC.
MN. WANNER
MN. WANNER
MN. WANNER
MN. WANNER
MN. WANNER
MN. WANNER
MN. WANNER
MINNEGASCO
MPLS SEWER & WATER
COST /GOODS SOLD
AMBULANCE SUPPLIES
SERVICE CONTRACT
AUCTION AD
ORDINANCE PUB
REVENUE BOND HRG
AD FOR BIDS
IMPROVEMENT HRG
IMPROVEMENT HRG
WEED NOTICE
AD FOR BIDS
BD /REVIEW NOTICE
PRINTING
LIFT BLADE
REPAIR PARTS /IRRIG
REPAIR PARTS
IRRIGATION PARTS
05 -21 -90 PAGE 23
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4632 - 842 -84
50- 4632- 862 -86
23- 4624 - 613 -61 38084 7057
10- 4510 - 440 -44 15209 7221
30- 4288 - 782 -78 40434 7685
10- 3220 - 000 -00 104616
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87462
10- 4210 - 140 714 87544
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87416
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87543
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87542
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87545
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87417
10- 4210 - 140 -14 87355
30- 4600 - 781 -78 5283
10- 4540- 560 -56 109240 7259
27- 4540 - 664 -66 109505 7306
27- 4540 - 664 -66 108794 7288
27- 4540 - 664 -66 107672 7117
**A-CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
REPAIRS
10- 4540 - 543 -64
75043
7614
REPAIRS
10- 4540 - 543 -64
75043
7614
REPAIRS
10- 4540 - 643 -64
75043
7614
PARTS
10- 4540 - 643 -64
075127
7653
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540 - 643 -64
75030
7613
HAND SPRAYERS
10- 4566- 643 -64
075065
7615
REPAIR PARTS
30- 4540- 782 -78
75041
7684
* ** -CKS
GASLINE REBATE 60 -1300- 289 -04
SERV LINE REPAIR 40- 4248 - 801 -80 21038 7607
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
480.00
* * * * **
141N07
05/07/90
300.00
MTS NW SOUND
MACH /EQUIP
300.00
* * * * **
(2 checks)
141N16
05/15/90
435.97
NSP
REPAIRS
141N16
05/15/90
29.69
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
141N21
05/10/90
35.22
NAPA AUTO PARTS
HOSE END
35.22
141N22
05/14/90
536.99
NATL GUARDIAN SYS.
ALARM SERVICE
536.99
tA**R*
141N48
05/09/90
188.10
NO STAR TURF
MOWER PARTS
188.10
* * * * **
141N68
05/09/90
130.14
NORTHSTAR ICE
MIX
141N68
05/07/90
269.46
NORTHSTAR ICE
ICE
141N68
05/07/90
289.44
NORTHSTAR ICE
ICE
689.04
* * * * **
141N72
05/07/90
502.00
NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO
TIRES
502.00
**kAltA
141N82
05/07/90
17.94
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
141N82
05/07/90
34.77-
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
CREDIT
141N82
.05/09/90
94.50
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST /GOODS SOLD
141N82
05/07/90
66.88
NW GRAPHIC SUPPLY
COST /GOODS SOLD
144.55
* * * * **
141N96
05/10/90
8.12
MINN COMM PAGING
RENTAL
141N96
05/07/90
67.00
MINN COMM PAGING
SERVICE CONTRACT
75.12
* * * * **
141N99
05/07/90
44.10
NAOMI JOHNSON
GENERAL SUPPLIES
05 -21 -90 PAGE 24
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
30- 1340 - 782 -78 82643 7490
* ** -CKS
10- 4248 - 301 -30 C19402
40- 4252 - 801 -80
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 392960 7346
27- 4304 - 662 -66 207486
* ** -CKS
27- 4540 - 664 -66 223860 7428
* ** -CKS
50- 4632 - 822 -82
50- 4632 - 842 -84
50- 4632 - 862 -86
* ** -CKS
10- 4616 - 560 -56
* ** -CKS
23- 4504 - 612 -61 171894 7301
23- 4624- 613 -61 171633
23- 4624 - 613 -61 172023 7409
23- 4624- 613 -61 171791 7188
* ** -CKS
10- 4226 - 301 -30 6581
30- 4288 - 782 -78 7546
* ** -CKS
23- 4504- 612 -61
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
141N99
05/07/90
141N99
05/07/90
* * * * **
141017
05/07/90
141017
05/07/90
141017
05/07/90
141017
05/07/90
141017
05/07/90
141017
05/15/90
* * * * **
141030
05/14/90
* * * * **
141037
05/14/90
R *th *A*
141P11
05/07/90
141PIl
05/07/90
* * * * **
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
141P27
05/14/90
PARK
NIC MED
141P30
.05/14/90
141P30
05/07/90
141P30
05/09/90
141P30
05/07/90
141P31 05/07/90
AMOUNT
23.00
81.69
148.79
120.00
75.00
480.00
1,580.00
495.00
3,392.00
6,142.00
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
NAOMI JOHNSON OFFICE SUPPLIES
NAOMI JOHNSON CRAFT SUPPLIES
OFFICE PRODUCTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
SERVICE CONTRACT
SERVICE CONTRACT
SERVICE CONTRACT
SERVICE CONTRACT
SERVICE CONTRACT
EPSON COMPUTER
05 -21 -90 PAGE 25
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
23- 4516 - 611 -61
23- 4588- 611 -61
10- 4288 - 510 -51
10- 4288 - 510 -51
10- 4288 - 510 -51
10- 4288 - 510 -51
10- 4288 - 510 -51
10- 4901 - 440 -44
91065A 6955
97637A 6955
97633A 6955
97630A 6955
97635A 6955
107285 6293
* ** -CKS
823.20
258.90
359.86
285.04
1,727.00
598.23
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PETER COTTON
PEPSI
MIX
MIX
MIX
CONSULTATION
27- 4504 - 663 -66
50- 4632- 822 -82
50- 4632 - 842 -84
50- 4632 - 862 -86
10-4201- 440 -44
5513
* ** -CKS
* ** -CKS
252.70
OLD
DUTCH FOODS
CHHIPS /PRETZELS
27- 4624 - 663 -66
5514
252.70 *
* ** -CKS
306.00
BILL
OLSON
BLACK DIRT
10- 4562 - 643 -64
7106
306.00 *
* ** -CKS
494.60
PARK
NIC MED
CTR
HEPATITIS SHOTS
10- 4201 - 440 -44
141.00
PARK
NIC MED
CTR
PRE EMPLOY EXAM
10- 4212 - 510 -51
635.60
* ** -CKS
1,400.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
10- 4216 - 160 -16
200.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
23- 4216 - 611 -61
150.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
26- 4216 - 681 -68
1,150.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
27- 4216 - 661 -66
1,000.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
28- 4216 - 701 -70
150.00
PEAT
MARWICK.MAIN
CO
AUDIT
29- 4216 - 721 -72
800.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
30- 4216 - 781 -78
4,000.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
40- 4216- 800 -80
800.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
41- 4216 - 900 -90
1,400.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
50- 4216 - 820 -82
1,400.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
50- 4216 - 840 -84
1,400.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
50- 4216 - 860 -86
800.00
PEAT
MARWICK
MAIN
CO
AUDIT
66- 4216- 000 -00
14,650.00 *
823.20
258.90
359.86
285.04
1,727.00
598.23
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PEPSI COLA BOTTLING
PETER COTTON
PEPSI
MIX
MIX
MIX
CONSULTATION
27- 4504 - 663 -66
50- 4632- 822 -82
50- 4632 - 842 -84
50- 4632 - 862 -86
10-4201- 440 -44
5513
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -21 -90
PAGE 26
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O.
#
MESSAGE
598.23
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141P35
05/10/90
79.00
PETERSON- BARBARA
MILEAGE
30- 4208 - 781 -78
79.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141P48
05/09/90
412.92
PIP
PRINTING
PRINTING
23- 4600 - 611 -61
7018
7565
141P48
05/09/90
437.31
PIP
PRINTING
PRINTING
23- 4600 - 611 -61
7019
7414
141P48
.05/10/90
71.90
PIP
PRINTING
PRINTING
30- 4600 - 781 -78
7112
7617
922.13
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141P76
05/15/90
3,495.00
PRECISION DYNAMICS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 783 -78
135310
6613
3,495.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141P78
05/14/90
52.00
PRINTERS SERV INC
BLADE SHARPENING
28- 4274 - 704 -70
43800
52.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141Q22
05/14/90
236.30
QUIK PRINT
PRINTING
27- 4600 - 661 -66
19692
7548
236.30
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141R01
05/14/90
328.50
R &R
SPECIALTIES INC
REPAIR ZAMBONI
28- 4248 - 704 -70
13144
7487
328.50
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141R13
05/14/90
132.00
RADIO INSTALLS
LEASES /MAY
10-4226- 440 -44
17135
5057
132.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141R21
05/10/90
209.00
RED
WING SHOES
UNIFORMS
10- 4262 - 646 -64
141R21
05/10/90
335.30
RED
WING SHOES
SAFETY EQUIP
10- 4642 - 301 -30
141R21
05/10/90
106.20
RED
WING SHOES
SAFETY EQUIP
10- 4642- 560 -56
650.50
141R22
05/07/90
179.40
REM
SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 782 -78
1089
7495
141822
05/09/90
204.00
REM
SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 782 -78
1128
7560
141R22
05/14/90
717.40
REM
SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
30- 4504 - 783 -78
1122
7311
1,100.80
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141R33
05/07/90
2,152.45
REX
DISTR.
BEER
50- 4630 - 822 -82
141R33
05/09/90
4,643.30
REX
DISTR.
BEER
50- 4630 - 842 -84
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
141R33
05/07/90
4,150.30
REX DISTR.
BEER
10,946.05
*
k R k R R k
141R39
05/14/90
468.50
RIEDELL SHOES
RENTAL SKATES
468.50
*
R k k k R k
141R53
05/14/90
64.08
ROBERT B. HILL
REPAIRS
64.08
RRkRkk
.
141R73
05/07/90
71.75
ROTO ROOTER SERV.
PRO SERV
71.75-*
141R81
05/09/90
64.62
RUBENSTEIN & ZIFF
COST /GOODS SOLD
64.62
*
kRkRRR
141R98
05/14/90
96.00
ROXANNE SEIDEL
PRO SERVICES
k k k k k k
96.00
*
141SO4
05/10/90
58.18
SATTERLEE
TOOLS
k k k k k k
58.18
*
141534
05/07/90
1,325.14
SOUTHDALE FORD
BODY REPAIR
1,325.14
*
k R k * * k
141536
05/09/90
3,869.00
SOUTHSIDE DISTR. CO.
BEER
141S36
05/07/90
8,683.95
SOUTHSIDE DISTR. CO.
BEER
141536'
05/07/90
650.50
SOUTHSIDE DISTR. CO.
BEER
k k R* k k
13,203.45
141545
05/10/90
7.00
ST. PAUL BOOK
HIGHLIGHTERS
7.00
k k k R R k
141547
05/10/90
137.00
SIR SPEEDY PRINT
POSTERS
137.00
05 -21 -90 PAGE 27
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
50- 4630 - 862 -86
* ** -CKS
28- 4504 - 702 -70 42978 6148
* ** -CKS
10- 4248 - 440 -44 60118 5054
* ** -CKS
30- 4201 - 782 -78 7492
* ** -CKS
23- 4624 - 613 -61 159425 6234
* ** -CKS
30- 4201 - 781 -78
* ** -CKS
10- 4580 - 301 -30 6806
* ** -CKS
10- 4248 - 560 -56 14003 6564
* ** -CKS
50- 4630 - 822 -82
50- 4630- 842 -84
50- 4630 - 862 -86
* ** -CKS
10- 4504- 325 -30 12178 7347
* ** -CKS
10- 4542 - 325 -30 2179 7083
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK NO.
DATE
141550
05/07/90
141554
05/14/90
* * * * **
1,462.90
141572
05/10/90
141573
05/15/90
CONVERTORS
21.90
141S77
05/10/90
141577
05/10/90
141577
05/10/90
141S78
05/15/90
141578
05/07/90
141578
05/07/90
141578
05/10/90
141578
05/10/90
* * * * **
263.73
141T05
05/07/90
* * * * **
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
141T08
05/09/90
141T08
05/09/90
* * * * **
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
141T11
05/07/90
141TIl
05/09/90
* * R * * R
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
141T13
05/10/90
141T13
05/10/90
141T13
05/10/90
141T13
05/10/90
CHECK REGISTER
AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
100.00
JOHN SHEPARD
POLICE SERVICES
100.00
10- 4540 - 560 -56
125168
1,462.90
STAR TRIBUNE
WANT ADS
1,462.90
*
7263
21.90
STREICHERS
CONVERTORS
21.90
*
70.29
STRGAR - ROSCOE -FAUSH
PRO ENG SERV
70.29
*
134.36
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR WORK
100.00
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
REPAIR WORK
29.37
SUBURBAN CHEVROLET
LAMP ASM
263.73
145.89
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
REPAIR PARTS
26.80
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
PLUMBING PARTS
82.93
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
PLUMBING PARTS
99.16
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
ADAPTER /TUBE
93.41
SUBURBAN PLUMB SUP
#14 PUMPHOUSE
448.19
527.50
THE PRINT SHOP
NEWSLETTER
527.50
52.98
TARGET
GENERAL SUPPLIES
119.94
TARGET
PHOTO SUPPLIES
172.92
231.00
TESSMAN SEED & CHEM.
GRASS SEED
124.50
TESSMAN SEED & CHEM.
FERTILIZER
355.50
825.00
TOM HORWATH
FORESTRY WORK
92.83
TOM HORWATH
MILEAGE
92.83-
TOM HORWATH
MILEAGE
92.82
TOM HORWATH
MILEAGE
917.82
05 -21 -90 PAGE 28
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
10- 4100- 430 -42
* ** -CKS
10- 4212 - 510 -51
* ** -CKS
10- 4540 - 560 -56 M70667 7278
60- 1300 - 291 -04 901320
* ** -CKS
10- 4248 - 560 -56
101952
10- 4248 - 560 -56
101671
10- 4540 - 560 -56
125168
10- 4540- 643 -64
7448
10- 4540- 646 -64
7277
10- 4540 - 646 -64
7263
40- 4540 - 801 -80
7180
40- 4540 - 801 -80
7252
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 628 -62 13426 7071
* ** -CKS
10- 4504 - 480 -48
12- 4508 - 434 -43
* ** -CKS
10- 4568 - 643 -64 50358 6852
30- 4580 - 782 -78 51853 7558
10- 4201 - 644 -64
10- 4208 - 644 -64
10- 4208 - 644 -64
10- 4208 - 644 -64
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
i
05 -21 -90
PAGE 29
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT N0: INV. # P.O. #
MESSAGE
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141T19
05/14/90
1,591.00
THE PIRKL ASSOC.
CONSTRUCTION
27- 1300- 002 -00
1,591.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141T29
05/07/90
12,054.95
THOMSEN - NYBECK
LEGAL
10- 4201- 2201-22
12,054.95
*
141T30
05/07/90
10,317.40
THORPE DISTR.
BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
10,317.40
*
* * * **
** *_CKS
141T40
05/14/90
37.37
TOLL COMPANY
FILL GAS TANK
10- 4504- 646 -64
37100 7451
37.37
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141T53
05/07/90
4,240.06
TRACY OIL
GASOLINE
10- 4612 - 560 -56
T18206 7284
4,240.06
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141T66
05/09/90
72.57
TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFT
CRAFT SUPPLIES
23- 4588 - 611 -61
378133 7189
72.57
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141T74
05/14/90
186.00
TURF SUPPLY CO.
FERTILIZER
10- 4558 - 643 -64
29364 7610
186.00
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141T88
05/07/90
34.56
TWIN CITY HOME JUICE
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
34.56
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141U25
05/14/90
28.49
UNIVERSAL MED SERV
OXYGEN
10- 4510 - 440 -44
5805
28.49
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141U30
05/07/90
21.00
US WEST PAGING
PAGER
10- 4201 - 640 -64
21.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
141V10
05/14/90
393.08
VALLEY INDUSTRIAL
LP FUEL
28- 4612- 704 -70
393.08
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
19JD CITY
OF EDINA
* ** -CKS
CHECK REGISTER
7818 7163
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
141V15
05/07/90
452.70
VAN PAPER CO.
SUPPLIES
27- 4208 - 661 -66
452.70
27- 4612 - 664 -66
41675 7386
k k k * * *
27- 4612-664 -66
41106 7045
27- 4612- 664 -66
141V30
05/15/90
365.00
VANTAGE ELECTRIC
REPAIRS
141V30
05/14/90
546.00
VANTAGE ELECTRIC
PRO SERVICES
141V30
05/15/90
284.15
VANTAGE ELECTRIC
PRO SERVICES
* ** -CKS
1,195.15 *
123438 5990
141V40
05/14/90
10.00
VELDE
CONFERENCE
* k k k k k
10.00 *
141V43
05/14/90
52.05
VERSATILE VEHICLE
GOLF CART PARTS
141V43
05/14/90
3.32
VERSATILE VEHICLE
GOLF CART PARTS
55.37
141V46
05/10/90
93.68
VESSCO
CHLORINE PARTS
93.68 *
141V48
05/14/90
61.80
VOTER REG /ELEC SECT
POSTAGE
61.80 *
141W10
05/15/90
65.79
WALKER - MERWIN
MILEAGE
65.79
141W11
05/14/90
381.60
W. GORDON SMITH
GASOLINE
141W11
05/09/90
489.77
W. GORDON SMITH
GASOLINE
141W11
05/09/90
489.77
W. GORDON SMITH
GASOLINE
1,361.14 "
* k k * * k
141W13
05/07/90
.36.00
WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP
MINUTE METER
36.00
*kk * **
141W15
05/07/90
100.00
WALTER JOHNSON
POLICE SERVICES
100.00
141W28
05/07/90
36.'14
WATER PRODUCTS
H2O GASKETS
05 -21 -90 PAGE 30
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
1074514 - 520 -52 308014 7489
* ** -CKS
27- 4248- 663 -66 011136 7693
30- 4201 - 782 -78 11139 7542
30- 4201 - 782 -78 11147 7700
* ** -CKS
10- 4202 - 480 -48
* ** -CKS
27- 4540 - 665 -66 6452 7319
27- 4540 - 665 -66 6461 7393
* ** -CKS
40- 4540 - 805 -80
7818 7163
* ** -CKS
10- 4290 - 140 -14
-
* ** -CKS
27- 4208 - 661 -66
27- 4612 - 664 -66
41675 7386
27- 4612-664 -66
41106 7045
27- 4612- 664 -66
41107 7046
* ** -CKS
40- 4504 - 801 -80
102799 7250
* ** -CKS
10- 4100 - 430 -42
* ** -CKS
40- 4504- 807 -80
123438 5990
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
WEIGLE -SUE MILEAGE
WM WALSH POLICE SERVICES
WHITE OAK GALLERY OFFICE SUPPLIES
WROBLESKI -HENRY POLICE SERVICES
(See also 141M27)
MERIT
SUPPLY
EQUIP /CLEAN
1990 CITY OF EDIN,A
SUPPLY
CHECK
NO. DATE
AMOUNT
TOTAL
GENERAL FUND
36.14 *
* * ****
TOTAL
COMMUNICATIONS
141W35
05/15/90
200.68
ART CENTER
FUND
200.68 *
TOTAL
CAPITAL FUND
FUND
141W52
05/07/90
100.00
FUND
27
100.00 *
* * * * **
FUND
28
141W55
05/14/90
36.95
29
TOTAL
36.95 *
* * * * **
30
TOTAL
141W92
05/07/90
100.00
TOTAL
UTILITY FUND
100.00 *
* * * * **
TOTAL
STORM SEWER UTILITY
142M27
05/14/90
136.00
142M27
05/14/90
138.00
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION FUND
274.00 *
* * * * **
269,399.99
IMP BOND REDEMPTION #2
13,846.94
15,010.91
812.68
150.00
35,631.28
95,629.69
5,965.17
486.03
22,863.72
12,908.92
2,872.00
96,792.48
582,234.56
800.00
1,059,774.68*
"`" " " °c
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
WEIGLE -SUE MILEAGE
WM WALSH POLICE SERVICES
WHITE OAK GALLERY OFFICE SUPPLIES
WROBLESKI -HENRY POLICE SERVICES
(See also 141M27)
MERIT
SUPPLY
EQUIP /CLEAN
MERIT
SUPPLY
EQUIP /CLEAN
FUND
10
TOTAL
GENERAL FUND
FUND
12
TOTAL
COMMUNICATIONS
FUND
23
TOTAL
ART CENTER
FUND
25
TOTAL
CAPITAL FUND
FUND
26
TOTAL
SWIMMING POOL FUND
FUND
27
TOTAL
GOLF COURSE FUND
FUND
28
TOTAL
RECREATION CENTER FUND
FUND
29
TOTAL
GUN RANGE FUND
FUND
30
TOTAL
EDINBOROUGH PARK
FUND
40
TOTAL
UTILITY FUND
FUND
41
TOTAL
STORM SEWER UTILITY
FUND
50
TOTAL
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
FUND
60
TOTAL
CONSTRUCTION FUND
FUND
66
TOTAL
IMP BOND REDEMPTION #2
TOTAL
05 -21 -90 PAGE 31
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
i
* ** -CKS
10- 4208- 600 -60
* ** -CKS
10- 4100 - 430 -42
* ** -CKS
30- 4516•- 781 -78 7683
* ** -CKS
10- 4100 - 430 -42
* ** -CKS
50- 1300 - 002 -00 24255 7527
50- 1300 - 003 -00 24255 7527
* ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK
REGISTER
— 8584 -88 PAGE 1
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
e5�84�9e
MANUAL
675.08
ED PHILLIPS
5e 4628 9e2 08
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
092F14
05/03/90
14,458.38
FIDELITY BANK
FICA
10- 4149 - 510 -51
MANUAL
092F14
05/03/90
480.69
FIDELITY BANK
MEDICARE
10- 4162 - 510 -51
MANUAL
14,939.07
* ** -CKS
092P70
05/03/90
5,000.00
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE
10- 4290 - 510 -51
MANUAL'
5,000.00
* ** -CKS
093E11
05/03/90
45.48
FAGLE WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
093EII
05/03/90
387.37
EAGLE WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL
093EII
05/03/90
308.77
EAGLE WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
741.62
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
093E26
05/03/90
20.10
ED PHILLIPS
BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
MANUAL .
093E26
05/03/90
32.20
ED PHILLIPS
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
52.30
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
093P82
05/03/90
41.11
PRIOR WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
41.11
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
093Q16
05/03/90
30.44
QUALITY WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL
30.44
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
094740
05/03/90
2,202.69
DELTA DENTAL
DENTAL CARE
10- 4156 - 510 -51
MANUAL
2,202.69
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
094N16
05/03/90
25.07
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 301 -30
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
82.90
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252- 321 -30
MANUAL
09016
05/03/90
24,465.11
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 322 -30
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
2,818.09
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 330 -30
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
2,126.74
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 375 -30
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
821.79
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 440 -44
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
47.18
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 460 -46
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
1,383.91
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 520 -52
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
2,197.80
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 540 -54
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
3;278.20
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 646 -64
MANUAL
094N16
05/03/90
43.38
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
26- 4252 - 682 -68
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
60,000.00
HRA
CHECK
REGISTER
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
MANUAL
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
094N16
05/03/90
1,251.81
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
162.55
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
054N16
05/03/90
1,030.23
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094NI6
05/03/90
7,121.35
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
425.84
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
5,960.89
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
2,258.02
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
11,515.20
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER %LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
906.83
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
60.09
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
587.16
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
737.79
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
094N16
05/03/90
381.0.1
MINNEGASCO
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
* * * * **
196.88
69,688.94
MINNEGASCO'
HEAT
095M98
094P32
05/03/90
25,175.66
MINNEGASCO
P.E.R.A.
PERA
* * * * **
22,043-04
25,175.66
096E11
095756
05/03/90
25.00
EAGLE WINE
M.C.P.O.A.
SEMINAR
05/03/90
45.48
25.00
EAGLE WINE
MIX
096E11
* * * * **
095H83
05/03/90
60,000.00
HRA
TRANSFER
MANUAL
27- 4252 - 664 -66
60,000.00
27- 4252 - 667 -66
MANUAL
28- 4252 - 702 -70
095M98
05/03/90
746.54
30- 4252 - 782 -78
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
803.84
41- 4252 - 902 -90
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
4,016.06
50- 4252 - 841 -84
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
1,457.89
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
447.07
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
878.87
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
142.37
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
4,864.40
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
2,896.39
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
3,081.88
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/9,0
221.26
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
2,053.39
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
51.65
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
196.88
MINNEGASCO'
HEAT
095M98
05/03/90
184.55
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
* * * * **
22,043-04
096E11
05/03/90
45.48-
EAGLE WINE
MIX
096E11
05/03/90
45.48
EAGLE WINE
MIX
096E11
05/03/90
387.37
EAGLE WINE
MIX
096EII
05/03/90
387.37-
EAGLE WINE
MIX
* ** -CKS
10- 4145 - 510 -51 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4202 - 420 -42 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 1145 - 000 -00 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4254 - 440 -44
05 -04 -90 PAGE 2
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
27- 4252- 662 -66
MANUAL
27- 4252 - 664 -66
MANUAL
27- 4252 - 667 -66
MANUAL
28- 4252 - 702 -70
MANUAL
29- 4252 - 722 -72
MANUAL
30- 4252 - 782 -78
MANUAL -
40- 4252 - 801 -80
MANUAL
40- 4252 - 803 -80
MANUAL
41- 4252 - 902 -90
MANUAL
41- 4252 - 902 -90
MANUAL
50- 4252 - 821 -82
MANUAL
50- 4252 - 841 -84
MANUAL'
50- 4252 - 861 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4145 - 510 -51 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4202 - 420 -42 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 1145 - 000 -00 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4254 - 440 -44
MANUAL
10- 4254 - 520 -52
MANUAL
10- 4254 - 540 -54
MANUAL
10- 4254- 646 -64
MANUAL
23- 4254 - 612 -61
MANUAL
27- 4254 - 662 -66
MANUAL
27- 4254 - 664 -66
MANUAL
27- 4254- 667 -66
MANUAL
28- 4254 - 702 -70
MANUAL
30- 4254 - 782 -78
MANUAL
40- 4254 - 801 -80
MANUAL
40- 4254 - 803 -80
MANUAL
50- 4254 - 821 -82
MANUAL
50- 4254- 841 -84
MANUAL
50- 4254 - 861 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL
i
1900 CITY OF EDINA CHECK 05 -04 -90 PAGE 3
CHECK NO, DATE AMOUNT- VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. 0 P.O. # MESSAGE
.00
. *...w * ** -CKS
096U27
05/03/90
2,979.11
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
157.73
US WEST
COMM-
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 622 -62
MANUAL
09GU27
05/03/90
94.61
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256- 628 -62
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
94.61-
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 682 -62
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
94.61
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
10`4256- 682 -68
MANUAL
096U27_
05/03/90
192.15
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
23- 4256 - 612 -61
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
24.89
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
26- 4256 - 682 -68
MANUAL
096U27
.05/03/90
479.81
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
27- 4256- 662 -66
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
48.36
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
27- 4256- 664 -66
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
139.26
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
28- 4256- 702 -70
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
37.73
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
29- 4256 - 722 -72
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
50.77
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE"
30- 4256 - 782 -78
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
85.59
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
40- 4256 - 801 -80
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
49.42
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
40- 4256 - 803 -80
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
50.77-
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 782 -78
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
50.77
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256- 782 -78
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
145.31
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 821 -82
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
174.71
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 841 -84
MANUAL
096U27
05/03/90
142.86
US WEST
COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 861 -86
MANUAL
4,802.31
* ** * **
* ** -CKS
099A82
05/03/90
23.85
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
099A82
05/03/90
2.38
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256- 628 -62
MANUAL
099A82
05/03/90
2.16
AT &T
TELEPHONE
23- 4256 - 612 -61
MANUAL
099A82
05/03/90
5.30
AT &T
TELEPHONE
27- 4256 - 622 -62
MANUAL
099A82"
05/03/90
22.26
AT &T
TELEPHONE
30- 4256- 782 -78
MANUAL
55.95
099A83
05/03/90
96.29
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
099A83
05/03/90
57.49
AT &T
TELEPHONE
23- 4256 - 612 -61
MANUAL
153.78
099A84
05/03/90,
25.80
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
099A84
05/03/90
10.50
AT &T
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 821 -82
MANUAL
36.30
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
099873
05/03/90
200.00
GC PETTY
CASH
RENTAL
27- 3230 - 000 -00
MANUAL
099873
05/03/90
30.00
GC PETTY
CASH
CONFERENCE
27- 4202 - 661 -66
MANUAL
099B73
05/03/90
60.00
GC PETTY
CASH
REPAIRS
27- 4248 - 662 -66
MANUAL
099873
05/03/90
8.99
GC PETTY
CASH
LAUNDRY
27- 4262 - 663 -66
MANUAL
099873
05/03/90
25.00
GC PETTY
CASH
POSAGE
27- 4290 - 661 -66
MANUAL
099B73
05/03/90
10.59
GC PETTY
CASH
OFFICE SUPPLIES
27- 4516- 661 -66.
MANUAL
099B73
05/03/90
53.01
GC PETTY
CASH
OFFICE SUPPLIES
27- 4516- 667 -66
MANUAL
099873
05/03/90
108.59
GC PETTY
CASH
CONCESSIONS
27- 4624- 663 -66
MANUAL
099B73
05/03/90
13.55
GC PETTY
CASH
BEER
27- 4630 - 662 -66
MANUAL
509.73
*
* * * * ** * ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK
REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 4
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# -P.O. # MESSAGE
100EII
05/04/90
15.46-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
100EII
05/04/90
5.44-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
100E11
05/04/90
.86-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
100E11
05/04/90
3.55-
EAGLE WINE
50 -3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
100Ell
05/04/90
.92-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100EII
05/04/90
16.62-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100Ell'
05/04/90
772.76
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
100EIl
05/04/90
43.00
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
100EIl
05/04/90
272.19
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
100EII
05/04/90
177.65
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100Ell
05/04/90
831.04
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100EIl
05/04/90
45.99
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
OOEII
05/03/90
18.58
EAGLE WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
OOEll
05/03/90
56.89
EAGLE WINE
MI•X
50- 4632- 822 -82
MANUAL
2,175.25
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
lOOE26
05/04/90
16.05-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
3.03-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
1.22-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
14.24-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
8.58-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
3.20-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
802.79
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
712.20
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
151.54
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
61.33
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
429.19
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1OCE26
05/04/90
160.07
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
312.58
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
763.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
432.48
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
291.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
196.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
188.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
1,066.60
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
1,263.25
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
50.90
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
515.60
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
62.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
912.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/04/90
1,241.60
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
lOOE26
05/03/90
24.00
ED PHILLIPS
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
9,592.66
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
100G82
05/04/90
20.96-
GRIGGS COOPER
50'3700- 822 -82
MANUAL
100G82
05/04/90
26.19-
GRIGGS. COOPER
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
100G82
05/04/90
18.50-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100G82
05/04/90
.74-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
100G82
05/04/90
63.20-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
100G82
05/04/90
106.16-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
1999 CITY
OF €DINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 5
CHECK NO,
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT 90, INV,
# P,-O. # MESSAGE
10OG82
05/04/90
6.07-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90
57.06-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90
3,160.23
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90
37.18
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90
303.35
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90..
5,308.09
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626- 842 -84
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90
2,852.76
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 862 -86•
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
10OG82
05/04/90
35.90-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 842-84
MANUAL
10OG82
0.5/04/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
10OG82
05/03/90
38.05
GRIGGS COOPER & CO MIX
50- 4632-822 -82
MANUAL'
11,364.88
* A R
* * * -CKS
10OJ62
05/04/90
2.00-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3700 - 822 -82
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
4.50
-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
2.50-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
5.03-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
4.30-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
52.28-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
6.26,-
JOHNSON WINE
50 -3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
10OJ62_
05/04/90
9.17-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
.90-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
113.46-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
11.52-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100J6�
05/04/90
6.30-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
67.34-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
3.39-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
64.29-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
2,614.92
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
13.98
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4626- 822 -82
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
5,672.60
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
32.59
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
3,367.70
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100,T62
05/04/90
21.56
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1r)OJSz
05/04/90
19.85
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1GGJ62
05/04/90
3,190.69
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100J62
05/04/90
4.90
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
.00
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
428.56
JOHNSON WINE
50-4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
100J62
05/04/90
10.29
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
100J62
0.5/04/90
503.07
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
629.08.
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
90.78
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
.00
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
20.58
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
8.33
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
16.64-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628-842 -84
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
917.26
JOHNSON WINE-
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
1.47
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
10OJ62
05/04/90
4.90
JOHNSON.WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
.00
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
IOOJ62
05/04/90
28.42
JOHNSON WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
179.
"99
PAUSTIS
CHECK REGISTER
SONS
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
4.00
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV
10OJ62
05/04/90
4.43-
10OP20
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
100J62
05/04/90
9.31
50- 4628- 862 -86
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
100J62
05/04/90
4597.50
SONS
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
100J62
05/04/90
339.67
&
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
100J62
05/04/90
1,151.17
1,219.63
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
10OJ62
05/03/90
30.30
JOHNSON
WINE BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
05/04/90
36.10-
19.335.17
*
50- 3710 - 822 -82
100Q16
05/04/90
* R k * * k
10OP20
05/04/90
179.
"99
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50 -4628- 842 -84
10OP20
05/04/90
4.00
50- 3710- 842 -84
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50 -4628- 842 -84
10OP20
05/04/90
5.00
05/04/90
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628- 862 -86
10OP20
05/04/90
236.25
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
locP20
05/03/90
50.00
50- 4628 - 862 -86
PAUSTIS
&
SONS MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
PRIOR WINE MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
475.24
*
1,219.63
k k * k * *
10OP82
05/04/90
8.95-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
10OP82
05/04/90
5.76-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710- 842 -84
10OP82
05/04/90
9.69-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
10OP82
05/04/90
447.36
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
10OP82
05/04/90
287.99
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
10OP82
05/04/90
484.30
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
10OP82
05/03/90
24.38
PRIOR WINE MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
1,219.63
100Q16
05/04/90
36.10-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
100Q16
05/04/90
.33-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
100016
05/04/90
5.56-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
100Q16
05/04/90
6.22-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
100016
05/04/90
4.92-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
100016
05/04/90
12.86-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
100016
05/04/90
47.53-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
100Q16
05/04/90
5.26-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
100016
05/04/90
1.96-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
100Q16
05/04/90
.97-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
100Q16
05/04/90
12.89-
-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
IOOQ16
05/04/90
2.61-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
100Q16
05/04/90
9.33-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
100016
05/04/90
1.78-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
100Q16
05/04/90
5.93-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
100Q16
05/04/90
311.06
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
10OQ16
05/04/90
1,805.13
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
100Q16
05/04/90
2,377.07
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
10OQ16
05/04/90
643.25
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
10OQ16
05/04/90
644.99
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
100016
05/04/90
466.59
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
100Q16
05/04/90
32.50
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
100016
05/04/90
551.90
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
100Q16
05/04/90
523.20
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
10OQ16
05/04/90
195.50
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
05 -04 -90 PAGE 6
# P.O. # MESSAGE
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
MANUAL,
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
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
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK
REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 7
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
100016
05/04/90
491.45
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
100016
05/04/90
177.58
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100Q16
05/04/90
97.25
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100Q16
05/04/90
261.25
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
100Q16
05/04/90
590.55
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
9,015.02
****k*
* ** -CKS
101H83
05/03/90
60,000.00
HRA
TRANSFER
10- 1145- 000 -00
MANUAL
60,000.00.*
* * * x
* ** -CKS
102700
05/03/90
500.00
BOY SCOUT /AM
CONT ED
10- 4202 - 430 -42
MANUAL
500.00
* k k
* ** -CKS
102C33
05/03/90
1 2,000.00-
CITY /EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER,
50- 1010 - 000 -00
MANUAL
102C33
05/03/90
112,000.00
CITY /EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
50- 1010 - 000 -00
MANUAL
.00
* * x x x x
* ** -.CKS
102C44
05/03/90
416.93
COKE
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
416.93
k * * * k k
* ** -CKS
106F14
05/03/90
14,494.33
FIDELITY BANK
FICA
10- 4159 - 510 -51
MANUAL
106F14
05/03/90
513.79
FIDELITY BANK
MEDICARE
10- 4162 - 510 -51
MANUAL
•15,008.12
* k
* ** -CKS
107717
05/03/90
25.00
M.C.P.O.A.
EXPENSES
10- 4204 - 420 -42
MANUAL
25.00
*
107718
05/03/90
530.00
EXPL POST 911
MEETING EXPENSES
10- 4206 - 430 -42
MANUAL
530.00
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
107A82
05/03/90
5.02
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
107A82
05/03/90
33.28
AT &T
TELEPHONE
27- 4256 - 662 -66
MANUAL
107A82
05/03/90
2.61
AT &T
TELEPHONE
40- 4256 - 803 -80
MANUAL
40.91
* R * * * k
* ** -CKS
107E11
05/04/90
13.22-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 822-82
MANUAL
107E11
05/04/90
.94-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E11
05/04/90
19.75-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E11
05/04/90
.94-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 8
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
107E11
05/04/90
12.69-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107EII
05/04/93
1.79-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
107E11
05/04/90
30..06-
EAGLE WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
107EII
05/04/00
660.82
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107EII
05/64/90
46.99
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E11
05/04/90
.987.31
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107EII
05/04/90
634.29
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107E11
05/04/90
1,503.09
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107EII
05/04/90
89.50
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107E11
05/04/90
46.99
EAGLE WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
3,889.60
"
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
107E26
05/04/90
1.22-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
.77-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
15.817
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
5.63-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL -
107E26
05/04/90
23.28-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
2.86-
ED PHILLIPS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
38.78
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
61.33
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
790.75
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
281.54
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
143.27
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
1,164.40
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
903.95
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
1,241.10
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
89.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
1,638.25
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
407.74
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
1,138.03
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
679.33
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
1,556.80
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
672.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107E26
05/04/90
1,118.30
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107E26
•05/03/90
294.45
ED PHILLIPS BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
MANUAL
12,169.45
"
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
107G82
05/04/90
26.34-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
1.37-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
102.94-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
6.08
-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107G82
05/b4/90
75.00-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
1,317.12
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
68.35
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
5,146.97
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
304.05
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
3,749.83
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107682
05/0b/0,3
4.73-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/30
17.95-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107G82
05/04/90
10.74-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
10.341.17
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 9
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
107J62
05/04/90
42.52-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
5.49-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
5.88-
JOHNSON
WINE -
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
7.08-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/OA/90
1.21-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
61.17-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
13.54-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
1.56-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
20.99-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL'
107J62
05/04/90
4.32-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
6.79-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107362
05/04/90
.64-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
29.43-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
12.97-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
2,125.12
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626- 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
6.68-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
11.78
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626- 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
3,057.44
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
19.60
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
1,472.15
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
6.86
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
7.84
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
35.92-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
588.99
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
16.66
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
6.86
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
707.59
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
550.82
JOHNSON
WINE
50-4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
2.45
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
1,355.60
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
52.81-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
120.89
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
14.21
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
5.88
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
1.96
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
432.59
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
156.40
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
52.92
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
2,102.57
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 842 -84
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
32.34
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
8.33
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
64.86
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
1,296.47
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
223.74-
JOHNSON
WINE
'50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
.98
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107J62
05/04/90
679.93
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
14,367.35
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
107P32
05/03/90
25,341.97
P.E.R.A.
PERA
1'0- 4145 - 510 -51
MANUAL
25.,341.97
1990 CITY OF EDINA CHECK REGISTER 05 -04 -90 PAGE 10
CHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* * * * ** * ** -CKS
107P82
05/04/90
6.34-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107P82
05/04/90
29.25-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107P82
05/04/90
12.95-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107P82
05/04/90
317.05
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
107P82
05/04/90
1,462.67
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107P82
05/04/90
647.34
PRIOR WINE
50 -4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
107P82
05/03/90
65.17
PRIOR WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107P82
05/03/90
22.88
PRIOR WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL,
107P82
05/03/90
15.97
PRIOR WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
2,482.54
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
107Q16
05/04/90
8.18-
QUALITY WINE
50-3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
.33-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822-82
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
23.48-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
7.99-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
59.11-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
1.24-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
4.03-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
17.49
-.
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
68.34-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
.33-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
3.22-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
11.25-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
2,956.20
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
62.24
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626- 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
399.41
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
3,417.34
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
32.50
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
815.80
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
1,173.31
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
1,746.50
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107016
05/04/90
403.08
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
107Q16
05/C4/00
32.50
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
321.75
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
107Q16
05/04/90
1,121.05
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
12,276.69
* *. ***
-
* ** -CKS
108C51
05/03/90
161.71
COMM /REV
SALES TAX
10- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90.
156.18
COMM /REV.
SALES TAX
23- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90
6,844.43
COMM /REV
SALES TAX
27- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90
408.06
COMM /REV
SALES TAX
28- 3357- 000 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90
99.13
COMM /REV
SALES TAX
29- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90
564.61
COMM /REV
SALES TAX
30- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90
704.48
COMM /REV
SALES TAX
40- 3357 - 000 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90
6,575.15
COMM /REV
SALES TAX
50- 3357 - 001 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90
13,324.38
COMM /REV
SALES TAX
50- 3357 - 002 -00
MANUAL
108C51
05/03/90
11,237.07
COMM /REV.
SALES TAX
50- 3357 - 003 -00
MANUAL
40,075.20
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK
REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 11
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
108F19
05/03/90
662.00
1ST TRUST
BOND REGISTRATION
10- 1145- 000 -00
MANUAL
662.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
109750
05/03/90
577.50
JLF VIDEO PROD
SALARY /TEMP
12- 4120 - 434 -43
MANUAL
577.50
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
109A82
05/03/90
11.81
AT &T
TELEPHONE
27- 4256- 664 -66
MANUAL
109A82
05/03/90
.70
AT &T
TELEPHONE
28- 4256 - 702 -70
MANUAL
12.51
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
109P70
05/03/90
180.00
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE
10- 4290 - 510 -51
MANUAL
180.00
'
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
109U27
05/03/90
326.88
US WEST COMM,
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
259.05
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256- 622 -62
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
22.07
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 628 -62
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
45.53
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 646 -64
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
16.06
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
23- 4256- 612 -61
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
43.65
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
27- 4256 - 662 -66
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
249.67
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
27- 4256 - 667 -66
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
141.96
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
28- 4256- 702 -70
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
521.04
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
40- 4256- 803 -80
MANUAL
109U27
05/03/90
16.06
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256- 821 -82
MANUAL
1,641.97
* * * * **
* *. -CKS
110G09
05/03/90
135.00
GOVT TRAIN SER
REGISTRATION
10- 4202 - 140 -14
MANUAL
135.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
11OG68
05/03/90
114.40
GRAYBAR ELECT
FINANCE CHARGES
10- 4504 - 560 -56
MANUAL
110668
05/03/90
1,295.00
GRAYBAR ELECT
REPAIR PARTS
10- 4540- 520 -52
MANUAL
1,409.40
*. *x*
* ** -CKS
11OP70
05/03/90
550.00
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE
10- 4290 - 510 -51
MANUAL
550.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
113N16
05/03/90
260.40
NSP
POWER /LIGHT
10- 4252 - 330 -30
MANUAL
1990 CITY OF EDINA
CHECK NO. DATE
113N16 05/03/90
* * * * **
113561 05/03/90
* * * * **
114866
05/04/90
114B66
05/04/90
* ** -CKS
114E11
05/04/90
114EII
05/04/90
114EII
05/04/90
114EII
05/04/90
114EII
05/04/90
114EII
05/04/90
114EII
05/04/90
114EII
05/04/90
114E11
05/04/90
i14E11
05/04/90
114EII
05/03/90
114E11
05/03/90
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/04/90
114E26
05/03/90
114E26
05/03/90
114E26
05/03/90
AMOUNT
78.98
339.38
20.00
20.00
1.87-
124.60
122.73
.92-
8.23-
13.55-
16.85-
3.00-
842.70
411.74
45.99
677.25
150.15
101.65
115.72
2,302.65
14.93 -
27.60-
4.36-
1.69-
746.66
1,380.07
218.26
84.79
348.70
692.80
649.40
480.00
1,384.65
1,357.60
1,368.90
724.50
676.40
227.25
303.00
15.15
10,609.55
CHECK REGISTER
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
NSP POWER /LIGHT
STATE TREASURER
BRW ENTERPRISE
BRW ENTERPRISE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
EAGLE WINE
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
ED PHILLIPS
SCHOOL
MIX
MIX
BEER
BEER
BEER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 12
ACCOUNT NO. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
40- 4252 - 801 -80 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
40- 4202 - 809 -80 MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 3710- 822-82
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4632 - 842-84
MANUAL
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4626- 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL .
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
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 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50•- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4630 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4630 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4630 - 862 -86
MANUAL
* * * * ** * ** -CKS
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 13
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
114G82
05/04/90
15.86-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3700 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
63.67-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
10.35-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
41.75-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
38.89-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
97.34-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
65.62-
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
1,944.34
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
4,866.83
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
3,280.80
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL,
114G82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
114G82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS
COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
9,758.49
* * * -CKS
114J62
05/04/90
7.49-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
2.40-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
.32-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710-822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
52..08-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
5.21-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
17.74-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
126.69-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
5.74-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
112.'86-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
6.96-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
6.51-
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
14.21
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
2,604.34
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
37.49
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
3.43
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626-842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
195.13
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
6,333.37
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
5,610.69
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
32.84
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
4.41
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
239.75
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
748.83
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
.49
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
32.43
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
7.35
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
1,776.64
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
129.72
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
7.84
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
46.55
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
574.07
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
650.24
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
695.33
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
15.19
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
8.33
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114J62
05/04/90
64.86
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
19,489.53
*
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
3.95-
CHECK REGISTER
PRIOR WINE
05 -04 -90 PAGE 14
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
* * * * **
MANUAL'
114P82
05/04/90
11.28-
* ** -CKS
114P20
05/04/90
..07-
PAUSTIS & SONS
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114P20
05/04/90
4.80
PAUSTIS & SONS
50 -4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
114P20
05/04/90
244.50
PAUSTIS & SONS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
05/04/90
309.54
249.23
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
* * * * ** * ** -CKS
114P82
05/04/90
3.95-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
114P82
05/04/90
6.19-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL'
114P82
05/04/90
11.28-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
114P82
05/04/90
.72-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
114P82
05/04/90
197.46
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114P82
05/04/90
309.54
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114P82
05/04/90
35.75
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
y. MANUAL
114P82
05/04/90
563.75
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1,084.36
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
114Q16
05/04/90
16.00-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
44.47-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710- 822 -82
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
6.17-
QUALITY.WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
.33-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
1.97-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
5.99-
QUALITY WINE
50 -3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
59.71-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
80.38-
QUALITY WINE`
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
75:90-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
71.79-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
11.40-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
800.43
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
2,223.41
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
4,018.31
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
2,985.63
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
3,794.33
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
3,589.09
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
- MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
613.75
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
32.50
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
595.00
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
195.50
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
114Q16
05/04/90
1,133.40
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
114Q16
05/03/90
16.78
QUALITY WINE
MIX 50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL
19,624.02
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
114W89
05/03/90
178.00
WORLD CLASS WINE
BEER 50- 4630 - 862 -86
MANUAL
178.00
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
115725
05/03/90
960.00
BOY SCOUT /AM
NATL CONFERENCE 10- 4202 - 430 -42
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK
REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 15
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
960.00
x * * * *x
* ** -CKS
115T13
05/03/90
960.00
T HORWATH
FORESTRY WORK
10- 4201- 644 -64
MANUAL
960.00
*x * * **
* ** -CKS
116M98
05/03/90
401.18
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
10- 4254- 440 -44
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
533.39
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
10- 4254 - 520 -52
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
3,694.72
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
10- 4254 - 540 -54
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
1,048.41
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
10- 4254 - 646 -64
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
263.67
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
23- 4254 - 612 -61
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
539.95
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
27- 4254- 662 -66
MANUAL
_ 116M98
05/03/90
110.73
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
27- 4254 - 664 -66
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
1,831.80
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
27- 4254 - 667 -66
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
2,696.46
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
28- 4254 - 702 -70
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
2,709.61
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
30- 4254 - 782 -78
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
132.10
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
40- 4254- 801 -80
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
3,711.33
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
40- 4254 - 803 -80
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
66.83
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
50- 4254 - 821 -82
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
96.08
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
50- 4254- 841 -84
MANUAL
116M98
05/03/90
-129.31
MINNEGASCO
HEAT
50- 4254- 861 -86
MANUAL
17,965.57
*xxxxx
* ** -CKS
116560
05/03/90
320.50
STATE /MN
EXISE TAX
10- 4310 - 560 -56
MANUAL
320.50
xxxxxx
* ** -CKS
116U27
05/03/90
344.40
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
116U27
05/03/90
118.63
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 622 -62
MANUAL
116U27
05/03/90
145.63
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 628 -62
MANUAL
116U27
05/03/90
211.42
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
30- 4256 - 782 -78
MANUAL
116U27
05/03/90
149.99
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 821 -82
MANUAL
116U27
05/03/90
244.89
US WEST COMM
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 841 -84
MANUAL
1,214.96
xxxxxx
* ** -CKS
117798
05/03/90
55.00
MNAPA
WORKSHOP
10- 4202 - 120 -12
MANUAL
55.00
xxxx **
* ** -CKS
117A82
05/03/90
43.03
AT &T
TELEPHONE
10- 4256 - 510 -51
MANUAL
117A82
05/03/90
7.12
AT &T
TELEPHONE
27- 4256 - 667 -66
MANUAL
117A82
05/03/90
17.23
AT &T
TELEPHONE
30- 4256 - 782 -78
MANUAL
67.38
xxxxxx
* ** -CKS
.117A84
05/03/90
10.50
AT &T
TELEPHONE
50- 4256 - 821 -82
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
50- 1010 - 000 -00
MANUAL
CHECK REGISTER
* ** -CKS
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
* ** -CKS
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
* k * * k
* ** -CKS
10.50
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
117C33
05/03/90
124,000.00
MANUAL
CITY /EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
117C33
05/03/90
124,000.00-
MANUAL
CITY /EDINA
PAYROLL TRANSFER
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 3710- 862 -86
.00 *
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
117G86
05/03/90
14,105.91
MANUAL
GROUP HEALTH
INSURANCE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
14,105.91
*
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
* * * * **
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
117M24
05/03/90
16,343.80
MANUAL
MEDCENTER HEALTH
HOSPITAL PREM
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
16,343.80
MANUAL
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
117P42
05/03/90
21,628.00
PHP
INSURANCE
21,628.00
120F14
05/03/90
15,128.11
FIDELITY BANK
FICA
120F14
05/03/90
. 693.46
FIDELITY BANK
MEDICARE
* k * k k *
15,821.57
121E11
05/04/90
4.61
-
EAGLE WINE
121EII
05/04/90
.92-
EAGLE WINE
121E11
05/04/90
12.23-
EAGLE WINE
121EII
05/04/90
16.43-
EAGLE WINE
121E11
05/04/90
.72-
EAGLE WINE
121EII
05/04/90
230.74
EAGLE WINE
121EII
05/04/90
45.99
EAGLE WINE
121EII
05/04/90
611.47
EAGLE WINE
121EII
05/04/90
821.47
EAGLE WINE
121EII
05/03/90
1.00-
EAGLE WINE
CREDIT
121EII
05/04/90
36.20
EAGLE WINE
121E11
05/03/90
64.09
EAGLE WINE
MIX
121E11
05/03/90
296.14
EAGLE WINE
MIX
2,070.19
* * * * * k
121E26
05/04/90
18.63-
ED PHILLIPS
121E26
05/04/90
10.23-
ED PHILLIPS
121E26
05/04/90
5.,97-
ED PHILLIPS
121E26
05/04/90
23.40-
ED PHILLIPS
121E26
05/04/90
931.70.
ED PHILLIPS
121E26
05/04/90
511.83
ED PHILLIPS
121E26
05/04/90
298.58
ED PHILLIPS
05 -04-90 PAGE 16
ACCOUNT N0. INV. # P.O. # MESSAGE
* ** -CKS
50- 1010 - 000 -00
MANUAL
50- 1010 - 000 -00
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4156- 510 -51
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4156 - 510 -51
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10- 4156 - 510 -51
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
10 -4149- 510 -51
MANUAL
10-4162- 510 -51
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4632 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4632 - 862 -86
MANUAL
* ** -CKS
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
50- 4626- 842 -84
MANUAL
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
CHECK REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 17
CHECK NO.
-DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE .
121E26
05/04/90
1,170.34
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
567.15
ED- PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
567.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
1,239.20
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
51.30
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
12lE26
05/04/90
481.30
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
887.80
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
331.90
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
658.64
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
180.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
875.80
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121E26
05/04/90
220.00
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL'
121E26
05/04/90
1,122.10
ED PHILLIPS
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
121E26
05/03/90
15.15
ED PHILLIPS
BEER
50- 4630 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121E26
05/03/90
199.50
ED PHILLIPS
BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121E26
05/03/90
20.10
ED PHILLIPS
BEER
50- 4630 - 862 -86
MANUAL
10,271.16
k * k * * k
* ** -CKS
121G82
05/04/90
23.99-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
51.59-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
41.12-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
2.96-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
43.83-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
55.21-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
141.96-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 3710- 862 -86
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
147.96
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
2,191.25
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
2,760.31
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
7,098.02
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
20.08
-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
7.63-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
6.90-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
14.29-
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121G82
05/04/90
.00
GRIGGS COOPER
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
11,787.98
k k k k k
* ** -CKS
121J62
05/04/90
17.50-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3700 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
9.92-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
.30-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3700 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
62.02-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
4.66-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
5.56-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
1.67-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121762
05/04/90
84.45-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710- 842 -84
MANUAL
121062
05/04/90
4.62-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
4.39-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
7.82-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
73.12-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
2.77-
JOHNSON WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
4.80
PAUSTIS
CHECK
REGISTER
50- 4628 - 822 -82
05 -04 -90 PAGE 18
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
121J62
05/04/90
16.36
3.00
JOHNSON
WINE
&
50- 4626- 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
3,102.06
73.75
JOHNSON
WINE
&
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
4,222.80
3.00
JOHNSON
WINE
&
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
26.95
122.25
JOHNSON
WINE
&
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/03/90
14.70
150.00
JOHNSON
WINE
LIQUOR
50- 4626- 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
3,608.51
560.80
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
23.03
30,808.42
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
11.76
30,808.42
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
167.37
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
556.56
51.48
JOHNSON
WINE
BULK MAILING
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL, _
121J62
05/04/90
465.50
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
7.35
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
1.47
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
461.84
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121362
05/04/90
11.76
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
438.80
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
4.41
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
3.43
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
19.11
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
.00
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628- 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
97.29
JOHNSON.WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
783.03
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/04/90
277.03
JOHNSON
WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121J62
05/03/90
77.93
JOHNSON
WINE
MIX
50- 4632 - 842 -84
MANUAL
14,120.25
* ** -CKS
121N12
05/03/90
2,328.21
MUTUAL
BENEFIT
DISABILITY PREM
10- 4158 - 510 -51
MANUAL
2,328.21
*
* ** -CKS
121P20
05/04/90
4.80
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121P20
05/04/90
204.00
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628- 822 -82
MANUAL
121P20
05/04/90
3.00
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121P20
05/04/90
73.75
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121P20
05/04/90
3.00
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121P20
05/04/90
122.25
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121P20
05/04/90
150.00
PAUSTIS
&
SONS
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
560.80
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
121P32
05/03/90
30,808.42
P.E.R.A.
PERA
10- 4145 - 510 -51
MANUAL
30,808.42
*
* * * * **
* ** -CKS
121P70
05/03/90
51.48
POSTMASTER
BULK MAILING
10- 4201 - 505 -50
MANUAL
51.48
* * * * **
** *-CKS
.. ..
1990 CITY
OF EDINA
_CHECK
REGISTER
05 -04 -90 PAGE 19
CHECK NO.
DATE
AMOUNT
VENDOR
ITEM DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT NO. INV.
# P.O. # MESSAGE
121P82
05/04/90
3.72-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121P82
05/04/90
3.57-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121P82
05/04/90
7.11-
PRIOR WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121P82
05/03/90
19.95
PRIOR WINE
WINE-
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121P82
05/04/90
166.26
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121P82
05/04/90
178.33
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121P82
05/04/90
355.30
PRIOR WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
705.44
xxxxxx
* ** -CKS
121Q16
05/04/90
.07
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
6.46-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
16.53-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
9.28-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
1.67-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
1.31-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
16.65-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
34.45-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL'
121016
05/04/90
8.90-
QUALITY WINE
50- 3710 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
3.73-
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
826..79
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
.83.32
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
.832.38
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
1,722.29
QUALITY WINE
50- 4626 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
640.70.
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 822 -82
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
925.45
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 842 -84
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
130.25
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
121Q16
05/04/90
887.15
QUALITY WINE
50- 4628 - 862 -86
MANUAL
5,949.42
xxxxxx
* ** -CKS
370,127.74
FUND 10 TOTAL
GENERAL FUND
577.50
FUND 12 TOTAL
COMMUNICATIONS
1,134.78
FUND 23 TOTAL
ART CENTER
68.27
FUND 26 TOTAL
SWIMMING POOL FUND
19,045.87
FUND 27 TOTAL
GOLF COURSE FUND
13,404.18
FUND 28 TOTAL
RECREATION CENTER FUND
562.70
FUND 29 TOTAL
GUN RANGE FUND
12,618.67
FUND 30 TOTAL
EDINBOROUGH PARK
21,353.42
FUND 40 TOTAL
UTILITY FUND
966.92
FUND 41 TOTAL
STORM SEWER UTILITY
253,333.53
254,289.99-
FUND 50 TOTAL
LIQUOR DISPENSARY FUND
693,193..58*
694,
TOTAL
ri .. , 1'
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: May 23, 1990
TO: Council Members
FROM: Mayor Richards
SUBJECT: INFORMATION REQUESTED AT MAY 21, 1990, COUNCIL MEETING
Attached are the two pieces of information you requested at Council on May
21, 1990. They are as follows:
1. Article on Community Cooperation Key to Seminar by Ginger Hamer,
printed in the Edina Sun- Current - Wed., May 16, 1990.
2. Public Information Meeting Flyer from the Metropolitan Council
Any concerns, please let me know. Thank you.
C n I
AOOLm4ew �P"e#"46ers
�sPec lot�L!ly
i
ip, Vi f-ect
t� hes) ypcA czv-e
to 4a � 6ce to a ✓1�
S for c{ ay, 2: 36 a.
v 7'!� e r.✓o vl� s!� o p — c� ci vr..iu�b �e wt o✓ti ��t,%
0.'t E Radt, Covftcl/ CAdL&0ftLe1.---. S0NSf.Q)9wy100
.coniniunity coop
By Ginger Hamer who have made a difference in
their communities. U.S, Rep.
Local citizens solving local Newt Gingrich, ppR -Goaa., is host
Problems. and there are In a ell that is the p�rinci- Republican and appearances
Democra Democratic na-
pie behind the American clonal leaders, including Presi-
piarromenon known as the town . dent George Bush.
meeting.
It is a time when It outlines ideas called
fri ee and dim
neighbors join the "Wangle of American suc-
to talk about issues of cem." These are:
mmm to themselves and • EntrepreneurIal free enter -
W pad common sense answers prise works.
to difficult problems. • Technological progress has
A mini - course in town meeting created a better America and
d tlls, called the American Op will continue to do so.
01"Mity Workshop, will take • Basic American values, such
Pace the Edina City Hail as honest hard work, rim
G Clamber at 8:30 a.m. each person's ,chance to
Saturday, May 19, The City Hall succeed.
Is one of mare than OW sites in 5o Following the broadcast, par -
states where people will get , t i c i p a n is will be given
=18 to learn by &g. The workbooks which build on the
invited.will with video examples and teach skills
The program begin successful accompllshmaut
'In hour -lbng, non-partisan na- of local goals .
tional town meeting satellite At this point, the program
TV showing a feaburl becomes purely local in nature.
success stories of three people Those people present at each
Edina Sun-Curnnt —Wad.. May It 1990-
.
,ratior� ke to semmar
. Y
location wW have a chance to organizations are sponsoring reformers who are alrea(
select a to focus on. If this program, including the moving and a w�
attendance and interest warrant United States Chamber of Com- have never been volved
it, they may divide into sub- merce, -National Vietnam chance to know that they c,
groups to deal with more -than Veterans Coalition, National make a difference."
one issue.- Review magazine, Citizens The video will also be broa
The American Opportunity Against Government Waste, and cast on Twin Cities cable cha
Workshop is a non - partisan off- the American Freedom nel 6 at 9 a.m. "People can tu,
shoot id GOPAC (Grassroots . ,Coalition - in," said Weir, "but I would e
Organfzation Political Action Locally the workshop is being courage them to come to Ci
Committee) headed b y organized by Bill Weir of Edina Hall to listen to the leaders a i
Gingr1& Its purpose is to teach and has the support of the Edina then dig into the workbooks ai
people the skills they need to , of Commerce. decide which problem to foci
work effactiv* *ith other -in-� 'Weir said he does not know on.,'
their community to bring-about what local issues the group will For m= inf udon aboi
healthy change and find com- talk about after the video. the America uppoctunit
m o n sense solutions to "Various people put different Workshop, call I- 80p-872.27!
problems. weight on each of many issues. between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.,
More . than 30 national We're just knitting together contact Bill Weir at 941 -5360.
� 1
THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
INVITES YOU TO A
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
TO DISCUSS
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S
REGIONAL RELIEVER AIRPORT TASK FORCE
The task force has recently analyzed the capacity of the region's seven smaller,
"reliever" airports, based on projected general aviation (non - commercial) demands
to the year 2008. Improvements called for by the task force would provide
additional reliever airport capacity and extend the life of Minneapolis -St. Paul
International Airport.
TUESDAY, JUNE 59 7 P.M.*
EDINA COMMUNITY CENTER BOARD ROOM
5701 NORMANDALE RD. (HWY. 100)
EDINA
(Enter through door #2. The board room is on third floor.)
AGENDA
• Presentation of Findings and Recommendations
• Question/Answer Period
• Next Steps
* If you are unable to attend this evening meeting, you are invited to attend the Council's
Metropolitan Systems Committee meeting, 11 a.m., June 5, when a presentation of the task
force's findings and recommendations also will be made. This meeting will be held in the
Metropolitan Council Chambers, Mears Park Centre, 230 E. Fifth St., St. Paul.
To obtain a preliminary summary of the task force report, call the Council's Data Center at
291 -8140.