Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-01-03_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 3. 1994 7:00 P.K. ROLLCALL ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA - Adoption of the Consent Agenda is made by the Commissioners as to HRA items and by the Council Members as to Council items. All agenda items marked with an asterisk ( *) and in bold print are Consent Agenda items and are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of such items unless a Commissioner or Council Member or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence of the Agenda. * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of HRA Meeting of December 20, 1993 * II. PAYMENT OF HRA CLAIMS as per pre -list dated 12/30/93 Total: $17,858.06. III. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of Regular Meeting of December 20, 1993 II.. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REPORTS ON PLANNING MATTERS - Affidavits of Notice by Clerk. Presentation by Planner. Public comment heard. Motion to close hearing. Zoning Ordinance: First and Second Reading requires 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall of all. members of Council required to pass. Final Development Plan Approval of Property Zoned Planned District: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass. Conditional Use Permit: 3/5 favorable rollcall vote required to pass. A. Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals Decision - Variance for Satellite Antenna at 5712 Deville Drive (Contd from 12/06/93) B. Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals Decision - Variance from Code Section 850.17, Subd. 11 to Allow Development of Platted Lot Without Required 30 Feet of Frontage (Contd from 12/20/93) * C. Set Hearing Date (01/18/94) 1. Preliminary Plat Approval - Fink Addition (6520 Interlachen Blvd) 2. Preliminary Plat Approval - Holly Hill Estates (Lot 1, Block 1, Taft Addition - 5020 Blake Rd) III. ORDINANCES First Reading: Requires offering of Ordinance only. Second Reading: Favorable rollcall vote of majority of all members of Council required to pass. Waiver of Second Reading: 4/5 favorable rollcall vote of all members of Council required to pass. A. Second Reading - Ordinance No. 1993 -14 - Amending Edina Code Section 1000 to Prohibit Intentional Feeding of Deer IV. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS Agenda/Edina City Council January 3, 1994 Page two V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS * A. High Speed Bus Grant VI. . RESOLUTIONS ' * A. Designation of Director /Alternate Director of Suburban Rate Authority * B. Designation of Director /Alternate Director of LOGIS * C. Designation of Official Nevspaper * D. Signatory Resolution * E. Facsimile Signatures Resolution * F. Official Depositories Resolution * G. 1994 Recycling Grant Application Resolution VII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES VIII. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL IX. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. Report on Requirements of Wine Ordinance B. September Council Meeting - Wednesday, Sept 7 (Sept 6 is Rosh Hashanah) C. Purchasing Policies and Procedures X. FINANCE * A. Payment of Claims as per pre -list dated 12/30/93 Total: $441,257.02. SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Mon Jan 17 MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY - CITY HALL CLOSED Tues Jan 18 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Room Mon Feb 7 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M." Council Room Mon Feb 21 PRESIDENTS DAY - CITY HALL CLOSED Tues Feb 22 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Room Sat Feb 26 LWV Family Field Trip to City Hall 2 -4 P.M. Council Room MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DECEMBER 20, 1993 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Commissioner Kelly and was seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the BRA Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE BRA MEETING OF DECEMBER 6. 1993, APPROVED Motion was made by Commissioner Kelly and was seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the HBA Minutes of December 6, 1993. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *CIAIMS PAID Motion was made by Commissioner Kelly and was seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve payment of HRA claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated December 16, 1993, and consisting of one page totalling $15,772,54. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, Chairman Richards declared the meeting adjourned. 0 Executive Director COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 03:01:18 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01/03/94 $11.28 CELLULAR ONE TELEPHONE 122193/H GRANDVIEW MISC 012526 $11.28* 01/03/94 $3,530.11 DORSEY & WHITNEY LEGAL FEES 345184 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO FEES LEG /S 012527 $3,530.11" 01/03/94 $14,166.67 PARTNERS FOR SENIOR CO HRA BOND PAYMENT JAN 1994 EDINBOROUGH LOAN TO 0TH FU 012528 $14,166.67" 01/03/94 $150.00 PUBLICORP INC SEMINAR 122793 GRANDVIEW MEETING EXPENS 012529 $150.00" $17,858.06 l MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL DECEMBER 20, 1993 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as presented, with the exception of removal of Item VII.B. - Approval of Traffic Safety Staff Report. Rollcall: - Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 6. 1993, AND SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 8. 1993 APPROVED Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to, approve the minutes of the regular Council Meeting of December 6, 1993, and of the Special Council Meeting of December 8, 1993. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION CONTINUED TO JANUARY 3. 1994 - VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY AT 6508 STAUDER CIRCLE Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to continue the public hearing on the appeal of the Zoning Board of Appeals decision to January 3, 1994, for variance at 6508 Stauder Circle. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. STREET RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT VACATION GRANTED CONDITIONALLY FOR LOT 1. BLOCK 1. DAVIES FIRST ADDITION (413 ARTHUR STREET) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Engineer Engineer Hoffman stated that the property owner at 413 Arthur Street (Lot 1, Block 1, Davies First Addition) has petitioned the Council to vacate the street right of way for an old cul -de -sac abutting the subject property. He explained that a new cul -de -sac was constructed when Arthur Street was extended for the plat of Mendelssohn 2nd Addition in August, 1984. The utility companies have reviewed the request and do not object to the vacation as proposed. Staff would recommend that the easement vacation for street right of way be granted. Mayor Richards called for public comment on the proposed easement vacation. No comment or objection was heard. Member Rice moved adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION VACATING STREET RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 15th day of November, 1993, fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of portion of Arthur Street right of way easement; and WHEREAS, two weeks' published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on the 20th day of December, 1993, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the public that said street vacation be made; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric, cable television or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to continue maintaining the same, or to enter upon such street or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following described portion of Arthur Street be and is hereby vacated effective as of December 20, 1993: That part of Arthur Street, as dedicated on the plat of DAVIES FIRST ADDITION, according to the plat thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of Lot 1, Block 1, said DAVIES FIRST ADDITION and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence South, assumed bearing along the east line of said Arthur Street, a distance of 3.86 feet; which is the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence continuing South a distance of 106.13 feet to the intersection with the westerly extension of the south line of said Lot 1 and said line there terminating. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County Auditor, and filed with the County Recorder in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1993 -12 REFERRED TO PARK BOARD FOR REVIEW Mayor Richards told Council that a draft ordinance has been written, as directed by Council, that would name the roadway from Braemar Boulevard to Braemar Clubhouse "John Harris Drive ". The intent was to recognize the accomplishments of Edina resident, John Harris, in winning the Walker Cup and the U.S. Amateur Golf Tournament. He noted that written comments had been received from John Kressel, 6017 Code Avenue and Richard Abrams, 6600 France Avenue South, raising the question that some other recognition may be more appropriate and less confusing to people trying to locate Braemar Clubhouse. Mayor Richards called for public comment on Ordinance No. 1993 -12 as drafted. No comment or objection was heard. Member Rice said he would support doing something in recognition and suggested that this matter be referred to the Park Board for comment and recommendation. Member Rice made a motion to refer the matter of the proposed roadway naming to the Park Board for comment and for recommendation as to possible alternative. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1993 -13 TO INCREASE CERTAIN FEES AND TO ADD CERTAIN FEES ADOPTED: SECOND READING WAIVED Manager Rosland recalled that on December 8, 1993, the Council approved the fees and charges for 1994 as presented. Since then, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has advised that the SAC charge will be raised to $800 for 1994. The proposed ordinance would reflect the increased fee to $800 for 1994. No comment or objection was heard. Member Smith moved adoption of Ordinance No. 1993 -13 with waiver of Second Reading as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1993 -13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING EDINA CODE SECTION 185 SCHEDULE A TO INCREASE CERTAIN FEES AND TO ADD CERTAIN FEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. The following described fees of Schedule A to Code Section 185 are amended to read as follows: SEC. SUBSEC. PURPOSE OF FEE CHARGE AMOUNT FEE NO. 410 410.02, Building permit: Subd. 1 Total valuation of work: $1.00 to $500.00 *$20.00 30 $501.00 to $2,000.00 *$20.00 for first $500.00 plus 31 steam or hot water $2.50 for each additional *$21.00 $100.00 or fraction thereof to 69 heating, mechanical and including $2,000.00 *$26.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 *$57.50 for first $2,000.00 32 warm air heating and plus $9.50 for each additional pursuant to M.S. 16B.70 $1,000.00 or fraction thereof air conditioning or to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 *$276.00 for first $25,000.00 33 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof All fees for above permits based on contract price as to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 *$451.00 for first $50,000.00 34 over plus $5.00 for each additional 70 1,001.00- 5,000.00 $1,000.00 or fraction thereof anything over to and including $100,000.00 71 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 *$701.00 for the first 35 over $100,000.00 plus $4.00 for each 72 10,001.00- 25,000.00 additional $1,000.00 or fraction anything over thereof to and including 73 25,001.00- 50,000.00 $500,000.00 anything $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 *$2301.00 for the first 36 50,001.00 and over $500,000.00 plus $3.00 for each anything over additional $1,000.00 or fraction 75 thereof to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up *$3801.00 for the first 37 $1,000,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof *plus surcharge pursuant to M.S. 168.70 435 435.07 Gas piping permit Minimum Fee: Residential - *$21.00 60 Commercial - *$26.00 61 Fee Calculations: $ 0- $1,000 *$15.00 plus 3.00% > $ 500.00 62 $ 1,001- $5,000 *$30.00 plus 2.50% > $ 1,000.00 63 $ 5,001410,000 *$130.00 plus 2.10% > $ 5,000.00 64 $10,001 - $25,000 *$235.00 plus 1.80% > $10,000.00 65 $25,001- $50,000 *$505.00 plus 1.60% > $25,000.00 66 $50,001 & over *$905.00 plus 1.25% > $50,000.00 67 *plus surcharge pursuant to M.S. 16B.70 435 435.07 Oil burner, stoker, Minimum Fee: 68 steam or hot water Single Family - *$21.00 69 heating, mechanical Commercial - *$26.00 warm air heating and *plus surcharge pursuant to M.S. 16B.70 air conditioning or refrigeration permit All fees for above permits based on contract price as follows: $ 0- 1,000.00 *$ 15.00 + 3.00% of anything over $ 500.00 70 1,001.00- 5,000.00 *$ 30.00 + 2.50% of anything over 1,000.00 71 5,001.00- 10,000.00 *$130.00 + 2.10% of anything over 5,000.00 72 10,001.00- 25,000.00 *$235.00 + 1.80% of anything over 10,000.00 73 25,001.00- 50,000.00 *$505.00 + 1.60% of anything over 25,000.00 74 50,001.00 and over *$905.00 + 1.25% of anything over 50,000.00 75 *plus surcharge pursuant to M.S. 16B.70 440 440.04 Plumbing or water Fees same as for gas piping permit 75a conditioning permit 450 450.05 Swimming pool Same as amount of the fee for a building 80 construction permit 450 450.27, Public or semi- $295.00 per annum for each pool enclosed 81 Subd. 4 public swimming part or all of the year license $155.00 per annum for each outdoor pool 82 450 450.27, Public or semi- $75.00 per annum for each bath or pool 83 Subd. 4 public whirlpool bath or therapeutic swimming pool license - 605 605.07 Permits required Minimum fee: $35.00 95 by UFC Special hazard Class I: General hazard and fire $35.00 96 permit: safety inspections requiring a special hazard permit Class III: Special hazard $125.00 98 inspection primarily directed at, but not limited to, buildings or occupancies 3000 sq ft or larger where any of the following are present: A. Multiple hazards B. Storage handling, and /or processes involving dangerous or toxic materials, substances and /or processes C. Occupancies in which evaluation or high valuation presents unique circumstances 625 625.04 Sprinkler permit fees: 110 Number of heads 1 - 5 *$ 40.00 (minimum fee) 6 - 10 *$ 65.00 11 - 20 *$ 90.00 21 - 30 *$110.00 31 - 40 *$130.00 41 - 50 *$150.00 51 - 60 *$165.00 61 -. 70 *$180.00 71 - 80 *$195.00 81 - 90 *$210.00 91 - 100 *$220.00 101 - 110 *$230.00 111 - 120 *$240.00 121 - 130 *$249.00 131 - 140 *$258.00 141 - 150 *$267.00 151 - 160 *$275.00 161 - 170 *$283.00 171 - 180 *$291.00 181 - 190 *$298.00 191 - 200 *$305.00 201 plus *$305.00 for first 200 plus $6.00 for each additional head *plus surcharge pursuant to M.S. 168.70 625 625.03 Fire pump installation $80.00 and associated hardware Standpipe installation Each additional standpipe 625 625.03 Fire alarm system permit 635 635.02 False fire alarm 720 720.04, Food establishment Subd. 3 license Day care, limited food establishment license Take -out food facility license Packaged food sales license Food warehouse license Catering food establishment license Itinerant food establishment license Retail candy shop license Potentially hazardous food vehicle license Fleet of 5 or more potentially hazardous food vehicles license Catering food vehicle license Food vehicle license Fleet of 5 or more food vehicles license 735 735.03 Hotel, lodging or boarding house license $80.00 $ 8.00 Same as the amount of fee for a building permit $225.00 for the third and each subsequent response within one calendar year $410.00 per annum, $360.00 if certified pursuant to Subsection 720.04, Subd. 3C of this Code, plus $110.00 per annum for each additional facility $125.00 per annum $275.00 per annum, $225.00 if certified pursuant to Subsection 720.04, Subd. 3C of this Code $130.00 per annum $70.00 per annum $410.00 per annum, $360.00 if certified pursuant to Subsection 720.04, Subd. 3C of this Code, plus $110.00 per annum for each additional facility $70.00 per event 118 119 120 121 125 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 $50.00 per annum, plus $5.00 per annum 142 for each additional facility $80.00 per.annum 143 $400.00 per annum 144 $150.00 per annum, plus $25.00 per 145 annum for each additional vehicle $ 80.00 per annum 146 $400.00 per annum 147 Hotels - $200.00 for 1 -50 rooms and 155 $1.00 per each room over 50 Lodging and boarding houses - $60.00 156 per location 815 815.03 Permit fee for Same as amount of the fee for a 165 antennas, dish antennas building permit $210.00 and towers annum (renewal) 207 830 830.05, Permit fee for tree Same as amount of the fee for a 175 Subd. 1 removal or grading building permit 830 830.05, Permit fee for open Same as amount of the fee for a 176 Subd. 1 pit or excavation of building permit annum (new) 100 cubic feet or more 900 900.16, Temporary on -sale 900 900.06, Non - intoxicating malt Subd. 1 liquor license: fewer seats - $690.00 212 51 - 100 seats, inclusive - $750.00 213 On -sale $210.00 per annum (renewal) 207 - $865.00 215 $270.00 per annum (new) 208 900 900.04, Off -sale $210.00 per annum (renewal) 209 Subd. 2 $270.00 per annum (new) 900 900.16, Temporary on -sale $40.00 211 Subd. 3 non - intoxicating malt buildings containing liquor license units: 900 900.16, On -sale wine license (per year): Subd. 1 Restaurants with 50 or fewer seats - $690.00 212 51 - 100 seats, inclusive - $750.00 213 101 - 150 seats, inclusive - $810.00 214 Over 150 seats - $865.00 215 900 900.17, Manager's license $60.00 per year 216 Subd. 6A 1100 1100.03, Sewer service charge: Subd. 2 Single family dwellings, Based upon water usage during winter town houses, two - family quarter (Three month period falling dwellings, apartment between November 1 and March 1) buildings containing four or less dwelling units: To and including 1600 $24.32 quarter 235 cubic feet From 1601 cubic feet $1.52 per 100 cubic feet 236 and over Apartment buildings with $117.00 plus $21.75 for each unit over 237 more than four dwelling four, or $1.52 per 100 cubic feet of units water during the quarter, whichever is greater 1100 1100.03, Sewer service charge: $30.00 per water meter or approved 238 Subd. 2 Commercial and sewage metering device on premises, or industrial buildings, $1.52 per 100 cubic feet of water used including schools during the quarter, whichever is and churches greater 1100 1100.03, Water service: 1. $0.53 per 100 cubic feet for all 242 Subd. 2 areas of City, except areas described below in 2. Minimum charge of $8.48 per quarter 243 1105 1105.01, Service Availability Subd. 1 Charge (SAC) 1300 1300.02, Refuse or recycling Subd. 1 hauler license will be made where water consumption amounts to less than 1600 cubic feet 2. $1.30 per 100 cubic feet for 244 Morningside area and for east side of Beard Av. from West 54th St. to Fuller St. and both sides of Abbott P1. from West 54th St. to Beard Av. Minimum charge of $15.60 per quarter 245 will be made where water consumption amounts to less than 1600 cubic feet for areas described in 2. above. $800.00 per SAC unit x number of SAC 250 units computed pursuant to Subsection 1105.01, Subd. 1 of this Code $120.00 per annum for first vehicle, 270 $50.00 for each additional vehicle Section 2. Schedule A to Section 185 is hereby amended by adding the following fees thereto: SEC. SUBSEC. PURPOSE OF FEE /CHARGE AMOUNT FEE NO. 420 420.02 Monitoring well permit $50.00 per well 50a 720 720.04, Pushcart license $120.00 per annum 147a 1345 1345.05, License for sexually- $200.00 per annum 289 Subd. 1 oriented businesses 1345 1345.05, Investigation fee at $1,500.00 289a Subd. 2 time of original application for license Section 3. Following publication, the effective date of this Ordinance shall be January 1, 1994. ATTEST: Mayor City Clerk Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Ordinance adopted. PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED. DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ADOPTED: FIRST READING GRANTED ORDINANCE NO. 1993 -14 TO PROHIBIT_ INTENTIONAL FEEDING OF DEER Presentation by Assistant Manager Assistant Manager Hughes recalled that the Council considered the draft Deer Population Management Plan at its meeting of December 6, 1993, and set a public hearing date of December 20, 1993. Notice was published in the Edina Sun - Current and was also mailed to individuals who provided names /addresses in responding to last summer's deer survey. Also, Ordinance No. 1993 -14 To Prohibit Intentional Feeding of Deer has been prepared for Council's consideration. In response to the hearing notice, 11 letters have been received and provided to the Council. By way of background, the Council has discussed the concept of deer population control on several occasions during the past five years. On September 20, 1993, the Council received results of a survey concerning Edina's deer population that was included in the Spring issue of About Town. Survey results indicated 294 surveys returned. Of those responding, 528 reported deer overpopulation in their area; with 708 in the southwest quadrant reporting overpopulation. 598 of the responders believed that deer were a community asset and 368 believed that deer were only a liability. 338 opposed deer population control which would result in death of individual animals, with 538 supporting such control. 598 of the responders supported use of taxes for deer management. The Deer Population Management Plan was summarized as follows: Problem Identification• Public Health /Lyme Disease - rarely contracted within metropolitan area; Department of Health confirms the risk as less than one per 100,000 population annually. Although Lyme disease must be continually studied, the control of Edina's deer population as a Lyme disease preventative is not warranted. Plant /Landscape Damage - Most common deer complaint; video is available to individuals who want to try different techniques to discourage predation, i.e. fencing and repellents. Traffic Safety /Personal Safety - Vehicular /deer collisions are an on -going concern and the risk of such collisions increases as deer populations and traffic volumes increase. Area of greatest concern is Highway 169 and the Crosstown Highway west of Highway 100. Range of 20 -30 collisions in Edina on an annual basis; with a personal injury ratio of 1:2. Population Growth /Carrying Capacity,- Based on aerial surveys, the 1993 deer population in Edina prior to birth of fawns was somewhat over 100 animals. The DNR has forecast a current deer population of approximately 130 -140. Habitat, although difficult to define, has been identified mainly as the park areas west of Highway 100, i.e. Braemar Park, Van Bredesen Park, Van Valkenburg Park, Todd Park, and Nine Mile Creek, comprising two square miles. Based upon a recommended density of 15 -25 deer per square mile as used in other metropolitan areas, this habitat is capable of supporting 40 -50 deer. To restore a better balance between deer population and habitat, the DNR estimates that 60 -80 deer may have to be removed each year for two to three years. Population Reductions Alternatives - Reduction can be accomplished in a variety of ways: - Regulated Hunting - Not feasible given the level of development in Edina. - Reintroduction of Predators (timber wolves /mountain lions) - Not possible. - Trapping /Transferring to Other Locations - Studies show high mortality rates for translocated animals. May also simply contribute to an overpopulation in the new locations. - Birth Control - No birth controls methods currently available for free roaming deer populations. - Allow Nature to Take Its Course - As the deer population reaches the upper limit for Edina's habitat, the deer will be prone to disease or starvation. Also, more deer /vehicular collisions can be expected. - Sharpshooting - Used within the City of Bloomington since 1991 and conducted by law enforcement officers. During 1992 -93 this method killed 319 deer in Bloomington. Cost may exceed $100 /deer, with carcasses turned over to the DNR for distribution to food shelves and other charitable organizations. Found to be an effective method of population control in areas where hunting is not feasible. Safety is a primary consideration; this method may be feasible within parts of Braemar Park over baited locations. - Trap and Kill - Method used in North Oaks where 171 deer were captured using this technique and then were destroyed. Cost per deer was $131 per deer. Method best suited for areas like Edina. Conclusions: - Edina's deer population is part of a larger herd which populates principally Bloomington and Eden Prairie. - Approximately two square miles of habitat in Edina capable of supporting 30 -50 deer. - Current population is over 100 deer; to reach a population of 40 -50 deer, 60 animals must be removed annually over a three year period taking into account natural reproduction and mortality. - Only feasible methods of population control would involve the death of individuals animals. - Population could be reduced through sharpshooting in Braemar Park and by trap and kill in other locations. Recommendations: - Three year population reduction program - population objective of 40 -50 deer. - Removal of 60 plus deer each winter. - Initial goal - 50 deer removed winter 1993 -94 by sharpshooting and trap /kill. - Deer feeding prohibition by ordinance. - Improved reporting of deer /vehicular collisions to better evaluate impact. - Improved method of recording deer complaints. - Continuation of aerial surveys to monitor success of program. Mayor Richards then called for public comment on the deer population management plan as proposed. Public Comment Linda Masica, 6817 Valley Road, said she felt the deer population has declined and that she was opposed to destroying these animals as she felt it was privilege to live in an area that has this kind of valuable resource. Grace Andrews, 5909 Hansen Road, told Council that they have lived at this address for 53 years. This year the deer ate up 45 hybrid tea roses and nearly everything in their garden. She said they have tried fences and have bought expensive deterrent which involves a lot of labor. She said the proposed deer control program looked fine and she would support killing all the deer. Betty Herman, 6720 Samuel Road, said the deer report information is invalid because the survey asked that if one had negative feelings about the deer they should respond to the survey. She encouraged the Council to look at the process and make its decision based on other data. Bill Wright, 6621 Sally Lane, complained that this last summer there were 7 -8 deer in their yard at one time and they are a very destructive force. He said he had concern for his grandchildren when they play in the yard because of the fecal droppings. He strongly urged the Council to begin the control program at once. Walter Hartman, 23 Circle West, said they have lived there for 26 years and over the last 10 years they have been inundated with deer. Even though they have tried many things that have been recommended to keep the deer away, nothing works. In talking with DNR,staff, they said the only way is to put up a 10 foot woven wire fence. Mr. Hartman said he had nearly enclosed his one acre yard with barbless wire. What is most perturbing is not the expense, time and labor to put in plantings, but the time it takes to get a replacement plant back to the same state of maturity. He said he would like to see all the deer removed. Harry Murphy, 6508. Indian Hills Road, commented that he has deer, squirrel and rabbits in his yard, all of which harm plants. He said he was opposed to a control program that would result in killing the deer and that further studies should be made about relocating them. Theodore Hanson, 5133 Meadow Ridge, said he concurred with Mr. Murphy's comments and felt it was barbaric to kill these animals and suggested they be transported up North to some reservation. Thomas Iberg, 6200 Hansen Road, observed that, although nice to see, there are too many deer. They come through his yard twice a day and during the fall his backyard is a rutting area. The bucks tear up all his trees and are very messy. Curt Peterson, 7122 Tupa Drive, said that over the last 2 -3 years there has been a tremendous increase in the number of deer in their yard. Last year the deer ate up annuals they had planted worth $300.00. Also, his wife. was checked for Lyme disease. If the deer are allowed to increase unchecked now, the problem will still have to be addressed sometime in the future. Patricia Krahl, 7001 McCauley Trail, commented that her family thinks the deer are very lovely and that they do feed them. The deer sleep where their garden used to be. She said her family does not want to see any of the deer go. William Basill, 5045 Windsor Avenue, submitted that this is a sensitive issue and, while he would not like to see any deer destroyed, there is problem. He suggested that, as an alternative to sharpshooting, a better method for reducing the deer population would be to permit bow and arrow hunting in the Braemar area which is loaded with deer sign. He added that the City of Minnetonka has done this very successfully to control their deer herd. Richard Burman, 6917 Valley View Road, commented that although he enjoyed seeing the deer, it is imperative that their population be reduced rapidly. Because the deer are eating plants which they normally would not touch, it indicates that they are starving in the middle of summer. The most brutal thing we can do is to leave this population at its present level. Phyllis Johnson, 6301 Ayrshire Boulevard, said that although the deer ate their apples and were destructive to their trees, they still enjoy seeing them. If the population must be controlled the deer should be relocated. Jean Lowe, 6301 Loch Moor Drive, said they live next to Braemar Park and that the deer population has grown rapidly. Five years ago they gave up on gardening; now the deer eat their shrubs and trees and are very destructive. By expanding Braemar Golf Course, more natural deer habitat has been removed. Further, she was concerned about the safety of her grandchildren and herself when mowing the lawn because of Lyme disease. A case of Lyme disease has been documented where a resident in the Indian Hills area where contracted Lyme disease from gardening in the backyard. Ms. Lowe said they have experienced three near - collisions with deer this year at Valley View /Gleason. The insurance industry has documented over 3,000 deer hits in the metropolitan area and it is just a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. She said it is time to address the problem seriously. Egons Podnieks, 5626 Interlachen Circle, questioned whether thinning out the deer population would only shift the concentration to other areas. Also, that this would not insure that deer would not come back to those properties that have had problems. Gerald Brimacombe,'7112 Mark Terrace, complained that the deer have destroyed their apple trees and shrubs. As a wilderness writer, he said he loved all wildlife and was very aware of wildlife problems in the United States. He said we are unfair to the deer themselves by letting them propagate. He said he has seen any number of deer that are injured, i.e. broken or missing legs and hips. It will hurt the species because there is no natural predation except for the automobile. He suggested that there is a humane way of handling the problem. Jon Hawks, 7712 Tanglewood Court, said that although he enjoys watching the deer they have increased in numbers and have destroyed his shrubs. He objected to killing all the deer but agreed that there needs to be some control. He urged that the program be implemented slowly so that the impact can be monitored. Ann Harrod, 5712 Parkwood Lane, told Council that the Nine Mile Creek area is a thoroughfare for deer. She said she was concerned that she would have a deer -car collision because of the increase in the deer herd. Dr. Paul Carson, 6001 Pine Grove Road, asked if sharpshooting the male deer would be a solution as they are the most destructive to the trees. He said he has lost a lot of trees and his concern is for the time lost in growing those trees. He agreed that their numbers should be reduced. John Beauchamp, 5901 Zenith Avenue, told Council that his,father -in -law who lives at 6004 Tamarack Lane has a population of at least 10 deer that frequent his yard. He said the report has grossly underestimated the deer population and the problem is large from the statements that have been made. Mr. Beauchamp said he is a biologist and knows about deer management. The deer must be reduced in number because the deer are adapting to the effects of overpopulation and that sharpshooting is the only option. Further, he said more data concerning accident statistics and DNR statistics should have been included in the report. Jim Reynolds, 6225 Loch Moor Drive, commented that although he enjoys the deer and respects those who share that pleasure, they have become tremendously overpopulated. He noted that they cannot keep flowers, shrubs or trees growing and that those who enjoy gardens should also have that right. While there have been few reports of Lyme disease in Edina, the biological effects of the deer overpopulation should be respected. Diane Safley, 6715 Parkwood Lane, said she was concerned about the deer /car safety problem as she hit a deer on Vernon Avenue and had almost collided with a deer on I -494 and also on Lincoln Drive. Although watching the deer is a pleasure, they are destructive and she urged that the herd be thinned out. Council Comment /Action Mayor Richards observed that there are a multitude of facets to this issue and that comments have been made on both sides. He said the Council has looked at this for a considerable period of time and has garnered the best information available to date contrary to comments suggesting that more data is needed. He then asked for asked discussion and comment by the Council Members on the recommended deer control plan. Member Smith stated that the comments from concerned residents provide more credibility than the results of the deer survey conducted this past summer. The reports of property damage indicate that there are probably more deer than are mentioned in the report. He said he felt a role of government was to help the citizens who are trying to protect their individual property rights and have asked for help.with this problem. Further, that deer population control would be beneficial to both the residents and the deer. Member Smith said he would support going forward with the control program but said he had some concern about sharpshooting. He asked for information on the success of Minnetonka's bow and arrow hunting program. Member Kelly commented that the City has a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and concurred that the deer population should be reduced. Member Rice said he would support the program because it is clear that the deer population needs'to be thinned. He suggested that staff be given the latitude to consider the additional alternatives that have been mentioned. Further, that Edina should do this in concert with the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie and Minnetonka. Lastly, while he sympathized with those residents who are losing gardens and landscaping to the deer, he felt the most important concern is that of public safety. Common sense says that tragedies will happen unless the risk is lessened by reducing the deer population. Member Paulus observed that in the past Hennepin County Parks and the DNR have put more effort in managing the deer population in the Fort Snelling /Minnesota River valley area. These agencies have now shown more interest because the deer counts are becoming larger in Edina and the surrounding communities. If approved, the program be a financial investment for the City of Edina which should not be taken lightly. She cited numerous phone calls received about the deer problem and noted that some have been seen in the Concord playground and apparently are moving east of Highway 100. Although not an easy choice, Member Paulus said she would support deer control because it would be more humane then letting the deer overpopulate. Mayor Richards said this is an urban environment for people and when there is a conflict between people and animals it is better to err on the people side. He said he would support the program as proposed. Member Kelly then moved adoption of the following resolution and First Reading of Ordinance No. 1993 -14 as follows: RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING A DEER POPULATION MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, a proposed Deer Population Management Plan (the Plan) has been presented to and reviewed by the City Council of Edina, Minnesota; WHEREAS, the proposed Plan would consist of a three year program with an objective of reducing Edina's deer population to 40 - -50 animals; WHEREAS, staff would proceed to develop specific sharpshooting and /or trapping strategies for implementation; BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council hereby approves and adopts the Deer Population Management Plan as presented; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff is hereby directed to develop specific strategies for implementation. ADOPTED this 20th day of December, 1993. ORDINANCE No. 1993 -14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1000 OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT THE INTENTIONAL FEEDING OF DEER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. The City Code is hereby amended to provide a new subsection 1000.12 as follows: "1000.12 Intentional Feeding of Deer. Subd. 1. Feeding Prohibited. No person shall feed deer within the City. For purposes of this subdivision, feeding shall mean the provision of one half cubic foot or more of grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay or other edible material either on the ground or at a height of less than five feet above the ground, in a manner that attracts deer. Living food sources such as trees and other live vegetation shall not be considered as deer feeding. Subd. 2 Exception. The provisions of Subd. 1 of this subsection shall not apply to the employees or agents of the City, the County, the State, the Federal government or veterinarians who in the course of their official duties have deer in their custody or under their management." Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted; First Reading granted. *BID AWARDED FOR ONE TON FOUR WHEEL DRIVE PICKUP Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid•for a Fire Department one ton, four -wheel drive pickup to recommended low bidder, Thane Hawkins Chevrolet, at $17,937.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE DRIVING RANGE AND GOLF DOME RANGE BALLS Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for Braemar Golf Course driving range and golf dome range balls to recommended low bidder, Spalding Professional Golf, at $25,150.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR 1994 GOLF COURSE FERTILIZER Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for golf course fertilizer to recommended low bidder, Precision Turf and Chemical, Inc., at $11,482.83. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT COMPUTER EQUIPMENT Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for computer equipment for the Engineering Department to Ameridata through State Contract M -2635, at $6,494.49. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *1994 PUBLIC HEALTH NURSING SERVICE CONTRACT APPROVED Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to approve the 1994 Public Health Nursing Service Contract with Bloomington Division of Public Health in the amount of $137,010.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REPORT DATED 12/08/93 APPROVED Assistant Manager Hughes advised that staff had requested the removal from the Consent Agenda of the Traffic Safety Staff Report dated 12/08/93 for discussion on Section A (1) relating to parking regulations at 4628 Browndale Avenue. Since the meeting on December 8, 1993, the applicant for the signs has withdrawn the request. Apparently the problem has been worked out with the neighbors involved. Staff would recommend that Item (1) of Section A be deleted from the report and not adopted. Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Rice to approve the following actions as recommended in Section A of the Traffic Safety Staff Report of December 8, 1993: 2) Remove Dead End sign on Parklawn Avenue at York Avenue and install a directional arrow at Parklawn-Avenue at Edinborough Way; 3) Remove the lane reduction sign and replace it with a "Lane Narrows" sign in the 4900 block of West 77th Street; 4) Provide speed survey results to the Police Department and include Olinger Boulevard as an enforcement area; 5) Install painted "STOP" line on Vernon Avenue at Gleason Road; 6) Paint a yellow centerline at the turn of Maple Road at West 48th Street; 7) Post "NO PARKING ANYTIME" signs on the East Frontage Road (Normandale Road) between West 66th Street and West 70th Street; and to acknowledge Sections B and C of the report as presented. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards Motion carried. (Member Smith was temporarily absent when the vote was called.) *FEASIBILITY REPORT PRESENTED FOR ORNAMENTAL LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT L -37 (VIRGINIA AVENUE/VIRGINIA LANE): HEARING DATE SET FOR JANUARY 18, 1994 Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith for adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L -37 1. The City Engineer, having submitted to the Council a preliminary report as to the feasibility of the proposed Ornamental Street Lighting 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 Tuesday, January 18, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. in the Edina City Hall, to consider in public hearing the views of all persons interested in said improvements. 3. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose of said meeting to be published in the official newspaper once a week for two successive weeks, the second of which publication is to be not less than three days from the date of said meeting, and to mail notice to all affected properties in substantially the following form: (Official Publication) CITY OF EDINA 4801 V. 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT NO. L -37 (VIRGINIA AVENUE & VIRGINIA LANE) The Edina City Council will meet at the Edina City Hall, on Tuesday, January 18, 1994, at 7:00 P.M., to consider the following proposed improvement to be constructed under the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. The approximate cost of said improvement is estimated by Hennepin County and the City as set forth below: INTERSECTION OF VIRGINIA AVENUE AND VIRGINIA LANE ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTING ESTIMATED COST IMPROVEMENT NO. L -37 $660.00 The areas under Improvement L -37 proposed to be assessed for a portion of the cost of the proposed improvement includes: Lot 8, Block 3; Lot 7, Block 4; and Lots 5 and 6, Block 5, Virginia Avenue Addition. These properties are proposed to be assessed at an estimated cost of $165.00 per assessable lot. Marcella M. Daehn, City Clerk Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. APPOINTMENTS TO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RECYCLING & SOLID WASTE COMMISSION CONTINUED TO 01/03/94 Mayor Richards reminded Council of the vacancies on the Human Relations Commission and the Recycling & Solid Waste Commission, terms for both positions would run to February 1, 1994, when reappointments could be made. He said one name has been suggested for the Recycling & Solid Waste Commission and asked that names of individuals who are interested be submitted to him prior to January 3. APRIL 6 1994 TENTATIVELY SET FOR COUNCIL/ADVISORY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS ANNUAL DINNER Mayor Richards noted that several dates /locations have been suggested for the annual dinner for the Council and Advisory Boards and Commissions. After brief discussion, the consensus was to schedule the dinner for April 6, 1994, if space is available at Braemar Clubhouse or Centennial Lakes Park Centrum. APRIL 20, 1994, SET FOR ANNUAL VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION RECEPTION Following discussion, by consensus the Council scheduled the Annual Volunteer Recognition Reception at Edinborough Park for Wednesday, April 21, 1994 at 5:00 P.M. THE EDINA CUP CHAMPIONSHIP PROPOSAL DISCUSSED Manager Rosland told Council that The Edina Foundation is proposing The Edina Cup Championship as a new fundraiser. This golf tournament would have two primary purposes: 1) to provide a quality golf tournament for Edina golf club members and residents, and 2) to raise money for The Edina Foundation. The tournament would take place on Edina's three regulation size courses, Braemar, Edina and Interlachen if approved by the governing bodies and would be held annually in late August or early September. The proposal will be considered by the Park Board at its January, 1994, meeting and will be formally brought to the Council with the Park Board's recommendation thereafter. Manager Rosland asked the Council Members to read the proposal in the meantime. *CLAIMS PAID Motion was made by Member Kelly and was seconded by Member Smith to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated December 16, 1993, and consisting of 29 pages: General Find $849,609.24; C.D.B.G. $9,285.50; Communication $70.13; Working Capital $16,085.21; Art Center $7,638.59; Swimming Pool $171.03; Golf Course $315,173.40; Ice Arena $102,130.01; Gum Range $1,014.83; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes $21,801.52; Utility Fund $27,808.73; Storm Sewer $1,460.14; Recycling $40,940.77; Liquor Fund $70,442.05; Construction Fund $73,868.26; IBR #2 Fund $313,125.00; TOTAL $1,850,624.41; and for confirmation of payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated December 9, 1993, and consisting of 16 pages: General Fund $178,063.72; Art Center $321.81; Golf Course $1,053.10; Ice Arena $3,195.71; Utility Fund $27,930.00; Storm Sewer $65,170.00; Liquor Fund $303,527.75; TOTAL $579,262.09. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. COUNCIL MEETING TEMPORARILY CLOSED Mayor Richards stated that at this time he would like to close the meeting to discuss the status of the investigation into the City's purchasing practices with City Attorney Gilligan, pursuant to the attorney - client privilege exception to the Open Meeting Law. The meeting was then closed for such discussion. Following the completion of such discussion, the meeting was reopened. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. City Clerk SC •�4• ao- -3, uc VC1 f— cl �- `r o e REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item # II. A. From: Kris Aaker Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Date: January 3, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: Variance B -- 93--_52 7 To Council for Satellite Antenna at 5712 Action 0 Motion Deville Drive ❑Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: At their November 18, 1993, meeting the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the homeowner's request to locate a satellite dish antenna in the sideyard area of a residential lot with a proposed height of 17 feet, five feet in excess of the 12 foot height requirement. Info /Background: Enclosed for reference are the following: 1. Draft minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals November 18, 1993, meeting. 2. Staff report with attachments. i Mayor R chards then called for public comment on the following issues: 1 should the proj t be 'undertaken or not, and 2) if ordered, how should the p ]ect be financed. Public Commen Arley Bjella, \av cCauley Trail, said that on behalf of to of the 12 affected property owney felt the proposed project would help olve what they consider to by serious pro blem. Ed Noonan, 6400 Timbe Ridge, stated that even thou ' is property does not abut the pond, he has use o 15 foot stretch of land access the pond from Jeff Gustafson who owns the \ee operty. Mr. No nan agreed that the problem is serious and he would liit resolved. suggested that all property owners in Timber Ridge fit because t ey have view of the pond. His concern woul d be water the pond 1 el were lowered, but he agreed that isolating the park area leason Roa would be good. Hr. Noonan observed that, while that area ital water source for the pond, it should be estimated what such con to �l.Xwer the flood potential without the Pump system. Mavor Richards commenced that, aLthowjh�\\zes the tics are important, the focus is on the pond hydraulics as it relates ;)d flo6d capacity. As to other options. staff and the watershed district have 196ked at A, e project and recommend it as proposed. He added that the time is ripe f this to proceed before further flooding occurs. Member Smith introduced the ollowing resolution d moved its adoption, subject to Department of Natural R ources approval, with tent to assess 50% of project cost to benefitted proper es and fund 50% from the tormwater Utility Fund: RESOLUTION RDERING STORK SEVER IMPRO NO. SS -226 BE IT RESOLVED by the C ty Council of the City of Ed Minnesota that this Council heretofore ca ed notice of hearing to be duly blished and mailed to owners of each parce within the area proposed to be asse ed on the following proposed improvemen : STORM SEVER ROVEMENT NO. SS -226 and at the hear' held at the time and place specified in sa notice, the Council has dul considered the views of all persons interested and being fully advised of the ertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed ith the construction said improvement including all proceedings which be necessary in eminent d in for the acquisition of necessay easements and rig h for constructio and maintenance of such improvement: that said improveme is hereby designate and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as: ST SEVER IMPROVEMENT NO. SS -226 and the rea to be specially assessed for a portion of the cost of the pro sed improv en t shall include: Lot 1 thr 7, Block 1, Indian Hills 3rd Addition d Lot l Block 1, The Timbers. Moti called for adoption or the resolution was seconded by Member Rice. llcall: yes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. r HEARING ON APPEAL OF ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISION FOR VARIANCE FOR SATELLITE V ANTENNA AT 5712 DEVILLE DRIVE CONTINUED TO 01/03/94 Presentation by Planner b\ Associate Planner Aaker explained that the subject property is located on the �\ west side of DeVille Drive, south of Stauder Circle and north of Biscayne 3oulevard. The homeowner is proposing to install a 10 foot diameter black mesh satellite dish antenna near the south side of the house on an extended-pole mount - to obtain an -. overall height -of 17 feet. According- to the antenna installer, trees alone the rear and south sidevard property boundaries block access to satellite reception with the exception of the proposed south sideyard extended pole mount Location. There are a number of trees on neighboring properties to the south. southwest and west which apparently block signals. Ms. Aaker presented zraphics illustrating front and side elevations of the proposed dish antenna, rroximity to sidevard property boundary and the mature trees. Edina Code Section 815, which addresses radio and television antennas and towers states the following: Dish antennas shall only be located in the rearyard area (815.06. Subd. 7, A.2.), and Dish antennas shall not be in excess of 12 feet in height. measured from the ground elevation at the base of the dish (815.07, Subd. 1, C). At its meeting of November 18, L993, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the variance request to Locate a satellite dish antenna in the sideyard area of the residential lot with the proposed height of 17 feet. The Board indicated they were svmpatnetic to the applicant, however, they were unclear whether adequate signals could be received in a conforming location. Also, that they found it difficult �o approve a variance that would create a hardship for immediate neighbors --.:e to the negative visual impact created. :•favor Ric-ards asked if the property owner was present. -.,;ho had applied for the variance and who had appealed the decision. Attorney Gilligan stated that the applicant =or the variance was James E. Aufderheide and chat the letter of appeal was signed by Jim Aufderheide, Aufderworld Corporation. Jim Aufderheide said he was representing Mike Yurecko, the owner of the subject property. The question was raised by Council as to whether the matter was properly before the Council and if Mr. Aufderheide could speak for the property owner who was not in attendance. Mayor Richards called for comment on the issue of procedure. Mr. Aufderheide affirmed t=at he was operating as agent for the property owner in this matter. Xichael 7- anskv. 5717 DeViLle Drive, stated that he lived directly across from the subject zroperty. :Ie said he did not believe the property owner needed to be present an that the owner had not appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals wither. r. Lanskv said he and another neighbor were prepared to have the appeal heard and decided. that the hearing should be proceed as if the property owner chose not to appear and that the Council hear testimonv from affected parties. Wavne Salita, 5713 Continental Drive, told Council that four neighbors were present who wanted to speak to the appeal. He suggested that the Council should take the '_ssue of proper procedure under advisement but hear the comments of the ,neighbors. Subsequently, if the Council finds that the matter does not have standine. _t should then be dismissed. Following discussion bv_ the Council on the issue of procedure, Mayor Richards then ruled that public testimony would be heard on the matter of the appeal. Presenca:'_on by Permit Applicant Jim Aufderheide. 4325 W. 62nd Street, stated he was appearing on behalf of the property owner, "like Yurecko, 5712 DeVille Drive. Mr. Aufderheide said he did not encourage the homeowner to attend the meeting as he did not feel it was necessar•:. He told Council that at the Board of Review meeting there was some question as to whether the satellites could be viewed from other locations in the vard or :Nether the spot selected would get all of the satellites. To better illustrate the case, he submitted photos depicting various views from the proposed satellite dish location and signal obstruction due to mature trees. He said all zackvard locations chat conform to the City Code are prevented from receiving the majority of programs. Mavor Richards asked what the maximum number of channels would be if the dish were placed within Code requirements. Mr. Aufderheide responded that there are 22 satellites producing 200 channels. If the antenna were placed to conform to Code. because of the variables, the maximum number of channels that could be received would be approximately 20. Member Kelly asked why the owner feels the need for receiving most of the 200 channels. Mr. Aufderheide explained the proponent had the dish antenna at his previous home and brought it with when his family moved to Deville Drive. His interests are hockey_ which is on about six satellites and also the entertainment channels. Member Paulus asked Mr. Aufderheide if he had ever approached a homeowner to remove trees so that the dish antenna could be located within the Code and if this had been discussed with the property owner in this case. In response, Mr. .;ufderheide pointed out that the two largest trees that would block most of the signals are not on the owner's property. Continuing, Member Paulus asked, if in interpreting the FCC rules, homeowners are told it is their right to receive the signals. Mr. ..ufderheide said as an installer they look for the best location in each case and if the homeowner concurs and there are obstructions the homeowner is told that a variance will be needed. Mayor Richards interjected that it is unrealistic to expect to receive all available channels. Member Paulus commented that, as a previous dish owner, the homeowner knew something about satellite dishes and that trees are a major obstacle in receiving signals. She asked Mr. Aufderheide if, in a case like this where there are obstacles such as trees, he informs the homeowner that there will be problems or does he say let's go for a variance because we can push the FCC rules. Responding, Mr. Aufderheide said his company was asked to move the dish from the previous home to the subject property. Member Paulus stated she would like the record to show that, one of the problems in not having the proponent present, was that she would have questioned the proponent that they must have known before they purchased the subject property that the trees would be a problem when installing the satellite dish. Member Rice asked .,hat the criteria was for granting variances. Associate Planner quoted from the City Code as follows: "The Board shall not grant a petition for a variance unless it finds that the strict enforcement of this Section would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property and that grant of said variances is in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Section. 'Undue hardship' means that: (i) the property in question cannot be put to reasonable use as allowed by this Section, (ii) the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to the petitioner's property -:hich were not created by the petitioner, and (iii) the variance, if granted. will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of this Section." Public Comment Matt Pfohl. 5716 DeVille Drive, told Council that his home is next door to where the satellite dish will be located. He presented photos illustrating the magnitude of the satellite dish size and a view of the property Line and existing trees. He said the trees will continue to grow in height and the property owner may be back in future years asking to extend the dish height to 20 or 23 feet. Mr. ?fohl said the ordinance requirements are there for two reasons: 1) aesthetic purposes (to hide the dish from the street), and 2) by limiting the antenna - location to a small envelope in the backyard it will eliminate repeated requests for variances because of future tree growth. Mr. Pfohl said that if the variance is granted his parents may plant a large tree in front of the dish. In conclusion, he said the applicant's word is being used to determine whether this is the single and only location for placement of the satellite dish. Mr. Pfohl said he viewed this as a conflict of interest and the Council should not rely solely upon the applicant's opinion. Wavne Salita, 5713 Continental Drive, explained that the three trees bordering the proponent's backyard are his. He told Council that the subject homeowners bought the property on Memorial Day and a few days thereafter the large antenna dish was laid on the ground between the subject home and that of the Pfohls. He said he did not want to see the dish even if it were legal, for sure if it needs a variance, and particularly if it is just to watch hockey games. Mr. Salita elaborated that the satellite dish would not be in keeping with the neighborhood or Edina as a whole, would affect the value of homes in the area and is ungodly. Mr. Salita said the proponent is not denied free speech, he has approximately 14 channels on cable, radio, and the newspaper so he is being denied nothing. No good will come from the variance - only economic hardship for all the neighboring property owners. He submitted that Mr. Aufderheide has a vested interest for granting of the variance. In conclusion, Mr. Salita asked the Council to deny the requested variance. Michael Lansky, 5717 DeVille Drive, said that while he is sympathetic to persons who want to receive satellite signals, in this case two variances are requested: 1) height relief, and 2) location relief. He pointed out the location variance creates the most onerous situation for the neighbors. The issue here is aesthetic degradation and whether the burden of that degradation should lie primarily on the neighbors or on the homeowner. The chosen location chosen for the dish antenna would move the degradation as much as possible on the residents surrounding the homeowner. Mr. Lansky said the FCC rules state that a homeowner is entitled to receive a signal. FCC rules are not applicable to this Council until such time as the courts say that they are. Assuming the courts say the rules apply, the issue becomes 'reasonableness' i.e. the burden on the homeowner has to be greater than on everyone else if all things are equal. He suggested that perhaps this issue may have been resolved if the homeowner had talked with the neighbors. Further, no homeowner can receive all channels from all 22 satellites. In conclusion. Mr. Lansky said this is a question of balancing the burden: the burden on the homeowner or the burden on the surrounding neighbors. He suggested that the homeowner look at what is the best location within the permitted area and if a variance is still needed it should be for height not location because the backyard is still the least onerous to the majority of neighbors. Mayor Richards noted that written objections to granting of the variance have been received from Robert, Janet, David and Shannon Sullivan, 6409 Biscayne Boulevard and James D. Leary, 5716 Camelback Drive. Council Comment /Action Mavor Richards said that any decision on the variance request would be premature without hearing from the proponent. He suggested the matter be continued so that further information could be provided in response to issues raised by the Council. Further, that specific findings should be drafted for consideration by the Council. Member Smith commented that he had heard nothing that said the qualifying location is unreasonable, that this does not fall within the FCC rules and that he would support denying the variance. Attorney Gilligan interjected that draft findings should be prepared for review and consideration by the Council before any action is taken. Member Smith made a motion to close the public hearing and to direct staff to prepare draft findings for denial of the variance request for review and consideration by the Council on January 3, 1994. Ho tion was seconded by Member Kelly. Member Rice said he would not support the motion because, although testimony was taken as a courtesy from the affected neighbors present, he felt the hearing should be continued so that the homeowner could be present: Mayor Richards said he concurred and asked that the City Attorney give an opinion as to whether the appeal was properly before the Council. Ayes: Kelly, Smith Nays: Paulus, Rice, Richards Motion failed. Mayor Richards then made a motion to co request to January 3. 1994. Notion was Ayes: '.elly, Paulus, Rice, Richards Nays: Smith Motion carried. tinue the public hearing on the variance seconded by Member Paulus. LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR 7023 AND 7029 DOWN ROAD Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Kelly for adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described tracts of land constitute various separate parcels: PARCEL 1: Lot 2, Block 1, TUCKERS PROSPECT HILLS, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 2: That part of Lot 15, PROSPECT HILLS, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 15; thence East along the South line of Lot 15, a distance of 140.93 feet; thence North to the Southeast corner of Lot 14; thence West 140.93 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 12; thence South along the most Westerly line of Lot 15 to the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS the owners of the above tracts of land desire to subdivide said tracts into the following described new and separate parcels: PARCEL 1: Lot 2, Block 1, TUCKERS PROSPECT HILLS, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota; and The Northerly 15 feet of that part of Lot 15, PROSPECT HILLS, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 15; thence East along the South line of Lot 15 a distance of 140.93 feet; thence North to the Southeast corner of Lot 14; thence West 140.93 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 12; thence South along the most Westerly line of Lot 15 to the point of beginning. according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL 2: That part of Lot 15, PROSPECT HILLS. described as follows Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 15; thence East along the South line of Lot 15 a distance of 140.93 feet; thence North to the Southeast corner of Lot 14; thence West 140.93 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 12 ;- thence South- along -the most - Westerly line of Lot 15 to the point of DRAFT MINUTES BOA MEETING 11/18/93 B -93 -52 Mike Yurecko /Jim Aufderheide /Aufderworld Corp. 5712 DeVille Drive Lot 4, Block 3, Parkwood Knolls 13th Addition Request: A variance from Section 815.06, Subd. 2, A. 2, of the Edina City code to allow a satellite dish antenna in the sideyard area and a variance from Section 815.07, Subd., 1, C. to allow 5 feet of additional height to the maximum height requirement of 12. feet for satellite dish antennas, (total proposed height of 17 feet). Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is located on the west side of DeVille Drive south of Stauder Circle and north of Biscayne Boulevard. The homeowner is proposing to install a 10 foot diameter black mesh satellite dish antenna near the south side of the house on an extended pole mount to obtain an overall height of 17 feet. According to the satellite dish antenna installer, trees along the rear and south sideyard property boundaries block access to satellite reception with the exception of the proposed south sideyard extended pole mount location. Ms. Aaker concluded it is staffs understanding that the city cannot deny an individual access to satellite signals, due to the preemptive nature of the FCC ruling. Ms. Aaker stated hardship due to signal obstruction has been established therefore staff recommends approval of the request. Mr. Aufderheide, of AufderWorld was present representing the proponents. Interested neighbors were present. Mrs. McClelland told the board she is abstaining from the vote. Mr. Johnson inquired if FCC rules state they can preempt our ordinance or they do preempt our ordinance, there is a difference between can and do. Ms. Aaker said they would preempt our ordinance if our ordinance is not in accordance with their ruling. Mr. Johnson remarked if it is do, this is a non issue, all the Board has to do is simply approve these requests every time they show up to keep our ordinance clean. Ms. Aaker said the FCC states we must have reasonable rules, and cannot have unreasonable restrictions, though the FCC has not clarified what is reasonable or unreasonable. Ms. Aaker pointed out at present our ordinance is being challenged. Mr. Johnson said in his opinion we should make our decision on what we deem appropriate for the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson pointed out depending on our decision this case can either be "piggybacked" with the present challenge or it won't. Ms. Aaker explained when she visited the site with Mr. Aufderheide-'s assistant it appeared by his calculations that a satellite dish cannot be located in a conforming location, and still receive the signals the homeowners desire to receive. Matt Pfohl, 5716 Deville Drive, explained to the board he resides with his parents Mr. and Mrs. Richard Pfohl at said address, and feels their property is the most impacted. Mr. Pfohl commented he thinks it would be irrational of the city to make a decision today because the city is apprehensive that our ordinance will not withstand FCC regulations. Mr. Pfohl added it appears to him the City is rubber stamping variance requests. Mr. Pfohl observed in this situation it appears the City is taking the word of the applicant (which is also the installer) that the proposed location is best. Mr. Pfohl suggested when there is a variance request, the city should require a second opinion at the expense of the applicant. Mr. Pfohl reiterated the applicant, and installer are the same, and a conflict of interest could exist. Mr. Pfohl reported he phoned a number of satellite dish installers inquiring on the price of a second opinion, and most said between $45 -$100. Mr. Pfohl suggested that the city step back and wait on the outcome of the challenge. Mr. Pfohl concluded our ordinance may be regarded as valid. Mr. Richard Pfohl submitted to the Board photo's showing the size and location of the dish as is relates to his property. Mr. Pfohl asked if there are other options that could be looked into. He pointed out the dish is very close to the property line, and only 10 feet from the front of the house. Mr. Pfohl questioned if new technology has produced smaller dishes. Mr. Aufderheide clarified for the board the property owner recently moved into the neighborhood, removed the dish in question from his previous property, and hired him to install it. Mr. Aufderheide pointed out so far there have been seven cases across the country regarding satellite dish placement, and in all seven cases the FCC rules preempted local ordinances. Mr. Aufderheide commented "piggy backing" cases may not be wise. Continuing, Mr. Aufderheide explained he walked the site carefully, calculating the most suitable location for the dish, and in his opinion the proposed site is best. Continuing, Mr. Aufderheide noted there is new technology, but is not necessarily better, it is parallel, one would possibly need more than one dish to receive the range of channels the large dish can receive. Mr. Johnson pointed out currently in Edina cable TV allows one to receive 52+ channels. Continuing, Mr. Johnson asked what difference there is between a dish and cable TV. Mr. Aufderheide explained persons who have a dish receive all the channels of cable, plus many more channels. Mr. Aufderheide pointed out people choose dishes for different reasons. He explained many want ethnic programming that is not offered on cable TV. Mr. Aufderheide also explained since the North Stars have left Minnesota many fans want to be able to see their games. These type of sports programs, and many other varieties of TV viewing are available only by satellite. Mr. Aufderheide pointed out freedom of information is. what precipitated the FCC rulings. Mr. Johnson pointed out the Board has heard a number of Aufderheide variance cases during the past year, and questioned if dish locations have been approved that met with the City's requirements. Ms. Aaker said the City has issued satellite dish permits on properties in the City that have not required variances. Mr. Lewis said he appreciates and understands what the FCC is trying to accomplish by their ruling, adding the last thing the Board wants to do is regulate what residents can view, but in his opinion Board responsibility is to all residents of Edina. Mr. Lewis added the Board must make their decision on what they believe is best for the entire community. Continuing, Mr. Lewis said he considers the duty of the Board is to interpret law as it relates to our ordinances. If there is a suit pending against the city, that should be dealt with by city attorneys. Mr. Lewis pointed out the ordinance clearly states satellite dishes are to be located in the rear yard, and less than 12 feet in height. Mr. Lewis said he does not want to deny anyone access to signals, but there may be technology out there they could purchase that conforms to our ordinance. Mr. Lewis contended the legal issue does not concern our Board, and we should not debate that issue. Mr. Lewis reiterated the duty of the Board is to interpret City ordinance as it presently stands, in the best way for our community, and its residents. Let the court decide if our ordinance is too restrictive. . Mike Laskey, 5717 Deville Drive, said his property is in direct site of the proposed dish antenna. Mr. Laskey mentioned he is familiar with the FCC rulings, and is sympathetic to the needs of residents who want to receive signals, but questioned if the FCC rulings state one has the right to receive all signals even if it is at the expense of others. Mr. Laskey observed in his opinion the proposed site is not the most desirable, and in a few years after a number of trees grow. the proposed location may not work at all. Mr. Laskey stated many people find satellite dishes truly unsightly, and in his opinion the burden.should be shifted to the property owner who desires the dish. Mr. Laskey pointed out in this situation the best location for the dish if the proponents want to receive all channels is in the street. Mr. Laskey suggested that the proponent rearrange their trees or remove their trees so the dish can be located in a conforming location. Mr. Laskey explained the home directly next door is two story, and if the house itself obstructed signals the house would not be removed. Mr. Laskey added he does not feel the FCC ties the City's hands. Mr. Laskey said he can understand a request for a variance if the property owner could not receive any signals. Mr. Laskey reiterated in his opinion the burden should be on the proponent, not on the neighbors. Mr. Laskey related he reviewed the City ordinance regarding satellite dish antennas, observing the ordinance does not prohibit the erection of a satellite dish which would be in violation of the FCC ruling. City ordinance requires the dish to be placed in locations that are not obtrusive to neighbors. Mr. Workinger asked if more than one home could share a dish. Mr. Aufderheide stated only one house realistically could share a dish. To have everyone agree on what to watch would be difficult. Mr. Workinger questioned Mr. Aufderheide on how soon this dish may become obsolete, due to the growth of existing trees on the property. Mr. Aufderheide said he believes the proposed location will serve the property owner for a number of years. Mr. Aufderheide acknowledged as nearby trees grow the signal can deteriorate. Mr. Workinger asked Mr. Aufderheide what he will do when the proposed dish location no longer receives the range of channels the property owner desires. Mr. Aufderheide said he would leave that decision to the homeowners. Mr. Workinger asked if it would be appropriate to raise the dish if the signals deteriorate. Mr. Aufderheide said that is one option. Mr. workinger said he is sympathetic with the proponents need to receive all. signals, but cannot support the request because it is unclear to him that signals can't be received in a conforming location. Mr. Workinger questioned if Mr. Aufderheide would be interested in tabling the request to look into other options. Mr. Aufderheide said he can speak with the proponents, but feels the proposed location is best, and he as an installer will not guarantee any other location. Mr. Workinger said it is difficult to approve a variance that imposes a hardship on the immediate neighbors. Mr. Workinger moved to deny the variance request due to the negative impact of the dish on the immediate neighbors. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. Ayes; Lewis, Workinger, Johnson. Abstain, McClelland. Motion to deny approved. Mr. Johnson informed Mr. Aufderheide he can appeal this decision to the City Council. The appeal period is 10 days. Mr. Richard Pfohl informed the Board if the proponents appeal this decision to the Council, and are allowed to erect their dish in the proposed location, they will plant large trees to screen their property from the negative impact of the dish. Communications Division November 19, 1993 Chris Aaker Planning and Zoning City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 33424 Dear Ms. Aaker: AUFDERWORLD CORP Pol Jumution of Highway 100 agbd 36th Street West 3556.S. Hwy. 100, St. Louis Park Minnesota SS416 • (612) 922.9411 • FAX (612) 922 -2141 Aufderworld Corporation and the Yurekos will appeal the denial of the variance for the satellite antenna at 5712 Deville Drive rendered by the zoning board of appeals on November 18, 1993. Please inform me of the next city council meeting in which our appeal can be heard. Also. please send me a transcript/minutes of the meeting on November 18, 1993. If any additional information or submittals are required, please contact me. Sincerely, Jim Aufderhetde 4164,W916 I: m►'lIA\L, I EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 18, 1993 B -93 -52 Mike Yurecko /Jim Aufderheide /Aufderworld Corp. 5712 Deville Drive Lot 4, Block 3, Parkwood Knolls 13th Addition Zoning: R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District Request: A variance from Section 815.06, Subd. 2, A. 2, of the Edina City Code to allow a satellite dish antenna in the sideyard area and a variance from Section 815.07, Subd., 1, C. to allow 5 feet of additional height to the maximum height requirement of 12 feet for satellite dish antennas, (total proposed height of 17 feet). Backaround The subject property is located on the west side of Deville Drive south of Stauder Circle and north of Biscayne Boulevard. The homeowner is proposing to install a 10 foot diameter black mesh satellite dish ,antenna near the south side of the house on an extended pole mount to obtain an overall height of 17 feet. According to the satellite dish antenna installer, trees along the rear and south sideyard property boundaries block access to satellite reception with the exception of the proposed south sideyard extended pole mount location. Issues /Analysis The Edina City Ordinance 815 which addressed radio and television antennas and towers state the following: 815.06, Sub. 7, A.2. Dish antennas shall only be located in the rearyard area. 815.07, Subd. 1. C. Dish antennas shall not be in excess of 12 feet in height, measured from the ground elevation at the base of the dish. The Zoning Board should note that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has imposed restrictions on the authority of states and localities to regulate satellite dishes which are used to receive and transmit signals. The rules can preempt local regulation and can limit the authority of cities to regulate size, location, and placement of dishes. The Edina Antenna Ordinance was designed location and height of all types of antennas providing for antenna reception, which the individuals have the right to receive, and reducing the impact of these structures neighborhood. The Park-wood Knolls area in which located consists of a mixture of configurations. The area was platted in the location of many large mature trees. by the dish installer that trees in the' reception of signals. Conclusion /Recommendation so as to regulate the for the purposes of FCC has deemed that for the purpose of on the surrounding the subject property is lot sizes and street the early 1960's and is It has been demonstrated rear yard area limit the It is staffs understanding that the city cannot deny an individual access to satellite signals, due to the preemptive nature of the FCC ruling. Hardship due to signal obstruction has been established therefore staff recommends approval of the request. Cf" OF EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Case Number Date Fee Paid 4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET . EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 Application for: '612'92'8861 [ ] LOT DIVISION [ ] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [ ] REZONING [ ] FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN VARIANCE [ ] PLAN AMENDMENT [ ] PLAT Proposed Name 11 f��t'ider 4 APPLICANT: Name 'J. Vy% Address .S &" 1A Paa^MIVPhone %ZZ - 9�i/% PROPERTY Name 11411 OWNER: Address 1 ' (If Different �- ei 1 from Above) L I ✓1 ck— 114, -1 ze5o+,L- ; Yg34Phone ( 6)7- 933 SS2 o Legal Description of Property Property Address S'712 �� ✓i 1 r1 V C'J Present Zoning P.I .D. # Explanation of Request: (n s-As// /e 4 dfa,..,.PzlnebY' Al 1,k m 4:v 1-f- 4LH:h ti a a 0;-7- S c,�- k :5,:j erF 1-ro On eX4-e-tn did �O le- (l Z yneu.,, 7L Mog ) 7 (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: Name er�o-r -��l �r,d Phone ( &A-) 9ZZ-9`%1 SURVEYOR: Name Phone ( ) Property Own "'s Signature piicant's Signatu e Date Date/ 1/85 Application .... page 2 Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: (If yes, please explain. Use additional sheets if necessary.) a) Relieve an undue hardship which was not self- imoosed or a mere inconvenience. gc,- u.vtda- Q-i1! Cie, W;th proFoSed tdcc�� -iart b) Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. II • rte► C) Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. uJi , .-t a. c [-e- S 5 b Y i e _ SPA- d) Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Perth„) ►4n -Ir_ r, ✓t ci u�'i ) ) G . i o yt SOWS e �Q'�ktirt CJ Sere e, 'kft Se atrnci Ti-ep IS.WL 1 5 i 'A'L e'F Ahab 2vt�GMrfe�. I+mS beta SGicca4c�/ YES NO RNIM - � -< ;; f: -� Specify UNIMESHTM and you'll select a world of difference from the leader in four -piece mesh technology for the TYRO industry. We designed and developed the original four -piece extruded mesh antenna and have more field experience than any imitator. We also have more products in the ground — in countries around the world — than any other brand. And we build dishes stronger, tougher. better. nothing else can compare... • Wide range of sizes for any installa- tion site • Deep PressLockT`M rib design for extra strength • Intermediate support rings • S /C /Ku aluminum mesh or perfo- rated aluminum reflector • S /C / Ku -band compatible • Certified performance • Engineered to meet/ exceed Uniform Building Codes • New UNIFORCET" brackets for added structural support • Ingenious UNICLIPTm metal brack- ets lock lead wires firmly in place • Reinforced ribs combat heavy wind and snow loads • Easv field assembly • Blends into any setting to satisfy customers • 5 -vear limited %varranty • Sound construction — Made in America • The best value in the TYRO industry EsiITM A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE. LET Us ENTERTAIN You. 7.6 AL and 10 PL The UNIMESHTM Models 7.6 AL and 10 PL of- fer auafity construction, and UNIMESHTM traits for accuracy, performance and easy installation — :Aus competitive pricing. The 7.6 AL with 7.6- foot diameter weighs only 96 pounds. which makes assembly fast and easy. Still, it provides the same 10 -fo6t Super Polar Mount as found on the 10 PL (10- foot /3 meter) S /C /Ku -band mesh aluminum model. Both offer the optional UNI- MOUNTr" motorized horizon mount and come with a durable powder coat paint finish. :'< 10 AL /PR 1_ fInSHTM Model 10 AL and 10 PR are the toughest and most durable of all UNIMESHT" antennas. Fea- tures include deep rib design, reinforced brackets at mount, large quad feed legs for wire access internally, plus 36 -inch ring XL mount. Select 10 AL for S /C /Ku -band mesh, 10 PR for S /C /Ku -band perfo- rated aluminum. 12 XL and 12 PR The UNIMESHTM Models 12 XL and 12 PR are the leader for durability and performance. with four -piece construction. deep rib design, dual intermediate ring supports and heavy -duty mount. Consider this 12 -foot antenna ideal in fringe areas for the home market. or even in commercial applications. The 12 XL comes with S /C /Ku -band aluminum mesh. the 12 PR with S /C /Ku -band perforated aluminum. SUPER POLAR and XL Mounts The SUPER POLAR and XL mounts provide quick in- stallation and alignment for permanent TYRO installa- tions. Use SUPER POLAR (24 -inch diameter) for popular .6 AL and 10 PL antennas. Use XL (36 -inch diameter) for 10 AL /10PR antennas, or (with 36 -inch ring support) for 12 XL/ 12 PR antennas. Horizon to Horizon Mounts The UNIMOUNTr"t Horizon to Horizon mounts, for LWIMESHTM 5 -foot, b -foot, 7.6 -foot, 10 -foot and 12 -foot diameter antennas. feature the largest bull gear to the in- dustry to carry maximum weather - stress loads. Sensing resolution is 18 counts across C band and 6 counts across Ku band. 5 ASI and 6 ASI The UNIMESHT`+ Models 5 ASI and 6 ASI -4- piece aluminum mesh reflectors represent the finest in quality and performance combined with the advantage of small sizes for a wide range or site applications. They assemble quick - Iv and easily and are conveniently packaged with all necessary hardware — perfect for do -it- yourself installation.: \lso. these new antennas share manv desirable features or larger UNIMESHT" antennas. and thev ship via UPS. 60 CM GS The UNIMESHT"' Model 60 CM GS doesn t sacrifice qual- ity and performance for dish size. Constructed from perfo- rated or solid galvanized steel with sturdy stainless steel hardware, it has a standard AVEL wail mount and durable black powder coat finish. Installation is easy and performance is certified. International Mount The UNIMESHT" Intemation- al Mount, developed to maxi- mize the muitttutie of different UNIMESHT" installations worldwide. adiusts in a ranee between 0 and 65 degrees iati- rude. Two brackets for motor- ized elevation make this mount ideal for retrofitting — and it ships easily around the world. FRO M THE WORLD -CLASS DLSH. X90►' N. FIELD & NOWAK 1 im HARRIET AVE. MINNEAPOM MINNEWA CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Fa Haverly Construction Co. nvV) cok 8 �1PG ,"F' - 0 sa=: 18 - 301 D]SCRIPTION: Lot 4, Block 3, isc6 PABKYOOD KNOLLS 13th ADDITION. :6 7 �' LG % J l o j .1 - u' 0 J :j qD M f 1 We hereby certify that this is rue and correct repres ntat!on of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all bullding4 if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Dated this 13th day of October 1967- �� �e�ci�o ;''•nC,c�'-t' EGAN, FIELD b NOWAK ,-,Suryeyors IF i I e N0,1 5500 11900k N0.1 1184-53 by f 1 s06 1 LA), �O r Vie tcrivia aK Trcc� l GIP.a'� he Sou h To t of frees ,11 ct. f w r e J r ( i / P TrE �1 lo'f" Line � �Mewr►t' ' ',P� From Ea.S+ e✓a.4`,o n i 1�� ria_ �( b Vt 10 ✓e,( csy,cr- Yl I Richard _ 'fohi, M.D. Maraaret S. Pfohi 5716 DeVille Drive Edina, 111nnesota 55436 City of 7-4-Ina Zoning =card c- appeals and Adjustments 4801 'ryes *_ 50th Street Edina, ?`.'.'I 55424 RE: Case Tile E -93 -52 Lot 4, Block 3, Parkwood 5712 DeVille Drive Dear -card of appeals and Ad- lustnents : Knolls 13th Addn As nroverty owners within 200 feet of the above property, we are writ,na tc express our views reaarding the _proposed variances of the Ed-,:a pity Code. Simuly stated, we are wholly opposed to both alicwinq sate -ilite dish antenna _n the s_devard area, and to aiic;w t.".at sane d_sh t_c be piacea _ feet into the air. �s -,axr- ;rCr e1aZDOrs . ur ^rc: err lne ad -iacent t c t :Ze orcnesed c,sa. The dish �%,iil ce approximate iv 20 feet a.vav from the waif - cl_r tome, end cur cr_mary concern is with its estnet_c. i It -would affect tae neianbor:nood' s character, nd we feel tact it offends the tastes and sensibilities of the neiahbcracod. The dish itseif ,s quite large: it has a diameter of approx,�ateiv -0 & lr2 feet, and ;t is approximately 5 -x �: feet wide. __ wil- be blatantly visible to ail -,-.ho look in the directica of 5712 DeVilie Drive from tar distances, and especially to my family and all visitors tc our home. It would be in direct view c= _r dr_.eway and the main entrance to our home. In fact, It you_ the first cb7ect -ne .fees when :calking out cur front door. vJe are a:so cpposed to r.ae sate i l_te dish for four other masons. 7irst, ,e are ..cncerned that -.-Le variance will cause a destaD_- _::at_cn and devaluation cf the property value of cur home, and cf 'Ie surrounding real estate in Edina. Second, it conflicts with t-e -csvcnolog_ ical and onvsical benefits derived from the ctherw,se orderly and attractive residential neighborhoods in Edina _n genera_. 7bird, we have Dub!is safety concerns. Cor example, the _) & -:'2 feet by 5 & �r'2 feet :structure be secure enough, without =_, de .fires or other Supports, to withstand potentially high .ti :.ds? =t only 20 feet away from the wall of our home. z suDsta nt_ai :eiincod exists or- tae object falling direct'ly � onto our acme and _n7uring us, cur quests, and our property if such an event ..,ere tc occur.. fourth, ,e question :vhv the Aufderworld Corperat,cn =' an applicant f.zr tae variance if it is not the owner of r.he opert;-. As an applicant for the variance, Aufderworld must .=:.cw unnecessary 'hardship _a the event the variance LZ not . granted. However, because it is not the property owner, Auiderwcr,d cannot show such hardship. We caution the board to move carefully in considering this variance. 'Lou should be certain that this _s a unique situation where unnecessary :hardship will result in the eveny rha variance is not granted. And this does not mean merely_ inconvenience or financia- hardshiz, put actual- harm to the aoplicant. Otherwise, prospective purchasers of orcoerty in Edina will have l;ttle confidence in the existing ncnina_ ordinances. and will hesitate to purchase real estate where Edina 's ordinances mean nothing in light of the board's tree and easv granting of variances. In this case, ;e are not convinced that actual hardship exists, or that every conceivable .alternative has been exhausted. 4e question whether there is an alternative location (for instance, in the backyard or perhaps cn the roof) where the dish could be placed. We also :question whether alternative technology exists to permit a smaller dish to be used. think it Is important tc note that in this instance the aopl -cant s hardship is self- created: the applicant :�ouaht the erouert - with ledge c- its zoning restrictions. ':hank •'cli. _.. dva-,ce cr ;cur :cmniete ccns --deratien cf rhis matter. -fours Zincerely, Richard 4. Pfohi, M.D. 5716 DeJil,_e Drive Marcaret S7. Pfohl :�AP.m-ip November 11, 1993 City of Edina Zoninq Board of Appeals 4801 West 50th Street ,Edina, MN_ 55424 Subj.: Case file B -93 -52 Gentlemen: We do not want satellite dish antennas populating the backyards of our neighborhood. This would be an eyesore and could be dangerous to our children. A 17 foot hiqh structure is totally unacceptable. If this variance is permitted for 5712 Deville, wouldn't any property owner in the neiqhborhood be entitled to build structures in their yards? The value of our property would also be reduced by these structures. Moreover, we petition the city to protect our rights and to disallow any structures, particularly satellite dishes, to be erected in the backyards of our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, The Wingers 5705 Continental Drive Bill and Libby Nicklow 5721 DeVille Drive Edina, Minnesota 55436 City of Edina Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments 4801 ^lest 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: Case File B -93 -52 5712 DeVille Drive Dear Board of Appeals: We live across the street from the above property, and are opposed ~o allowing a satellite dish antenna to be placed in the sideyard area 1-7 feet into the air. Allowing the dish to be placed in the oroncsed area will make it immediately visible to us, our family, =nd cur guests whenever we use our front door. It would be in iirect view of our driveway and the main entrance to our Rome. In =act, _t would be clearly visible whenever anyone walked out our =ront door. Aside from the direct effects that such a placement will have on my family and visitors, its placement would affect the neighborhood's character, and we feel that it offends the tastes of the neighborhood. The dish is large. It has a diameter of approximately 10 & 1/2 feet, and it is approximately 5 & 112 feet wide. It will be blatantly visible to all who look in the direction of 5712 DeVille Drive, even from far distances. We are also on_posed to the placement of the satellite dish because .t will cause the property value of our home to decrease. Nobody wants to buy a home which has a satellite dish as the first visible c;b-iect outside their front door. One of the reasons we purchased our :Home was because of the City of Edina's reputation for maintaining beautiful neighborhoods through strong zoning reguiations. With the potential construction of this satellite dish In direct view of our front door, we question whether the City is ccmmitted to maintaining its excellent reputation. In sum, we urge you to be very careful in considering this variance. Otherwise, prospective purchasers of property in Edina will have little confidence In the existing zoning ordinances. In this case, we question whether there is an alternative location where the dish could be placed. Thank you for your complete consideration of this matter. Yours sincerely, 441iiaml and Libby Nicklow 5721 DeVille Drive 5713 Continental Drive Edina, MN 55436 November 10, 1993 City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 RE: Case Fle No. B -93 -52 Legal Description - Lot 4, Block 3, Parkwood Knolls 13th Addn. Property Address - 5712 Deville Drive Gentlemen: This is in response to the Notice of Public Hearing I received under date November 8, 1993. a copy of which is enclosed. The purpose of this letter is to object vehemently to the variance being asked for by my neighbor to put up a satellite dish. I find that this dish will be directly at our eye level for the entire back portion of our house and an eve sore not only for myself but for my neighbors. I do hereby object and feel it is not in keeping with the neighborhood and wish the Edina Planning Board to act accordingly. V r truly your , Wayne Sa ita WS:dls i ��I November 12. 1993 City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 50th St. Edina. Mn. 55424 Dear Sirs: My response refers to case file B- 93 -52. We are against the installation of a satellite dish antenna at the 5712 Deville Drive address. We think it would detract from the neighborhood and vote no to any change in the zoning law. Sincerely. Joan T. Villella 5713 Deville Drive Edina. Mn. 55436 '. 12/06/93 14:45 FAX 6128318023 CB C031M RE GROUP - -- CITY OF EDINA 1Q 001 AGE10A ITEM III.A. MEMORANDUM To: City of Edina, City Council, Mayor, and Planning Commission From: James D. Leary, 5716 Camelback Drive, Edina, Minnesota Date: December 6, 1993 Re: Case File B- 93-52, Variance Concerning Height Restrictions for Satellite Dish Antenna As a concerned neighbor, I am writing to state my strong opposition to the granting of the variance referenced above. It is my feeling that a variance to a code or an ordinance should only be granted in cases of extreme hardship and/or when the underlying issue and/or subject matter is one that severely restricts use and enjoyment of the real estate. It is hard for me to imagine that not having access or having limited access to satellite television programming is an issue that restricts one's enjoyment of a residence to any measurable degree. If, in fact, not having access to satellite programs substantially encumbers enjoyment of the property, then I believe that the homeowner was responsible prior to purchasing the property to thoroughly investigate that aspect of the real estate. Consistent and uniform enforcement of codes and ordinances is critical in terms of preserving real estate value and ultimately the very high quality of life that all of us and our families enjoy in this great City of Edina. bmH002.fat AGENDA ITEM III.A ^4(j9 =--;--cavne Elva. -ding '^N E54-'36 December :�. -993 City Edina. linnes-ota 'ity 4801 t-Oth '-trer-_-L Edina '-IN. 5 4 '25 Re: Case rile -93-5 _,)eceuiber k_;entiemen: nave recei,:?Q cicltjC_ --li I IL.1-ie .rtovt- as `roVt .1:" ,;rjers nim° :,, -iriance .4 rL P_ r s ri cl r,�, -s 1 (:1,7 ,r hat tvie crrrpert,,, OSe rt.ioining n(, t.'rjtD3- .•PP O-e *.r .e ,-onsT,r,_,cti_ n c_f tl-le, anti-rina ,he rquest for the variance nouid cie-nieu. Sincereiy, Robert C. -ullivan L'a is u.L1---van ,JaneT H �ullivan ha n n o n -'.u1iivan El To: From: Date: Subject: En O REPORT/RECOMMENDATION Kenneth Rosland Kris P. Aaker January 3, 1994 B- 93 -51, An Appeal of Zoning Board of Appeals Decision for J.M.S. Deve. 6508 Stauder Circle; Recommendation: Agenda Item # II- B . Consent ( ii Information Only 71 Mgr. Recommends n To HRA 0 To Council Action n Motion Resolution Ordinance Discussion Uphold the Zoning Board of Appeals approval with conditions. At their November 18, 1993, meeting, the Zoning Board of Appeals heard and approved the applicant's request for a variance from Section 850.07, Subd.07, Subd. 11, to allow development of a platted lot without the required 30 feet of frontage. The approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. A. recorded access easement agreement affecting the subject lots from Stauder Circle right -of -way. 2. A recorded hold harmless agreement releasing the City from liability for incidents and circumstances arising from the lack of frontage. The applicant is appealing the request due to conditions imposed. JMS COMPANIES 4806 Park Glen Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 -5702 Office: 612- 922 -1981 Fax 612 - 922 -1997 MEMO TO: Chris Aaker City of Edina FROM: Jeffrey M. Schoenwetter JMS Development Corporatio DATE: December 1, 1993 RE: December 20, 1993 Council Meeting and Appeal of B -93 -51 Pursuant to our recent conversation, please accept this memo as confirmation of your proposed December 20, 1993, appearance as referenced above Thank you. cc: Beth Erickson JMS Equities, Inc. I JMS Homes I JMS Realty JMS Development Corporation 14725, Limited i .JMS COMPANIES 4806 Park Glen Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 -5702 Office: 612- 922 -1981 Fax 612- 922 -1997 November 24, 1993 Attn: City Clerk 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 -1394 RE: B- 93 -51, Variance Dear City Clerk: We wish to appeal at the earliest possible date the November 18, 1993, decision of your Zoning Board of Appeals. It was our intent to receive approval as submitted and we continue to prepare for our next presentation. Should you have any questions, please contact me directly at 922 -1981. Sincerely, Jeffrey M. Schoenwetter JMS /rn cc: Craig Larson Kris Aaker JMS Equities, Inc. I JMS Homes I JMS Realty JMS Development Corporation 14725, Limited DRAFT MINUTES BOA MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 1993. BOA MEMBERS PRESENT, G. Johnson, H. McClelland, M. Lewis, G. workinger B -93 -51 J.M.S. Development 6508 Stauder Circle Lots 7, and 8, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls Zoning: R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District Request: variance from section 850.07, Subd. 11, to allow development of a platted lot without the required 30 feet of frontage Ms. Aaker informed the board the subject property is generally located north of Stauder Circle and east of Londonderry Road. The property owners are requesting a variance from the minimum 30 feet of frontage requirement to allow development of a platted lot. The subject property is a legally platted lot that is land locked from a public right -of -way. Ms. Aaker explained the lot in question is part of a parcel which includes Lots 7 and 8 Parkwood Knolls Addition and which is addressed as 6508 Stauder Circle. The Parkwood Knolls subdivision was platted in 1948 and included access to Lot 8 by.frontage occurring along Stauder Circle. Ms. Aaker reported in 1960, the city approved Parkwood Knolls 9th Addition which reconfigured Stauder Circle eliminating right -of -way frontage and access to Lot 8. It is evident however, that approval of the reconfiguration was not meant to cut -off access to Lot 8. A letter dated July 26, 1960 from George C. Hite planning director at the time, indicates that access to Lots 7 and 8 to public right -of -way would have to be provided by deed. Ms. Aaker acknowledged the letter is evidence that the city acknowledged the need to maintain access to Lot 8 and that the intent in approving the reconfiguration was not to land lock the parcel. Ms. Aaker said the applicant has submitted a concept plan for the development of lots directly west of the subject property. The plan was submitted to give the board an indication of the developers intention. All of the new homes are proposed to be provided access via a private drive from Parkwood Road. The lot line rearrangement will be addressed through the lot division process and is not part of the variance request. Access to Lot 8 however, is an issue to be addressed by the Board. Site inspection reveals that access to Lots 7 and 8 can be easily gained by a shared driveway from Stauder Circle. Staff does not agree with the applicant that the proposed private drive will reduce required grading or minimize loss of significant trees. Existing conditions would suggest that a shared driveway from Stauder Circle would create the least amount of impact on the subject lots and surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Aaker concluded it is evident that there had been no intent to land lock Lot 8 at the time of replat and reconfiguration of Stauder Circle. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is subject to an access easement agreement affecting Lots 7 and 8 from the Stauder Circle right -of- way. 2. The variance is subject to a hold harmless agreement in recordable form that releases the city from any liability for incidents and circumstances arising from the lack of frontage. Mr. Jeff Schoenwetter was present representing the proponents. Mr. Johnson told members he has a problem with this proposal commenting it appears to be similar to the Dalquist subdivision; trying to get a house in before the rest of the proposal is considered. He pointed out even if we are being asked to decide on a variance for Lot 5, development of 'the other lots are an issue. All points of development should be considered. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that he agrees with staffs assertion that Lot 5 should be developed, and can be developed, but access off Parkwood Road does not appear to be the only way this property can be accessed. Mr. Lewis agreed with Mr. Johnson's observation, and inquired how emergency vehicles would access Lot 5 if the request were approved. Ms. Aaker pointed out access would still be available from Stauder Circle. Emergency vehicles would just have to cross Lot 4 to gain access to Lot 5. Mrs. McClelland stated she is strongly opposed to this request. She pointed out the lot if accessed from Parkwood Road would take on the characteristics of a neck lot which is prohibited by our ordinance. Mrs. McClelland also noted having a driveway serve the new realigned Lots 2, 3, and 4 also from Parkwood Road doesn't make sense. Mrs. McClelland suggested extending Stauder Circle to access the landlocked Lot 5. Concluding no lots should be served from Parkwood Road. Mr. Schoenwetter introduced himself, and explained the proponents desire to build a new home for themselves on the landlocked parcel (Lot 5). Continuing, Mr. Schoenwetter explained the proponents desire to construct a one story home, and access off Parkwood Road would allow them to do so. If Lot 5 were to have access off Stauder Circle it would be difficult to construct a one story home. Mr. Schoenwetter asked the board to note all trees north of Lot 4 will be preserved, and if a driveway is allowed off Parkwood Road less damage to the site would occur. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Schoenwetter if access is off Stauder Circle would the new house be tuck - under. Mr. Schoenwetter responded it would. Mr. Lewis questioned if the house presently located on Lot 4 would be razed. Ms. Aaker said she is not sure if there are plans to raze the house. Mr. Schoenwetter interjected that presently there are no plans to raze that house. There has been some discussion on an extensive remodel job. Mrs. McClelland pointed out when one considers a variance, house design preference does not constitute a hardship. Ms. Lisa Fish, 5408 Larada, stated if the board were to allow access for these lots off of Parkwood Road the character of the neighborhood would be altered. She pointed out two lots would have a driveway along one whole side. That does not seem to make sense, and a burden would fall on the present neighbors. Ms. Fish commented there have been rumors in the neighborhood regarding this proposal, and neighbors are anxious their concerns will not be answered honestly. Mr. William Gearhart, 6509 Parkwood Road informed board members he has only been in the neighborhood for few months, and the proposal as presented will directly impact his property. He pointed out if the proponents are allowed to construct a driveway off Parkwood Road his house will be surrounded by roads. Mr. Gearhart commented that he did not purchase a corner lot, and if this proposal is approved his property would become a corner lot, and our property would not have a beneficial gain, only negative. Mr. Paul Kramer, 6512 Parkwood Road told board members he objects to the lots gaining access from Parkwood Road. He stressed access should be off Stauder Circle. He pointed out it makes more sense from a planning standpoint to have access off Stauder. Mr. Robert Kaatz, 6505 Parkwood Road explained to board members his property abuts Lot 5, and asked the board to note there is a deep ravine between the lots, and he wants some assurance that if a house is constructed on Lot 5 his property will not be adversely impacted from drainage problems resulting in erosion. Mrs. McClelland asked Mr. Kaatz what happened to the ravine during the rains of 1987. Mr. Kaatz explained that rain was contained in the ravine but if construction occurs and is not done properly his property could erode. Ms. Susan Kayara, 6605 Parkwood Road pointed out if the board allows access off Parkwood Road, the houses on Stauder Circle directly across from lots 2 and 3 would look at the rear of homes. She pointed out this would not be desirable, and does not blend in with the character of Parkwood Knolls. Ms. Kayara pointed out usually the front of homes face a public street, not the rear of homes. Ms. S. Peterson, 6513 Stauder Circle stated she agrees with the staff report, and asked board members to note that traffic on Stauder Circle is less, and slower than the traffic off Parkwood Road, and Londonderry. She pointed out if three more houses are allowed access off Parkwood Road traffic safety becomes a valid issue. Ms. Peterson concluded by asking the board to support staff's recommendation regarding this issue and have Lot 5 gain access from Stauder Circle. Mr. Lewis agreed with Ms. Peterson comments. He added he is familiar with the area, and safety would become an issue if access to the Stauder lots is allowed off Parkwood Road. Mrs. McClelland commented that based on planning principles if we were to approve the request we would be creating a neck lot reiterating it makes no sense, access can be, and should be gained from Stauder Circle. Mr. Kaatz questioned sewer location for the new house. Mr. Johnson explained that the, sewer line could be serviced from Stauder Circle. Mr. Lewis mentioned another issue that should be discussed is the maintenance of the driveway if it is allowed off Parkwood Road. The city should not be responsible for its maintenance. Mr. Schoenwetter asked the board to approve what is requested. He pointed out we are only requesting access for lot 5. We have not decided what to do on the other lots. Mr. Workinger stated development of Lot 5 cannot be viewed in isolation from the other lots. Mr. Workinger said it is not logical to have access off Parkwood Road when the lots abut Stauder Circle, a public street. Ms. McClelland moved variance approval subject to the variance recommended by staff 1)the variance is subject to an access easement agreement affecting Lots 7 & 8 (referred to in this discussion as Lots 5 & 4) from the Stauder Circle right -of -way, and 2)the variance is subject to a hold harmless agreement in recordable form that releases the city from any liability for incidents and circumstances arising from the lack of frontage. Mr. Workinger seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Mr. Johnson informed the proponent they have a right to appeal this decision to the council. .ww" T Roger A. Anderson & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineering Consultants Suite 107, 7415 Wayzata Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55426 (612) 546 -7035 November 16, 1993 JMS Development, Inc. 4806 Park Glen Road St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Attn: Jeff Schoenwetter Lot 8, Block 5 Parkwood Knolls 12th Edina, Mn Comm No. 9122 Gentlemen: In response to your request to review the driveway access alternates for the above referenced lot, we provide the following: 1. The driveway off of Stauder Circle would require easements for the construction of the driveway from Lot 7 to avoid encroachment on the existing pond. In addition, the drive grades to gain access to the rear of the house for a rambler house style would be excessive, and substantial grading would be necessary. House location could be restricted because of the steep driveway thereby requiring removal of additional trees. The shelter belt of spruce trees along the westerly edge of the lot would be lost. 2. The proposed alternate private drive coming off Parkwood Road would represent a suitable access at a reasonable grade, and would allow comfortable access to a well designed house layout. Options for the placement of the house and flexibility of location to minimize tree removal would be maintained. The shelter belt of trees to the east would not be disturbed. Some retaining wall construction would be required to match grades and preserve trees. Based on these observations, our preferred access for Lot 8 would be off of Parkwood Road, as indicated on the attached Exhibit A. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 546 -7035. Very Truly Yours, /� 1 /-1 4 -rjzlk-�� Roger A. Anderson Land Development • Municipal # Highways • Railroads EXJT A LOT 8 BLOCK 5 I IMONO MW_W ON IN .m. 911 L Em mwil►l1►l1ILlIM912W.A: lit EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STAFF REPORT NOVEMBER 18, 1993 B -93 -51 J.M.S. Development 6508 Stauder Circle Lots 7, and 8, Block 5, Parkwood Knolls zoning: R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District Request: Variance from section 850.07, Subd. 11, to allow development of a platted lot without the required 30 feet of frontage Background The subject property is generally located north of Stauder Circle and east of Londonderry Road. The property owners are requesting a variance from the minimum 30 feet of frontage requirement to allow development of a platted lot. The subject property is a legally platted lot that is land locked from a public right -of -way. Issues /Analysis: The lot in question is part of a parcel which includes lots 7 and 8 Parkwood Knolls Addition and which is addressed as 6508 Stauder Circle. The Parkwood Knolls subdivision was platted in 1948 and included access to Lot 8 by frontage occurring along Stauder Circle (see attached exhibit A). In 1960, the city approved Parkwood Knolls 9th Addition which reconfigured Stauder Circle eliminating right -of -way frontage and access to Lot 8 (see attached exhibit B). It is evident however, that approval of the reconfiguration was not meant to cut -off access to Lot 8. A letter dated July 26, 1960 from George C. Hite planning director at the time, (attached as exhibit C), indicates that access to Lots 7 and 8 to public right -of -way would have to be provided by deed. The letter is evidence that the city acknowledged the need to maintain access to Lot 8 and that the intent in approving the reconfiguration was not to land lock the parcel. The applicant has submitted a concept plan (labeled exhibit D) for the development of lots directly west of the subject property. The plan was submitted to give the board an indication of the developers intention. All of the new homes are proposed, to be provided access via a private drive from Parkwood Road. The lot line rearrangement will be addressed through the lot division process and is not part of the variance request. Access to Lot 8 however, is an issue to be addressed by the Board. Site inspection reveals that access to Lots 7 and 8 can be easily gained by a shared driveway from Stauder-Circle. Staff does not agree with the applicant that the proposed private drive (outlined in exhibit D) will reduce required grading or minimize loss of significant trees. Existing conditions would- suggest that a shared driveway from Stauder Circle would create the least amount of impact on the subject lots and surrounding neighborhood. Conclusion/Recommendation: It is evident that there had been no intent to land lock Lot 8 at the time of replat and reconfiguration of Stauder Circle. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is subject to an access easement agreement affecting Lots 7 and 8 from the Stauder Circle right -of- way. 2. The variance is subject to a hold harmless agreement in recordable form that releases the city from any liability for incidents and circumstances arising from the lack of frontage. CITY OF EDINA PLANNING DEPA THE Case Number Date Fee Paid \(j ) - we 4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET . EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 Application for: !61 21 927.8861 [ l LOT DIVISION ( ] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [ l REZONING [ ] FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN XVARIANCE [ l PLAN AMENDMENT [ ] PLAT Proposed Name APPLICANT: Name 1 AS 2-.o Q Ke wj- dQlL-p Address Lk Qz) (. "��N244.. &(,s" eA -- Sr. Lo4s Q*tu- %*1 Phone ( &2.) q as -1 1 S PROPERTY Name 00w +- QrCV-( `=%4 Cat C3NJ f C%�( 1AIflFYS�W i� OWNER: Address SSo 1 Lo nc-4 o r d'e,r r (If Different from Above) �t %.1•Pr W� S54 pPhone (I(p12) C33 -32s3 Legal Description of Property L OTS 1— 5 -+/tex wcx:,Z , ilLw � Property Address Present Zoning P.I.D. # Explanation. of Request: �t�� w1lk.�,. �Q'L' L3S -Tm LneIN e SURVEYOR: Name �T ��.�►�. �L hone Property Owner's Signature Ai3l5licantfs Signature wf 19 9 Date Date 1/85 (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) OVOWWi /ARCHITECT : Name Tfns#,L kwpg, Ic;PJ Phone SURVEYOR: Name �T ��.�►�. �L hone Property Owner's Signature Ai3l5licantfs Signature wf 19 9 Date Date 1/85 Application .... page 2 Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: (If yes, please explain. Use additional sheets if necessary.) YES NO a) Relieve an undue hardship which was `. not self- imposed or a mere inconvenience. X b) Correct extraordinary circumstances X. applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. C) Preserve a substantial property right X possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. d) Not be materially detrimental to the public X welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. JMS COMPANIES 4806 Park Glen Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 -5702 Office: 612- 922 -1981 Fax 612 - 922 -1997 Mr. Craig Larson, Planning Department City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 RE: 5501 Londonderry Variance Dear Mr. Larson: November 2, 1993 The purpose of this letter is to summarize the reasons surrounding our request that the City of Edina grant a variance for the above referenced property. This variance will relieve an undue hardship which was certainly not self-imposed by the applicants. The hardship has to do with topography and grade. We feel that when this plat was filed, a better access than a driveway crossing another lot on the low side abutting the wetland and pond could have been conceived. This alternative private drive corrects that access problem and takes into consideration the natural topography. Additionally, this corrects the extraordinary circumstance applicable to this property, but not applicable to other properties in the vicinity of the zoning district by: (a) Making use of existing topography and minimizing required grading; (b) Preserving many of the mature trees on the site, thus minimizing loss of significant trees; (c) To preserve a substantial right possessed by other properties in the vicinity and zoning district. Most properties have a driveway. This legal, platted lot does not have a driveway and therefore, this plat solves that problem by creating a driveway; and (d) That the property not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or interest to other property in the vicinity of the zoning district. JMS Equities, Inc. I JMS Homes I JMS Realty JMS Development Corporation 1 4725, Limited This is certainly a "win -win" opportunity for the City, all residents of the zoning district, as well as an improvement to the public welfare and safety. It creates one curb cut with excellent lines of sight onto Londonderry. It eliminates potential hazardous driveways on an extremely curved portion of that same street as well as potentially numerous curb cuts onto Stauder Circle in the future. Therefore, we believe this plat to be a comprehensive solution and the long term answer to the future for many decades for this parcel. We look forward to working with you on this application. Should you have any additional questions, please feel, free to contact me directly at 922 -1981. Sincerely, I Jeffrey M. Schoenwetter President JMS COMPANIES JMS /rn Enc. cc: Beth and Don Erickson t; �11'. r • I / g5o t -.` 11 ` 1 ; i it I �,,Y�/ hj �, 1 i tr rJ j �%/ �y 17(•b�`i.•. I 1 1 -� !y�''' %� ' i i kx \ of 1 41 ����• 1 I1 1 � 1 1 1 - r' � f 1 R1C •' '' _ _ r _ �� " = =� �/ ,' /'�� ' 1 I 11 � I /1 1 1 • � \ �1 I � `� 1 �� >/-��� 1 .�. 1 1111 I`' � ��. -- - � - -' � ��,; 1 I it i � � � II • • ` \ `� . \`; ' \ \� � _..-.� ' � il`� i ' III / / %L,— ^�� --- ��� - - - %�� \ l\ \ \\ \ \ \\� \`�\\� • -a � � � -__ 63� ��' i _ � ►.rte / W v 14 \ , I N a \1 `11}INK X4` \�QF tr E \�4 O F SE G. 3i- 1506TH �g00 Ft La L'441 ra .,,� o ��' � �- X56 •� '' � LA 0 ad 4. lb b) 0,� ' fiw vt1. • d y •� �, 28 .1 C. Qb -A3 Ac QZ it IV ra t'• A /� N ? ^' 447 I t b CP AK ol SC I i- oP ;o 145 0 No a mom �' �' 170 1 170 145 a l wf �a 1 ZS 17 u.l v, So 1j' - 379.74 - - + .60 _ 158.42 143 y\ 6C a t, Ls "S�� °O�•, _ �.l "` i _ _ __ Z ems. r July 26, 1960 Mr. Art Ostlund Egan Field 8 Nowak 129 rest Lake Street Minneapolis, Minnesota Dear Art: Enclosed is a sketch of a plan for the replotting of Stauder Circle in Parkwood Knolls. This plan is the result of a meet- ing between Carl, Bill Burnap and myself. The area in red is raodway (30') with the yellow being right - of-way.. The right -of -way is 60 feet except at the Northeast corner of Lot 2 where it is 45 feet, there being no boulevard at that point. The first center line radius is 75° delta = goo, then a 100 foot tangent, thence a radius of 1500 into the property to the south. We will vacate all of the old right - of-way east of the yellow. Lots 7 and .8 will have to be provided access to the rightTof- way, probably by deed rather than replotting. Very truly yours, George C. Hite Planning Directro XWjh Enc. i I i t 50 0 I 1 � j ?I f l � 1 \\ '00000vwl \ .{ ALT E `6' STAUDER CIRCLE is EDINA, MN JMS DEVELOPMENT, INC. U v-01 r� ^ P. 2 NEW NEW _ _ - -H6 - HOUSE ;� s • e. •; -,rR.: i#SE PAD HOUSE PA PAD }, a a c STAUKR CIR lbo From the desk. of (-4hQeln 1-cXifsis the President . . . 612- 935 -2266 Z/O ex) 7 Vy 0 j /, :7 i7 S `/Opnr"7/ 219 lf 13 V 2 o��CC S7/97r�r6 �H,� 16,f171-011" �0 s �o lyE G�bolljvurl. s•�c�co� G�au�i / d [,'f4, / 71Y 9haV. CANDIES, INC. � 5780 Lincoln Drive Suite 124 Edina, MN 55436 SENT BY: 11-17-93 :12:01P51 : RKMXC 927 7645 :9 2/ 3 ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER 8 CIRESI ATTORNET5 AT LAW ATLANTA BOSTON C 141CAGn "INN [APOLIS SAINT PAUI SAN fAANf'IQr'q SOUTHERN nAI ICnpN/A WASMIN4%Tf1N 2800 wALLE RAZA 800 LASALLE AVENUe MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55402.2015 TEUPMUNE (612) 349 -9Sno FACSIMILE (612) 339-4181 KAIULEEN nYNN P1:1l;BSON 0119 T.1-1 -S-d.A6. (612) 30 8219 VTA FAMSULH November 17, 1993 City of Edina Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments ATTN: Chris Baker 4801 West 50th street Edina, MN 55424 To Members of the Zoning Board of Appea.lc: On Thursday, November ]R, 1993, you will be addressing a request for a variance to allow the developmnnt of a plotted lot without, the required 30 feet of frontage at 6508 Stauder circle. we received notice of this hearing by mail on November 10, 1993. I am out of town -an business which cannot be rescheduled. This is a significant issue to me as a property owner who will be directly affected. I respectfully request that the matter be tabled at this time and rescheduled at the next meeting of this group. It members of the Edina Zoning Board or Appeals are unwilling to table the matter at this time, I Would request that you consider carefully the recommendations in the staff report. I support the recommendations of staff to create access to the land lot parcel from Stauder Circle. I believe that this approach will create the least Impact on the surrounding neighborhood and minimize the loan of significant tree6. The access from Stauder Circle will also relieve the claimed "undue hardship" of the applicant. I understand the issue before you at this time rolates simply to Lots 7 and 8. However, I have reviewed the infnrmation you have been given by staff, including Exhibit D which I understand was provided by the applicant. JMS nAvelopment. My concern as a property owner ie that if the variance is granted at this time, the property owner will then be able to grant an easement which will allow driveways to Parcels 2 and 3 from the driveway .which would SENT BY: 11 -17 -93 :12 :02PM : RKM&C 927 7645:& 31 3 November 17, 1993 Page 2 be created by granting this variance. The recruit location of the driveways, the access to the lots gland the topography of the land, would be that any development on those lots would result in rear- facing homes to Stauder circle. Obviously, as a property owner who will have direct view of those Iota, this is of great concern to me. I strongly urge you to consider the ramifications of the decision you make relating to this variance that is requested at thim time. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you persorially Should you have any questions. I appreciate the time you have taken to listen to my concerns. very truly yours, BIN KAPLAN, M�IILLER & CI I KFP/jl Ka hlpan Flynn Peterson i SENT BY 11 -17 -93 :12 :01F51 RKM&C- 927 7645 :9 1/ 3 ` ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER Ig CIItESI 2800 LaSalle Plata 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 FAX (612) 339 -4181 FROM: Kathie-an Flynn reterson THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION TNTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE ADDRESSEE LISTED BELOW AND NO ONE ELSE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER THIS MESSAGE `1'O THE TNTENDED RECIPIENT, PLEASE DO NOT USE TIII3 TRANSMISSION IN ANY WAY. BUT CONTACT THE SENDER RV TELEPHONE. DATE! November 17, 1993 TO: Chris Aaker, City of Edina FILE NO.: FACSIIQI$ NO.: 917 -7645 TELEPHONL' NO.: FROM: Kathleen Flynn Peterson NUMBER OF COPIES INCLUDING COYER SHEET: OPERATOR: TIM SENT: IF TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS OCCUR, OR YOU ARE NOT THX INTENDED RPCTPTENT, PLEASE CALL (612) 349 -8730 on CONTACT Jamie at (612) 349 -8234. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: November 16, 1993 Dear Chris: We are writing to inform you and your colleagues that we are gtronv_X opposed to the requested variance for 6508 Stauder Circle. We will be out of town on business November 18 and will not be able to attend the planning board meeting. The proposed plan suggests the extension of a private driveway from Parkwood Road that will service 5 lots. our concern focuses on the potential of rear facing homes to Stauder Circle. Our home at 6517 Stauder Circle is directly across the street from the proposed development. We fear that rear facing homes to Stauder Circle will significantly impair the aesthetics of our wonderful neighborhood. We are also greatly tra ns rthat would need potential significant number of removed to make way for the driveway. We support the staff recommendations to The Edina Planning by department, that access to lots 7 & 8 can be easily gained Y s in addition we urge you 'to considerradding restrictions to r the �develop ments for front facing consider 9 only homes on staudsr Circles. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, �Yla�r,nMrL-"-L 6605 Parkwood Road Edina, Minnesota 6b436 November 16, 1993 City Planning Officials and Members of the Zoning Board City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 To Whom it May Concern: I have just gained knowledge of the plan to allow development at 6508 Stauder Circle by J.M.S. Development, Case File R- 93 -51. As a home owner in close proximity to this property (6605 Parkwood Road). I am opposed to granting a variance on the 30 foot frontage requirement for this property. In addition to this issue. I oppose the subdivision plan to establish access to the property from Parkwood Road. rather than Stauder Circle. The plan to establish "rear facing" homes on Stauder Circle seriously compromises the aesthetics of a 40+ year old neighhnrhnod that has enjoyed very favorable land value largely due to consistent zoning. This proposed zoning plan clearly has been established to allow the developer to maximize use of available land at the expense of neighborhood integrity. As prudent members of the Planning board. I urge you to support "front facing" homes with property access fmm Stauder Circle. I also ask that you place the interests of area homeowners ahead of those of J.M.S. Development Company. I plan to attend the hearing on Thursday. November 18. 1993. 'ranks for your support in this matter. Sincerely, Genc Kujava GAK /lf • • • • • eel • •' ' • • to • . . • •• • 0• •• .. �..,. • ,• , •, to 66 0 40 0 00. geo da•• •,..: :. •- • • • eoo , • • •• . �, , • • . •• f, • Name: Kvl i&L A&44-6-- JE Firm: _ Fkffu :1� FAX #: _ qa'1 t . a- . (ezduding cover page) Name: 64- ,e-' k u � e v� / MESSAGE = TO •. .. RECIPIENT: Please call Tracy at 612/92 8-94% 9 the complete document is not received, Thank you. The information In this message is pMeged and confidential. It is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you receive this transmission in error, please notify is immediately. Thank you. i ` r /. e. r r • t•.- .4 l7 -93 �,00 No l 4 6cSco rlknC. J—r K)Kb S.0 t rinq cLi1C !a ?s':r, � <Lti/f cv��,,a /Li.ol /s 2.,a a //D w v v Aez 1 mgr 2a /y /Siup7— 7—i /7�l�jf, IJDr lluo�! .9 eA--r+ JCL /LC T // L� 6; ci he �j N /�GtiC y;r- d «n EL.I�' f; v+ �CIS�'�' BARRY H. EFFRESS AND ASSOCIATES Insurance and Financial Services 275 Southgate Office Plaza • 5001 W. 80th Street • Bloomington, MN 55437 • 612/897 -1802 December 20, 1993 City Clerk Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th St. Edina, MN 55424 Re: Case File B -93 -51 Dear Sir/Madam: I live at 5700 Newport Drive and I recently became aware of the situation in regards to property at 6508 Stauder Circle. I understand that there will be a meeting January 3rd regarding the above case file. After talking to the planning department, I am not sure that I completely understand fully the variances and exactly what has been determined for that parcel of land. The information that I am aware of seems to indicate that there would be new housing with the rear of the houses facing Stauder Circle. The purpose of this letter is to express my view based on the information that I have, that my wife and I are not in favor of allowing the developers to proceed as they wish. I feel for several reasons that it would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Barry H. Effress, CLU, ChFC BHE: map Business & Personal Life Insurance • Estate Planning • Pension & Profit Sharing Trusts • Disability Plans • Individual & Group Hospital & Major Medical Coverage l William C. Joas 6612 Parkwood Road Edina, Minnesota 55436 December 17, 1993 Edina Council Chambers City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55436 Dear Sir /Madam: I have recently been informed of the appeal made by JMS Development to the proposed variance concerning 6508 Stauder Circle. As neither -my wife nor I will be able to attend the City Council Meeting scheduled for December 20, 1993 at which this topic will be an agenda item, I wish to have my opinion known to the Council Members. Please be informed that my wife and I are vehemently opposed to any such building proposal. It is our opinion that further .development of the Parkwood Knolls area would decrease the aesthetic balance and put our property values at economic risk. The Council should know that I have lived in this neighborhood for thirty years. When Carl Hansen and other planners developed this area approximately forty years ago, they did so with foresight and vision. The lots were made spacious and irregular shaped. The houses were designed to fit the land so that taken as a whole, the neighborhood came together in a wonderful combination of aesthetics and privacy. The current plan as I understand it, sets forth to undermine all that the area has come to stand for. Edina does not need more houses or construction. It does not need more subdivisions or developments. Indeed, these are some of the same pitfalls that have trapped neighboring suburbs. Edina has unique qualities that must be preserved and protected. I strongly urge you to vote no to the appeal of the denied variance. I am more then willing to discuss this matter further with any of the Council Members. Thank you for your time and consideration. SiQWilflaimC.�J l s A X A, 0 10 20 60 T I7 "am SCALE VW f' ,fl 4,066 •GUAM' 1�7 '(40 ll°j SrM PLAN ERICKSON RESIDENCE Edina, Minnesota f �• gj1��IvuS CLOSE ARCHITECTS PA tT CLOSE GRANT ,•.,dpi i��p0'•_ � o�•-' �_S ` ` _ \ 'ilk � Ir'•i� 1 ..V 2•! . / + \sty �>,._y .\ '`t2;tt - - -,,.— /^��^,/ Ilr\�- o `a / E >r;— I ,•y'� ioil 8• / / / — °.,,o ii'� �es'.%('`4, °.� / /.iR t as / .l. M• a .' / „`�'°'+ A I ' !M s.Zf° %y'� i "�, e% �.,�°'c•. , i�:Fa�^,��. �/ / /�\ � � � 1 I — OF " ♦,�3 \�i� . � ° _ jb °x � I�'c�i Aj E n / ^, 44ir / •C?. '•.e�� ° ss'u.bz� / ! I \ \ � \z\ � °•y(�\ \` \\ I� �v� �_ .•F _ �.. /•g;t i•_ / —�� 2 it — 4. . t°d°4 ° •..Ty✓ �I~_i -- —,r ° \� �� 1 ^ °n u %� �� `. J- `S8O�j6 • _ j / i e •i',� �,riS�'a -s. �•„�i°ir'\ •`b°•q� s �• � 1 9, X00 .o .: // � y° �j/ � 900 � wed fPfa. .'� � £T.. \, y m :d / /sox♦ ia O c° ;�a51 ✓ixfd� j C 1 / / �`y 1y�1�.�•yyq..� O cr �•/ L_I ` III ,% .i- �,,, /! ^ \s \�'�11^' -aY �i _i� 41 � A sC.� �.�y /� p % •._ ° �__— �\ \`\`\y�i 9.,fi °y— ^\; ' se o / � wESr A.— ,,,���:.. •per i ,5�� � '� C 7P�� /� . 0F 5Ar�� S -rAUpEIZ ;crk( ,�- y- c- B'TUMIN 5 / —' i00b�e c AAa R. 3a �� CF RF M04AMT 95 0 10 20 60 S•$ SITE SURVEY �m ERICKSON RESIDENCE room F�--� Edina, Minnesota a Ilk k. �4 Av. f CLOSE ARCHITECTS SECTION A -A' SECTION 13-13' 1/4 el' CAPE CLOR GRAM ARCM I,RCIR bR�RwnWRI 1. Aar °/gym 091 RI]�lNn. 29.101 SECTIONS ERICKSON RESIDENCE Edina,. Minnesota EX POND ELEVATION 894 SECTION A/ 1 -A/ 1' 1/8,21, SECTIONS ERICKSON RESIDENCE Edina, Minnesota 0 �O 0 S� I............. s T 0 (22) ba I (23) 6505 i 6509 s 0 i • o I 1.. 1 O� A 1 � si WUv 1� (25) f .....................1 5501 6508 1 1 1 1 5 1 a 1 g I s STAUDER CIR :05) r a: cr- o T•23 ..... s....... Z O C) (33) (32) 00(}1) O I i "At w 0 6513 a 3 6517 -- n,. s (2i) 6501 A�A_ • -`0 l� (2T) 5508 li (3�) MINNESOTA TRRDE OFFICE TEL: 612 - 296 -3555 Jan 03.94 16:35 No.015 P.01 Post -It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Foofsages. F'o'p C A41-1&L > z 7 - 76 `T _ Fizo y 516 - 3S.T.T AGENDA ITEM: II. B. TO: City of Edina Planning Department Edina, Minnesota SUBJECT: Variance for 6508 Stauder Circle Gentlemen: The purpose of this letter is to voice opposition to the proposed variance for 6508 Stauder Circle. I am opposed for the following reasons: 1) The neighborhood is already developed and mature. 2) If the proposal is executed, then the surrounding properties would be devalued and market assessments should reflect lessor market values. 3) Because of lot widths, many properties on Parkwood Road could allow additional building sites between the existing houses - this could stimulate several variances in the future. 4) The design of the proposal is unorthodox (houses with rear facing the street) and suggests higher costs for city services (snow removal, trash collection, etc.). 5) Additional residences surrounding the pond challenges the ecological balance in the pond. 6) The proposal would destroy the harmony /balance of the neighborhood. Thank you for your considerations. i . George R. Crolick 6609 Parkwood Road Edina, Minnesota 55436 r� A o e . � o REPORT /RECOMMENDATION • ,v �o ��ORRfM•�/ aatl To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item III ' A' From: GORDON L. HUGHES Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Date: JANUARY 3, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: To Council ORDINANCE NO. 1993 -14 Action ❑ Motion AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ❑ SECTION 1000 OF THE Resolution CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT x Ordinance THE INTENTIONAL FEEDING OF DEER ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1993 -14, as amended. Info /Background: The City Council granted First Reading to the subject Ordinance at the December 20, 1993, meeting. Since the adoption of First Reading, I have received several phone calls concerning the effective date of the Ordinance. Several callers have stated that it may be inhumane to discontinue artificial feeding in the middle of the winter. Although it is doubtful that deer would starve if this Ordinance were implemented now, I believe that, nevertheless, it would be appropriate to delay implementation until this spring. Therefore, I have modified the osed_Ordinance to�rovide a May-1,-1-9-94, _effectiv€ -rate. This delay would also provide an opportunity to publicize this Ordinance in About Town. On December 20, 1993, some individuals encouraged the City to allow bow hunters to take part in the population reduction program. One individual noted that such a program a )dsts in the City of Minnetonka. Attached is a memo from Chief Bernhjelm summarizing his conversations with Minnetonka officials. Report/Recommendation - Ordinance No. 1993 -14 January 3, 1994 Page two We do not recommend the use of bow hunting as a method to control our deer population. Although bow hunting may be suitable in many locations, we do not believe that it is a feasible alternative in Edina. In our opinion, deer selected for removal in Edina, must be dealt with as quickly and humanely as possible. Sharpshooters using rifles with telescopic sites are able to achieve nearly instantaneous kills on a consistent basis. We do not believe that such results could be accomplished by bow hunters. The chance of deer being wounded by bow hunters is much greater than with trained sharpshooters. The prospect of wounded deer finding their way to private property could create a negative perception by the public with respect to our program. The success of our program depends upon the public's perception that our deer population is being managed as carefully and humanely as possible. Enclosure 1 '0 MEMORANDUM TO: Gordon Hughes FROM: William Bernhjehn DATE: December 29, 1993 SUBJECT: DEER MANAGEMENT Per your request, I have checked on open hunting of deer in the cities of Minnetonka and Plymouth. ** The City of Minnetonka does not permit public hunting of deer in any manner, nor do they manage the deer herd through shooting. The contact at Minnetonka is Chief of Police Dick Setter. ** The City of Plymouth does permit archery hunting of deer in the far northwest portion of their city, which is largely undeveloped. The Police Department will issue an archery permit to an individual who can produce signed permission from landowners on an area of ten acres in size or larger. The Department charges a $10 fee. All State regulations as to seasons and licenses apply. They are contemplating a sharpshooting program to reduce a herd that has become troublesome in the eastern portion of the city near Wayzata High School. The contact at the Plymouth Police Department is Barbara Cox. Bernhjelm Chief of Police EDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT ORDINANCE NO. 1993 -14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1000 OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT THE INTENTIONAL FEEDING OF DEER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. The City Code is hereby amended to provide a new subsection 1000.12 as follows: "1000.12. Intentional Feeding of Deer. Subd. 1. Feeding Prohibited. No person shall feed deer within the City. For purposes of this subdivision, feeding shall mean the provision of one half cubic foot or more of grain, fruit, vegetables, nuts, hay or other edible material either on the ground or at a height of less than five feet above the ground, in a manner that attracts deer. Living food sources such as trees and other live vegetation shall not be considered as deer feeding. Subd. 2. Exception. The provisions of Subd. 1 of this subsection shall not apply to the employees or agents of the City, the County, the State, the Federal government or veterinarians who in the course of their official duties have deer in their custody or under their management." Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on May 1, 1994. First Reading: Second Reading: Published in the Edina Sun - Current on: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor "\ 4 e �\ o e �3, o \ ~�URIRIM'� REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland From: Craig Larsen Date: January 3, 1994 Subject: High Speed Bus Demonstration Projec Recommendation: Adopt attached resolution. Info /Background: Agenda Item # v . A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑j Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ❑ To Council Action ❑ Motion 71 Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion The coalition of agencies and cities working on the High Speed Bus project is in the process of applying for grants. The attached resolution expresses Edina's support for a grant application to the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. The grant would be used to fund operation for the demonstration period. The grant application has no cost implications for the City. V RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR SERVICE BUDGET MANAGEMENT MODEL GRANT WHEREAS, reducing congestion on highways and local streets is a high priority for communities throughout the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the cities of Edina, Richfield, Prior Lake, Savage, Bloomington, Apple Valley, Eagan, Rosemount, Lakeville, Burnsville, the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority and Dakota County have joined in an effort to provide planning and implementation services related to a high speed bus effort; and WHEREAS, the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation has requested grant proposals from local units of government; and WHEREAS, the High Speed Bus Project clearly qualifies for the grant as indicated by the criteria established by the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota as follows: Section 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an application form for service budget management model grant. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby encourage favorable consideration of this grant request. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina this 3rd of January 1994. ATTEST: Marcella Daehn City Clerk Fred Richards Mayor RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR SERVICE BUDGET MANAGEMENT MODEL GRANT WHEREAS, reducing congestion on highways and local streets is a high priority for communities throughout the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the cities of Edina, Richfield, Prior Lake, Savage, Bloomington, Apple Valley, Eagan, Rosemount, Lakeville, Burnsville, the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority and Dakota County have joined in an effort to provide planning and implementation services related to a high speed bus effort; and WHEREAS, the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation has requested grant proposals from local units of government; and WHEREAS, the High Speed Bus Project clearly qualifies for the grant as indicated by the criteria established by the Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina. Minnesota as follows: Section 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an application form for service budget management model grant. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Council hereby encourage favorable consideration of this grant request. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Edina this 3rd day of January, 1994. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 3, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. s WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 4th day of January, 1994. City Clerk .j l fij .l'1r o e 71 Cn • BPOW`z�0 • REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK Date: DECEIMER 30, 1993 Subject: RESOLUTIONS DESIGNATING DIRECTOR /ALTERNATE OF . SRA AND LOGIS AND DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER Recommendation: Agenda Item # VI-.A, B, c Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA © To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution Ordinance ❑ Discussion Adoption of resolutions designating director /alternate director of the Suburban Rate Authority and LOGIS, and designating official newspaper for 1994. Info /Background: Attached are copies of resolutions which the Council should approve at the first meeting in January each year. There have been no changes from the previous year. �t\ of City of Edina RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, as follows: John C. Wallin is hereby designated to serve as a Director of the Suburban Rate Authority, and Eric R. Anderson is hereby designated to serve as Alternate Director of the Suburban Rate Authority for the year 1994 and until their successors are appointed. 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 January 3, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 4th day of January, 1994. City Clerk City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 bVEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (6 12) 927 -5461 •' 4,9`��r�2� Ilk e Hr sir , C RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO LOGIS City of Edina BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota as follows: John C. Wallin is hereby designated as a Director of LOGIS and Kenneth E. Rosland is hereby designated as Alternate Director of LOGIS for the year 1994 and until their successors are appointed. 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 January 3, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 4th day of January, 1994. City Clerk City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461 ;v G 0 �^ o City of Edina RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the Edina Sun - Current be and is hereby designated as the Official Newspaper for the City of Edina for the year 1994. 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 January 3, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 4th day of January, 1994. City Clerk City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461 I -2, m REPORT /RECOMMENDATION Agenda Item # To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL g VI, F, From: PiARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK Consent a Information Only ❑ Date: DECEMBER 30, 1993 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: DEPOSITORIES FOR CITY To Council FUNDS Action ❑ Motion x❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Adoption of a resolution designating depositories for public funds of the City of Edina. Info /Background: At the first regular Council Meeting of the year, the Council should designate official depositories for public funds of the City. A copy of the recommended resolution is attached indicating the recommended depositories. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES City of Edina BE IT RESOLVED that the First Bank National Association, Minneapolis, MN, Americana State Bank of Edina, MN, Fidelity Bank, Edina, MN, Norwest Bank Minnesota NA, Edina, MN and National City Bank/Southdale Office, Edina, MN, authorized to do banking business in Minnesota, be and hereby are designated as Official Depositories for the Public Funds of the City of Edina, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, until January 1, 1995. ADOPTED this 3rd day of January, 1994. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 3, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 4th day of January, 1994. City Clerk City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 EDINA. (MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD (612) 927 -5461 a r A. o e REPORT /RECOMMENDATION lose To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK Date: DECEMBER 30, 1993 Subject: FACSIMILE SIGNATURES Recommendation: Agenda Item # I . E. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr . Recommends ❑ To HRA Fx I To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Adoption of resolution authorizing the use of facsimile signatures by public officials of the City of Edina. Info/ Background: At the first regular Council Meeting of the year the Council should authorize the use of facsimile signatures by the Mayor, Manager, and Treasurer on checks, drafts, warrants, vouchers, etc., or other orders of public funds deposited with the City's banks. A copy of the recommended resolution is attached. City of Edina RESOLUTION ADOPTED AUTHORIZING USE OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS RESOLVED that the' use of facsimile signatures by the following named persons: FREDERICK S. RICHARDS - Mayor KENNETH E. ROSLAND - City Manager JOHN WALLIN - Treasurer on checks, drafts, warrants, warrant - checks, vouchers or other orders of public funds deposited in First Bank National Association, Americana State Bank of Edina, Fidelity Bank, Norwest Bank Minnesota NA, and National City Bank/Southdale Office, be and hereby is approved, and that each of said persons may authorize said depository banks to honor any such instrument bearing his facsimile signature in such form as he may designate and to charge the same to the account in said depository bank upon which drawn as fully as though it bore his manually written signature and that instruments so honored shall be wholly operative and binding in favor of said depository bank although such facsimile signature shall have been affixed without his authority. ADOPTED this 3rd day of January, 1994. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, Marcella M. Daehn, duly appointed City Clerk for the City of Edina, Hennepin County, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of 'Resolution Authorizing Use of Facsimile Signatures by Public Officials" with the original thereof as recorded in the Minutes of the Edina City Council held on January 3, 1994, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said original record, and that said Resolution was adopted by said City Council'at said meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 4th day of January, 1994. City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 City Clerk (612) 927 -8861 FAX (612) 927 -7645 TDD (612) 927 -5461 e . �.. ac/ City of Edina AUTHORIZATION OF FACSIMILE SIGNATURES BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS: We, Frederick S. Richards, Kenneth E. Rosland, and John Wallin, being the Mayor, City Manager and City Treasurer, respectively, and being duly authorized to sign checks, drafts, warrants, warrant - checks, vouchers and other orders on public funds thereof deposited in the above named DEPOSITORY BANKS, do hereby certify that the facsimile impressed or appended on this page is a facsimile of our signatures in the form which may be used on any such instrument in place of our signatures in the form which may be used on any such instrument in place of our manually written signatures, and we hereby authorize said depository banks to honor any such instrument bearing the facsimile of our signatures in said form and honor any such instrument bearing the facsimile of our signatures in said form and to charge the same to the account of said public body in said depository bank upon which drawn as fully as though it bore our manually written signatures. Instruments so honored shall be wholly operative and binding in favor of said depository bank although such facsimile signature shall have been affixed without authority. WITNESS: City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 Mayor City Manager City Treasurer (612) 927 -8861 FAX (612) 927 -7645 TDD (612) 927 -5461 City of Edina SIGNATORY RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the persons holding office as Mayor, Manager and Treasurer of the City of Edina, be, and they hereby are, authorized to act for this municipality in the transaction of any banking business with First Bank National Association, Americana State Bank of Edina, Fidelity Bank, Norwest Bank Minnesota NA and National City Bank/Southdale Office (hereinafter referred to as the "Bank ") from time to time and until written notice to any Bank to the contrary, to sign checks against said accounts, which checks will be signed by the Mayor, Manager and City Treasurer. Each Bank is hereby authorized and directed to honor and pay any checks against such account if signed as above described, wheiher or not said check is payable to the, order of, or deposited to the credit of, any officer or officers of the City, including the signer or signers of the check. ADOPTED this 3rd day of January, 1994. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of January 3, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 4th day of January, 1994. City Clerk City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 -1394 TDD 16121 927 -5461 0 leas REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL From: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK Date: DECEMBER 30, 1993 Subject: SIGNATORY RESOLUTION Agenda Item # "I - D - Consent 0 Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Adoption of a signatory resolution authorizing the Mayor, Manager, and Treasurer of the City to act in the transaction of banking business. Info /Background At the first regular Council Meeting of the year the Council should adopt a signatory resolution which authorizes persons holding office as Mayor, Manager and Treasurer of the City to act for the City in transaction of any banking business with the named banks. A copy of the recommended resolution is attached. 4,9��r'lr O RERORTIREC OMMENDATION To: Ken Rosland From: Janet Chandler Date: January 3, 1994 Subject: 1994 Recycling Grant Application & Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Agenda Item # VI. G. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA El To Council Action ❑ Motion Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Resolution authorizing the 1994 grant application to Hennepin County for recycling funding. INFOBACKGROUND As in previous years, the application for Hennepin County recycling funding must be accompanied by a city council resolution authorizing the application. The County funding policy for 1994 provides $1.75 per eligible household unit per month for recycling program expenses. Eligible housing units are defined as single family through 8 -plex residential units, or other residential units with separate entry and where the individual residential unit sets out its own refuse and recycling container, such as townhomes. Edina's entitlement application is in the amount of $299,418, based on the current 14,208 eligible housing units, plus an allowance for a possible 50 new housing units for 1994. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.551, whereby each county in the metropolitan area has as a goal to recycle a minimum of 35 percent (35 %) by weight of total solid waste generation, and each county must develop and implement or require political subdivisions within the county to develop and implement programs, practices, or methods designed to meet its recycling goal; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each city to implement a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, in December, 1993, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners approved the 1994 municipal recycling grant program to distribute funds to cities for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs; and WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds, cities must meet the conditions set forth in the "Funding Policy;" and WHEREAS, the City of Edina desires to receive these County funds; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council authorizes the submittal of the 1994 Municipal Recycling Grant Application, Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City will use such County funds only for the limited purpose of implementing the City's waste reduction and recycling program. Date CNCLST"11CNCL94 Mayor 13 1994--MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program January 1 - December 31, 1994 EDINA City Please provide a brief description of your city's recycling program within the space below. Include information on promotional and waste reduction activities planned for this period. Note any major program changes from previous year. A resolution passed by your Council/Board/Commission approving submittal of this application must be attached. Edina's weekly pickup program now includes magazines & catalogs, mixed mail and phone books, as well as the required newspaper, corrugated cardboard, glass, cans and plastic bottles. Apartment and condominium owners and managers are required to have recycling programs for their residents, and haulers must report the tonnage to the City. Recycling participation and tonnage has been excellent, with increases shown each year. The Edina Recycling Center closed November 1, 1993, primarily due to a fire in the newspaper trailer, the third such occurrance over a period of a few years. The Recycling Center had brought in approximately 4% of Edina's residential recycling. Therefore, it's difficult to forecast the recycling tonnage to be credited to Edina in 1994. Residents who used the drop -off will probably shift to the weekly pickup service. But several apartment buildings which previously used the drop -off may now opt to bring recyclables to the County facility in Bloomington. We will not be able to "track" these recyclables, since tonnage figures are provided by haulers, not owners. Also, the recyclables are not weighed at the Bloomington facility. Recycling and waste reduction information will continue to be provided in each issue of the city newsletter About Town. The winter '94 issue contains a brochure with information on recycling, waste reduction, hazardous & problem materials, and disposal and re -use options for many household items. An in -house project to cancel unwanted publications will continue to be provided for staff through the recycling office. In 1993, 44 letters were mailed, requesting to have names removed from mailing lists. !; ' w...., v:. �... v. �: koY•. \ \`. ?:- 1...�y..`?. ......::n}:.: n ..:........................ . .. .::.v:::::::::: n:� ::::....:.:..........CN?f�m ...: ..... J}\•?:•??:•}? 4::! w:: n: ' :. \Y:.}}?: }:.: ?:......1!�:. :.. �:Q�: Y'..'!v \ \V!l!M \t.: .0 M.,, ?} ?i:!td}?}i:!!4. . A. Method City Uses To Fund Its Portion Of The Recycling Expenses: $1.40 single fa General Fund: O Yes 0 No Utility Bill: X Yes O No Monthly Charge/HH on Utility Bill: $ . 77 multi -uni B. Curbside Collection Contractor: Woodlake Sanitary Service Inc C. Contract Dates/Terrn: Jan. '93 - Dec '95 D. Collection Cost HH/MO: $I � � single ; nni E. Collection Frequency: 0 Weekly O Bi- weekly O Twice Monthly F. Refuse and Recycling Collected Same Day: 0 Yes O No for majority of residents Y *Current count eligible units:14,20 8,'+50 nossible new units estimated for '94 Mufti-Housing A. Residential Source - Separated Collections Curbside Drop -Off j Total Tons PAPER: Newspaper Corrugated Cardboard Office Paper Mixed Paper /Junk Mail Magazines Phone Books Computer Paper Other Paper 2760 640 3400 100 30 130 35 85 130 130 60 20 80 METAL: Alum. Cans & Foil Steel & Tin Cans Commingled Cans Scrap Metal 390 70 460 GLASS: Food & Beverage Other Glass 950 275 12 PLASTIC: PET HDPE Commingled Bottles Polystyrene Film Plastics Other Plastics 155 135 20 OTHER RECYCLABLES: Vehicle Batteries Textiles Carpet Hous"14ROe dos ickun Other appliances Other Other 100 100 Total Tons 47 (3 11755 5765 Recycling % (Total Tonsdroidedby Res Waste Gen "1 289 B. Other Materials Collected (Not Recycled) Tires 1 tire = 20 lbs. Oil 1 aallon - 8 lbs. Other Other -, a ons & City Manager Date AGENDA ITEM: IX.C. MEMORANDUM DATE: December 28, 1993 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Kenneth Rosland SUBJECT: PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES On November 18, 1991, the City Council approved our Purchasing Policies and Requirements. (copy attached) These Policies and Requirements, prepared by Tom Erickson were based upon the requirements of the law and the recommendations of our Finance Department. I have reviewed the Purchasing Policies and Requirements and consulted with Mr. Gilligan and our Finance Director and have concluded that except for last year's law change concerning our sales tax exemption, these Policies and Requirements continue to reflect the requirements of State law and our internal policies. In fact, our requirements are more stringent than State law in a number of areas. However, it is apparent that while these policies adequately describe the letter of the law, they may not capture its spirit and intent which is to provide the best value and the lowest possible cost for our customers, i.e. the taxpayers. Therefore, I am immediately undertaking the following steps: 1. I intend to transmit, again, to each staff member responsible for purchasing, a copy of the Purchasing Policies and Requirements. These Policies and Requirements will be transmitted under a memorandum from me which affirms my expectations that these policies be adhered to. My memorandum will also state as clearly as possible the spirit and intent of the purchasing policies and will direct all employees to recognize the spirit and intent as clearly as they recognize the technical requirements of purchasing. 2. I have asked the Finance Director to identify those commodities that we purchase on a recurring basis throughout the year. I will then direct each affected Department Head to consolidate such commodities into a single bid which will be solicited on an annual basis. I am also directing that when feasible, two or more departments using identical products should consolidate the bidding and purchasing of such items. 3. Although we use them now, I am directing all Department Heads to make more extensive use, if possible, of State or County bid lists. The City is entitled to use low- bidders on State and County contracts for our purchasing. This may be especially useful for purchasing products that are used in quantities that-do not justify a formal bid on the City's part. ob PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES December 28, 1993 Page two. 4. I believe ongoing training for individuals responsible for our purchasing would be appropriate. Several seminars are available for government purchasing agents. I will ask each of my Department Heads to recommend staff members who would benefit from such training. In closing, I would like to reiterate that the Purchasing Policies and Requirements that we now have in place are up to date and do not require modification. These Policies and Requirements, however, must be more emphatically communicated to all of our employees, particularly under - scoring the spirit and intent of these rules. Finally, I believe that the City is fortunate to have quality and competent employees in charge of the purchasing function. I believe that the changes outlined above will allow these employees to conduct their work in a professional manner and deliver the best value to our taxpayers. (Revised October 1991) 10/31/91 pprov d by City Council 1s' 1991) CITY OF EDINA PURCHASING POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS PART I: Policies and Requirements Applicable to All Purchases and Contracts 1.1. Budget — Before any commitment for purchase of an item or service is made, money needs to be budgeted, either directly for the item or service or by means of a budgeted fund into which the purchase can be categorized. Purchases not within a budget require Finance Director and City Council approval for availability and transfer of funds. It is up to each Department to insure that it has not made commitments for more money than has been budgeted. 1.2. Expenditure Requirements — All expenditures of funds require Council approval before actual disbursement. (Minn. Stat. § 412.271). For the most part, this is done at the end of each Council meeting. Before funds can be disbursed for any purchase, the purchase must meet three criteria: a. First, statutory authority must exist for the City to make the particular purchase. While not a problem in most cases, certain purchases may require research; b. Second, it must be purchased for a public purpose; and C. Third, the Council must have properly approved the expenditure. Generally, an expenditure will be for a public purpose if it benefits the inhabitants of the community as a whole and if it is directly connected with the government of the City. All of these tests must be met prior to any commitment. If in doubt, check with the Finance Director. If City money is spent for unauthorized purchases, the members of the City Council could be personally liable. 1.3. Required Authorization for Purchase — In addition to the requirement that the Council approve of each expenditure of funds, the following Council authorizations are required prior to ordering or obtaining any item or service: a. Over $5,000 — All purchases over $5,000 need City Manager and Council approval rp for to ordering or purchasing. (Minn. Stat. § 412.271, Chapter 36, 1981 Laws of Minnesota, and Council resolution of October 5, 1981). All such purchases will use the Request For Purchase form. (APPENDIX A) b. $5,000 and Under — All purchases $5,000 and under require City Manager and Finance Director approval prior to ordering and purchasing. (Chapter 36, 1981 Laws of Minnesota and Council minutes of October 5,1981). NOTE: In both a. and b. above, the Council must approve the expenditures before payment is made. 1.4. Statutorily Mandated Processes for Selected Purchases and Rentals — The purchase of supplies, materials, equipment or rental of same, or the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property, in addition to the. procedures at 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 above, require the following procedures (Minn. Stat. § 471.345 and Minn. Stat. § 412.311): a. Over $15,000 — If the expenditure is estimated to exceed $15,000, then the following is required: (i) Sealed bids with appropriate public notice (See PART B below); (ii) Purchase Order properly filled out or contract (subject to Council Approval); (iii) A performance and payment bond in the amount of the contract if the contract is for the doing of any public work (Minn. Stat. § 574.26); (iv) Finance Director approval; (v) City Manager approval; (vi) Council approval; and (vii) Award of contract to the lowest responsible bidder. b. Over $10,000 to $15,000 — If the expenditure is estimated to be over $10,000 but not over $15,000, then the following is required: (i) Either sealed bids with appropriate public notice the same as for expenditures over $15,000 can be obtained, or direct negotiation can be used, by obtaining two or more written quotations, when possible; -2- (ii) A Purchase Order properly filled out or contract (subject to Council approval); (iii) A performance and payment bond in the amount of the contract if the contract is for the doing of any public work (Minn. Stat. § 574.26); (iv) Finance Director approval; (v) City Manager approval; (vi) Council approval; and (vii) Award of contract to lowest responsible bidder. All written quotations. shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after receipt. (Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 4). C. Over $5,000 to $10,000 — If the expenditure is estimated to be over $5,000 but not over $10,000, then the following is required: (i) At least two written quotations shall be received unless there is only one supplier or vendor (Note: if the cost is to be specially assessed under Minn. Stat. § 429, and if the estimated cost exceeds $5,000, advertising for bids must be done. See Part 11 hereof); (ii) Purchase Order properly filled out or contract (subject to Council approval); (iii) Performance and payment bond in the amount of the contract if the contract is $10,000 or more and is for the doing of any public work; (iv) Finance Director approval; (v) City Manager approval; (vi) Council approval; and (vii) Award of contract to lowest responsible bidder. -3- All. written quotations shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after receipt (Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 5). d. Over $1,000 to $5,000 — If the expenditure is estimated to be over $1,000 but not over $5,000, then the following is required: (i) At least two written quotations shall be received unless there is only one supplier or vendor; (ii) Purchase Order properly filled out; (iii) Finance Director approval; (iv) City Manager approval; and (v) Council approval prior to actual disbursement of funds. All written quotations shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after receipt (Minn. Stat. § 471.345, subd. 5). e. Over $500 - $1,000 — If the expenditure is estimated to be over $500 but not over $1,000, the following is required: (i) Purchases at this level makes written quotations impracticable, therefore, such purchases shall be made on the open market and written quotations shall not be required; (ii) Purchase order properly filled out; (iii) Finance Director approval; (iv) City Manager approval; and (v) Council approval prior to actual disbursement of funds. All written quotations shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after receipt. (Minn. Stat. § 472.345, subd. 5). f. $500 or less — If the expenditure is estimated to be $500 or less, the following is required: (i) Purchases at this level makes written quotations impracticable, therefore, such purchases shall be made on the open market and written quotations shall not be required; -4- (ii) A purchase order number must be obtained verbally or in writing from the Finance Department unless such purchase is being made pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs 1.10 or 1.21 hereof; (iii) City Manager approval, or .approval by the head of the Department for which the purchase is being made, or approval by one of the persons named -on the then current list of persons approved by the City Manager and kept on file with the Finance Director; and (iv) Council approval prior to actual disbursement of funds. All written quotations shall be kept on file for a period of at least one year after receipt. (Minn. Stat. § 472.345, subd. 5). Among purchases not requiring the above procedures are purchases of such as insurance, real estate, and services (see paragraph 2.13 "When Bidding Is Unnecessary" below). Even when not required, it is desired, if a purchase is in a competitive area, that quotations be obtained for comparison purposes. If the public bidding process is used, even if not required, all aspects of that process must be complied with. 1.5. Purchase Order Processine a. The responsible Department must prepare a requisition form (APPENDIX B) with all pertinent information included and submit to Finance Department. The pertinent information must include a description of the product, quantity, price, account codes, applicable specifications, and any similar information. NOTE: Purchase Order numbers must be obtained prior to any purchase commitment. b. The Finance Department will prepare the Purchase Order and obtain the Finance Director's signature. C. Approval as provided in paragraph 1.4 and applicable to the total amount of the purchase order, must be obtained prior to submission to the vendor. d. Copies of the Purchase Order will be distributed by the Finance Department as follows: -5- (i) Original to vendor; (ii) Buff to Finance Department retained file; and (iii) Pink to ordering department to await receipt of items ordered and then to be returned to Finance Department along with approved invoice. e. Upon Council approval, payment may be sent to vendor. 1.6. Central Purchasing— Similar items that are purchased by many Departments, in particular general office supplies, should be purchased centrally by either Finance and /or Administration and if not charged to central services, will be allocated or charged back to each recipient department. 1.7. Cooperative Purchasing — Certain items may be obtained by utilizing either the County or State cooperative purchasing contracts. While this eliminates the need for separate bidding on an item, it is yet necessary to get Council authorization when purchases over $5,000 are to be made, or City Manager approval for purchases up to $5,000, and also Council approval of payment before payment is made. 1.8. Emergency Purchases — Occasions may arise where purchases over $5,000 must be made before the Council can approve them and where the required public bidding cannot be done. Where such a purchase is made, Council approval must yet be obtained before payment is made. An emergency must be a situation arising suddenly and unexpectedly which requires speedy action essential to health, safety and welfare of the community, and not just an inconvenience (Layne Minnesota Co. v. Town of Stuntz, 257 N.W.2d. 295 [Minn., 1977]). 1.9. Payment Prior to Council Approval — There are limited exceptions to the general rule that the Council must approve all claims before they are paid. Those exceptions are listed in Minn. Stat. § 412.271, as follows: a. Judgments; b. Salaries and wages previously fixed by the Council or statute; C. Principal and interest on obligations in amounts previously determined by contract authorized by the Council; I Rent and other fixed charges in amounts previously determined by contract authorized by the Council; O e. When payment of a claim based on a contract cannot be deferred without loss to the City by forfeiture of discount privileges or otherwise, the claim may be paid immediately if the itemized claim is endorsed for payment by at least a majority of the Council members (such earlier payment does not affect the right of the City or any taxpayer to challenge the validity of the claim). f. Payment from an imprest fund established pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 412.271, subd. 5. (See paragraph 1.12 below). 1.10. Ongoing Purchases — Some items, or categories of items, are purchased several times during each year or season, and each purchase is normally a small amount. To require a purchase order or purchase order number for each such purchase creates an unnecessary and wasteful burden. Therefore, to simplify such purchases and avoid such unnecessary and wasteful burden, and yet retain controls over such purchases, the following is required: a. Items for which amounts needed during a year or season can be estimated (such as office supplies): (i) An open purchase order must be used for the period over which such purchases are to be made, usually a year or a season, instead of individual purchase order or purchase order number for each purchase; (ii) An open purchase order shall be used for each supplier or vendor from whom such ongoing purchasers will be made; (iii) The total amount estimated to be expended over the purchasing period shall be inserted in the purchase order by the statement "not to exceed $x ", also the words "Open Purchase Order for 199_" shall be inserted in the Description column, and "Open Purchase Order" shall be inserted in the Amount column; (iv) The procedure in paragraph 1.4 applicable to the estimated total amount to be expended over the purchasing period shall be complied with, except that the provisions of this paragraph relating to purchase orders shall apply and control; (v) An open purchase order shall not be used if the estimated purchases over the purchasing period exceeds $5,000.00; (vi) Open purchase orders under this subparagraph a. shall not be used -to- purchase- any - single -item costing more than $500. -00 -but -7- for such purchases the applicable procedures at paragraph 1.4 must be used; (vii) Once the aggregate cost of purchases made under the open purchase order totals the "not to exceed" amount stated in the open purchase order or $5,000.00, whichever is less, a new open purchase order must be prepared and used in compliance with this paragraph; (viii) The Council shall approve each purchase prior to disbursement of funds. b. Items for which amounts needed during a year or season cannot be estimated (such as repair parts for trucks, autos and equipment): (i) An open purchase order must be used for the period over which such purchases are to be made, usually a year or a season, instead of individual purchase order or purchase order number for each purchase; (ii) An open purchase order shall be used for each supplier or vendor from whom such ongoing purchasers will be made; (iii) The total amount estimated to be expended over the purchasing period may be left blank; (iv) Each purchase shall be approved by the City Manager, or by the head of the Department for which the purchase is being made, or by one of the persons named on the then current list of persons approved by the City Manager and kept on file with the Finance Director; (v) Open purchase orders under this subparagraph b. shall not be used to purchase any single item costing more than $500.00, but for such purchases the applicable procedures at paragraph 1.4 must be used; NO The Council shall approve each purchase prior to disbursement of funds. 1.11. Splitting Purchases — Do not split purchases in an attempt to circumvent anv purchasing requirements. 10 1.12. Imprest Fund /Petty Cash — Certain purchases can be more economically handled through use of petty cash funds to reimburse for purchases. The maximum allowable purchase through any such fund is $25. The cashier/ custodian of each. such fund is solely responsible for accounting for expenditures from the fund under his or her control. No salaries or personal employee expenses shall be paid from such fund. Any payment from any such fund not approved by the Council is the personal obligation of the cashier/ custodian of that fund. (Minn. Stat. § 412.271, Subd. 5). 1.13. Prompt Payment — The City must pay bills within 35 days of receipt unless a good faith dispute exists. The date of receipt is the date of completed delivery of the goods or services, of satisfactory installation or assembly, or of the receipt of the invoice for the delivery of goods, whichever is latest. If bills are not paid within the standard payment period, interest at one and one -half percent per month must be calculated and paid. The minimum monthly interest penalty on the unpaid balance of any overdue bill of $100 or more is $10. For unpaid balances less than $100 the actual interest should be calculated and paid. Vendors must be notified of invoice errors within 10 days of receiving the invoice. In cases of delayed payments due to good faith disputes with vendors, no interest penalties accrue. If payments are delayed but not in good faith, the vendor may recover costs and attorneys' fees. (Minn. Stat. § 471.425). 1.14. Sales Tax Exemption — The City of Edina is exempt from paying sales taxes on purchases. Most vendors have forms that can be filled out to certify tax exemption, or a letter can be sent to the vendor (APPENDIX G). 1.15. Non Discrimination — All contracts for materials, supplies or construction must contain a contractor's agreement not to discriminate against prospective employees because of race, creed or color (Minn. Stat. § 181.59). 1.16. Worker's Compensation Insurance — A contract for the doing of "public work" may not be entered into before receiving, from all contracting parties, acceptable evidence of compliance with the worker's compensation insurance coverage requirements of state law (Minn. Stat. § 176.182). 1.17. Progress Payments; Retainage — A progress payment is not an acceptance or approval of any work or waiver of any defects. An amount may be reserved as retainage from any progress payment on a public contract for a public improvement. The amount of retainage may not exceed five percent of the payment. (Minn. Stat. § 15.71 and § 429.041, Subd. 6). At the contractor's option, the retainage shall be paid to the contractor, and the contractor may deposit bonds or securities in lieu of the retainage. If the City incurs additional costs as a result of this option, the City may recover the costs by reducing the final contract payment. (See Minn. Stat. § 15.73) W 1.18. Withholding — Before final payment is made, the Contractor, as required by Minn. Stat. § 290.97, must make a satisfactory showing of compliance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 290.92 regarding withholding of state income taxes for wages paid employees on the project. A certificate from the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue will satisfy this requirement. 1.19. Prevailing Wage Rates — If the project or work is funded in whole or in part with State Aid funds, the contract must require the Contractor to pay the prevailing wages. Also, the Contractor's bid proposal must contain a letter or certificate so agreeing to pay prevailing wages. Prevailing wage information can be obtained from the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, 443 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 -4306 (phone: 612/296 - 2282). 1.20. Change Orders — Change orders to contracts and purchase orders approved by the Council or City Manager shall be made pursuant to the following policies and procedures and the use of any one of the methods set out at c. through g. following: a. Authorized Persons — The only persons authorized to sign and approve change orders on behalf of the City are the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager, the City Engineer and the Finance Director (the "Authorized Persons "). b. Council Approval — All change orders shall be approved by the Council prior to signing by any Authorized Person except as otherwise provided in this paragraph 1.20. No payment of any change order shall be made without prior Council approval, except as allowed by paragraph 1.9. C. Decreasing Cost — Change orders decreasing the cost of any contract made by the City may be signed and approved on behalf of the City by any Authorized Person without prior Council approval. d. Increases Up To $5,000 — Any change order which increases the contract price by $5,000 or less may be signed and approved on behalf of the City by any Authorized Person with prior approval of the City Manager. e. Emergencies — Any change order which, due to an emergency, cannot be deferred until the Council can approve it, may be signed and approved by any Authorized Person without prior Council approval. (See paragraph 1.8 for additional comments.) -10- Avoidance of Loss — Any change order which cannot be deferred until the Council can approve it without loss to the City may be signed and approved by any Authorized Person if the change order is endorsed for payment by at least three members of the Council. g. Uv to 10% — Any change order which does not-exceed 10% of the original contract price, by itself or in the aggregate with all then prior change orders relating to that same contract, may be signed and approved by any Authorized Person without prior Council approval, provided the contract provides for change orders. Note: change orders that materially change the terms of a contract may be deemed a new contract and may have to be rebid and receive prior Council approval. If in doubt, check with the City Manager and City Attorney. 1.21. Unit Price Contracts — Some contracts for the purchase of goods or for construction are based on the unit price times the estimated number of units without a maximum dollar cost stated. At times the estimate is too low and additional units are added and must be paid for. The following policies apply to such contracts: a. The estimate of units should be carefully made, and should be on the high end of any estimated range of units needed; b. The contract shall be presented to the Council as a "unit price basis" contract with an estimated maximum dollar cost; C. The procedure in paragraph 1.4 applicable to the estimated maximum cost shall be complied with; and d. Any increase in units purchased necessary to fulfill and perform the purpose of the contract, and, therefore, in contract cost, beyond the estimated maximum shall be deemed a part of the approved contract, and shall not be deemed a change order, but no payment for any units in excess of the estimated maximum shall be made without prior Council approval. PART II: Policies and Requirements Applicable to Competitive Bidding Process. 2.1. When Useable — While mandated for certain purchases, the use of competitive bidding is not limited to the mandated areas and can be used more extensively, but should not be used for amounts under $5,000 as the cost of the process is significant. If the City fails to advertise for bids when the law requires competitive bidding, the contract is void, but the City must pay for any benefits it received. -11- 2.2. When Bidding is Required — All contracts for the purchase or rental of supplies, materials or equipment, or for the construction, alteration, repair or maintenance of real or personal property, when the estimated amount of the contract exceeds $15,000, require competitive bids. (Minn. Stat. § 471.345). Also, if the cost is estimated to exceed $5,000, the contract must be let to the lowest responsible bidder. (Minn. Stat. § 412.311). If the cost of a project is to be specially assessed under Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes, and if the estimated cost exceeds $5,000, advertising for bids must be done. (Minn. Stat. § 429.041, Subd.1). 2.3. SS2ecifications — For the purposes of informing potential bidders, specifications should outline precisely and in detail what is to be purchased or constructed. These need to be reasonably specific, but not to the point of eliminating competing types and qualities. (Minn. Stat. § 471.35). Violation of this restriction is a gross misdemeanor. (Minn. Stat. § 471.37). A brand name may be specified, but potential bidders must be able to bid an equal product. In addition to the specifications for the purchase, instructions to bidders and general conditions (See APPENDICES C AND D OR APPENDIX E for examples) should be updated, modified as needed and included in the. bid package so that all contractual obligations of both parties are known. Competitive bids must be re-let when there is a material change in the terms or specifications, even if you believe that the change would have no effect on the rank order of the bids received. Caution should be taken before determining whether the term or specification change is material or not. The proposals and specifications must allow free and full competition. They may not give a prospective bidder an unfair advantage over any other. Specifications must be sufficiently definite and precise to afford a basis for comparable bids. If the number of units needed cannot be determined, bids should be requested on a unit basis. (See paragraph 1.21 for additional comments on unit price contracts). 2.4. Bid Bonds — While not required by statute, the City of Edina may require a bid bond, certified check or cashier's check in lieu to insure that the bid will be honored and not withdrawn for up to a specified number of days. The bond or check is usually set at 10% of the purchase price. 2.5. Performance Bonds — Unless the amount of the contract is $10,000 or less, any contract for the doing of any "public work" is not valid unless a performance and payment bond is given as required by Minn. Stat. § 574.26. The City form should be used. The City form is available from the City Clerk. 2.6. Notice — For all contracts requiring advertising for bids, legal notice must be published in the City's official newspaper at least once 10 days before the last day for submission of bids. (Minn. Stat. § 412.311). If the project is to be specially assessed under Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes, and the estimated cost exceeds $100,000, publication must be made at least once in the official newspaper, and at least once in -12- a newspaper published in the City of Minneapolis or a trade paper (as defined in Minn. Stat. § 429.041, Subd. 1), not less than three weeks before the last date for submission of bids. For construction contracts and heavy equipment purchases, notices should also be published in the Construction Bulletin (APPENDIX F). Non –legal notices may be included in such publications as the League of Minnesota Cities magazine for wider coverage. 2.7. Notice Information — The published notice (APPENDIX F) should contain the following information (Minn. Stat. § 429.041, Subd. 1): a. A description of the project or purchase; b. The availability of specifications in the office of the City Clerk; C. The last day for submission o-T bids and the place where they are due; d. The time and the place for the opening of bids; e. That no bid will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk, and accompanied by the check or bid bond as required by the City; and f. That the City reserves the right to reject any or all bids, and any or all alternative bids. 2.8. Bid Opening; and Award — On the date and at the time for opening of bids, all bids should be opened and read for interested parties. The opening should be scheduled at least three (3) working days before the Council meeting (typically the Thursday before) for inclusion in Council packets. Bids should be tabulated on the over $5,000 Request for Purchase form (APPENDIX A). It is important that all bid proposals be studied carefully prior to making recommendations to the Council for the award of bid. Recommendation on award of bid should be made not only on price, but on quality and quantity as specified and also on responsibility (See "Lowest Responsible Bidder" below). The award should go to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specifications. Once the bid is awarded by the Council, all bid results should be available to anyone requesting them. Construction Bulletin should be informed on items advertised in that publication. Once the Council accepts the lowest responsible bidder and awards the contract, a contract exists even if the written contract is not formally signed. 2.9. Splitting Contracts — You must not attempt to avoid the bidding requirements by splitting a contract into several contracts, each of which is below the minimum amount requiring bids. If materials or work logically fall into two separate contracts because they involve separate transactions, as for the service of contractors specializing in different kinds of work, there is no reason why the contracts cannot -13- be separated and dealt with separately. If splitting the purchase into separate contracts serves no specific purpose except to reduce the amount of the contract to less than the applicable minimum, the contract could be considered invalid. 2.10. Rejecting Bids — The City may and should reserve the right to reject any or all bids, or to waive immaterial informalities or irregularities. Unless the bid responds to the specifications in all material respects, it is not a bid, but a new proposition that should be rejected.. 2.11. Lowest Responsible Bidder — "Responsible" in bid statutes, means not only financial responsibility but also integrity, skill, and the likelihood of the bidder's doing faithful and satisfactory work. Value does not always depend on price alone. Where plans and specifications demand consideration of several factors and no single bid is lowest in all these factors, weight should be given to the various factors, and, considering all of them, accept what is deemed to be the lowest responsible bid. 2.12. Opening and Tabulating Bids — The bidding process should be kept open until the time and date deadline has expired. The process of opening and tabulating bids must be open to the public. 2.13. When Bidding is Unnecessary — It is not necessary for the City to advertise for bids for: a. Professional services such as engineers, lawyers, architects, accountants, and other services requiring technical, scientific, or professional training; b. The purchase or lease of real estate; C. Non – competitive products which are patented or obtainable from only one source. (Minn. Stat. § 471.36); d. For insurance generally (except that group insurance requires published notice seeking competitive proposals). (Minn. Stat. § 471.6161); e. The purchase, lease, sale, or other acquisition or disposition of equipment, supplies, materials, or other property, including real property from or to the United States of America, or any agency thereof, or any agency of the State of Minnesota, or any political subdivision of Minnesota. (Minn. Stat. § 471.64); f. Contracts for "guaranteed energy savings" where the contractor guarantees the energy cost savings of insulation, or efficient heating or -14- cooling systems, will be greater than the cost of the product. (Minn. Stat. § 471.345, Subd. 13); and g. If Edina establishes a set aside program for buying goods and services from economically disadvantaged persons or from rehabilitation facilities, contracts can be made to such supplier without bidding, subject to some limitations. (Minn. Stat. § 471.345, Subd. 8 and 12). 2.14. Other Provisions — The provisions of paragraphs 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1. 18, 1.19, 1.20 and 1.21 also apply to this Part H. -15- (Revised October 1991) (Approved by City Council, 1991) CITY OF EDINA POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY Requirements — The sale or disposal of property that has lawfully come into the possession of the City, and all City property in need of disposal, shall be disposed of via the following means. The sale of real estate is not included in these requirements. Property for disposal is divided into categories by method of receipt as follows: 1) If purchased by the City, the material can be disposed of by any means the City determines, including the auctions below set out; and 2) Property obtained incident to law enforcement actions, abandoned or turned over to the City as lost and remaining unclaimed for over 60 days may be disposed of after that time period at public auction. (Ordinance No. 131). 3) In the case of abandoned vehicles, the City shall comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chapter 168B in selling such vehicles. 4) In the case of property forfeited to the City pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 609.531 through § 609.5317, the City shall comply with the provisions of said statutes in disposing of such property. Auction — The Citv may hold an auction, as needed, to dispose of all material not disposed of in any other manner. Police Bike Auction — A bike auction will be held in late spring and, if necessary, again in late September. At the September auction all other material should be disposed of also. Cooperative County Auction — A vehicle no longer needed by the City should be disposed of at the Cooperative Countv Auction(s) during the May -October time trame. Participation may hinge on participation in city vehicle purchases. Purchase by Employee Auction — Property may be disposed of by employee bids if the following conditions are met: 1) Notice stating the property to be auctioned, minimum bid if any, who to sent the bids to, and deadline for receipt of bids should be posted at the employee bulletin boards at City Hall, Public Works building and Fire Department, at least five business days prior to the opening of the bids; 2) The bids must be submitted in a sealed envelope; and 3) Bids must be kept sealed until after the deadline. COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01/03/94 $402.52 ABBEY HOME HEALTHCARE REPAIR PARTS 22555 POOL TRACK GRE REPAIR PARTS 1796 142365 $402.52* 01/03/94 $37.00 ACTION MESSENGER DELIVERY SERVICE 125168 ED ADMINISTRAT SVC CONTR EQUI 142366 $37.00* 01/03/94 $93.03 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS ALARM SERVICE 10234171 CENTENNIAL LAK ALARM SERVICE 01/03/94 $206.47 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS ALARM SERVICE 10234172 ED.BUILDING & ALARM SERVICE 142367 $299.50* 01/03/94 .$159.74 AIM ELECTRONICS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 11893 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 2161 142368 $159.74* 01/03/94 $75.08 ALPHAGRAPHICS PRINTING 19442 ED ADMINISTRAT PRINTING 01/03/94 $158.69 ALPHAGRAPHICS PRINTING 19345 ED ADMINISTRAT PRINTING 1991 01/03/94 $670.95 ALPHAGRAPHICS PRINTING 19344 ED ADMINISTRAT PRINTING 2116 142369 $904.72* 01/03/94 $886.61 AMERICAN BUSINESS FORM PRINTING 352210 GOLF ADMINISTR PRINTING 142370 $886.61* 01/03/94 $136.22 AMERICAN SHARECOM TELEPHONE 121593 CENT SVC GENER TELEPHONE 142371 $136.22* 01/03/94 $138.45 ARROWWOOD RADISSON CONT ED /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142372 $138.45* 01/03/94 $31.50 ASPLUND COFFEE COST OF GOODS SOLD F 66958 CENTENNIAL LAK CST OF GD FOOD 142373 $31.50* 01/03/94 $20.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAININ DUES /POLICE 002787 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142374 $20.00* 01/03/94 $20.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAININ DUES /POLICEE 002859 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142375 $20.00* 01/03/94 $20.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAININ DUES /POLICE 003035 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142376 $20.00* 01/03/94 $20.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAININ DUES /POLICE 002819 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142377 $20.00* 01/03/94 $20.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAININ DUES /POLICE 003057 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142378 $20.00* 01/03/94 $20.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAININ DUES /POLICE 002810 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142379 $20.00* 01/03/94 $20.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAININ DUES /POLICE 002853 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142380 $20.00* 01/03/94 $390.00 BAGLEY, DOUG UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142381 $390.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 2 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 01/03/94 $100.00 BARNHART. NORM PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 010694 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142382 $100.004 01/03/94 $80.00 BCA TRAINING CONT ED /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142383 $80.00* 01/03/94 $439.50 BENN, BRADLEY ART CENTER INSTRUCTO 122893 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 142384 $439.50* 01/03/94 $93.68 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 623721 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 01/03/94 $53.95 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 651100' CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 142385 $147.63* 01/03/94 $20.17 BEST LOCK OF MPLS KEYS 47830 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 142386 $20.17* 01/03/94 $18.40 BRAEMAR CLUBHOUSE MEETING EXP /FIRE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN MEETING EXPENS 142387 $18.40* 01/03/94 $14.88 BUIE, BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 122793 CLUB HOUSE GYMNASTICS EQU 01/03/94 $9.03 BUIE, BARBARA COST OF GOODS SOLD 122793 CENTENNIAL LAK CST OF GD FOOD 01/03/94 $17.17 BUIE, BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 122793 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 01/03/94 $34.15 BUIE, BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 122293 ED ADMINISTRAT GENERAL SUPPLI 142388 $75.23* 01/03/94 $75.00 BURTIS, ROBERT SERVICES EDINBOROUGH 011394 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142389 $75.00* 01/03/94 $30.00 CAMPBELL, RICHARD CONT ED /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142390 $30.00* 01/03/94 $40.00 CANTON, JANET MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 122893 FINANCE MILEAGE 142391 $40.00* 01/03/94 $55.00 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO SERVICE CAP196.25 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONTR REPAIRS 8009 142392 $55.00* 01/03/94 $36.54 CARLSON STORE FIX CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 72791 ED ADMINISTRAT GENERAL SUPPLI 142393 $36.54* 01/03/94 $2.51 CELLULAR ONE EQUIPMENT RENTAL 122193/P POLICE DEPT. G EQUIP RENTAL 01/03/94 $26.68 CELLULAR ONE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 122193/K ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 01/03/94 $95.6.8 CELLULAR ONE EQUIPMENT RENTAL 122193/P POLICE DEPT. G EQUIP RENTAL 142394 $124.87* 01/03/94 $33,255.00 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON HEALTH SERVICES 17918 PUBLIC HEALTH PROF SERVICES 142395 $33,255.00* 01/03/94 $162.60 CITYLINE ADVERTISING 1459 ED ADMINISTRAT ADVERT OTHER 142396 $162.60* 01/03/94 $75.00 CLELAND, BRUCE PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 012794 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER i • COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 3 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION - INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142397 $75.00* 01/03/94 $89.41 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 252741 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 142398 $89.41* 01/03/94 $25.00 CONNOLLY, BOB PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 010494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142399 $25.00* 01/03/94 $45.00 CONNOLLY, BOB PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 010994 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142400 $45.00* 01/03/94 $36.13 COOPER, SHARON OVER PAID FINAL WATE 122293 UTILITY PROG ACCOUNTS REC. 142401 $36.13* 01/03/94 $4,800.00 CORNER HOUSE /INTERAGEN CORNER HOUSE MEMBERS 20 DARE NEW EQUIP 142402 $4,800.00* 01/03/94 $380.00 COURTNEY, C WAYNE SERVICEWS EDINBOROUG JAN 1994 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 142403 5380.00* 01/03/94 $34.90 CUSTOM HEADSET INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 4143 POLICE DEPT. G GENERAL SUPPLI 142404 $34.90* 01/03/94 $188.83 D.C. HEY CO. EQUIPMENT RENTAL 323749 ART CENTER ADM EQUIP RENTAL 01/03/94 $235.98 D.C. HEY CO. EQUIPMENT RENTAL 317072. ART CENTER ADM EQUIP RENTAL 142405 $424.81* 01/03/94 $1,500.00 DAVE PERKINS CONTRACTI CONTRACTED REPAIRS 9158 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 1947 142406 $1,500.00* 01/03/94 $450.00 DCA INC DCA FORMS 060056 CITY HALL GENE GENERAL SUPPLI 142407 $450.00* 01/03/94 $46.00 DELZER, HELENE CLASS REFUND 122293 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 142408 $46.00* 01/03/94 $160.00 DICKER, TOBIE ART CENTER INSTRUCTO 122893 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 142409 $160.00* 01/03/94 $100.00 D-IETRICHSON, BILL ART CENTER INSTRUCTO 122893 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 142410 $100.00* 01/03/94 $163.72 DISTINCTIVE LAUNDRY PR LAUNDRY 110293 POOL TRACK GRE LAUNDRY 01/03/94 $14.85 DISTINCTIVE LAUNDRY PR LAUNDRY 112393 POOL TRACK GRE LAUNDRY 01/03/94 $17.15 DISTINCTIVE LAUNDRY PR LAUNDRY 111993 POOL TRACK GRE LAUNDRY 142411 $195.72* 01/03/94 $22,550.83 DORSEY & WHITNEY PROFESSIONAL SERV - 345183 LEGAL SERVICES PRO SVC - LEGA 142412 $22,550.83* 01/03/94 $254.98 EARL F. ANDERSON GENERAL SUPPLIES 130115 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 142413 $254.96* 1 . COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 4 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01/03/94 $11.70 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 303246 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $1,062.10 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 303209 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $1,323.70 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF,_GOODS SOLD B 303245 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 142414 $2,397:50* 01/03/94 $20.90 ECONOMIC PRESS BITS & PIECES 40708745 FIRE DEPT. GEN DUES & SUBSCRI 142415 $20.90* 01/03/94 $36.00 EDINA HRA - 3 PARKING PERMITS 122393 LIQUOR 50TH ST LIC & PERMITS 142416 $36.00* 01/03/94 $300.00 EMPLOYEES CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES JAN 1994 CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLI 142417 $300.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 FASULO, WALTER UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142418 $195.00* 01/03/94 $69.23 FLOYD LOCK & SAFE CO ALARM SERVICE 122597 ARENA BLDG /GRO ALARM SERVICE 142419 $69.23* 01/03/94 $105.00 FMAM DUES /FIRE DEPARTMENT 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN DUES & SUBSCRI 142420 $105.00* 01/03/94 $96.00 GADEN, MELANIE ART CENTER INSTRUCTO 122893 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 142421 $96.00* 01/03/94 $146.00 GANZER DIST INC COST OF GOODS SOLD B 175239 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 142422 $146.00* 01/03/94 $176.48 GARFIN, JEFF UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142423 $176.48* 01/03/94 $150.00 GIBBS, JEANNIE ART CENTER INSTRUCTO 122893 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 142424 $150.00* 01/03/94 $201.00 GIL HEBARD GUNS TARGETS 37934 GUN RANGE TARGETS 2056 142425 $201.00* 01/03/94 $80.70 GOPHER CASH REGISTER REPAIR CASH REGISTER 14643 GRILL CONTR SERVICES 1999 142426 $80.70* 01/03/94 $347.00 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SE CONT ED /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142427 $347.00* 01/03/94 $280.00 GOVERNMENT TRAINING SE CONT ED /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142428 $280.00* 01/03/94 $25.00 GREEN, DICK PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 010494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142429 $25.00* 01/03/94 $804.42 GREER, PAT SERVICES EDINBOROUGH JAN 1994 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 142430 $804.42* e 4W .1 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 5 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01/03/94 511,000.00 GREUPNER, JOE PRO SERVICES /RETAINE 122193 GOLF ADMINISTR PRO SVC - GOLF 142431 $11,000.00* 01/03/94 $17.57 GS DIRECT PLOTTER PENS. 40231 ENGINEERING GE GENERAL SUPPLI 2125 142432 $17.57* 01/03/94 $100.00 HAAK, AVERY PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 011394 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142433 $100.00* 01/03/94 $390.00 HANSEN, WILLIAM UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142434 $390.00* 01/03/94 $30.00 HAPPY FACES PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 011794 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142435 $30.00* 01/03/94 $45.00 HAPPY FACES PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 010994 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142436 $45.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 HELMER, RICHARD UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142437 $195.00* 01/03/94 $80.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY CHIEFS DUES /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142438 $80.00* 01/03/94 $428.54 HONEYWELL INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 344PT276 POOL TRACK GRE CONTR REPAIRS 01/03/94 $147.20 HONEYWELL INC CONT REPAIRS 344PT967 CENTENNIAL LAK CONTR REPAIRS 142439 $575.74* 01/03/94 $4,968.86 HYDRO SUPPLY CO WATER METERS 6514 UTILITY PROG INVENTORY WATE 5382 01/03/94 $407.32 HYDRO SUPPLY CO REPAIR PARTS 6507 METER REPAIR REPAIR PARTS 142440 $5,376.18* 01/03/94 $60.00 I S F S I DUES /FIRE 98253 FIRE DEPT. GEN DUES & SUBSCRI 142441 $60.00* 01/03/94 $100.00 I.A.C.P. DUES /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142442 5100.00* 01/03/94 $308.08 INTERIOR COMMUNICATION TELEPHONE 8039 CENT SVC GENER TELEPHONE 142443 $308.08* 01/03/94 $200.00 INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL DUES 1121293 ED ADMINISTRAT DUES & SUBSCRI 142444 $200.00* 01/03/94 $225.00 ISIA DUES 039794 ARENA ADMINIST DUES & SUBSCRI 142445 $225.00* 01/03/94 $357.21 JACK RICHESON & CO INC COST OF GOODS SOLD 44747 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 1928 142446 $357.21* 01/03/94 $479.25 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING 5177 ART CENTER ADM PRINTING 01/03/94 $490.00 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING 05178 PARK CONSTR PRINTING 1149 01/03/94 $371.68 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING 5179 ART CENTER ADM PRINTING COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 6 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142447 $1,340.93* 01/03/94 $347.00 JOHN E REID ASSOC CONT ED /POLICE SP -113 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142448 $347.00* 01/03/94 $347.00 JOHN E REID ASSOC CONT ED /POLICE BP -114 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142449 $347.00* 01/03/94 $347.00 JOHN E REID ASSOC CONT ED /POLICE BP -115 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142450 $347.00* 01/03/94 $17.32 JOHNSON, NAOMI GENERAL SUPPLIES 122893 ART CENTER BLD GENERAL SUPPLI 01/03/94 $10.42 JOHNSON, NAOMI OFFICE SUPPLIES 122893 ART CENTER ADM OFFICE SUPPLIE 01/03/94 $124.60 JOHNSON, NAOMI CRAFT SUPPLIES. 122893 ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 142451 $152.34* 01/03/94 $195.00 JULKOWSKI, JAMES UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142452 $195.00* 01/03/94 $10.00 JUVENILE OFFICERS INST DUES /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142453 $10.00* 01/03/94 $532.84 KANE, KENNETH UNIFORM ALLOWANCE /PO 122193 POLICE DEPT. G UNIF ALLOW 142454 $532.84* 01/03/94 $32.30 KANE, PATRICIA CONT ED /POLICE 122793 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 142455 $32.30* 01/03/94 $390.00 KEHOE, TERRENCE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142456 $390.00* 01/03/94 $20.22 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 084874 BUILDING MAINT LUMBER 2030 01/03/94 $54.73 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 084909 BUILDING MAINT LUMBER 2033 01/03/94 $22.33 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 084175 ART CENTER BLD GENERAL SUPPLI 1950 01/03/94 $10.63 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 084138 CLUB HOUSE GENERAL SUPPLI 1784 01/03/94 $1.37 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 085056 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 2049 01/03/94 $62.43 KNOX COMM CREDIT CONTRACTED REPAIRS 0842762 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 2059 01/03/94 $11.70 KNOX COMM CREDIT TOOLS 085453 BUILDING MAINT TOOLS 2068 142457 $183.41* 01/03/94 $477.60 KOKESH ATHLETIC COST OF GOODS SOLD 78777 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GO FOOD 2013 142458 $477.60* 01/03/94 $1,040.80 KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 96388 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 142459 $1,040.80* 01/03/94 $195.00 LANDRY, STEPHEN UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142460 $195.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 LAWSON, ROBERT UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142461 $195.00* 01/03/94 $6.92 LIEN INFECTION CON CLEANING SUPPLIES 002304 GOLF DOME CLEANING SUPPL 5570 '4 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dee 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 7 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT. PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------7------------------------------------------------------ 142462 $6.92* 01/03/94 $195.00 LISK, LEROY UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142463 $195.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 LUTTS, WILLIAM UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142464 $195.00* 01/03/94 $133.68 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 25628 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $326.20 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 25471 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $300.78 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 25649 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 142465 $760.66* 01/03/94 $250.00 MADSON, JOHN SERVICES EDINBOROUGH JAN 1994 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 142466 $250.00* 01/03/94 $100.00 MALMBERG, DAVID PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 012094 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142467 $100.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 MALONEY, JOHN UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142468 $195.00* 01/03/94 $45.00 MARIE, ROBIN PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 010994 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142469 $45.00* 01/03/94 $27.20 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200402 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $461.05 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 200404 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $1,744.80 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 200400 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $6.80 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200456 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $43.25 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 200401 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $42.75 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200405 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $80.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200403 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $51.50 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200455 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $1,129.40 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 200461 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $51.50 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200399 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $53.90 MARK VII SALES COST OF.GOODS SOLD M .202008 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $1,444.90 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 202009 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 142470 $5;137.05* 01/03/94 $75.00 MCGIBBON, TERRY PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 011894 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142471 $75.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 MEDZIS, ANDREW UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142472 $195.00* 01/03/94 $25.00 MEMA DUES /POLICE 122793 CIVIL DEFENSE DUES & SUBSCRI 142473 $25.00* 01/03/94 $198.34 METRO AREA PROMOTIONS ADVERTISING OTHER 3912 VERNON SELLING ADVERT OTHER 01/03/94 $198.33 METRO AREA PROMOTIONS ADVERTISING OTHER 3912 50TH ST SELLIN ADVERT OTHER 01/03/94 $198.33 METRO AREA PROMOTIONS ADVERTISING OTHER 3912 YORK SELLING ADVERT OTHER 142474 $595.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 8 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01/03/94 $72.50 METRO LEAGUE GIRLS' BA ADVERTISING 121393 PARK ADMIN. DUES & SUBSCRI 142475 $72.50* 01/03/94 $255,213.00 METRO WASTE CONTROL SEWER SERVICE 50500194 SEWER TREATMEN SEWER SVC METR 142476 $255,213.00" 01/03/94 $281.16 MICHAEL LYNNE'S TENNIS TENNIS BALLS 080593 TENNIS INSTRUC GENERAL SUPPLI 9057 142477 $281.16* 01/03/94 $560.00 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 030120 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 2077 142478 4560.00* 01/03/94 53,805.55 MINNEGASCO HEAT 122293 PW BUILDING HEAT 01/03/94 $9.59 MINNEGASCO TELEPHONE 121793 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 01/03/94 $1,022.90 MINNEGASCO HEAT 122293 CITY HALL GENE HEAT 01/03/94 $8,223.69 MINNEGASCO HEAT 122293 GOLF DOME HEAT 01/03/94 $2,075.45 MINNEGASCO HEAT 122293 ARENA BLDG /GRO HEAT 142479 $15,137.18* 01/03/94 $130.00 MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF PO DUES /POLICE 120193 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 142480 $130.00* 01/03/94 $15.00 MINNESOTA CONSERVATION DUES 120193 PARK MAINTENAN CONF & SCHOOLS 142481 $15.00* 01/03/94 $33.06 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT HRG STS 226 10805 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 01/03/94 $47.88 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT BIDS PICK -UP 10804 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 01/03/94 $20.16 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT ORD 93 -12 10869 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 01/03/94 $67.26 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT HRG STREET VACATION 10868 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 142482 $168.36* 01/03/94 $947.27 MN PETRO SERV GAS CARD REPAIR 30536 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 142483 $947.27* 01/03/94 $140.00 MN STATE FIRE CHIEFS A DUES /FIRE DEPARTMENT 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN DUES & SUBSCRI 142484 $140.00* 01/03/94 $169.88 MN. BAR COST OF GOODS SOLD M 144426 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 142'485 $169.88* 01/03/94 $6,596.74 MOTOROLA INC SERVICE CONTRACT 59797324 POLICE DEPT. G SVC CONTR EQUI 142486 $6,596.74" 01/03/94 $347.22 MTS NW SOUND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 120517 ED BUILDING & PROF SERVICES 01/03/94 $452.63 MTS NW SOUND GENERAL SUPPLIES 120475 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 1857 01/03/94 $185.95 MTS NW SOUND GENERAL SUPPLIES 120530 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 142487 $985.80* 01/03/94 $75.00 MURPHY, MARLANE PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 011694 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142488 $75.00* 01/03/94 $55.00 MUZAK MUSIC 010194/C CENTENNIAL LAK SVC CONTR EQUI 01/03/94 $43.00 MUZAK MUSIC 010194/5 50TH ST SELLIN ADVERT OTHER COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 9 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01/03/94 $43.00 MUZAK MUSIC 010194/V VERNON SELLING ADVERT OTHER 142489 $141.00" 01/03/94 $195.00 MYRE, RICHARD UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142490 $195.00* 01/03/94 $238.20 NAME BRAND SPORTS UNIFORM SHIRTS 122293 CENTENNIAL LAK LAUNDRY 142491 $238.20* 01/03/94 $291.36 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 235655 CENTENNIAL LAK CST OF GO FOOD 01/03/94 $208.64 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD 237086 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 8366 142492 $500.00* 01/03/94 $120.00 NELSON, J THOMAS ART CENTER INSTRUCTO 122893 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 142493 $120.00* 01/03/94 $95.00 NFPA DUES /FIRE DEPARTMENT 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN DUES & SUBSCRI 142494 $95.00* 01/03/94 $517.19 NORTH STAR TURF GROOMER PARTS 703090 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 142495 $517.19* 01/03/94 $93.00 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 78232 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $204.60 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 78645 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 01/03/94 $55.20 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 78229 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 142496 $352.80* 01/03/94 $27.18 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPP COST OF GOODS SOLD 214078 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GO FOOD 1927 142497 $27.18* 01/03/94 $225.27 NOTT COMPANY REPAIR PARTS 1203896 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 2051 142498 $225.27* 01/03/94 $22,039.48 NSP LIGHT & POWER 121893 ST LIGHTING RE LIGHT & POWER 01/03/94 $3,105.91 NSP LIGHT & POWER 121893 ST LIGHTING OR LIGHT & POWER 01/03/94 $637.76 NSP LIGHT & POWER 1218 CLUB HOUSE LIGHT & POWER 142499 525,783.15* 01/03/94 $74.00 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 455796 CENTENNIAL LAK CST OF GD FOOD 142500 $74.00* 01/03/94 $05.70 P Q T COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 52978 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 142501 $65.70* 01/03/94 $227.00 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL FLU SHOTS 121393 FIRE DEPT. GEN PROF SERVICES 142502 $227.00* 01/03/94 $20.00 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD F 44103722 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 142503 $20.00* 01/03/94 $26.63 PINNACLE SIGNS & GRAPH GENERAL SUPPLIES 3775 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 1983 142504 526.63* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 10 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 01/03/94 $314.50 POISSON DESIGN GROUP REPLACE CHECK 013210 122093 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 142505 $314.50* 01/03/94 $28.00 POLAR PLUMBING REIMBURSEMENT /PERMIT 122393 GENERAL FD PRO PLUMBING PERMI 142506 $28.00* 01/03/94 $780.00 POSTMASTER BULK MAILING 122893 CENT SVC GENER POSTAGE 142507 $780.00* 01/03/94 $2,711.00 POSTMASTER ABOUT TOWN MAILING 122893 COMMUNICATIONS MAG /NEWSLET EX 142508 $2,711.00* 01/03/94 $186.38 PRINTERS SERV INC ZAMBONI BLADE 92186 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 142509 $186.38* 01/03/94 $390.00 RADJENOVICH, JOEL UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142510 $390.00* 01/03/94 $382.13 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4058 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 01/03/94 $28.12 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4061 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 142511 $410.25* 01/03/94 $132.90 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 73707 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $367.20 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 73812 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $852.55 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 73863 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 142512 $1,352.65* 01/03/94 $68.16 RIEDELL SHOES LACES 49526 POOL TRACK GRE GENERAL SUPPLI 142513 $68.16* 01/03/94 $703.10 ROAD RESCUE SQUAD SIREN PARTS 141187 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 142514 $703.10* 01/03/94 $390.00 ROBINSON, JAMES E UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142515 $390.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 ROTHE, ALLEN UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142516 $195.00* 01/03/94 $752.74 ROYAL BUSINESS FORMS AMBULANCE FORMS 95793 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 142517 $752.74* 01/03/94 $607.65 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON PLOW PARTS 0075437 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 142518 $607.65* 01/03/94 $195.00 RUNNING, PATRICK UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142519 $195.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 SAMUELSON, RONALD UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142520 $195.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 SCHEERER, MARTIN UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142521 $195.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 11 CHECK NO DATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 01/03/94 $167.52 SECOA GENERAL SUPPLIES 66036 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 142522 $167.52* 01/03/94 $120.00 SEIDEL, ROXANNE SERVICES EDINBOROUGH JAN 1994 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 142523 $120.00* 01/03/94 $75.00 SHASKIN, COLLEEN PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 010994 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142524 $75.00* 01/03/94 $125.73 SIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 84680 ED ADMINISTRAT GENERAL SUPPLI 1704 142525 $125.73* 01/03/94 $195.00 SIEMS, JEFFERY UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142526 $195.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 SINGLETON, JAMES UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142527 $195.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 SMEGAL, GREGORY UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142528 $195.00* 01/03/94 $177.12 SOUTHERN FOODSERVICE M MEAL TICKET /CONT ED/ 120993 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONF &- SCHOOLS 142529 $177.12* 01/03/94 $923.95 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 35365 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $978.15 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 35364 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 01/03/94 $545.00 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 25674 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 142530 $2,447.10* 01/03/94 $6,566.51 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CAB 1ST QUARTER 1994 101993 COMMUNICATIONS PRO SVC OTHER 142531 $6,566.51* 01/03/94 $525.00 SOUTHWESTERN TECHNICAL CONT ED /FIRE 122193 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONF & SCHOOLS 142532 $525.00* 01/03/94 $153.97 STATE FOREST TREE NURS PLANTINGS & TREES 122793 TREES & MAINTE PLANT & TREES 142533 $153.97* 01/03/94 $195.00 STRUZYK, JOSEPH UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142534 $195.00* 01/03/94 $16.65 SUN COMMUNITY DIRECTOR ADVERTISING /ART CENT 120693 ART CENTER ADM ADVERT OTHER 142535 $16.65* 01/03/94 $86.60 THE CONNECTION ADVERTISING OTHER 15237 ED ADMINISTRAT ADVERT OTHER 142536 $86.60* 01/03/94 $59.11 THE KANE SERVICE GUARD 5209482 POOL TRACK GRE PROF SERVICES 01/03/94 $118.22 THE KANE SERVICE GUARD 5224488 POOL TRACK GRE PROF SERVICES 142537 $177.33* 01/03/94 $425.50 THOMAS MOORE INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 19410 INSPECTIONS PROF SERVICES i I COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Dec 30 1993 02:59:17 Page 12 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142538 $425.50* 01/03/94 $195.00 TODD, DARRELL UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142539 $195.00* 01/03/94 $25.00 TRETTEL, KATHY PERFORM EDINBOROUGH 012094 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 142540 $25.00* 01/03/94 $797.52 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR OVERHEAD DOOR SPRING 27765 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 142541 $797.52* 01/03/94 $66.66 US WEST CELLULAR TELEPHONE 121093 COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 142542 $66.66* 01/03/94 $215.45 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 010394 CENTENNIAL LAK TELEPHONE 01/03/94 $50.90 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 010394 FIRE DEPT. GEN TELEPHONE 01/03/94 $105.98 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 010394 SKATING & HOCK TELEPHONE 01/03/94 $111.66 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 010394 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 01/03/94 $186.78 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 010394 SENIOR CITIZEN TELEPHONE 01/03/94 $176.76 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 010394 50TH ST OCCUPA TELEPHONE 142543 $847.53* 01/03/94 $22.90 US WEST PAGING PAGER FOR VINCE 01008282 PARK MAINTENAN TELEPHONE 142544 $22.90* 01/03/94 $100.00 USGA DUES 010294 GOLF ADMINISTR DUES & SUBSCRI 142545 $100.00* 01/03/94 $195.00 VERNON, RICHARD UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 122793 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 142546 $195.00* 01/03/94 $144.84 WALDOR PUMP & EQUIP REPAIR PARTS 27619 PUMP & LIFT ST REPAIR PARTS 2066 142547 $144.84* 01/03/94 $781.43 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 41130 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 142548 $781.43* 01/03/94 $257.85 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SAFETY EQUIPMENT 54188434 ED ADMINISTRAT SAFETY EQUIPME 142549 $257.85* $441,257.02 o ..o ' COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Thu Dec 30 1993 03:00:33 Page 1 -----------------------------------------------------------.--------------------------------------------------------------------- FUND # 10 GENERAL FUND $116,984.66 FUND # 12 COMMUNICATION $9,344.17 FUND # 15 WORKING CAPITAL $490.00 FUND # 23 ART CENTER $2,962.95 FUND # 27 GOLF COURSE $20,961.19 FUND # 28 ICE ARENA $3,298.09 FUND # 29 GUN RANGE $201.00 FUND # 30 EDINB /CENT LAKES $9,397.20 FUND # 40 UTILITY FUND $262,830.15 FUND # 50 LIQUOR FUND $14,787.61 $441,257.02 i