Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-05-16_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1994 7:00 P.M. 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 May 2, 1994 II. PAYMENT OF HRA CLAIMS as per pre -list dated 05/12/94 Total: $2,583.06 III. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION - Edina Covenant Church * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of Regular Council Meeting of May 2, 1994 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. Preliminary Rezoning - Planned Commercial District. PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District. R -1 to Planned Residence District. PRD -4 - 4101 West 50th Street, 5014, 5016 and 5024 Halifax Avenue B. Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Plat'for Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition - Outlot A, Parkwood Knolls 22nd Addition C. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Road Change Designation for Parklawn Avenue III. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS i Agenda Edina City Council May 16, 1994 Page Two IV. AWARD OF BIDS A. Chevrolet S -10 Pickup Truck - Park b Recreation Maintenance B. Chevrolet S -10 Pickup Truck - 'Braemar Golf Course C. Chevrolet 82500 3/4 Ton 4x4 Pickup Truck With Plow - Park & Recreation Maintenance D. 72^ Front Mount Lawn Mower Tractor E. Service Contract for Edina Aquatic Center F. One Ton 4 -Wheel Drive Pickup Truck - Street Department G. One Ton 2 -Wheel Drive Pickup Truck - Street Department H. One -Half Ton Pickup Truck - Utility Department I. Single Axle Dump Truck - Street Department J. Storm Water Pipe Repair R. 1994 -95 Goose Removal Contract V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS A. Approval of Traffic Safety Staff Report of May 3, 1994 B. Temporary 3.2 Beer License - MN Recreation & Park Association C. Minnesota Drive Cooperative Agreement - City of Bloomington D. Storm Water Projects Report E. I -494 Revised JPO Agreement VI. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES VII. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL VIII. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS IX. FINANCE A. Payment of Claims as per pre -list dated 05/12/94 Total: $1,028,666.39 and for confirmation of payment of Claims dated 05/05/94 Total: $347,246.96 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Wed May 25 AMM Annual Meeting Mon May 30 Mon June 6 Mon June 20 Mon July 4 Tues July 5 Mon July 18 MEMORIAL DAY - CITY HALL CLOSED Regular Council Meeting Regular Council Meeting INDEPENDENCE DAY - CITY HALL CLOSED Regular Council Meeting Regular Council Meeting 5:30 P.M. Edinburgh USA Golf Course, Brooklyn Park 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MAY 2, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by Commissioner Rice and vas seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the BRA Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF BRA MEETING OF APRIL 18. 1994, APPROVED Notion vas made by Commissioner Rice and was seconded by Commissioner Smith to approve the BRA Minutes of April 18, 1994, as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. CLAIMS PAID Commissioner Kelly made a motion to approve payment of the BRA claims as shove in detail on the Check Register dated April 27, 1994, and consisting of one page totaling $14,817.77. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. There being no further business on the HRA Agenda, Chairman Richards declared the meeting adjourned. Executive Director COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:43:21 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05/16/94 $1,766.35 BRW INC. PROF FEES ARCH AND E 03001 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO FEE ARCH /E 012564 $1,766.35* 05/16/94 $783.71 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURA PROF FEES ARCH AND E 94041511 GRANDVIEW PRO FEE ARCH /E 012565 $783.71* 05/16/94 $33.00 OLSON, GREG PARKING PERMIT REFUN 050994 50TH STREET PARKING PERMIT 012566 $33.00* $2,583.06 o RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION WHEREAS, the Edina Covenant Church was established by charter on May 17, _1944; WHEREAS, the congregation met temporarily at several locations and completed its permanent sanctuary at West 50th Street and Indianola Avenue in July 1947;. WHEREAS, the Edina Covenant Church has maintained a continuous presence at this location, seeking to minister to and serve this community; WHEREAS, Edina Covenant Church has shown commitment to the needs of the greater community by being involved with VEAP, Loaves and Fishes, and Habitat for Humanity; WHEREAS, the ministers of Edina Covenant Church have been active in the Edina Ministerial Association and have shown a spirit of cooperation with other churches in the community; WHEREAS, during the past fifty years Edina Covenant Church has seen its children and youth grow up in the congregation and go on to live productive lives in many places; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Frederick S. Richards, on behalf of the City Council and the citizens of Edina, do hereby extend greetings and appreciation to all members of Edina Covenant Church for their faithful service to the Edina community on the occasion of the: 50TH ANNIVERSARY - EDINA COVENANT CHURCH as it reflects on the past, celebrates the present and looks to the future. PROCLAIMED this 16th day of May, 1994. Mayor ,'f. Edina Covenant Chu' rcF ' 4201 - WEST 50TH STREET EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 JOHN H. SATTERBERG (612) 920 -9188 May 3, 1994 Mr. rcederick Richards, Mayor 4801 W. 50th Street Edina MN 55424 Dear Mr. Richards, May 17, 1994 marks the 50th anniversary of the chartering of Edina Covenant Church. The congregation met temporarily at the Riley Portable School (Drew and 51st)until 1945, and then at the Minnehaha Grange Hall until the present church building was completed at the corner of 50th Street and Indianola in July 1947. Since then the church has been a continuous presence at this location seeking to minister and serve in this community. We will be celebrating the anniversary with special observances on the weekend of May 21 -=22. If you would have time to send us a written greeting from the City of Edina for this occasion we would be most appreciative. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you very much. Sinrerely. John H. Satterberg MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL - MAY 2, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith to approve the Council Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards - Motion carried. *MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 18, 1994 APPROVED Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of April 18, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote; five ayes. *HEARING DATE SET FOR PLANNING MATTERS Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith setting May 16, 1994, as hearing date for the following planning matters: 1) Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Plat for Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition - Outlot A, Parkwood Knolls 22nd Addition 2) Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Road Change Designation for Parklawn Avenue. Motion carried on rollcall vote; five ayes. FINAL PLAT APPROVED FOR THE COVENTRY AT CENTENNIAL LAKES Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen recalled that preliminary plat approval for the 98 unit development at Centennial Lakes was granted on October 4, 1993, with final plat approval to be granted on a building by building basis. The four unit Phase I building was approved on November 1, 1993. The developers are now requesting final plat approval for the nine unit Phase II building. The number of units and footprint of the building are the same as approved in the preliminary plat. However, the sizes of individual units within the building have been adjusted to reflect market demand. Most notably unit number one is now a 52 foot wide, single level townhouse unit. Planner Larsen said that Peter Jarvis, proponent, was present to respond to questions. Member Smith introduced and moved adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR THE COVENTRY AT CENTENNIAL LAKES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "THE COVENTRY AT CENTENNIAL LAKES ", platted by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota; Centennial Land Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, an undivided 91.43% interest; and John W. Hedberg and Jean M. Hedberg, husband and wife, an undivided 8.57% interest, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of May 2, 1994, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. BID AWARDED FOR AOIIATIC'WEED HARVESTING - MILL POND/ARROWHEAD LAKE Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for aquatic weed harvesting of the Mill Pond and Arrowhead Lake to recommended low bidder, Midwest Aqua Care, at $13,310.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. BID AWARDED FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS LIABILITY INSURANCE Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for public officials liability insurance to recommended low bidder, National Union Fire Insurance, at $16,560.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes., BID AWARDED FOR POLICE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for police professional liability insurance to recommended.low bidder, St. Paul Companies, at $32,195.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. BID AWARDED FOR WALK -IN COOLER - NORMANDAI.E GOLF COURSE Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for a walk -in cooler for Normandale Golf Course to recommended low bidder, Hospitality Supply, at $5,236.61. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. BID AWARDED FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABINET AND CONTROLLER Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith for award of bid for one,traffic signal cabinet and controller to recommended low bidder, Brown Traffic Products, Inc., at $9,240.05. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. FINDINGS ADOPTED: PERMIT GRANTED TO KEEP EXTRA DOG AT 4111 WEST 62ND STREET Sanitarian Velde informed Council that Vivian Yarwood, 4111 West 62nd Street, had submitted an application to keep four dogs at her address. On April 22, 1994, notice was sent to all properties within 200 feet of the subject property advising them that the Council would consider, the request at a public hearing this date. It was noted that written objection was received from Arne Twedt, 4246 Valley View Road, and letters in support were received from Nancy Tighe, 6224 Peacedale Avenue, and Jill Barrett and Kathleen Burke, 6220 Peacedale Avenue. Sanitarian Velde presented findings of fact that the proposed permit would: A. Not be a nuisance. B. Not be detrimental to the public health and safety of the applicant or other persons in-the vicinity. Conclusion: 1. The procedural requirements of the Ordinance have been met. 2. The permit should be granted as requested. 3. Conditions or restrictions applicable to this permit: All dogs must be licensed pursuant to Edina City Ordinance No. 300. The barking of the dogs must be controlled to prevent a neighborhood nuisance. The applicant shall not replace any pets and eventually attain the limit of no more than three dogs and /or cats through attrition. 4. This permit shall be effective May 2, 1994, however, this permit shall lapse and be of no effect unless all conditions and restrictions are observed, the applicant observes all City Ordinances applicable to the keeping of dogs and cats, and the keeping of the dogs and cats is not in violation of the Edina Zoning Ordinance which prohibits a kennel as a business in the Residential Zone. 1i 1- 1 Vivian Yarwood, 4111 West 62nd Street, applicant, told Council that the dogs are well taken care of, are trained, walked, and brought inside when they bark. She said she is a good pet owner and will do what she can so they are not a nuisance to the neighbors. Mayor Richards asked Ms. Yarwood if she not replace any of the dogs so that the will be attained through attrition. Ms. with that condition. agreed to the condition that she would allowed limit of no more than three dogs Yarwood said she understood and agreed Mayor Richards asked for public comment on the findings to grant the permit. No comments or objections were heard. Member Rice mentioned that his parents have lived across the street from the subject property for some thirty years and have never indicated that the dogs were a problem.. Member Rice made a motion to adopt the findings as presented and to grant a permit, subject to the conditions stated in the findings, to Vivian Yarwood to keep four dogs at 4111 Vest 62nd Street as specified in the permit application. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. ON -SALE VINE LICENSE AND 3.2 BEER LICENSE APPROVED FOR SIDNEY'S PIZZA CAFE Manager Rosland advised that the City has received applications for an On -Sale Wine License and a 3.2 Beer License from Sidney's of Edina, Inc., dba Sidney's Pizza Cafe, 3520 Galleria, a new restaurant opening in early July. The applications have been reviewed by the Police, Health and Planning Departments and the necessary investigations have been conducted. Staff would recommend issuance of the requested licenses. Mayor Richards called for public comment on the applications for an on -sale wine license and 3.2 beer license. No public comment or objection was heard. Member Rice made a motion to approve issuance of an On -Sale Vine License and a 3.2 Beer License to Sidney's of Edina, Inc., dba Sidney's Pizza Cafe at 3520 Galleria. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. ADVERTISING IN ABOUT TOWN MAGAZINE DISCUSSED Manager Rosland recalled that several weeks ago the Council asked that the issue of soliciting advertising in the City's About Town magazine be placed on an upcoming agenda for discussion. He said that staff has not been actively seeking advertisements to be placed in the magazine because staff felt the cost for the ads, which is expensive, should be totally covered by the advertiser. Member Smith suggested that the magazine always carry an announcement as to whom to contact if anyone is interested in placing an advertisement so that it would be open to all. Member Kelly commented that she had raised the question because the last issue had only contained two ads which may have looked like preferential treatment. Upon being told that anyone could place an ad, she had felt that was not the image being projected. She said she objected to including advertisements because the cost of - producing the magazine is being paid from cable franchise fees and she considered it a gift to the community. However, Member Kelly said she would go along with the wishes of the Council. Hearing no other comment or objection, Mayor Richards suggested that staff continue as in the past with advertising in About Town. POLICY PRINCIPLE STATEMENTS FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY CONNUNITY PREVENTION COALITION APPROVED Manager Rosland reminded Council that the City of Edina has been a member of the Community Prevention Coalition (CPC) for Hennepin County for several years. The Coalition was formed to reduce alcohol, tobacco and other drug problems in Hennepin County and has developed a five year plan which include six long -range goals to provide overall direction for the work of CPC. Policy Principles have been developed by the Community Policy Action Group that relate primarily to Goal 3: Communities in Hennepin County will establish clear and consistent norms, standards and policies related to youth chemical use. Both the Edina Chemical Health Advisory Committee and the Human Relations Commission have reviewed and recommend approval of the following 1994 Policy Principle Statement: 1. Develop and sustain community -based initiatives that value cultural strengths and both: a. promote positive opportunities and environments for children, adolescents and families; and b. provide coordinated educational and program efforts which directly discourage use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. 2. Provide adequate and consistent funding to assist communities in: a. promoting positive opportunities and environments for children, adolescents, and families; and b. providing coordinated efforts to directly discourage use of tobacco, alcohol and other drugs. 3. Provide adequate and consistent funding for the full continuum of services needed by youth and families experiencing problems related to chemical use. 4. Reduce underage access to alcohol and tobacco products. 5. Reduce advertising and promotions of alcohol and tobacco products, especially those targeting or impacting specific groups, such as: - Children, adolescents, and young adults - Low income neighborhoods - Communities of color. 6. Reduce involuntary exposure to the harmful effect of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs, such as: - Reducing exposure to secondhand smoke - Reducing prenatal exposure to these drugs. 7. Reduce instances of driving while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, especially those involving or impacting youth. 8. Reduce consumption of alcohol and tobacco products, especially by young people, by adopting policies that increase prices, such as: - Increasing state and federal excise taxes - Increasing licensing fees to improve monitoring and enforcement of existing laws governing product sale and use. Betsy Flaten, Human.Relations Commission member, spoke to questions of the Council. She explained that the goal of the CPC is youth focused as especially stated in principle number five and would not be directed at advertising by the Edina Liquor Stores. She added that the Edina community has been very involved in the CPC, not only by the Chemical Health Advisory Committee but also in providing leadership in reaching out beyond our boundaries. Z I Member Smith made a motion to approve and support the 1994 Policy Principle Statement for the Community Prevention Coalition of Hennepin County as presented. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *HEARING DATE OF JUNE 6. 1994, SET FOR ARROWHEAD LAKE FISH STOCKING /AERATION Motion was made by Member Rice and was seconded by Member Smith setting June 6, 1994, as hearing date to consider the request by the Arrowhead Lake Improvement Association for fish stocking and aeration equipment. Motion carried on rollcall vote, five ayes. POLICY DISCUSSED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY STORMWATER PROJECTS Engineer Hoffman recalled that in November 1993, the Council expanded its stormwater utility program to include a grant program that would provide flood reduction projects on individual sites with a $50,000.00 budget for 1994. Until November 1993, the stormwater utility program covered normal maintenance, reconstruction of existing systems or providing general stormwater improvements to neighborhoods with existing systems. Conditions for grant funding would include an individual contribution by the property owner in the range of 758 City and 258 individual. In addition, if the grant were approved a covenant would be placed on the property that would run with the land and hold harmless and indemnify the City for and against any potential claims related to the measures undertaken through the program. Under the grant program, flood reduction efforts as recommended by-the City Engineer may include, but are not limited to, any of the following: a. Filling, grading and sodding /seeding around point of water entry. b. Adding or modifying window cells. c. Eliminating basement windows and /or substituting glass blocks. d. Replacing large basement windows or doors with smaller windows. E. Building concrete or treated wood block wall dikes /planters. Other improvements, such as curb or driveway raising at street to prevent water entry or installation of a pump control, -would not fall under the grant program but would be considered a general public improvement to be paid from the utility fund. Engineer Hoffman told Council that to date four property owners are seeking assistance. However, discussions have slowed because of the individual cost participation and the covenant agreement. Not all have been single family properties; some involve townhouse associations or corporations. Staff has reviewed the cases with the viewpoint that each be treated individually based on the specific circumstances for each site. In some cases, individual property owners have reluctantly agreed to 50$/50$ cost sharing, but some feel that the City ought to provide financial assistance at 100 %. Others have asked if their share could be specially assessed. Staff would like further input from the Council prior to completing final recommendations for individual projects to bring to Council for approval. Member Smith asked if engineering advice would be a part of the program. Engineer Hoffman answered that on the more difficult projects City engineering staff would help the property owner find a contractor, or engineer if needed, and would then assist by working with that contractor to see that the project is done properly. Some of the properties that have been reviewed are at or just above the 100 year flood elevation and the goal would be to attain a 258 volume increase (additional foot above the 100 year flood elevation) in those backyards. t Engineer Hoffman pointed out that the grant program would not attempt to address regional flood reduction along creeks in the City. He noted that homes along Nine Mile Creek were generally built above the published flood elevation and little change is anticipated. However, homes along Minnehaha Creek were built years prior to flood insurance studies and many are two to three feet below the flood elevation. Staff will continue to work with the watershed districts to develop regional flood reduction programs for those homes. Hearing no further comment, Mayor Richards said staff should proceed with the grant program as presented and for each individual site bring a recommendation to Council for approval. Also, the grant applicant should.be notified so that the applicant can appear before Council to speak to the recommendation. SHeRPA COMKQNITY SERVICE PRIORITIES REPORT PRESENTED Member Smith presented a the Community Service Priorities report of the South Hennepin Regional Planning Agency (SHeR.PA). He told Council that the report was the product of both the Youth and Family Task Force and the Developmental Disabilities Task Force which were created in 1993 to provide input and recommendations on human service priorities. Task force members represented a broad range of users and providers of services, school professionals and other stakeholders in the four South Hennepin communities. Member Smith said the report was presented to the division managers of the Hennepin County Adult and Family Children Services on April 28, 1994. In addition, it is hoped that the report can be presented to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners in the fall when they deliberate their 1995 budget. CLAIMS PAID Member Smith made a motion to approve payment of the following claims as shown.in detail on the Check Register dated April 27, 1994, and consisting of 25 pages: General Fund $146,465.08, C.D.B.G. $64.00, Communication $23,813.85, Working Capital $1,218.31, Art Center $13,197.96, Swimming Pool $514.48, Golf Course $106,727.12, Ice Arena $2,860.48, Gum Range $321.86, Edinborough /Centennial Lakes $20,910.55, Utility Fund $282,704.34, Storm Sewer $719.58, Liquor Fund $57,665.81, Construction Fund $1,556.98, IBR #2 Fund $1,193.75, TOTAL $659,934.15. Motion was seconded by Member Rice. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 7:55 P.M. City Clerk A. o e u o iun• REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland From: Craig Larsen Date: May 16, 1994 Subject: Z-94-1, Preliminary Rezoning, PCD -4, an R -1 to PRD -4, Plan- ned Residence Dis- trict, 4101 West 50th St., 5014, 5016,5024 Halifax. Agenda Item # II. A. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA 7X To Council Action ❑ Motion Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Preliminary Rezoning approval subject to: 1. Final Rezoning 2. Replatting 3. Amendment of Comprehensive Plan 4. Amendment of the 50th and France Plan 5. Vacation of Alley 6. Watershed District grading permit Info/Background- The subject proposal was considered and tabled by the council at their April 18, 1994, meeting. The proponents have returned with a revised plan for council consideration. The revised plan illustrates a three story 24 unit building, compared to the earlier 26 unit building. The width of the building remains the same, but overall building length has been reduced by 25 feet to a new length of 210 feet. Lot coverage is now 29.9 %, or slightly below the allowable 30% coverage. The proposal illustrates 36 under building parking spaces and 16 surface spaces. The parking provided conforms with ordinance requirements. The proposed density conforms to zoning ordinance requirements and to the 50th and France Redevelopment Plan. The proposed plan continues to request a setback variance from Halifax Avenue. The proposed setback varies from 21 feet at the northeasterly corner to 35 feet at the southeasterly building corner. The proposed building height is 36 feet, thus a 36 foot setback is required by ordinance. All other building and parking setbacks comply with ordinance standards. The proposed building would have an all brick and stucco exterior with a shingle mansard roof line. The mansard treatment does increase building height, but also adds a residential look and serves to screen mechanical equipment on the roof. The revised building plan reduces building height by three feet, to 36 feet. Along the southerly property line the parking setback has been increased from 10 to 30 feet. This area could be heavily landscaped. N 0 e ``' En 0 � lose REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland From: Craig Larsen Date: May 16, 1994 Subject: Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval for Park - wood Knolls 24th Addition. Parkwood Knolls Const., Harve Hansen. Recommendation: Agenda Item #1J. B Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr.- Recommends ❑ To HRA 0 To Council Action ❑ Motion 0 Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the proposed rezoning and subdivision request. Info /Background: The subject proposal was considered by the Commission at their March 30, and April 27, 1994, meetings. In addition to the above mentioned recommendation, the commission took action on two key elements of the proposal. First, the commission voted to recommend that Interlachen Boulevard be extended to Malibu Drive. Second, the commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed rezoning to allow townhouses and zero lot line single dwelling lots. Details of these recommendations are contained in the April 27, 1994, commission draft minutes. Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 Page 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT HELD ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1994, 7:30 P.M. EDINA COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman, Gordon Johnson, Ann Swenson, Lorelei Bergman, Charles Ingwalson, Geof Workinger, David Runyan, Helen McClelland, Lee Johnson, David Byron, Nan Faust, Robert Hale STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, Fran Hoffman, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner McClelland moved approval of the March 30, 1994, meeting minutes subject to the addition to the motion to include requesting the Park Board to give input regarding the proposed "tot park" for Van Valkenburg Park. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. 11. OLD BUSINESS: Z- 94- 2/S -94 -1 Preliminary Rezoning, R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2, Planned Residence District and Preliminary Plat Approval, Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition, Outlot A, Parkwood Knolls 22nd Addition. Harvey Hansen, Parkwood Knolls Construction Company Mr. Larsen reminded the Commission at their. last meeting this issue was tabled for comments from the City Engineer regarding traffic circulation and roadway layout. Mr. Larsen added Mr. Hoffman is present to respond to questions and concerns. Mr. Larsen said late this afternoon staff -was presented with two alternatives for realignment of Interlachen Boulevard to allow direct access to the park. With graphics Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 ® Page 2 Mr. Larsen presented the alternatives, and indicated a preference for Alternative A. The proponents, Mr. Harvey Hansen, and Mr. Carl Hansen Jr. were present. Mr. Roger Anderson, engineer was present representing Mr. Hansen. Interested residents were present. Mr. Hoffman explained to the Commission the history of Parkwood Knolls, and with graphics pointed out trip generations within Western Edina, while explaining the differences between local and collector streets. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman said in the early 70's a concern within this area was noted because of increased development the road configurations directed traffic in /out to /from the east. Mr. Hoffman related a task force was formed to study the traffic issues within this area and western Edina, with the knowledge that eventually the entire vacant area owned by Carl Hansen Sr. would fie developed. Mr. Hoffman pointed out this fact was the motivating force behind the City's request for a- master plan for the remainder of the undeveloped Hansen land. In 1978, coinciding with the approval of Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition the City received and approved a master plan extending Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Hoffman explained the city indicated to Mr. Hansen its desire for as many access points into, and out of this area. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman noted that roadways can be controlled with signage and curves, pointing out the original configuration of Interlachen Boulevard extended contained a sharp curve. Mr. Hoffman added engineering studies support the fact that people usually utilize a route that gets them to their destination in the shortest amount of time. Commissioner McClelland clarified when the task force studied roadway alternatives relating to Parkwood Knolls they did not know where the county was going to construct the egress for highway 18, now 169. Commissioner Ingwalson referred to the traffic counts pointed out by Mr. Hoffman, and inquired if he has any idea where the vehicles are going that use the Londonderry access. Mr. Hoffman responded he believes much of that traffic is going to and from Opus. Continuing, Mr. Hoffman explained during the 70's the Council studied not only Parkwood Knolls but a larger portion of western Edina. At one time the council "toyed" with the idea of cul de sacing Vernon Avenue to prevent drive - through. After much study the Council decided "you can't keep everyone out ". Mr. Hoffman explained it has been City policy if a resident needs to travel a short distance, city streets should be used. Mr. Hoffman reflected when Dovre Drive was put through there was a concern from the neighbors that the "flood gates" would open and everyone would be passing through via Dovre. That concern did not materialize. Commissioner Johnson noted the 8,600 vehicle trip count along Interlachen Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 1 Page 3 Boulevard and asked Mr. Hoffman if he could guess how many of those vehicles may cut through the neighborhood. Mr. Hoffman said he can not fix a number on this. He added some people will find a way to wander through the neighborhood, but not everyone will. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Hoffman when Malibu Drive was put through.did the City discover any traffic problems. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged the traffic flow did increase on'Malibu Drive, but pointed out a check of license plates indicated those using Malibu Drive were immediate residents, and all traffic violations on this street were issued to Edina residents. Mr. Hoffman pointed out traffic may have decreased elsewhere within the neighborhood as a result of the extension of Malibu Drive. Mr. Hoffman indicated the City's goal is to equally disperse traffic throughout the area. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Hoffman if he lived on Willow Wood Road how would he get to Vernon Avenue. Mr. Hoffman stated depending on were you live on Willow Wood Road, one would take either Parkwood Road /Blake Road to Vernon or a combination of Parkwood Road /Stauder Circle /Schaefer Road to Vernon Avenue. Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Hoffman which revised scenario he prefers, Alternative 1, Interlachen Boulevard extended at a more circuitous route, or alternative 2, cul de sacing Interlachen Boulevard and "T "ing it off Green Farms Road. Mr. Hoffman said when he viewed the alternatives presented this evening he preferred Alternative 1 . Commissioner Faust commented on the topography within the site and questioned Mr. Hoffman on his comfort level regarding road grade. Mr. Hoffman stated the City recommends a grade of no more than 7 %. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged there are steeper grades within the City, but any increase over 7% would require Council approval. Commissioner Mcclelland commented in her .opinion the original proposal presented in 1978 depicting Interlachen Boulevard "hugging" Van Valkenburg Park is preferable to the plans presented this evening. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Hoffman if he knows the grade of Interlachen Boulevard on the original 1978 plat. Mr. Hoffman indicated the preliminary plat for 1978 contained a 5 1/2% grade for Interlachen Boulevard. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Hoffman if Interlachen Boulevard is extended how many more trips will be generated on this street. Mr. Hoffman indicated he believes trip generations will increase by at least 2000 + vehicles. 1) Edina Planning Commission Ap ril 27 1994 Page 4 Mr. Harvey Hansen addressed the Commission explaining the proposals before them this evening contain two. alternatives, one is to extend Interlachen Boulevard differently from previously submitted, and a second alternative to cul de. sac Interlachen Boulevard, and extend it in a "T" form off of Green Farms Road. Continuing, Mr. Hansen said the density in 1978 was 91 housing units, versus the density presented in the 1994 proposal which is 95 units. Chairman Johnson observed the proposal(s) before us this evening would place the "tot park" in the wetlands. Mr. Hoffman explained in the Park Board Plan, Jupiter and Beyond, there is no park design, or location pinpointed, but there is reference to the construction of a "tot park ", and walking trails. Mr. Hoffman pointed out many of the wetlands depicted on the plat are actually "grasslands ", and playground equipment can work around this. Commissioner Byron told the Chairman and Commission he will be abstaining from the discussion and the vote on this issue. Mr. Anderson explained in 1980 Barr Engineering did a storm management plan and that plan has been implemented and incorporated into the proposal. This plat also addresses the wetland act. Mr. Anderson commented that to date all wetlands have been surveyed and identified, pointing out in 1978 the plan was not sensitive to the wetlands. Mr. Anderson concluded that mitigation is provided as required by law. Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Larsen how many variances would be required from the wetlands. Mr. Larsen explained the wetlands within this area fall under the classification of avoidance. There is no setback from the wetlands, they are to be avoided. Mr. Dale Renner, 6321 Interlachen Boulevard introduced himself explaining he is a neighborhood co -chair and represents a number of residents who reside in the impacted neighborhood. He continued by asserting it is their goal to share with the Commission their issues and concerns. Mr. Renner said he has broken down concerns into three categories. 1)extension of Interlachen Boulevard with Malibu Drive; 2)Rezoning; 3)Density and its threat to the ecosystem. . Mr. Ted Pier, 5021 Ridge Road, explained his presentation is focusing on the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Pier said he does not support the extension of Interlachen Boulevard, adding at one time city staff and the special task force did not support its' extension. Continuing, Mr. Pier said an increase in traffic volume will occur, and as a result of the road extension traffic will increase, which will adversely impact the neighborhood. Mr. Pier said in his opinion this neighborhood has a Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 Page 5 "country living" flavor, and the width of Interlachen Boulevard does not support the increase in traffic volume. Mr. Pier pointed out in certain sections along Interlachen Boulevard there is no room to park vehicles on the street. Mr. Pier said Interlachen Boulevard can not in its present state support the increase in traffic. Mr. Pier added he believes the 2000 + figure presented by Mr. Hoffman is conservative at best. Continuing, Mr. Pier stated in his opinion if Interlachen Boulevard is allowed to extend to Malibu Drive the following will happen: 1)decrease in property values, 2)increase in traffic noise, 3)increase in traffic, and 4)creation of dangerous living /driving situations. Concluding Mr. Pier stated if the Commission would study the report generated by the Task Force they also would come to the conclusion that Interlachen Boulevard should not be extended and would deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan that depicts Interlachen Boulevard extended to Malibu Drive. Mr. Edward Glickman 5217 Schaefer Road, addressed the Commission informing them he will respond to the zoning portion of the proposal. Mr. Glickman pointed out the number of housing units depicted on the submitted plan exceed the 1978 preliminary plat by four. Mr. Glickman added the current plans contains more dwelling units than originally proposed and are located on lots that are inconsistent in size with the established Parkwood Knolls neighborhood. Mr. Glickman explained the current plan includes townhouses and zero lot lines houses, this inclusion reduces the square footage of the remaining single dwelling unit lots. Mr. Glickman asserted the reasons for rezoning in this situation fail to meet the legal requirements. Any rezoning within this exclusively single dwelling unit neighborhood compromises the neighborhoods character and symmetry, which violates the law. Mr. Glickman stated the requested change in zoning must be a mistake. The only reason for this rezoning request is to maximize the developers profit. Mr. Tom Seitz, 6320 Interlachen Boulevard, addressed the commission and told them he will address the wetland portion of this proposal. Mr. Seitz explained the density of the proposal threatens the fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Mr. Seitz said the developer needs to prepare a comprehensive plan identifying the wetlands as they relate to the. plat. Mr. Seitz explained after the comprehensive plan is completed it is required to be submitted to the appropriate agencies. This plan should include a grading and drainage plan, wetland definition map, and storm water holding plan. Mr. Seitz noted there must also be a three step mitigation process. Mr. Dale Renner addressed the Commission and summarized the points presented thus far: 1)cul de sac Interlachen Boulevard and the redesign of roadways within the development, 2)density reduction, and denial of townhouse, and zero lot line portion of the plat, 3) recommendation that all required plans be reviewed and approved by the appropriate environmental agencies before development begins. Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 Page 6 Commissioner McClelland explained to Mr. Renner with regards to the ecosystem approval, the Nine Mile Watershed District receives the plans after the City exercises its authority. All approvals follow City approvals. Mr. Renner stated he wants some assurance the wetland plans will be reviewed. Commissioner McClelland stated those plans will be reviewed not only by the City Engineering Department, but other appropriate agencies. Commissioner Workinger asked Mr. Larsen for clarification on setbacks from the wetlands. Mr. Larsen reiterated in this situation the requirement is to avoid contact. There is no setback. Mr. Larsen pointed out a number of the wetlands that are depicted wetlands are generally dry, grassy areas. Commissioner Johnson stated his concern is focused on impact to the topography. Commissioner Johnson pointed out the east side of Kelsey has a very steep slop and suggested reversing the road pattern presented. Commissioner Johnson noted presently the location of Kelsey Terrace works against the terrain. He added in his opinion Kelsey Terrace should be located along the rim of the ravine and Castle Court and Kelsey Court should be flipped. Continuing, Commissioner Johnson stated he feels the original configuration of Interlachen Boulevard worked better. Commissioner Johnson expressed another concern of his regards the through lots along Cougar Trail. Commissioner Johnson stated he has a problem with double frontage lots. Commissioner Johnson remarked he is not convinced this layout is treating the site with sensitivity. He stated his concern is not with the extension of Interlachen Boulevard, adding he believes it should be extended in some manner. Concluding Commissioner Johnson pointed out townhouse living is a identified living preference for a number of persons, and suggested the townhouse development be limited to the number of single family homes that could be constructed within the same area. Commissioner Runyan questioned Mr. Hoffman on the mitigation plan. Mr. Hoffman explained after the city has approved the proposal the plat will enter a sequencing process with the appropriate agencies. All wetlands will need to be identified, mitigation identified, and avoidance indicated. Chairman Johnson questioned if Traffic Safety has made a recommendation. Mr. Hoffman explained in our review we went under the assumption that Interlachen Boulevard would be extended. Rescue units usually prefer to travel on collector streets as much as possible before, switching to local streets. Commissioner Hale questioned if Interlachen Boulevard is not extended what Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 Page 7 differences would occur to the roads depicted in the plat. Mr. Hoffman explained the engineer for the proponent would probably have to redesign the roadway system and submit it to us for approval. . Commissioner McClelland said she has a concern with regards to adequate park access and reiterated the original alignment of Interlachen Boulevard allowed adequate park access. Commissioner McClelland questioned why the fence was constructed, observing it appears to "keep out" the neighbors. Mr. Hoffman explained that this park is a designated adult ball field. The fence is for the protection of the neighbors. It is to prevent trespass into their properties from fans -who are present to watch the ball games. Commissioner Hale stated he has a problem with addressing the plat if the Commission hasn't decided on what to do with Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. George Parker, 4917 Ridge Road, stated he has been a resident of the neighborhood for a number of years. He pointed out at best it is difficult to pull out on to Interlachen Boulevard from Ridge Road because of the grade change. Mr. Parker stated he would prefer that Interlachen Boulevard be cul de saced. He concluded in his opinion if Interlachen Boulevard is allowed to be extended to Malibu Drive the City will have to make Interlachen a three or four lane road. Mr. Webster questioned the task force that was referred to and questioned who were the people who served on the task force. Ms. Betsy Robinson, 5021 Ridge Road, told the Commission that within this area many changes have occurred including the addition of 201 apartment units, the development .of Van Valkenburg Park, the completion of highway 169, and the metered system that is implemented on freeway entrances. Ms. Robinson stated a few stop signs will not stop people from cutting through the neighborhood to avoid those metered entrances. Mr. Bill Kane, 5222 Green Farms Road stated as a matter of security Interlachen Boulevard should not be allowed to be extended. Mr. Kane said it is common knowledge that when entrance into a neighborhood is easily gained, security is lost. Mr. Andy Winkin, 5112 Ridge Road, commented when viewing the proposed alignment of Interlachen Boulevard the tot park would be located in the water. Continuing, Mr. Winkin questioned why a City would construct a "tot" park on a busy collector street. Mr. Rusnak, 6232 Idylwood Lane, said in his opinion the first priority of the City �Ij Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 e Page 8 is to provide safety for its residents. The extension of Interlachen Boulevard destroys the feeling of safety. Continuing, Mr. Rusnak stated he is also opposed to the development of townhouses in a single family neighborhood. Mr. Chuck Webster, 6645 Interlachen Boulevard pointed out Mr. Hansen has indicated he is neutral on the extension of Interlachen Boulevard and questioned the City on the reason(s) for support of the extension. Mr. P. Manthy, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, observed that things change and questioned what will happen in the future when the freeways are overcrowded. Mr. Manthy said using collector street will be the solution. Mr.Manthy said in his opinion Interlachen Boulevard is not an appropriate collector street, it is too narrow. Mr. Renner interjected and questioned Mr. Larsen how the neighborhood goes about amending the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Larsen said the neighborhood would have to go through the public hearing process, but it is difficult at this time because there is a proposal before us to extend Interlachen Boulevard differently than depicted in the Comprehensive Plan, and until the Council makes the decision the outcome is unknown. Mr. Larsen reiterated technically the Comprehensive Plan recognizes Interlachen Boulevard as extended. Commissioner McClellalid in response to a question from a resident explained the task force that was formed was mostly comprised of residents from Issue Area #2. Commissioner McClelland pointed out in the future MNDOT will install lights on all entrance ramps onto highways so cutting through the neighborhoods to avoid the signal lights will not work because all entrances within the near future will be lighted. Mr. Fisher, 6223 Idylwood Lane, said in his opinion there is no compelling reason to connect Interlachen Boulevard. He concluded if Interlachen Boulevard is connected the neighborhood ,will be ruined. Mr. Hansen requested that a decision be made so that he can finalize the plat. Without a decision from the Commission the Council will not be able to act. Commissioner Faust questioned Mr. Hoffman if Interlachen. Boulevard is not connected how would the traffic be handled. Mr. Hoffman said it is possible that Kelsey Terrace and Willow Wood road would see an increase in traffic, but Mr. Hansen would need to reconfigure some of the proposed new roadways. Commissioner Faust suggested winding Interlachen Boulevard through the neighborhood to create a more meandering route. Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 Page 9 Chairman Johnson inquired if Mr Hoffman believes Interlachen Boulevard can handle the additional traffic. Mr. Hoffman said Interlachen Boulevard will be able to handle the projected increase in traffic. Mr. Hoffman pointed out Wooddale Avenue is similar in width, and handles more traffic. Mr. Hoffman said the City recently added stop signs throughout the Country Club neighborhood to prevent drive, through problems. Mrs. Fruckman, 6405 Interlachen Boulevard, said she has a 1 1/2 acre lot and in her opinion this development is destroying prime property in Edina. Mr. Ken Durr, 4830 Westgate Road,. told the Commission he currently owns a number of vacant lots in Edina, and has constructed a number of homes in the Interlachen Heights subdivision. Mr. Durr explained when his buyers purchased his lots, and he constructed their homes, he assured them the vacant area in Parkwood Knolls is zoned for single dwelling homes. Mr. Durr said in his, opinion the immediate impacted properties will be devalued as a result of the construction of townhouses and zero lot line dwellings. Mr. Durr concluded in his opinion the extension of Interlachen Boulevard is also a detriment to the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Todd Fertell, 4925 Ridge Road, stated he believes after listening to the discussion it is his opinion that the City has not done its homework, just because Interlachen Boulevard is extended in the Comprehensive Plan does not mean the plan is right in todays world. Mr. Fertell concluded nothing he has heard this evening has changed his opinion regarding his opposition to the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. Commissioner Ingwalson moved to recommend denial of the plans as presented. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. Commissioner Hale suggested that the developer come back with a plan that extends Interlachen Boulevard through to Cougar Trail. Commissioner Swenson questioned if Interlachen Boulevard is extended to Cougar Trail instead of Malibu Drive won't it still be a through street. Commissioner Hale said it would not be a through street. A discussion ensued regarding the realignment of Interlachen Boulevard. It was suggested by commission members that a separate vote by taken on Interlachen Boulevard extended. After discussion Commissioner Ingwalson withdrew his motion. Commissioner Ingwalson stated in his opinion Interlachen Boulevard should not be put through as requested and multi- housing should not be per in this area. Chairman Johnson suggested breaking up the motions between the plat and the pRpEi Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 . Page 10 IPextension of Intechen Boulevard. Commissioner Ingwalson moved to amend the Comprehensive Plan to not allow the extension of Interlachen Boulevard to Malibu Drive. Commissioner Bergman seconded the motion. Ayes; Faust, Ingwalson, Bergman, G. Johnson. Nays; Hale, L. Johnson, McClelland, Runyan, Workinger, Swenson. Abstain, Byron. Motion failed 6 -4. Chairman Johnson clarified for commission members that a aye vote recommends denial of Interlachen Boulevard extended and a nay vote recommends it extension. Mr. Hansen interjected he would like to see this proposal go forward to the council. Mr. Hansen stated he needs direction on the roadways, and added when he viewed this remaining piece of land his thoughts were this is the last large piece of undeveloped land in Edina and he designed it to "have something for everyone ". Mr. Hansen pointed out the market has been friendly for alternative choices in housing. Mr. Hansen concluded his wish is to have this proposal go before the council with a vote for approval or denial. Commissioner Johnson said he feels the council should be informed of our opinions. Continuing, Commissioner Johnson said regarding the extension of Interlachen Boulevard, that in his opinion it should be extended, but not necessarily the way it has been depicted, but in some fashion. Commissioner Johnson added it is our responsibility, and for sound planning reasons, that the present and future residents have as many ways to get into and out of their neighborhood. The proposed 91 + (or whatever the number finally is) new properties require the access points to enter and exit their neighborhood, and should have adequate access to Malibu Drive and Blake Road. Continuing, Commissioner Johnson said in his opinion this neighborhood should have the opportunity to go both ways. He reiterated while he does not believe Interlachen Boulevard needs to be extended in a straight shot a circuitous extension, or some other configuration may be the answer. Commissioner Johnson restated he feels the new property owners and the residents along Ridge Road, etc. should be able to leave their neighborhood with the option of at least two ways in and out. Commissioner Workinger agreed with Commissioner Johnsons comments that we cannot deny a new neighborhood access points into and out of their neighborhood. Commissioner Workinger pointed out with road configuration, and signage Interlachen Boulevard can be extended in a safe manner. Concluding, Commissioner Workinger stated with proper planning everyone within the neighborhood should have the opportunity to get into and out their neighborhood. Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 Page 11 Commissioner Bergman stated she seconded the motion because she is acting on what is presented. Commissioner Bergman said if Interlachen is extended the plat should contain only single family homes, and Interlachen Boulevard should be extended as originally proposed in 1978. Commissioner Faust stated in her opinion if Interlachen Boulevard is extended it should be extended in a more circuitous fashion. She added she can understand the concerns expressed by residents that if it is extended it will be used as a cut through street. Commissioner Faust acknowledged she probably would use Interlachen Boulevard if it was extended. Commissioner Hale moved to recommend that Interlachen Boulevard be extended to Cougar Trail and that no multi- housing units be allowed. Commissioner Hale clarified his motion is to prevent vehicles driving through the neighborhood. He added he wants the road constructed in a more circuitous fashion. Commissioner clarified his motion is directed at the developer to present a revised plan. Commissioner Byron stated his comments are intended to only contribute to the process, adding he will abstain from the vote. Commissioner Byron pointed out a strong voice has been heard from the neighborhood that they want assurance that Interlachen Boulevard will not extended in any fashion. The have indicated they want the Comprehensive Plan amended to prohibit its extension. Commissioner Byron noted that issue was presented in a motion and, defeated by a 6 -4 vote. Commissioner Byron said in his opinion the best interest of the applicant and the neighborhood is served by voting on the proposal this evening. Commissioner Byron stated Mr. Hansen does not have to revise his plans. Continuing, Commissioner Byron said that he may be wrong in his assumption, but he believes the neighbors present this evening would oppose any extension of Interlachen Boulevard. Commissioner Byron said as a matter of process we have had a long and extensive hearing, and reiterated in the best interest of the developer, and the neighborhood we should vote on this proposal and send it on to the council. Commissioner Byron stated the council will ascertain from our discussion that a majority support the extension of Interlachen Boulevard (though in a different fashion), and have differing opinions on the multi - housing aspect of the proposal. Commissioner McClelland moved to deny the multi- housing (rezoning) aspect of the proposal and suggesting the development of standard single dwelling units, not zero lot line housing along Interlachen Boulevard. Commissioner Workinger seconded the motion. Ayes; Faust, McClelland, Runyan, Workinger, Ingwalson, Bergman, Swenson, Johnson. Nays, Hale, L. Johnson. Abstain, Byron. Motion to deny rezoning request carried 8 -2, 1 abstention. Edina. Planning Commission April 27, 1994 Page 12 Mr. Hansen asked if the commission could only vote on his first phase 22 houses along Cougar Trail). Commissioner Johnson said he has a problem with the plat in regards to grading, fill etc, adding with what has been presented so far, he cannot support the plat aspect of the proposal. A discussion ensued regarding the motions. Commissioner Johnson suggested the Commission should go back to Commissioner Ingwalsons original motion. His original motion encompassed the proposal as presented. Commissioner Ingwalson moved to recommend denial of the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. The motion to deny the proposal as presented was approved' 10 -0, 1 abstention. Commissioner Ingwalson reiterated in his opinion we are not a design agency, we react to plans as they are presented. He cannot support the extension of Interlachen Boulevard and the development of multi- housing units in this neighborhood. III. OTHER BUSINESS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Designate Parklawn Avenue as Collector Street Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan does not depict Parklawn Avenue as a collector street. A collector street designation will quality the street for funds. Commissioner Runyan moved to recommend amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hale moved for adjournment at 11:10 p.m. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 1994 7:30 P.M., COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Gordon Johnson, Lee Johnson,, Robert Hale, Chuck Ingwalson, Helen McClelland, David Runyan, Lorelei Bergman MEMBERS ABSENT: Geof Workinger, Ann Swenson, Nan Faust, David Byron STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, Jackie Hoogenakker I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Minutes from the March 2, 1994 were approved. II. NEW BUSINESS• Z -94 -2 Rezoning, R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2, Planned Residence District 5 -94 -1 Preliminary Plat Approval Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. Outlot A, Parkwood Knolls 22nd Addition. Parkwood Knolls Construction Company General Location:_ North of Parkwood Road, West of Green Farms Road, and east of Malibu Drive Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject property comprises the 53 acres of undeveloped land in greater Parkwood Knolls. In 1978, at the City's request, Carl Hansen provided a preliminary plat for all their remaining vacant property. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council in September 1978. Development of lots since that time have been consistent with the approved preliminary plat. Mr. Larsen reported the Minnesota Legislature passed the Wetlands Conservation Act in 1991. The purpose of the Act is to protect and preserve the state's wetland area. The definition of protected wetland has more to do with vegetation type than it does with water. The Act seeks to preserve wetlands, untouched. If they are filled or altered, compensation at a rate of up to 5 to 1, may be required, depending on the quality of the vegetation. The revised preliminary plat attempts to avoid wetlands areas. 1 However, as shown in the grading plan several small wetlands areas are proposed to be filled. Under a separate process the City Council must approve a wetlands alteration plan for the development. No Final Plat approval may be granted before the plan is approved. Mr. Larsen pointed out the development proposal has three principal components. First, the revised overall development plan for the entire 53 acre tract. Second is the development phasing plan including the 24th Addition with its 22 lots. Third is the rezoning along Interlachen Boulevard to allow for the proposed townhouses and the zero lot lines single dwelling lots. Mr. Larsen said the proponent is requesting the following actions by the Commission: 1. Approval of revised overall development plan for the entire tract of vacant land. 2. Preliminary rezoning, including amendment of Comprehensive Plan, for zero lot line lots and townhouses on Interlachen Boulevard frontage. 3. Preliminary Plat Approval of Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition `Mr. Larsen concluded the revised overall plan seems to be a reasonable approach to the new circumstances caused by the recent wetlands protection law. The overall density or number of units remains about the same as in the 1978 plan. He said he believes the proposed rezoning along Interlachen Boulevard has merit. First, Interlachen Boulevard is designated as a collector street in the Comprehensive Plan. Second, the zero lot line lots will have the look and feel of single family homes. Third, the proposed density of the multifamily portion is low. Mr. Larsen added he has some concern with Lots 2 through 7, Block 1, of the proposed 24th Addition. He pointed out through lots are not particularly desirable, and the lots are significantly narrower than other lots in the plat. However, since they do have Malibu frontage the proposed width may be reasonable. Mr. Larsen noted if the commission recommends approval the following conditions should be met:, 1. Approval of revised overall 2. Preliminary rezoning for the portion of development. 3. Amendment of Comprehensive F Low Density Residential for 4. Preliminary Plat approval Addition 5. Final Rezoning 6. Final Plat Approval 2 development plan. zero lot line and townhouse lan from Single Dwelling to Interlachen frontage. for Parkwood Knolls 24th 7. Developers Agreement 8. Watershed District grading permit 9. Wetland Conservation Act Plan approval The proponents, Mr. Harvey Hansen and Mr. Carl Hansen Jr. were present. Mr. Roger Anderson, engineer, was present representing the proponents. Interested neighbors were present: Chairman Johnson questioned why the proposal depicts seven zero lot line dwellings instead of the traditional single family homes. Mr. Larsen explained Interlachen Boulevard is designated as a collector street, and a judgement was made to buffer the single dwelling houses from Interlachen Boulevard with the zero lot line houses. Commissioner McClelland pointed out the overall plan for Parkwood Knolls (including roadways) was approved in 1978. The Wetland Act was not approved until 1991. Commissioner McClelland questioned why the overall plan is not "grandfathered in ". Mr. Anderson interjected he believes there is a five year time frame when development is to occur. That time frame for this area has lapsed, so the plat must meet present standards. Mr. Hansen introduced himself and explained to Commission Members the 1978 Master Plan focused on three elements; 1)dedication of land for a public park, 2) extension of Malibu Drive, and 3) extension of Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Hansen said the.revised plan reflects the Wetland Act. The proposed zero lot line houses buffer the single family houses from a collector street, and offer an alternative to those who may not want a single family home. Chairman Johnson asked if the zero lot line concept is lucrative. Mr. Hansen replied it has been his experience that the zero lot line concept is market friendly. Expanding, Mr. Hansen explained when he first proposed the zero lot line concept along Malibu Drive he believed the market for each home would be in the low 3001s, but as construction began that price grew considerably higher. Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Hansen which street he proposes to be the "front" for the through lots. Cougar Trail or Malibu Drive? Mr. Hansen explained all houses will front on Cougar Trail. Berm and landscaping will be added along Malibu Drive, to provide privacy for the rear yards. Commissioner Johnson asked if the outlots depicted on the plat would be dedicated to the city. Mr. Anderson said he does not believe that has been determined, pointing out access to the "outlots" may be difficult. Commissioner Johnson commented that traditionally outlots are controlled by the city. Mr. Anderson said when the wetlands within this area were reviewed it was determined during the process that the ponding area between the 3 doubles on Malibu Drive and proposed singles on Cougar Trail should be larger to provide more storm water relief for the property owners along those streets. Commissioner Johnson reiterated if the city is responsible for the outlots adequate access will need to be required. Commissioner Johnson suggested placing an easement between lots 7 & 8, Block 2. This easement will allow access to the larger ponding area. Chairman Johnson asked Commissioner Johnson if he believes a driveway should be placed between these lots to access the ponding area. Commissioner Johnson said it may be necessary, but he is not sure, there may be other alternatives. Mr. Anderson responded it may be possible to place an easement between lots 7 & 8, and suggested an apron at the end of the culvert. This apron will provide access, but will not disturb the vegetation and grass area. Concluding, Mr. Anderson said what is proposed is an easement over the drainage pipe allowing access. Commissioner_ McClelland asked Mr. Larsen if the easement is acceptable. Mr. Larsen said an easement will achieve the city's purpose, adding the city does not want to be responsible for maintaining the outlots, and any easements. Mr. Larsen noted the city only needs access to the ponding areas, and the ability to maintain the area when needed. Mr. Anderson added Barr Engineering indicated on their plan that within this ponding area an overland overflow should be implemented to protect the homes within the immediate area. This overflow will be built into the system. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Hansen why the proposal depicts zero lot line lots along Interlachen Boulevard and not on Cougar Trail /Malibu Drive. He added in his opinion locating the zero lot line lots across from other zero lot lines lots, and next to doubles makes more sense. Mr. Hansen explained zero lot line homes are really single family homes with a more usable sideyard versus the traditional two smaller side yards. Mr. Hansen added the grade on Malibu Drive does not lend itself well to walk -outs, and walk- outs are preferable in zero lot situations. Mr. Hansen pointed out the terrain of Malibu Drive /Cougar Trail is flat. Continuing, Mr. Hansen said he also believes the smaller lots along Interlachen Boulevard, and the designation of Interlachen Boulevard as a collector street, create a situation where a zero lot line development blends better. Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Hansen the price of the zero lot line houses. Mr. Hansen said he assumes the price for the proposed zero lot line homes will begin in the 300's +. Commissioner Ingwalson questioned the price of the units in the proposed townhouse development. Mr. Hansen said he believes the price will be similar to the zero lot line development. Commissioner Johnson pointed out when he visited the site it appeared to him that the ponding area behind the existing doubles on Malibu Drive looks high, and questioned if an increase is needed for the pond. Mr. Anderson agreed, he explained that the "bounce" of the pond is around 31, adding some increase is required. Commissioner Johnson commented within the 53 undeveloped acres there are some steep slopes, and observed portions within this proposal will require aggressive grading. Mr. Anderson explained when preparing this proposal it was our intent to meet the city's design criteria. Mr. Anderson said we will grade some of the proposed roads at 70. Grading will be implemented throughout the site, and there will be a number of walkouts with 14' basements to minimize fill, including some retaining walls and extra deep footings. Mr. Anderson said the drainage criteria and grading requirements of the city need to be met. Continuing, Mr. Anderson addressed the street situations pointing out Apple Lane no longer connects, because of the Wetland. Act. Continuing, Mr. Anderson explained they took a hard look at Apple Lane, and decided to close it off and extend Kelsey. Mr. Anderson observed another issue is Interlachen Boulevard pointing out if one follows the northerly boundary of the plat Interlachen develops a sharp_ curve. After much examination it was determined to shift Interlachen Boulevard to the southeast. The proposed curve in Interlachen Boulevard now meets the 30 mph speed standards. Concluding, Mr. Anderson acknowledged topography challenges, adding he feels the plan creates a balance. Ms. Sue Dombrose, 5301 Malibu Drive told Commission Members she is concerned about the drainage to the southwest pond. She explained-in the past the pond has turned a dark clay color, adding the geese have even left the ponding area. She stated she is worried that the pond may be "dead ". Chairman Johnson stated the city will ensure that drainage will be managed, and construction should not-hurt the pond if it is protected with silt fencing etc. Mr. "Larsen interjected that presently drainage along this section of Malibu Drive is being reviewed. Dr. Seymour, 5038 Green Farms Road, told commission members he is worried about the traffic. He said presently the neighborhood is very quiet, and with the increase in traffic along Interlachen Boulevard it will be noisy. Chairman Johnson acknowledged that traffic from Interlachen Boulevard will be heard by some residents on Green Farms Road. Mr. Larsen interjected Interlachen Boulevard is designed as a collector street which is a step above a residential street. Mr. Larsen said that Interlachen Boulevard will be a 30 mph speed zone. Mr. Larsen explained it is the intent of the plan to disperse traffic equally throughout Parkwood Knolls. Green Farms Road at Interlachen Boulevard should not be high volume. Mr. Larsen reiterated the intent of the roadway plan is to spread the traffic burden. Mr. Hansen reiterated if Interlachen Boulevard goes through there will be less traffic on Green Farms Road. Mr. Hansen commented if Interlachen Boulevard does not go through, it is alright with him. Mr. Hansen said Interlachen 5 Boulevard was approved in the late 70's as a through street and the plan presented this evening reflects this. Commissioner McClelland agreed with Mr. Hansens comments if Interlachen Boulevard goes through there will be less traffic on Green Farms Road. Commissioner Hale questioned the change to Interlachen Boulevard, and suggested that Interlachen Boulevard abut Van Valkenburg . Park. Commissioner McClelland pointed out if Interlachen Boulevards follows the contours of the park the curve in the road becomes hard to navigate. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if the city has completed any traffic counts around Van Valkenburg Park. Mr. Larsen explained traffic generation in this area was developed around the concept that 90+ homes would be built, and the previous, and present roadway layout reflect this assumption. Mr. Larsen said he is not sure if the Engineering Department has taken any recent traffic counts. Chairman Johnson pointed out until Interlachen Boulevard goes through, and the 53 acres become fully developed we really do not know how residents will choose to get in, and out of their neighborhood. Mr. C. Webster, 6645 Interlachen Boulevard stated he believes his property value will be negatively impacted if Interlachen Boulevard is allowed to go through. He pointed out Mr. Hansen will benefit, he is adding more lots than previously proposed and the properties along Interlachen will be de- valued. Mr. Jim Lader, 4931'Green Farms Ct., told Commission Members the traffic along Green Farms Road is fast, and if Interlachen Boulevard goes through traffic along Interlachen Boulevard will travel even faster. Mr. Lader concluded he cannot support the townhouse portion of this proposal. Mr. Ronning, 6416 Interlachen Boulevard stated he does not like the fact the amount of dwelling units have been increased by three from the original proposal. He added he also does not like the zero lot line or townhouse concept of this development. Concluding, Mr. Ronning noted traffic on Interlachen Boulevard is already too heavy, concluding he does not want Interlachen Boulevard to go through. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Larsen if the City wants Interlachen Boulevard to go through to Malibu Drive. Mr. Larsen explained Interlachen Boulevard has been identified in the Comprehensive Land Use plan as extending to Malibu Drive. Continuing, Mr. Larsen stated staff feels it is desirable to have as many outlets as possible which will evenly distribute traffic D flow. Commissioner Hale questioned Mr. Larsen if there have been any traffic studies completed that have taken into consideration the increase in housing units. Mr. Larsen explained a' traffic study was done by a task force that took into consideration this parcel and the proposed development of 90+ homes. Commissioner McClelland interjected the task force studied many road options, pointing out Interlachen Boulevard is a collector. street, and extending it .through to Malibu Drive makes sense. This extension should disperse the traffic throughout the area. Commissioner McClelland pointed out extending Interlachen Boulevard through to Malibu Drive was adopted in the Comprehensive Plan after years of study. Chairman Johnson observed we can request that Mr. Hoffman lay cables to measure traffic within the Parkwood Knolls neighborhood. Mr. Jones, 5226 Green Farms Road told the Commission he believes if there are fewer venues to get into, and out of, a neighborhood, the neighborhood is safer. Mr. Webster, 6645 Interlachen Boulevard told Members when he purchased his home he was informed that the housing proposed for the. rest of Parkwood Knolls was single family. He does not remember anyone informing him townhomes would be constructed. Chairman Johnson explained that all undeveloped land in the city is zoned single family. He pointed out because of the extension of Interlachen Boulevard the developer probably thought multi - family residential would be a good buffer for the single family character of the rest of Parkwood Knolls. Mr. Doug Jordan, 5109 Green Farms Road pointed out the extension of Interlachen Boulevard through to Malibu Drive has been moved, and questioned if anyone knows how far south it is proposed to be moved. Commissioner Johnson responded it appears to be under 200 feet. Commissioner Johnson asked if the road is moved back to the original approved location is the city responsible to pay half of the road cost. Continuing, Commissioner Johnson pointed out the proposed southerly move of the road reduces the curve and slope. Commissioner Johnson questioned the speed along this stretch of Interlachen Boulevard, and suggested the possibility of smoothing out Interlachen Boulevard by tucking it into the park. In response to Commissioner Johnsons question on road payment Mr. Larsen stated he believes the developer will be responsible for. road payment. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if Mr. Hoffman has reviewed the proposal. Mr. Larsen said Mr. Hoffman has reviewed the proposal on a preliminary basis. Continuing, Mr. Larsen said Mr. 7 Hoffman has indicated the proposed road alignment is safer, and Interlachen Boulevard is recommended to extend to Malibu Drive. Mr. Larsen concluded staff supports the extension of Interlachen Boulevard for the benefit of the residents within Parkwood Knolls. Commissioner McClelland stated the original proposal for Interlachen Boulevard may be superior to the proposal presented this evening. Continuing, Commissioner McClelland stated she feels the single family homes along the proposed Cougar Trail may be cramped, and feels one or two less single dwelling unit sites may be preferable in this area. Commissioner Johnson interjected that if we debate the road alignment of Interlachen Boulevard he feels the road is probably better where it is now proposed. Commissioner Ingwalson stated he has a problem with the townhouse concept of this proposal. Commissioner McClelland noted this is a large plat, and suggested because of the change, review may require more time, study, and information. An unidentified resident stressed to commission members that they are not listening, the neighborhood does not want Interlachen Boulevard to go through regardless of past studies or recommendations. Mr. Hansen reiterated that the proposed plan reflects conditions set forth with the approval of Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition, and one of those conditions is the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Hansen said he believes the city feels strongly that Interlachen should be extended, adding it makes no difference to him. Commissioner McClelland stated she believes the commission should take more time to consider this proposal, and receive more input from the engineering department. Commissioner Johnson said he does not have a problem with the townhouse portion of this proposal, but has a problem with the zero lot line concept. Continuing, Commissioner Johnson said the zero lot line concept in reality puts single family homes on smaller lots. Mr. Hansen interjected the reason for the townhouse, and zero lot line concept of this proposal is because of economics. He explained there is a market for this type of housing. Mr. Hansen explained most of the homes within the new portion of Parkwood Knolls will be 800+ and in that price range many people will not want to construct a 800+ home on Interlachen Boulevard, a collector street: Commissioner McClelland explained the commission has no control over the single family lots within the plat, but must examine the townhouse and zero lot line portion of this proposal. Commissioner McClelland commented she feels this proposal may need 0 to be held over for another month, it is a large tract of land, and there have been changes. Commissioner McClelland moved to table this item for one month to receive more information from the Engineering Department and Planning staff. Commissioner Ingwalson seconded the motion. Chairman Johnson explained tabling this item will allow staff time to collect information supporting the 14 year old study depicting Interlachen Boulevard extended to Malibu Drive Mr. Fred. Faulk, 6409 Interlachen Boulevard explained to the commission the charm of the neighborhood is the lack of traffic. Mr. Faulk pointed out the park that exists presently is not accessible to the neighborhood. It is only a baseball park, and what we could also use in this area is a tot or play park. Mr. Faulk concluded he is opposed to the extension of Interlachen Boulevard, and pointed out the commission is basing their decision on an outdated 14 year old study Commissioner McClelland noted the majority of residents in the immediate neighborhood realize this area will be developed, and she raised the question if Interlachen Boulevard does not go through how will the current, and the future residents get in, and out of this neighborhood. Commissioner McClelland stated future residents of Parkwood Knolls have a right to get in and out of their neighborhood reasonably, and the existing residents of Parkwood Knolls to the east and south should not have to bare this burden alone, it should be dispersed evenly. Commissioner McClelland referred to the comment that the study is outdated, explaining the task force took into consideration the 90+ lots when making their recommendation. Commissioner McClelland concluded future residents need to be accommodated. Commissioner McClelland suggested the commission may be assisted by receiving input from the council on their feelings regarding the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. Commissioner Johnson said he believes staff's input regarding Interlachen Boulevard should be adequate. Mr. Larsen stated he feels confident that staff can supply the commission with an update to that study, and our current position. Mr. Larsen added he would like to receive a full recommendation from the commission,-not piece -meal. Chairman Johnson called for the vote. All voted aye; motion to continue this item until the April 27, 1994, meeting carried. E MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Planning Commission . FROM: Craig Larsen SUBJECT: Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition DATE: April 27, 1994 The subject proposal was continued at the last Commission meeting to get further information on traffic and the planned street system for the area. Fran Hoffman, City Engineer, will attend the Commission meeting to explain the area's traffic history. No changes to the initially presented plans have been made. However, a minor change in the alignment of Interlachen Boulevard will be necessary. The street will be adjusted to give direct access to Van Valkenburg Park for the possible future development of a neighborhood "tot lot" park in the northeasterly corner of the subject property. LOCATION GRaMO 1.1 W PARK CEMETERY F- Q: O ' VAN ..VAL." KE•N�BURG' PA.-R- K.' W 701.. rELEI F -Mll ,4PP([ REZONING & SUBDIVISION NUMBER Z-94-2 and S-94-1 db W 1� MAP W J v COURT a HAROLD a Y Y t o w L O C A T 10 N North of Parkwood Road, west of Green Farms Road, east of Malibu Drive R E O U E S T Rezoning from R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2, Planned Residence District and plat approval of Parkwood Knoll, 24th Addition EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MARCH 30, 1994 Z -94 -2 Rezoning, R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -2, Planned Residence District 5 -94 -1 Preliminary Plat Approval Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. Outlot A, Parkwood Knolls 22nd Addition. Parkwood Knolls Construction Company General Location: North of Parkwood Road, West of Green Farms Road, and east of Malibu Drive Refer to: Attached revised overall development plan, 1978 approved overall plan, preliminary plat of Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition, Development Plan, Grading Plan, and Public Improvements The subject property comprises the 53 acres of undeveloped land in greater Parkwood Knolls. In 1978, at the City's request, the Hansens provided a preliminary plat for all their remaining vacant property. The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council in September 1978. Development of lots since that time have been consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The Minnesota Legislature passed the Wetlands Conservation Act in 1991. The purpose of the Act is to protect and preserve the I tate's wetland area. The definition of protected wetland has more to do with vegetation type than it does with water. The Act seeks to preserve wetlands, untouched. If they are filled or altered, compensation at a rate of up to 5 to 1, may be required, depending on the quality of the vegetation. The revised preliminary plat attempts to avoid wetlands areas. However, as shown in the grading plan several small wetlands areas are proposed to be filled. Under a separate process the City Council must approve a wetlands alteration plan for the development. No Final Plat approval may be granted before the plan is approved. The development proposal has three principal components. First, the revised overall development plan for the entire 53 acre tract. Second is the development phasing plan including the 24th Addition with its 22 lots. Third is the rezoning along Interlachen Boulevard to allow for the proposed townhouses and the zero lot lines single dwelling lots. Revised overall Plan As mentioned earlier the City Council approved an overall preliminary plat for this property in 1978. The changes in the proposed plan are due primarily to the need to avoid impacting wetlands. The road system has been redesigned to avoid most of the wetland. areas. The westerly connection from Green Farms Road (Apple Lane) has been eliminated. Interlachen Boulevard which formerly followed the northerly property line has been moved south to reduce the severity of the curve at the northeast corner of the tract. The 1978 plan illustrates 91 single dwelling lots remaining in the tract. The revised plan illustrates 73 single dwelling lots, seven zero lot line single dwelling lots, and 16 townhouse units on 4 acres north of Interlachen Boulevard. The 73 single dwelling lots range in size from 12,946 square feet to 34,816 square feet in lot area. The lots have a median width of 134 feet, a depth of 144 feet, and an area of 18,486 square feet. Lots in the recent 22nd Addition (Green Farms Road) range in size from 15,396 square feet to 20,046 square feet in area. The revised plan illustrates townhouses and zero lot line dwellings fronting on Interlachen Boulevard. This development would require rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Rezoning: The entire tract is currently zoned R -1, Single Dwelling District and is illustrated single family on the City Land use map. The development proposal would require amending the Comprehensive Plan to Low Density Residential and a rezoning to PRD -2, Planned Residence District. The rezoning would allow seven zero lot line lots, and a 16 unit townhouse development. The zero lot line development would be very similar to the it unit project currently underway on the west side of Malibu Drive. The Malibu zero lot lines were 75 to 80 feet wide while the proposed lots are 80 to 90 feet wide. The proposed 16 unit townhouse development would be located on a four acre tract north of Interlachen Boulevard adjacent to Van Valkenburg Park. The PRD -2 District requires a lot area of 7,200 square feet per dwelling unit. The proposed development provides a 10,900 square feet per unit. The combined sites provide a lot area of approximately 11,000 square feet per unit, which is more than the 10,500 square feet required in the PRD -1 district. Development Phasing: The proponents have presented a 22 lot preliminary plat as Phase I of development. The development would occur on the westerly portion of the tract running generally parallel with Malibu Drive. Interlachen Boulevard and the multi - family development would be next, followed by the balance of the development. No time table has been presented except for the 22 single dwelling lots which would be immediate. Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition: The proposed preliminary plat contains 22 single dwelling unit lots served by a new street, Cougar Trail, connecting to Malibu Drive. The proposed lots average 127 feet in width, 157 feet in depth, and 19,675 square feet in lot area. Although above minimum standards, lots two through seven on Block 1, are significantly smaller than other lots in the plat. The lots are also through lots, having frontage on both Malibu Drive and Cougar Trail. Requested Actions: The proponent is requesting the following actions by the Commission: 1. Approval of revised overall development plan for the entire tract of vacant land. 2. Preliminary rezoning, including amendment of Comprehensive Plan, for zero lot line lots and townhouses on Interlachen Boulevard frontage. 3. Preliminary Plat Approval of Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition Recommendation: The revised overall plan seems to be a reasonable approach to the new circumstances caused by the recent wetlands protection law. The overall density or number of units remains about the same as in the 1978 plan. I believe the proposed rezoning along Interlachen Boulevard has merit. First, Interlachen Boulevard is designated as a collector street in the Comprehensive Plan. Second, the zero lot line lots will have the look and feel of single family homes. Third, the proposed density of the multifamily portion is low. I do have some concern with Lots 2 through 7, Block 1, of the proposed 24th Addition. First, through lots are not particularly desirable. Second the lots are significantly narrower than other lots in the plat. However, since they do have Malibu frontage the proposed width may be reasonable. Required Actions: 1. Approval of revised overall development plan. 2. Preliminary rezoning for the zero lot line and townhouse portion of development. 3. Amendment of Comprehensive Plan from Single Dwelling to Low Density Residential for Interlachen frontage. 4. Preliminary Plat approval for Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition Recommended Conditions:' 1. Final Rezoning 2. Final Plat Approval 3.. Developers Agreement 4.' Watershed District grading permit 5. Developer's Agreement 6. Wetland Conservation Act Plan approval �. „' N" = - INTER ACE u U • • p `� ba / +� )�'�(,- C w ::. N o •� v 141y� C 'N 40 ICS CSI 0 �r - �5°�1 JI2! t0 N r' dj�+ "rL r• �- 0 »5�, L ' �« 6d7 r,* Jv • ! /-q ;v o, n [•Oa c •� $ ., - °31y rrSSr ,, ! � ` •' �1 rro !ro 1 u :s �:oy s,3 :so r ` y 8 "30 it ate•' n a� p r tw s �n ,4C �ne� '" '� Al� �?I � W �I �r � �• - 866.68 ►� � � 1; p a .0 !IC 1!S * r•�� NO I lP.W' �.�;�� .'�, , ,, y 8P,QR WOO � ��• �$" '`" o �,� r ! \ • i' �. ! MALI BU DRIVE aay Z mr r Oyyi • m �' v p I. I' oKN LLS� 8'/S H �� ^1„ n i,, C .'C:yc..'•+ .,�, is -- - - -_a �__.- ?a •w .� ., , W7 l �� '; /,` +' - -� ^� , a �. '.. Ja x s ' a ,J .. 371. 92 1, ,= .�•s ' 7C a,:.•.�, =` r y ic r :e w ♦yt j�� - f I !' - ' n if �� �' j,ao . C• `.,• ��'''��, I'� ��:. I''- e�� %�,�'� <f ,tFe '�`X�\ \, - 4.29 00 it _ iy..a. T�"j� r ,t : r.{1. Q,b'A: � , 't•j` i '�'- 5\ � Q , . .' ,•rr •�:o •.: �- �lp.0o � v . �4�OD � .a o - -\ , o �51 j•.. 1110 O M 1 b - it Z) -3;p `a O -_ • •• R AD 1�i - to ,t•. t• — a r .� 71 T c :r 4 A. A p C� ch • ��bRrOTA��v Jae* REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council From: Francis Hoffma /I i City Engineer (/ Date: 16 May, 1994 Subject: Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition Recommendation: Information for review. Info /Background: Agenda Item # information Only Recommends To Council Resolution Ordinance Discussion I attended the last Planning Commission meeting per the request of the Commission to review the traffic layouts and neighbor concerns regarding new development traffic and potential thru traffic from Interlachen east of Blake to Highway 169 via . Interlachen Boulevard. People referenced a 1974 traffic study for Parkwood Knolls and what is called Issue Area 4 (Northern Parkwood Knolls). Any action on Issue Area 4 was deferred by City Council in 1974 until the developer proposed a master plan for the northern section of Parkwood Knolls. The key issue throughout the traffic study was where to locate new access points and equalizing traffic flows. I have attached the 2/6/78 Council minutes which deal with Issue Area 4 and the Hansen master plan. The attached sketch is a reduced inset for the master plan which indicates seven access points labeled 1 thru 7. To date, the City has constructed roadways which link the master plan identified as points 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. This master plan included what is now Green Farms Road, Larada, the Ridge Road extension and Willow Wood Road (currently in place). Report /Recommendation Agenda Item II.B. Page Two The balance of the development (approximately 90 units depending upon zoning) will generate.about 1050 to 1100 new trips in the Parkwood Knolls area. The current 24th Addition proposal would link access point 2 (Interlachen Boulevard) to access points 1 and 3 (Malibu) and access point 4 would serve (Willow Wood and Kelsey) traffic flow to the southeast from this development. Staff would also note that the 1980 Zoning and Land Use Map shows Interlachen Boulevard as a collector street. The purpose for the indication of the collector street status indicates a staff belief that some "thru" traffic would occur. By showing this on a map, perspective purchasers of property along Interlachen Boulevard would have the information that the street would not function solely as a "local" street.. According to our assessing records, eighteen of the twenty - four.properties were purchased in 1980 or later. Thus, a potential property owner could be in- formed on the potential traffic load prior to purchase. Staff expressed that access point 2 (Interlachen) should be extended in a circuitous pattern to discourage thru traffic. The issue before City Council now is how to provide neighborhood access but control the amount of "bypassing traffic ". I believe the developer's plan that is under review is being proposed based on the 1978 master plan and modified as necessary by wetland preservation. 4 , -, I - 88 instrumental in Edina having one of the highest percentages of voter turn - outs in Minnesota; and WHEREAS, for many years, the Edina League of Women Voters has conducted candi -..m dates meetings to give Edina residents an opportunity to learn more about the candidates and the various issues at all levels of government; and WHEREAS, members of the Edina League of Women Voters have served, over the yea as observers at City Council Meetings and meetings of various other City boards and commissions in an attempt to keep the citizenry knowledgeable about their City government; and WHEREAS, the League of Women Voters performs all of these services with the be- lief that better informed citizens benefit the entire community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina City Council does hereby designate the week starting February 13th as LEAGUE OF WOr1EN VOTERS WEEK. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Richards and unanimously carried. Mayor Van Valkenburg presented a copy of the resolution to Mrs. Kay Bach, President of the Edina League of Women Voters. PARKWOOD KNOLLS 20TH ADDITION GRANTED PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes presented Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition for preliminary plat approval, advising that this 102 acre tract of land is located South of Interlachen Blvd., North of Parkwood Road, West of Schaefer Road and East of Lincoln-Drive. He explained that the developer has submitted a proposed development plan for the entire 102 acre parcel, but that only the Southeast 23 acres are proposed for Xi- immediate development. Mr. Hughes advised that, for procedural purposes, the staff recommends that the development plans for the entire 102 acre tract be considered as a preliminary plat, and, if the preliminary plat is approved, the proponents would return with a final plat for only the 23 acre tract. which wou]Af be known as Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition. Mr. Hughes pointed out that the pre -_' liminary plat proposes the extension of Willow Wood Road, Larade Road, Larada Lane, Ridge Road, Malibu Drive and Interlachen Blvd. (which is proposed to be extended in a circuitious pattern to discourage excessive thru traffic;, Mr. Hughes also advised that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of plat without extending Ridge Road, but that the staff had recommended that Ridg Road be extended. Council was reminded that the Western Edina Task Force analyze !, existing traffic patterns in the area (Issue Area 4) and that on July 1, 1974,4 the Council had tabled consideration of circulation patterns for the area until a development proposal was submitted for the entire Northwest Edina area. Mr:t e Hughes also recalled that the Council Minutes indicated that when such a plan was submitted, it should include some access to the North at the Maloney Avenue County Road 18 interchange. He clarified that as part of previous Parkwood �., Knolls subdivisions, the developers and the City have entered into agreements eferred until the City determined the locati whereby parkland dedication was d of an area park and that the developers are suggesting that the accrued par dedication from previous Parkwood Knolls Subdivisions, along with the parkland dedication from the subject property be located adjacent to the presently acquired City property to the North. The developer is proposing a 5.65 acre dedication as opposed to the recommendation of the staff for a total of 6.8 acres. Mr. Hughes recommended preliminary approval of the plat for the follott -:i I,. ing reasons: 1) The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Land Use Plan;, ! 2) The proposal conforms with the Western Edina Circulation Plan, with the exception of the extension of Interlachen Blvd.; 3) Lot sizes are generally',f, compatable with surrounding properties; 4) The proposed extensions of stree to serve the subject property are warranted and provide for the maximum dispersal of traffic generated from the subject property as well as from exis. ing developments; 5) Low areas are appropriately used for storm water holds areas; 6) An adequate access can be provided to Outlot 3 of Interlachen H 1 3rd Addition; and 7) Dedication of parkland adjacent to existing City prope is desirable. Mr. Hughes advised that approval is recommended. subject to t following conditions and modifications: 1) Malibu Drive must be extended to the County-Road 18 interchange immediately as part of final approval for Par wood Knolls 20th Addition; 2) The proposed parkland dedication for the eat preliminary plat must be made immediately, with either an additional 1.15 acres to be dedicated or cash in lieu of such acreage; 3) The name of Larads Lane should be changed to avoid confusion with Larada Road; 4) The property lines located West of Malibu -Drive extended should be re- aligned slightly t correspond with the existing R -2 zoning of the Southernmost lot; 5) A grad plan for the entire property must be prepared for City approval; 6) Execu of a developer's agreement which includes public improvements to Parkwood 20th Addition as well as Malibu Drive. Letters opposing the extension of Road were received from Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Pistner, Mr. and Mrs. Victor Hans Skalle,' Mr. and Mrs. Roy B. Burns, Jr., Mrs. Joan Scott, Mr. and Mrs. .. 2/6/78 Mary McBride and Messrs. Harold Fischbein, W. R. Nordgren and J. J. Liebenberg, were all residents of Ridge Road. Petitions urging Road be extended Road, received , which petitions were signed by residents Westwood Court and Schaefer Road. Council's attention was called to the Minutes of the Special Park Board Meeting of January 14, 1978, in which the Park Board recommended the dedication of Lots 4, 5 and 6, and that the Council direct the staff to negotiate for the acquisition of Lots 1, 2 and 3 (said lots being arbi- trarily numbered along the Southeast edge of the park area). Mr. Liebenberg was advised by Mr. Hoffman that Ridge Road would not need to be widened inasmuch as it is anticipated that there would be only 100 cars using it per day. Concern for the safety of children with the additional traffic was expressed by Mrs. Annette Hubble and Mrs. Frankie Stevens, 5305 Kingsberry Drive. Concern that widening Ridge Road would cause potential danger of water damage to houses below grade on Ridge Road was expressed by Mrs. S. L. Pistner, 5109 Ridge Road and Mrs. G. V. Lowrie, 5025 Ridge Road. Mr. Donald Harvey, 6412 Willow Wood Road, suggested that widening Ridge Road on the West side would not cause any problems. Messrs. Tom Scoggins, Ray Burns and Jack Liebenberg, all of Ridge Road, expressed, their concern that the unique contour of the road would make it unsafe for additional traffic and that widening would be impractical. Concurring with other neighbors were Mrs. Helen Bergerud, 5100 Ridge Road, Mr. Hans Scalle, 5021 Ridge Road, Mrs. Ann Rutledge, 5116 Ridge Road, and two unidentified speakers. Stating that the area needs additional routes for ingress and egress were Mrs. Robert Johnson, Mrs. Margery Tourje and Messrs. Barron Boe and Edward Marks. Residents were assured that Malibu Drive would be extended to the North, ever_ before the area to the West is platted. Mr. Jack Rice, Chairman of the Park Board, advised that the Park Board had held a special meeting to inspect the property and emphasized its recommendation that Lots 4, 5 and 6 be dedicated to the City for park purposes. Mayor Van Valkenburg said that, while Mr. Hoffman had indi- cated that it would not be necessary at this time to widen Ridge Road, he could not guarantee that it would never be widened at some future time. The Mayor said that he believed that Ridge Road should be extended as another access out of the area to disburse the traffic as much as possible. Councilman Richards said that he agrees with the Mayor and added that he does not believe that it is fair to shift the traffic burden to only one segment of the neighborhood. He then offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PARKWOOD KNOLLS 20TH ADDITION BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that that certain plat known as Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition, platted by Carl Hansen, and presented for preliminary approval at the Edina City Council Meeting of February 6, 1978, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval, subject to the following conditions and modif icat ions: 1. Malibu Drive must be extended to the County Road 18 interchange immediately as part of final approval for Parkwood Knolls 20th Addition; 2. The proposed parkland dedication for the entire preliminary plat must be made immediately. The oftotal Lotsdedication 6tin encompass orthwest acres portionwhich of theincludes plattedthe arbitrary designation lots; 3. The name of Larada Lane should be changed to avoid confusion with Larada Road; 4. The property lines of lots located West of Malibu Drive extended should be re- aligned slightly to correspond with the existing R -2 zoning of the Southernmost lot; r grading plan for the 5. In conjunction with the extension of Malibu Drive, a g g p entire property should be prepared; 6. An executed developer's agreement which includes public improvements to Pa. wood Knolls 20th Addition, as well as Malibu Drive; proposed North/ 7. Ridge Road to be extended Southerly to intersect with the p ro p South street planned for the plar__.for the entire area. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Councilman Shaw. Rollcall: Shaw, Van Valkenburg Ayes: Richards, Schmidt, Nays: Courtney Resolution adopted. Councilman Courtney explained that he voted "nay" because of his concern that may be necessary to widen Ridge Road at some later day. Councilwoman Schmidt explained that she voted "aye" because she elievesofht traffic will find other routes away from Ridge Road as the NORTHWESTERN BANK ADDITION FINAL PLAT AND ZONING APPROVED; SOUTHWEST EDINA PLAN AMLNDED. Affidavits of Notice for amendment of the Southwest Edina Plan were pre- sented by Clerk, approved as to form and ordered placed on file. The plan amendme: final plat for Northwestern Bank Addition and the second reading of Ordinance No. 811 -A112 all affecting the same properties, public hearings were conducted concur- = INTER AC _ E r �/ S c. r�/► o e^ / +01} e Wo W V. N o W i '� ° I 14E1•� f N I. .t•'.,�'�1: S «• .a0 105 'OS 0 gnl 1 . . ay�t ./I t! 60 657 �6� A •' .y��,�� A,.�_ ,d ` ° 1 /D w w o• t. c,0 �, E 0 i I1! 8113) 1/0 M 110 1 u; .',:S j•:c,S 591 e:;S�'•, !+ F °!C N'' •• � not n o ° � •' � ,u� 0;a� ���° � �u• 3 � i :is3'.?,I � � �°� ,�• i H_IL o'uBR �fi;r� Ad �w _ _ 866.68 4 IO • o .� J�1T • . / 90 / C / !! 'r'': ^ a /.0 / IO / < . �o ,+ T ' t' NQ /I I °. -1'I/ 782 f _ 1 JIPA-R WOO " "o `' " *� • g° r \ Irj" ; MALIBU DRIVE J1 y^ Z O m� K N LLS� i' A4D/T /ONE R'�U „r 'T 4 1w, i_. W 1• ,' ':� I.3I+ p ` r� � /`r _ rK- ..,i_ —L -- 4�jF+..'' ` • �i ",2 t�• r - ter;, ' I ✓., ,'� ,% '9r. +- j Irk 1 •,} r,+� .. ,'_yam � �.� Y...• �° � L.- _ - ,.,. ;•\`', - -- ,'': I ”, ',• i � � 1 y <' 1v l� pO .�� J Y / y� - {. .'1 •� !'r ;.� /ri- I•• 4'.� 1 - 1 -- �` Jd•' is S , -�y�.• � �T q .�r x�•��� fir. 1„ ;, � .� � �` v a L ' 1 I I 1 { . o • 1 J, ' _ 429.0 Ab yZk .. ryr_,R, •o.rT r .!• !, •�•. `• 1 ��A 1• 1• '�. •`. i Y°� O - 1 :1:o n• r,� �' b' 245100 " o' oo p ^ ` n a � 1 _ � � t. -93S. IST oil 9_ `; '`••I�� W •Sep "A - I, R C =F — - -, - - - -- ROA[) IV k' r k 4 �a ?u` x s £ . xd� fi v t: Yt } gK �1 Y 1# � {ti # t�s x t` x� f � # t t x r £ it { t, XY s w 1 Yy } . i S%, " k Al k ,h � Y y � `•tip � �' �� � � , 9" � 3R w � s k .� Nq t , , pp� ,t t pp 3 S 's r i £ tx i x T 3 gg tr 4 r t f ,55 l # 1 I F r Y 6 `a 4 i a` 4 € ex t { 3 4 t {t { e 2 } f fi E 9ww$:g b e h { { t �t { l tl fxr i { d S t sf a t d F ¢I # a, { Y d 3 e rT s I x k Itiz e P ( §x o x 3 s t1 t i M .+ ay x f: 3 f r i r£ S t= 3 t: { t [ 3 x 3{ t t n F i 5 i ii s�3 S i $`n w t d # J 9 k P Sx qq t' 2 f k k # t {{ q 5 4 � a { kt p o..r a a g w t x � Y d s, gk. «, to , . r , II ,, d: t t d x � _.� �x S x, £ r w {3 x a � x 3 F a k�rw x £ a 5 % � il 1H k d x x � + 3 k { { dt l i 8 { ? S { 5t } t rtx { '.a k 3 @ { 3g p ke Q x £ # �Y s , S x e ? r zs .: E �Fw*any aK s '3 < } § i 's= r "8 P :s x Y s x, b._.u»ammv,e F , } x x r ' rw r a F fr 5 s } a x f , ... ,.,..; ,«+a u. .....a«..w..,... ,�+r....,.w...rm. ,:+.. .....nx. ..,ra,.nss 'x+..w.e.4a• a # ii i 5 s k j .ax..ram r aaw 8P ~�h R x m� % i t 3 ? f r { 8 qg a 1 x r { g 6 i e 4 qq i �t R S d x *as 11 4 Yr^k s f - , t 5 x 5 ' a , x 5 y z rfi E d ¢ g¢ 4 p i ' $ .x x� �w 4iE:S ;�sn.a # . M :w nw c do . i gg b k , w xan 5 S x w& 7 t t. s +v sa#d { � a r E s b 3 k } � # ri wj j ,�ax . " . ..M .; : z2 t a � w r x s a i x a ` } r t � 3. E R-4, . x IR It ,.a . s 3 { x x w x .x x x L , x s k. � E { 5 x , . '.. " IM', I —4j 141 4 -44 ------------ rl 41 ° i -�wE , d � x . S S , . , i .wv, 11, y, x g t R ? � x �< d ., I > <, V r;_ x x x yx w r i; , t r g 3 x x x k { ai k t 2 R „ { ,�. r� y 4x z 3 ' s e is i 11�119 ,u ,%. li ISSUe: The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive and making it a collector street In 1974, the Western Edina Task Force and its consultant recommended that Interlachen Boulevard be cul- de- saced. See the third paragraph page 23 under Issue Area 4 in the task force report: 'The full development of the single family residential land in the Issue Area is expected to generate an additional 3900 trips per do v. The street. system developed for the Issue Area will have to support these trips. Iflnterlachen were to open to County Road 18, it is estimated that 40% of the additional trips or 1560 vehicles per day would travel to the east'. As a result, Alternative 2 of the three alternatives considered was selected as best meeting the evaluation criteria. Alternative 2 shows Interlachen Boulevard ending in a cul-de -sac. The weaknesses of Alternative 1, which shows Interlachen connecting through, included: • 'Transforming a local street, Interlachen, into a collector'. • 'Negative traffic volume and land use impact homes along Interlachen'. The neighborhood is willing to accommodate a reasonable share of traffic from the new subdivision but does not want Interlachen Boulevard to become a collector street for a number of reasons including: • Safety of the children (There are over 60 children in the neighborhood) • Resident security • Character and symmetry of the neighborhood • Property values and neighborhood cohesiveness It is not clear how making Interlachen Boulevard a collector street benefits anvone and for that matter no one wants it. • The effected residents strongly object as evidenced by the overwhelming number of signatures presented on the petition. • The developer stated during the March 30 and April 27, Planning Commission meetings that he did not care whether Interlachen was extended. Another important consideration is that this recommendation was made before: • 201 apartment units were added on Lincoln • 16 multiple dwelling units were added • Additional higher density housing was proposed • Addition of Van Valkenberg Park • Completion of Highway 169 • Development of surrounding areas that would use Interlachen as a connection to 169. � 1 „ _ JT This recommendation to cul -de -sac Interlachen Boulevard was again recorded in the Planning Commission Staff Report for the Parinvood Knolls 20th Addition, January 4, 1978, page 2. Edina's Comprehensive Land Use Plan 1980 (CLUP) contradicts putting Interlachen through because the plan calls for the preservation of the high quality residential neighborhoods by '.Allow further subdivisions of developed single family lots only ijneighborhood character and symmetry are preserved (page 19 Comprehensive Land Use Plan). Adding and controlling the certain significant traffic increase to Interlachen from the existing apartments, the existing and planned higher density housing, the through . traffic accessing 169 and the Van Valkenberg park certainly will impact both the neighborhood character and symmetry. This impact «ill likely manifest itself in additional stop signs along Interlachen, traffic lights at the intersection of Blake and Interlachen where they converge at Mirror Lakes, and the widening of Interlachen Boulevard to cope pith the increased traffic volumes. Recommendation: 1. The CLUP states: Require the submission of detailed plans and neighborhood participation for any proposals to further subdivide large developed lots in the Interlachen Road area. Therefore, we recommend that detailed plans of the complete subdivision be prepared to ensure the total long -term impact is specified and understood by the neighborhood. Tltis would include traffic pattern and volume analysis, road changes, placement of stop signs and traffic lights, assessment of the impact on property values and the impact on the overall characteristics and symmetry of the neighborhood. 2. The plat should be tabled until a review of Edina's Comprehensive Land Use Plan is conducted to evaluate the -liability of turning Interlachen Boulevard into a collector street. 3. The developer should redesign the roadways in the development to access Malibu Drive, County Road 169 and routes other than Interlachen Boulevard. This will contain the traffic to the West of the city and not add to the already heavy traffic on Interlachen Boulevard. A Inter[ achen/Parkwood Knolls Coalition Issues ReQardinv Subdivision Area #24 For Consideration 13v The Edina Citv Council Issue: No plan for the neighborhood park has been fully developed. Rationale: The future neighborhood park must be planned to accommodate neighborhood users: • Should have easy and safe access • Should be sheltered from high volume traffic patterns " A grading plan should be prepared to ensure activities such as tennis, softball, walking paths, and a tot lot can be effectively accommodated. Van Vallenberg Park is not a neighborhood park and is not in anyway neighborhood friendly. Van Valkenberg Park is specifically designed for adult softball. Therefore, the neighborhood park should be planned to have a separate and unique identity. Recommendation: 1. Incorporate the involvement of the neighborhood pertaining to park accessibility, suitability of use and demographic needs. 2. Avoid putting through traffic roads by park. 3. Maintain access to and from Van Valkenberg Park in its current state. 4. Develop the neighborhood park in a time frame that is consistent with the rest of the subdivision development. Interlachen/Parkwood Knolls Coalition Issues Regarding Subdivision Area #24 For Consideration By The Edina City Council Issue: The proposed housing density exceeds previous proposals and asks for rezoning considerations. Rationale: The current plan calls for more homes than originally planned on lots that are inconsistent with the older established Parkwood Knolls neighborhood on less available land. As stated in the City Council meeting of January 4, 1978, the original Parkwood Knolls Area #20 development accommodated 176 single family dwelling homes of which 47 were proposed for the Parkwood Knolls Area #20 which became Area #23. About 60 single family dwelling homes have been built in Area #23. The current plan calls for 96 new units including 73 single family dwellings, 16 townhomes, and 7 zero lot line homes. This does not include an additional 11 zero lot line homes previously built. Thus brings the total units to 107. The lot sizes of the single family dwelling homes in this plan are not consistent with and in fact are considerably smaller than the lots of the older established Parkwood Knolls neighborhood. In addition, there has been a 10% reduction in the available land due to the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991 resulting in.higher density. Per the CLUP, the city had identified Area #24 as single family dwelling housing. Given the extent to which the plan has changed from 1978 to the current, the development concept has fundamentally changed. Page 22, sixth paragraph of the CLUP, calls for detailed plans and neighborhood participation for any proposals to further subdivide large developed lots in the Blake Road. Schaefer Road, and Interlachen Road area . A large contingent of neighborhood residents does not accept the plan currently being proposed. Area #24 is zoned SF1. There is now a proposal to rezone the area for multiple dwelling housing. Two reasons for the rezoning have been publicly stated by Craig Larson, Edina City Planner: • The Wetlands Consen•ation Act of 1991 reduced the amount of land available for development and therefore reduced the number of single family homes that could be built. • The traffic levels resulting from the extension of Interlachen Boulevard would make single family dwelling homes less marketable. Both of the above proposed reasons for rezoning appear to be questionable from a legal standpoint. Furthermore, if the 1974 Western Edina Task Force recommendation to cul-de -sac Interlachen Boulevard is'followed, there is no need for rezoning. The CLUP calls for primarily single family dwellings in Northwest Edina with a provision for some multiple dwelling units. There are currently over 300 multiple dwelling units in existence. Northwest Edina has already absorb its fair share of multiple dwelling units. Interlachen/Parkwood Knolls Coalition Issues Regarding Subdivision Area #24 For Consideration By The Edina City Council Recommendation: 1. No change in zoning be granted for this property on the basis that a clear and compelling reason for change has not been identified. 2. A new plan should be prepared that is consistent with Edina's CLOP, with the exception of Interlachen Boulevard being extended, requiring property developments to be in keeping with the topography and neighborhood characteristics. Interlachen/Parkwood Knolls Coalition Issues Regarding Subdivision Area #24 For Consideration By The Edina City Council Issue: The proposed housing density threatens the fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Rationale• Per the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991, the definition of wetlands has been changed significantly since 1978 when the plat was preliminarily approved. A determination must be made as to whether the current development plan complies with current wetland designations. According to our inquiries: • A Grading and Drainage Plan has not been submitted to the Nine Mile Watershed and other required agencies for review and approval. • A Wetlands Definition Map has not been submitted to the appropriate agencies (Army Corp of Engineers. Nine Mile Watershed District, DNR and BOWSR) for review and approval. • An updated Storm Water Holding Plan has not been submitted to the Nine Mile Watershed District for review and approval. The full extent of the emironmental impact to the development can be neither understood nor appreciated when looked at in a piecemeal fashion as has been previously done and appears to be the current approach. It is for this reason that all of the above plans are needed to comprehend the total impact on the natural ecology of the proposed development. The Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991, was created for the preservation of wetlands and it appears that some of the wetland areas in the development will be eliminated. Per the Wetlands Conservation Act, any wetlands eliminated must be mitigated and the need for the mitigation must be proven in a three step process. Not only has the need for mitigation not been proven, but the mitigation process has not even begun. Recommendation: 1. In order to ensure the preservation of the wetlands and compliance Nith current legislative and judicial interpretation, all required plans for the entire subdivision should be reviewed and approved by the appropriate agencies before any development begins. EDWARD W. GLICKMAN 5217 SCHAEFER ROAD EDINA, MN 55436.1145 • Telephone: 612.935.0625 • Fax /Modem: 612.935.0210 May 11, 1994 City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition Dear Council Member: Once again, my neighbors and I take a position opposite to that of your planning staff and our paid public employee. The message we send is that the Emperor wears no clothes. I am confident that the truth of this position will come out at some time and in some forum eventually. I disagree with the proposal to "down zone." the Parkwood Subdivision by changing the Comprehensive Plan from single family residential (R -1) to higher density housing consisting of "zero lot line" and townhouse homes (PRD -2). This opposition is based on the fact that the developer has totally failed to show any reason at all for requesting the rezoning let alone met the legally required . reasons for a change. The extension of Interlachen should not be granted alternatively because it; will require extensive and expensive upgrading of the existing Interlachen, is contrary to the cities own independent engineer's study and Task Force recommendations, is based on information almost two decades old, and will cause excessive traffic and attendant danger and disruption. The factual situation, which can not be argued, is as follows: The developer, Parkwood Knolls, recently acquired the property in question from its predecessor who owned it for at least 16 years. This property was the subject of intense study and review by the Edina City Council. Examination by City Council May 11, 1994 Page 2 the Council in 1974 included an independent traffic engineering study done by the BRW firm and a citizens committee called the West Edina Task Force. The City enacted preliminary plat approval and zoning rules to apply to that land in 1978 after due deliberation. Over the intervening years, this land was in a slow and orderly process of being developed through the building of large expensive single family dwellings under these existing plat and zoning rules. These houses were a fine addition to the neighborhood consistent with the symmetry and character of the surrounding area that made me proud of my home and the city where I live: Then, the State of Minnesota enacted the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991 that became effective in July, 1993. This law prohibits interference with about 2.5 acres of wetland within the proposed development of 53 acres and imposes time consuming .delays and expensive penalties on any owner who destroys these protected marshes. At about this same time, the developer constructed a number of highly profitable "zero lot line" homes on the Western edge of the property-These homes sold much more quickly than the more expensive homes to the East. Recently, for reasons unknown and unstated by either the developer or the planning staff, Mr. Hanson decided after almost two decades of silence that he could no longer abide by either the zoning rules or the Comprehensive Plan imposed on the land by the City of Edina and asks you to change these rules and plan so that he may build higher density housing. Not only did your staff accept this unsupportable proposition with little or no . change, but, without the developers request after two decades decided that he would recommend the extension of Interlachen Boulevard through to Malibu. When these actions became known to the neighborhood, active residents began to do research into the procedural history of the earlier zoning and Comprehensive Plan and prior city studies on the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. Concerning the extension of the road, it was discovered that the city's own independent engineering study recommended against the extension citing the same reasons' residents oppose it today. Excessive traffic in a residential area. This study's recommendation was concurrently examined by the city's Western Edina Task Force who also agreed with the engineer. These recommendations for a cul- de-sac were recognized by the Planning Commission. Thorough search could not uncover any minutes approving the decision to adopt the extension as part of the cities comprehensive plan. Along with another concerned neighbor, I spoke with your staff person to try to persuade him that the Interlachen extension and rezoning were ill- conceived. We told him that we were unable to find the minutes adopting this extension into the City Council May 11, 1994 Page 3 comprehensive plan. He said that the extension of the road is in the plan, the City always thought in terms of the road going through, the Plan is sacrosanct and it will stand. He also said, Mr. Gordon Hughes, who was on the planning staff at that time, has a vague recollection that the matter did pass, in spite of the advise to the contrary. We discussed the reason for his rezoning recommendation. He said that because Interlachen will go through and become a "Collector" street it would be appropriate for the new area to have higher density housing. He also said that the higher density housing will serve as a buffer to the single family dwellings in the new development. When I pointed out the logical inconsistency of his argument that the street must be extended because it is in the plan and yet the plan must be altered to allow higher density housing because a major thoroughfare is going through, he said he had no problem with carrying these alternative points of view at the same time. He refused to discuss the matter further and suggested that I give my best shot to the council. What we are faced with is the most preposterous circular reasoning wrapped around staff ignorance and developer greed that I have seen in a long while. Our developer (who does not favor the extension of Interlachen) is asking you to amend both of the rules previously imposed by the city (presumably after careful and thoughtful deliberation) on his vastly appreciated property probably because he is faced with, either, the "inconvenience" of the Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991 that reduces the number of houses he can build (forgone profit); or, the highly tantalizing prospect of putting up higher density housing that he can build quicker and sell faster (make more money). To further this dubious plan he sees a city planning staff person (known to be compliant and pro - developer) who not only agrees with this scheme; but, on his own now seeks extension of Interlachen, in spite of the cities own independent traffic study and engineer's recommendation to the contrary. To make matters worse, this same staff person refuses to make further current independent (outside traffic engineer) or inside objective (traffic counting devices) study and instead relies on his statement that "nothing has changed" (in 18 years) and the "off-the-cuff " (based on no objective evidence) opinion of the City Engineer, Mr. Hoffman, that traffic will not be excessive (triple the present load), in spite of a clear directive by the Planning Commission for such study. As a result of these irresponsible actions more than one hundred fifty neighborhood homes and families are put to the burden of opposing this ill- conceived plan that jeopardizes the safety of their children, the value of their property and their state of mind. City Council May 11, 1994 Page 4 Fortunately, like most complicated procedures, as the decision making process progresses eventually it gets to people with clearer heads. I hope that this flawed process will stop at the Council level and not at higher authority. As far as the rezoning and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan are concerned, legal research shows the rezoning must fail because there is no reason for such change. There is a long line of cases in the Minnesota Supreme Court which clearly states, not unsurprisingly, that in order for a rezoning to occur there must be a clear and compelling reason for it. Furthermore, the only acceptable reasons are: 1) a mistake in the original zoning of such magnitude that it was arbitrary and capricious; or, 2) a "change in the character of the neighborhood"". to the extent that the developer has "no other reasonable use with which to put the property." In addition, the burden of proof of the foregoing is on the person seeking the rezoning. Our Supreme Court has stated: "[W]hen an application is made for reclassification from one zone to another, there is a presumption that the original zoning was well planned and was intended to be more or less permanent. Before a zoning board rezones property there should be proof of either that there was some mistake in the original zoning or that the character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent that the reclassification ought to be made. The burden of proof ... is upon the proponents of the change" Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope. 220 N.W. 2d 256, at 261. Furthermore, our Supreme Court in elaborating on the test that the "character of the neighborhood has changed" states that the change must be "to such an extent that no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current classification" Fruendshuh v. City of Blaine. 385 N.W.2d 6, at 8, also citing 5_un supra. See also Honn v. City of Coon Rapids. 313 N.W.2d 409, at 419 Similarly, there is case law on the standards for changing a Comprehensive Plan In fact, there is an abundance of authority that states that consistency with the comprehensive plan is paramount and that any deviation from it must be legally sufficient and have a factual basis on the record. See Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357, Subd. 2. In essence, this means that Municipal bodies have a wide latitude in land use issues and that denial of a rezoning or Comprehensive Plan change will be upheld in Court unless the decision is arbitrary or capricious. However, a decision by you to change zoning or the Comprehensive Plan must have a factual basis on the record to support that conclusion. For example, if the City Council May 11, 1994 Page 5 council decides that the "down zoning" must be approved, there must be a City finding of fact on the record based upon objective evidence that there is a clear public need for $400,000 zero lot line and $200,000 townhomes in this area of the City of Edina and that this need is not being filled by existing housing choices within this city, Even under the most charitable construction of the facts, the present situation comes no where near meeting any of these standards. Legislation codifing the obvious public interest in preserving wetlands is not a reason for `down - zoning." Mr. Hanson held the land for almost two decades. As little as 18 months ago, he could have developed the land without the inconvenience of the Wetlands legislation. Mr. Hanson clearly has a right to the reasonable use of his land; however, it is equally obvious that maximization of a developer's profits is neither constitutionally protected nor a proper function of a municipal body. Simply stated, despite more than 7 hours of public hearings and debate there is no reason on the table to change the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan and absolutely no factual basis with which to make an objective finding to support that conclusion. The extension of Interlachen is an even easier issue to deal with because it is governed by economics and common sense alone. First of all, I am not opposed to an outlet for the people in the new development. I am opposed to a through road which traffic engineers call a "collector." The road as proposed will connect Interlachen Boulevard (County Road #20 a main arterial) with a traffic count of 8,600 cars per day with Highway #169 (an expressway) with a traffic count of 62,000 cars per day. Unfortunately, unlike the new development no buffer can be built to protect our homes. Extending Interlachen is physically impossible unless the city is willing to violate highway safety construction standards of the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Institute of Transportation Engineers because the present Interlachen does not meet minimum construction standards as a collector street. It is too narrow. Interlachen at present is 24' wide with parking allowed on both sides of the street. A collector street (low or high volume) must have a minimum of 26' with no parking both sides; 32' with no parking on one side; and 38' parking on both sides. Malibu, Telemark Trail, Kelsey and Willowood are all 30' wide. This is no accident. It is required by road design construction standards. Adoption of the proposed extension will put the majority of the traffic in this area City Council May 11, 1994 Page 6 on the only road which is 20% short of design standards. There is not enough right of way. Interlachen at present has a right of way of 60'. A collector street of high volume (1,000 +) must have a minimum right of way of 70'. The obvious purpose for this large right of way is for sidewalks which are also required of collector streets for safety. It is too weak. Interlachen at present has a structural design weight capacity of 4 tons. A collector street of high volume must have a minimum load capacity of 9 tons. There are also technical requirements for road surface and bed which the existing Interlachen lacks. Minnesota State Aid Standards Sec. 8820.9935 and Sec. 8820.9945, December 28,1992; Institute of Transportation Engineers, Standards for Residential Streets, (1984) and Guidelines for Residential Street Design, page 35, ITE Journal May, 1990 and page 19, rM Journal September, 1993. Furthermore, I suspect that there are additional failures to meet standards with sight lines, stopping distances and road surface materials. For example, design standards call for 60' turning radius in cul de sacs. The development plan shows 50'. This problem should also be addressed. There is already East West access from Malibu/ #169 to Interlachen Boulevard (County Road #20) a mere 3 blocks from that intersection. Surely another parallel route 600 yards to the south is unnecessary. How the extension of Interlachen became part of the Comprehensive Plan no one seems to know. I do know however that a vague two decade old recollection by the previous city planner is not persuasive evidence either of its passage or the ultimate wisdom of that decision. After diligent search of the City archives, we could find no minutes of the adoption of this aspect. We did find however written documentation of the engineering study, the task force report and the commission staff report all of which opposed the extension and recommended that Interlachen be cul- de- sacced. It is important to note that these studies were done and the road included in the plan before; the completion of Highway #169 and its exit at Lincoln, the addition of 201 Apartment units and 16 multiple dwellings at Lincoln and the completion of Van Valkenberg Park with its heavily used softball fields. Failing all the above, common sense dictates that there be some type of new independent study of traffic or at least an in house objective study done before this drastic step is made. All of the data before you is twenty years old. Neither the Engineering department or the Planning staff has done any current objective study of this issue in spite of direction by the Planning Commission to do so on March 30, 1994. City Council May 11, 1994 Page 7 Literally no one except your staff person is in favor of the extension. There is no logical or economic basis for the extension except the fact that it is in the plan. As a practical matter the extension will be prohibitively expensive due to widening the road, construction of retaining walls and placement of sidewalks. No one has studied the matter in any objective detail in 20 years. An alternative East West route exists 1,600' to the north on Maloney. The Planning Commission which is charged with the responsibility of advising the Council unanimously rejected the proposal 10 -0. Simply stated the extension of Interlachen neither makes financial or common sense nor is it supported by the record. Respectfully submitted, Edward W. Glickman pig SUN OIL COMPANY v. VMLAGE OF NEW HOPE Minn. 261 Cite as 220 N.W.2d 238 municipal governing body acts in an ad- 3. Upon the evidence presented, the rned ministrative or quasi - judicial capacity trial court determined that the denial of felt i when it acts to deny an application for a Sun Oil's rezoning petition by the village uth- special -use permit, it is well established council operated to deny Sun Oil equal ould that it acts in a legislative capacity under protection of the laws and was discrimina- oice its delegated police powers when it adopts tort', unreasonable, capricious, arbitrary, Sun or amends a zoning ordinances Thus, and void. We are compelled to disagree. taff when defendant's village council acted in :edi- j ect i all Auld in- cate re- -%ve. the .nit- tied foes ind- :rue ,a ling f a i in art - ,ses use nge or .ree ons age de. ,ur- )er- ing ea bn- 'U ll- this case to deny Sun Oil's petition to re- zone or to enlarge the permitted use of a part of the village land area, it acted in its legislative capacity, for to effect the change requested an amendment to its ex- isting zoning ordinances would have been necessary. When judicially reviewing a legislative determination, the scope of review must necessarily be narrow. The rationale be- hind the limited nature of review in such cases is aptly set out in State ex ref. How- ard v. Village of Roseville, 244 Minn. 343, 347, .70 N.W.2d 404, 407 (1935) : "Insofar as zoning ordinances are con- cerned, it has frequently been held that what best furthers public welfare is a matter primarily for determination of the legislative body concerned •. "Even where the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is debatable, or where there are conilicting opinions as to the desirability of the restrictions it imposes • • • it is not the function of the courts to interfere with the legislative discretion on such issues." (2j 2. In order to challenge success- fully the legislative body's determination, proof must be submitted to establish either an unconstitutional taking or an action in excess of the powers delegated to the legis- lative body. See, 8A McQuillin, Municipal Corporations (3 ed.) § 25.279; Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L-Ed. 303 (1926) ; State v. Houston, 210 Minn. 379, 298 N.W. 33S (1941). 5. See. Village of Euclid t -. ambler Realty Co.. 272 U.S. 365. 47 S.CL 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (100-9) ; State es rel. Howard v. Villaze of In arguing for a rezoning of the subject property, Sun Oil places great importance on the fact that a similar use —that of an automobile service station — exists directly north of the subject property across 36th Avenue North. The trial transcript is per- meated with testimony and stipulations by which Sun Oil attempts to show that its subject property would make a more suit- able site for a. service station than the present Shell station site. While these contentions, which were only weakly dis- puted at trial, may well be true, it is clear that such an approach does not necessarily indicate that the village council's denial of the rezoning request was arbitrary or ca- pricious. It must be emphasized that in denying Sun Oil's petition the village council was at all times acting in furtherance of its comprehensive zoning ordinance. Because the village council's refusal to adopt the proposed rezoning was based on a desire to maintain its existing zoning structure, the proper mode of attack for Sun 00 was to prove that the 1960 comprehensive zonine ordinance as amended was arbitrary, capri- cious, or otherwise invalid, or that the — neighborhood of the subject property had un ergone such a substantial change since the enactment of the original LB zoning classification as to make GB the only rea- sonable classification for the subject prop- erty. In an analogous situation, the court in Hardesty v. Zoning Board, 211 .-VId. 172. 177, 126 A.2d 621, 623 (1956) noted: "• • • (Wlhen an aoplication is made for reclassification from one zone to another. there is a presumption that Roseville. 244 Minn. 3.13. 70 N.W.2d 404 (1953). 262 Minn. 220 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES the original zoning was well planned and was intended to be more or less perma- nent. Before a zoning board rezones property there should be proof either_ that there was some mistake in the origi- nal zoning or that the character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent that reclassification ought to be made. The burden of proof * * * is upon the proponents of the change." Scrutinv of the transcript reveals that Sun Oil offered no evidence before the vil- lage council or at trial which would sup- port a finding that the most recent zoning of the subiect property to LB was arbi- trary, unreasonable or otherwise invalid. Assuming, as we must, the validity of this zoning classification, we are compelled to regard the village council's action in fur- therance of its comprehensive zoning ordi- nance as a reasonable legislative determi- nation not stii >icc: to judicial intcricrencc. [3] While a similar use exists directly across the street from the subject property, it is. clear that mere physical proximity be- tween existing and proposed land uses does not of itself merit a rezoning of the sub- ject property. The village council is vest- ed with the police power to establish zon- ing districts and, necessarily, to fix bound - ary lines. Moreover, it cannot be over- looked that, even had the village zoned the property south of 36th Avenue North (in- cluding the subject property) for RB use as it previously had zoned the site of the present Shell station across the street, Sun Oil would still not have been able to con- struct a service station on the subject prop- erty; such a use, since the 1963 zoning or- dinance amendment, required a GB loca- tion. We acknowledge, as Sun Oil argues, that the village's 1960 development plan, which proposed that the intersection in question might in the future be a good location for a shopping center, tends to support Sun Oil's contention that the subject property should be rezoned. However, the record establishes that a shopping center is a per- mitted use in an RB ors GB zone; there- fore a future rezoning to RB of the land south of 36th Avenue North would still al- low a shopping center but would not per- mit a service station. And- the construc- tion of a shopping center north of 36th Avenue North does not itself require an- other shopping cener on the south side of 36th Avenue North. In ordering the village council to rezone the subject property, the trial court appar- ently relied on Pearce v. Village of Edina, 263 Minn. 553, 113 N.W.2d 659 (1962). In that case, plaintiffs applied for rezoning of their property from "office building pur- poses' "commercial use." While the Edina council denied plaintiffs' petitions for rezoning, the trial court, which was af- firmed by this court, finding the council's denial unreasonable, confiscatory, arbi- trary, and void, ordered the rezoning. The Pearce case. however. is clearly distin- ;uishable. Plaintiffs' property in the Pearce case was virtually surrounded by commercial zoning and was characterized as a "peninsula" among commercial uses. Such is not the case with Sun Oil's subject property, which is bounded by extensive zones of single and multiple residences as well as limited business and retail business zones. As suggested by this court in a similar case, Felber v. City of St. Louis Park, 2S9 Minn. 456, 458, 135 NAX" 2d 526, :2S (1971), where we held that a denial of rezoning which results from a desire to further a .comprehensive plan is not unrea- sonable, arbitrary, or capricious, the peti- tioner for rezoning "paints with too broad a brush" in claiming that the subject prop- erty should be zoned for general business purposes because of the existence of a sim- ilar use across the street. (4,5] In reviewing the trial court's treatment of the effect of the change of conditions in the neighborhood of the sub- ject property, we also find error. In its findings, the trial court determined that the change in plans for the intersection of County Road No. 18 and 36th Avenue North from no interchange to a diamond 's• `t 1. 1 . i F - €�.: - - zo: no us be: wi- th, an c0__ rid in utory L ing a old by •e not rmed. Y was i, and irding it. M after .Pas de- s arbi- le, de- d equal taking ion and 3. The yllis G. .ent for A. The hat: (1) refusal )us, and ant evi- FREUNDSHUH v. CITY OF BLAME Cite m US N.W2d 6 (Minn.App. 1986) dence of loss of land value to maintain action for unconstitutional taking. Affirmed. 1. Municipal Corporations x63.1(1) Where a municipality acts in its fact - finding or legislative policy - making capaci. ty under its delegated powers, scope of review is very narrow and city's actions are subject only to broad limits of the arbitrary and capricious standard. 2. Zoning and Planning aJQ 9 As a legislative act, muSicipality's re- zoning classification had to be upheld upon appeal unless classification was unsup- ported by any rational basis related to pro- moting public health, safety, morals or gen- eral welfare or amounted to a taking with- out compensation. } 3. Zoning and Planning 0=679 To overcome presumption that original zonin¢ classification of property is well planned and is expected to be somewhat permanent, landowner must show either that original zoning was mistaken or that c aracter of neighborhood has changed to such an extent that no reasonable use can be made of property in its current zonin c assisicauon. 4. Zoning and Planning x653 s Landowner seeking rezoning of proper- ty failed to show that municipality's refusa to rezone conflicted with compre ensive municipal plan required by Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act [M.S.A. § 473.851 et seq.] and was thus arbitrary and capri. cious. M.S.A. § 473.865, subd. 2. 5. Zoning and Planning x653 Landowner failed to show that munici- pality's refusal to rezone land from farm residence classification to single family classification to permit low-density single - family urban development of land was arbi. trary and capricious. 6. Eminent Domain x2(1.2) Landowner's failure to present evi- dence that municipality's refusal to rezone land for low -density single - family urban de- Minn. 7 velopment had diminished value of land or had denied, landowner of all reasonable uses of land allowed summary judgment against landowner on claim of unconstitu- tional taking without just compensation. Syllabus by the Court 1. Where a municipality acts in its legislative policymaking capacity under its delegated powers, the scope of review is narrow, and the municipality's actions are subject only to the broad limits of the arbi- trary and capricious standard. 2. A zoning classification will be up. held unless unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, or unless the classification amounts to a taking without compensation. Charles R. Weaver, Steven T. Hetland, Eric A. Short, 11inneapolis, for appellants. Pierre N. Regnier, Thomas M. Sweeney, St. Paul, for respondent. Heard, considered and decided by LES. LIE, PJ., and PARKER and CRIPPEN, JJ. OPINION CRIPPEN, Judge. Appellant Mark Freundshuh brought a declaratory judgment action against re- spondent City of Blaine after the city de- nied his rezoning application. Appellant alleged that the denial was arbitrary, capri- cious, and unreasonable. Appellant also alleged that the denial deprived him of due process and equal protection and that it was an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. Finally, he al- leged that Blaine acted under color of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982). He sought injunctive relief and damages. Following cross- motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment for respondent Freundshuh ap- peals from judgment entered pursuant to the trial court's order. We affirm. 8 Minn. 385 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES FACTS Appellant owns a 21.75 acre tract of land in Blaine, Minnesota. Before appellant purchased the land in 1977, the tract was given its current Farm Residence (FR -1) zoning classification. Farm Residence zon- ing permits single family residences togeth- er with public uses and general farming. The minimum property size permitted per dwelling is four acres. Appellant's own home is the only improvement on the land. The rest of the land is 257o wooded and 7576 open land. Appellant filed a rezoning application with Blaine in January 1984. He sought to subdivide the property into 63 single family lots. His proposal required rezoning the tract to Single Family (R -1), a classification with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet The community development staff of the city's planning commission recom- mended approval of the application, subject to numerous conditions that included re- quirements for extension of water and sew. age lines to the property. Both the planning commission and the city council held public hearings on the matter. The commission recommended de- nial of the rezoning request. The city council concurred and issued a resolution denying appellant's application. The city issued extensive findings to explain its de- cision. Appellant challenges the city's ac- tion as impermissibly inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan and asserts that the findings demonstrate that the city act- ed arbitrarily and capriciously. In 1982, the city adopted a comprehen- sive plan as required by the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act See Minn.Stat. § 473.858 (1984). Subsequently, the city adopted a new comprehensive zoning code for use in conjunction with the plan. The plan specifies that appellant's property is to be developed as a single family resi- dential district. The comprehensive plan does not define "single family residential," but it permits single family residential units in four zon- ing districts: Agriculture, Farm Residence, Residential Estate, and Single Family. The zoning code states the intent of Single Family districts is to allow the construction of low density single family units in devel- oping portions of the city where sanitary sewer and water services are available. Farm Residence districts are intended for areas where urban services are not pres- ently available. The trial court found that sanitary sewer and water services are not presently available on appellant's property. ISSUE Was respondent's refusal to grant appel- lant's rezoning request arbitrary and capri- cious? ANALYSIS (1.2] Where a municipality acts in its factfinding or legislative policymaking ca- pacity under its delegated powers, the scope of review is very narrow, and the city's actions are subject only to the broad limits of the arbitrary and capricious stan- dard. Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66, 72 (Minn.1984). As a legisla- tive act, respondent's rezoning classifica- tion must be upheld unless appellant proves either that the classification is un- supported by any rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, or that the classifica- tion amounts to a taking without compen- sation. Id. (citing Rochester Association of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Minn.1978)). The rational basis test means that "even if the city council's decision is debatable, so long as there is a rational basis for what it does, the courts do not interfere." Honn v City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Minn.1981). [3] The original zoning classification of property is presumed to be we panned, and it is expected to be somewhat perma- nent Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 419 (citing Sun Oil Co. v Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 335, 220 N.W.2d 256, 261(1974)). To overcome the presumption, appellant _ musts ow either that there was some mis- take in the original zoning or that the char i i i i I• y acter c such an e be made zoning cla cifically fc indicating a mistake rounding tent that of the pro. There is r. findings. [4,5] I official cc flicts with Stat. § 47 "a refusal prehensivE acting in : 348 N.C.= the denial sistent w i plan, such to have ac We cane present ti, There, nated a, comprehen. the proper rezoned as In contras plan specif to be dev dential." 1 gle family 1, the prop lion, and F desires. A FR -1 or R- hensive pla In additic the city's r ing any jus. trary and c. case, the ci- p)aining ant of the findi- and develop plan. For new develo_ iir IC. 3eve1- :1itary ilable. ad for pres- d that ,.re not )perty. appel- i capri- s in its :,ang ca- !rs, the and the ie broad )us stan- gan, 348 i legisla- :lassifica- 3 nt G n- :elated to y, morals, classifica- t compen- >-sociation .ester, 268 -ie rational E the city so long as .at it does, Mn V. City l 409, 415 ;ification of all planned, chat perma- 419 (citing o Hope, 300 , 261(1974)). n, appellant is some mis- hat the char- FREUNDSHUH Y. CITY OF BLAINE Minn. 9 Cite as 383 N.w2d 6 (MinaApp• 1986) d acter of the neighborhood has changed to s such an extent that no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current zoning classification. Id Respondent spe- cifically found that no facts were presented indicating either that the FR -1 zoning was a mistake7or that the character of the sur- rounding property had changed to the ex- tent that no reasonable use could be made of the property in its current zoning status. There is no evidence that contradicts these findings. [4,51 Respondent may not adopt any official control or fiscal device that con- flicts with its comprehensive plan. Minn. Stat § 473.865, subd. 2 (1984). Moreover, "a refusal to zone (in accord with the com- prehensive plan] is evidence that the city is acting in an arbitrary manner." Amcon, 348 N.W.2d at 75. Appellant asserts that the denial of his rezoning request is incon- sistent with respondent's comprehensive plan, such that respondent must be found to have acted arbitrarily under Amcon. We cannot agree. This case does not present the same situation as in Amcom There, the property in question was desig- nated as "roadside business" by the city's comprehensive plan but the city refused the property owner's request that it be rezoned as "roadside business." Id at 75. In contrast, respondent's comprehensive plan specifies that appellant's property is to be developed as "single family resi- dential." Four zoning districts permit sin- gle family residential units, including FR- 1, the property's present zoning classifica- tion, and R -1, the classification appellant desires. A zoning classification of either FR -1 or R -1 is consistent with the compre- hensive plan. In addition, the court in Amcon held that the city's refusal to rezone "without stat- ing any justification for the refusal is arbi- trary and capricious. Id In the present case, the city issued extensive findings ex- plaining and justifying its decision. Many of the findings reinforce the city's grow and development policies as set forth in the plan. For example' the plan encourage new developments where urban service uch as major highways an sewer services are already available or can be easily ex- tended. Two findings relate to such servic- es. Finding 5 states that the currently available services are compatible with the development of the entire area as a large of residential development rather than de- velopment as an R -1 district Finding 6 states that the construction of the neces- sary services to accommodate appellant's property would result in the development of the entire area as R -1, due to pressures for recouping the cost of the construction. Appellant relies on the report prepared by the city's community . development staff to question these findings. The staff rec- ommended approval of the rezoning, sub- ject to several conditions. However, two of the conditions involve precisely this issue: the need for and the cost of an extension of adequate water and sewage lines to service the property if rezoning were granted. First, the staff report says that the wa- ter main servicing the property is insuffi- cient to service the proposed development. The nearest trunk line with sufficient ca- pacity is located several blocks from the property. The staff also determined that the water main proposed by appellant is inadequate. Second, neither of the two sanitary sew- er lines servicing the area can support a high density residential development Ap- pellant proposed connecting to an already existing trunk line. His proposal was usa- ble, but it would require an amendment to the comprehensive plan because the plan indicates that this area is to be served by another trunk line. A connection into the trunk line presently designated by the plan would require the construction of a lift station. Although appellant agreed to pay for the installation of the lift station and trunk line, his cost of $19,900 would cover only a part of the total cost to the city of $82,400. Because adequate sewer and water lines th are not presently available to service the property, because appellant's proposal for s extending sewer lines contradicts the plan's s terms, and because extension of the servic- HONN Y. CITY OF COON RAPIDS Minn. 411 r1te"Mism. 313 N.W.2d 409 may be a quasi- judicial proceeding present- ing a legal question to which certiorari still lends itself. M.S.A. §§ 462.361, subd. 1, 555.01, 555.02, 555.05, 606.01 et seq. 17. Zoning and Planning 0-604, 607 Although case law distinguishes be- tween zoning matters which are legislative in nature, i.e., rezoning, and those which are quasi- judicial, i.e., variances and special use permits, the standard of review is the same, namely, whether the zoning authority's ac- tion was reasonable. M.S.A. §§ 462.361, subd. 1, 555.01, 555.02, 555.05, 606.01 et seq.- 18. Zoning and Planning 0-601 While reasonableness standard is the same for review of all zoning matters, na- ture of the matter under review has a bear- ing on what is reasonable. M.S.A. §§ 462.- 361, subd. 1, 555.01, 555.02, 555.05, 606.01 et seq. 19. Zoning and Planning 0-604 Standard of review of rezoning matters is whether the classification is reasonably related to promotion of public health, safe- ty, morals or general welfare. M.S?,. § 462.357, subd. 1. 20. Zoning and Planning 0-371 In special use permit cases, reasonable- ness is measured by the standard set out in the particular local ordinance and not the statute. M.S. L § 462.357, subd. 1. 21. Zoning and Planning 0-606, 607 In legislative zoning, the municipal body is formulating public policy, so the inquiry focuses on whether the proposed use promotes the public welfare while in quasi - judicial zoning public policy has been estab- lished and the inquiry is on whether the proposed use is contrary to general welfare as established in ordinance and, hence, re- viewing courts, in determining reasonable- ness, should keep in mind that the zoning authority is less circumscribed by judicial oversight when it considers zoning or rezon- ing than when it considers a special use permit or variance. M.S.A. §§ 462.357, subd. 1, 462.361, subd. 1, 555.01, 555.02. 555.05, 606.01 et seq. 22. Zoning and Planning 0-749 Reviewing court would not affirm trial court's decision to reverse city council's re- fusal to rezone land from single - family resi- dential to multiple -unit residential and com- mercial notwithstanding contention that all facts necessary to decision were before the court via the "agreed upon" record required by the trial court. M.S.A. §§ 462.357, subd. 1, 462.361, subd. 1. 23. Zoning and Planning 0-672, 681 Original classification of property as single - family residential was presumed to be well planned and intended to be more or less permanent and burden was on property owners seeking rezoning to multiple-unit residential and commercial, to show either some mistake in the original zoning or that the character of the neigh r ad changed to such an extent that no reasona- ble use could be made of the property to t current . zoning classification. §§ 462.357, subd. 1. 462.361, subd. 1. Syllabus by the Court 1. Certiorari is not a proper procedure to review a legislative rezoning decision of a city council. 2. On review of a zoning decision to the district court the parties are entitled to a trial but evidence is limited to that presented before the municipal body or to new or additional evidence relevant to is- sues that had been raised and considered before the municipal body. 3. The standard of review in zoning matters is the reasonableness of the munici- pal body's action, but the nature of the matter under review, whether legislative or quasi- judicial, has a bearing on what is rea- sonable. 4. In this case the "agreed upon" rec- ord required by the trial court was not adequate to present the city council's denial of a rezoning application for judicial re- view, and the case is remanded to the trial court for trial. Tanick & Heins, Marshall H. Tanick and Samuel D. Heins, Minneapolis, for appel- lant. IN tlp ..... Qt t i i A a >art - that :ly a t, in e to �osal ante was the vere the kely also the )pen con - rea- .vith u n- sug- f i- iing the ing, :clu- !iza- . 1 to the e of iak- ther iew, 1 of :one i of ner- us, of on" Sent link tion PETITION OF BUSCH Minn. 419 Cite as. bUnn., 313 N.w2d 419 denies the appellant city its day in court. To affirm the city council's action deprives In re Petition of Douglas P. BUSCH, et al., respondents Honn of the same right. We to Waive the Bar Admission Require. conclude, therefore, the case should be re- ment of Graduation from an ABA -Ac- manded to thedistrict court for trial. credited Law School. [23] 3. Testimony at trial, for example, might bear on whether the city council's decision was simply a response to neighbor- hood opposition, as the trial court found, or if it had secure evidentiary basis. The trial court recognized the city council was not required to follow the recommendation of the planning commission but concluded "when the Council fails even to address the planning considerations put forth by . its own experts, the possibility of an unreason- able decision is necessarily raised." Here again, testimony at trial may be enlighten- ing. Also, the original classification of this property as single - family residential is pre- sumed to be well planned and intended to be more or less permanent. See Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 335, 220 N.W2d 256, 261 (1974), quoting Hardes- ty v. Zoning Board, 211 Md. 172, 177, 126 A2d 621, 623 (1956). The burden is on respondents to show either some mistake in the original zoning or that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent no reasonable use can be made of the property in its current zoning classifica- tion. Sun Oil Co.. 300 M- inn. at 337, 220 N.W.2d at 261 -262. The trial court found, "The record as a whole establishes that single family housing is inappropriate for this parcel." Here again, testimony direct- ed at this issue may be helpful. In other words, the parties should have the opportunity at a trial to explain or attempt to explain their actions, having in mind the evidence must be relevant to the issues considered before the city council. Only with this kind of record can the city council's action be reviewed as contemplat- ed by Northwestern College v. City of Ar- den HiIIA 281 N.W2d 865 (Minn.1979). Reversed and remanded for trial. SHERAN, C. J., took no part in the con- sideration or decision of this case. No. 52006. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Dec. 17, 1981. Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1982.• Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was invoked seeking waiver of re- quirement for admission to the bar. The Supreme Court, Sheran, C. J., held that circumstances of the case did not justify waiver of rule requiring graduation from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association as a condition to admission to the state bar. Petition denied. Yetka, J., filed dissenting opinion in which Simonett and Otis, JJ., joined. 1. Attorney and Client a4 Circumstances of case did not justify waiver of rule requiring graduation from a law school accredited by the American Bar Association as a condition to admission to the state bar, despite contentions that appli- cants had been precluded from attending approved Minnesota law schools because of the tremendous number of law school appli- cants, that they were misled into believing that the school of law which they attended would become accredited, and that they had received a quality education at great ex- pense, where they knew that the law school in question was not approved and were not misled by the State Board of Law Examin- ers or court into believing that they would be allowed to take the bar examination. 52 M.S.A., Admission to the Bar Rule II, subds. A, A(3). 2. Attorney and Client 0-31 When a law school library collection is inadequate in terms of total volumes and 1 i i ,e•t., I lad l: :5..., i; f 1�. i� i� ti E: .o ON Issue Area 4 The traffic issue aithin Area 4 is how should Interlachen Blvd. and Ridge Road relate the street system that will service the Issue Area and relate to 'tile proposed interchange at County Road 18. The alternative street plans to I•esolve the issue include (figure 12): Alternative 1: extend Interlachen Blvd. to County Road 18 and to develop the street system with connections to Interlachen, i•talihu, Ridge Road, Larada Lane and WiIlow Wood. Alternative 2: cul -de -sac Interlachen Blvd. and develop the street system with connections to the same streets as in Alternative 1. Alternative 3: cul -da -sec Interlachen Blvd. and ^idne i?eau ; n J d-.iae 1 on the street sys t( in tvi th connection to i.ntj samic streets as in .k i terna r i ve 1 excel t R i fiuN Road. The frill development of the single family residential land in the Issue Area is expected to generate an additional 3900 trips per day. The street system deveiooed -for the Issue Area will have to support these trios. If Interlachen .•/ere open to County Road 18, it is estimated that 40% of the additional trips or 1660 vehicles per day would travel to the east. 23 ,...,......, %,w.,uui,.man Joanson's * motion to continue the matter to May. 20, 1974, was then seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. YOB: - :wEASii.e� EDINA TAX APPEAL CO%'TI:•:Ui:D to play o, 1974, by motion of Councilman Courtney, seconded ay Councilwoman Schmidt and carried. T.H. 100 LrrILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT :.IT:'. E1N`1SSOTA DEPART`LrNT OF liMR—TAYS ' to May o, 1)74 by motion of Councilman Courtney, seconded by Coul:cil- ? � 7 - -1C ••» I 'nF?naFD ;r7 ri.A; -KING 'l'RPnSES AINU :.•+th.':U I,OT BE SCALED 'ER= f,C;:;,;, ;:; i /.EASIJRE'AENTS ARE IEOWRED L v CUB -DE -SAC ♦ i — ' � . I: i FIGURE 15 ' =COMMENDED 51ATION PLAN CONSULTANT SLIGHT MINORITIJ TASK FORCE TO 114KL CLRTAI 1 OTHER C!WXE•'S TI- CITY COUNCIL OF TIU: CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: MIRROR LAKES PLAT 140. 2 GR.1_rvTSD FI \AL APPROVAL Mr. Luce presented Mirror Lakes Plat No. 2 for final approval, advising that the necessary documents have now been signed. Councilman Johnson thereupon offered the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to review of the documents by the City Attorney: if ISSUE AREA 4 Al ternative 1 Strennths Al terr.ntive 1 1•!eal:nr Ss r naxirum residential accessibility. transforming a local street, Interlachin, i, best emergency vchicle access. to, a collector. negative traffir. valur.� Pnd land usc' ie:r,:rt ICU;.., , .ilon ;� ! .ter ;i•i,:;,f, Ve -21: iner•ec:scs residt:nti l i:cc;5if?il i;. incr 2Ss cme1, � :11: , V(.- hi c.lc ccccsS. r'C. iA.ic:,Sl�ip. M M I I( 11 I ' mint:: :um incrra a to retr- denti:.i aceessil,ili ;y t: th(-% cast. nc.q'i r. trnf`ic val,e-e inP- : ---t to the Sou"JI and east. ! The c:'.I:..tOn of ':i; /. a -;)vvc ;.ltern;tivec lee: to the selection of I iCr.ru.:cl.� .. s t .a;CCirq ;he a:'ala,:ii�: 71itcl -ia. . --oaLvai, touncltman Johnson's motion to continue the matter to may 20, 1414, was then seconded by Councilman Courtney and carried. CL N C DATA . =11 °59'57" m (L- DATA = 832.51 A= 680 59'54" = 87.49' -o R= 138.94, = 174.35 � 7= 95.49 C" L= 16733 Ln cn I1 Aa � �rlf• / �C �� C 13 o �0- 1 \ C12� Ire M, 1� c -v n ifs � z r� / °9 51a v,� CONST. ~so,$ \� �� e9• L`�L ;T. cn' A = 67° 22 36 \ Q ��,� 10 37'54" R = 141.00 334.51 (A L= 165.81 ��^ �elr 39.41 T= 93.99 35.00 R TH k6". -� Q 3 \ ,LE: 1 �� .50" o "1 .0 PD 9�e � 3 r4 O � y P. — ( 0 F. _ 3 No. DESIGN OF LOCAL STREETS AND TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS TABLE 2.1 Typical Design Standards for Streets in Residential Areas Design Item Local Streets Collector Streets ft m ft m Right -of -way width 50 -60a 15 -18a 70 21 Pavement width 22 -36a,b 7 -11 a.b 36-40a 11 -12a Type of curb Sidewalk width Separation between curb and sidewalkt Minimum sight distance Maximum grade Minimum centerline radius of curves: Superelevated Not superelevated Minimum tangent between adjacent curves Maximum cul -de -sac length Minimum radius of right - of -way for cul -de -sac turnaround area Vertical' 0 -6a 0 -2a 6 2 110 -200b 35 -60b 4 -15% 110 -250b 35.75b 180 -430b 55 -130b 50 15 700 -1000 210 -300, 50 15 ' - Varies with density of development. - Varies with terrain. `• Varies inversely with density of development. Rolling or no curb in low - densiry developments on level terrain. T' No sidewalk in low-density developments. Vertical 4 -6a 1.3 -2a 10 3 150 -250b 45 -75b 4 -12% 175 -350b 53 -105b 280 -580b 85 -175b 100 30 23 are provided at the rear of all residential lots for vehicular access to gars -es or other park- ing spaces, and the street itself is not encumbered with driveways and the possible hazards related to them. Such alleys may also serve as utility rights-of -way. These design standards are silent, however, on the relationship of street use to abut- ting land development and its users; it generally is assumed that other regulations (such as zoning and building codes) will address these concerns. While the typical street design standards undoubtedly help to assure motorist safety and convenience, they may also inadvertently contribute to certain kinds of problems. For example, wide rights-of -way, long sight distances, and large- radius curves facilitate driv- ing at speeds well above the 25 mph (40 km/h) generally considered a suitable speed limit on local streets. In some cases, excessively wide streets may be an aesthetic problem, creat- ing a barren interruption of neighborhood structure, and may present a formidable barrier to be crossed, especially by the elderly and children. Traffic controls can also contribute to speeding problems by assigning preferential right of way at several consecutive local street intersections to the same street, giving it the perhaps unintended status of a collec- tor or major street. Many neighborhoods predate current standards, and their streets may have other design problems. For example, it is not uncommon for older major streets to be lined with houses, either with numerous driveways presenting potential conflicts or, in some older areas, with no driveways and no provision of off - street parking at all. Another concern is that design standards usually are applied at the level of a sub- division or, at most, a local jurisdiction, at least in the United States. This reflects the fact r 1 Summary of Proposed Revisions Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Design BY ITE TECHNICAL COLINCIL'COMMITTEE 5A -25A The IT' TE publication Recommended Practices for Subdivision Streets was first developed in 1965 by ITE Technical Council Committee 6E. It was revised in 1983 by Technical Council Committee 5A -25 as Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets. The following pro- posed revisions were prepared in 1959 by Committee 5A -25A. Few changes have been made to the existine euidelines. Changes were prin- cipally made where additional clarifica- tion was needed. An outline of general provisions in the current recommended practice is given below. followed by a brief discussion of the proposed revised changes. Title Change The title was chaneed from Recom- mended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets to Guidelines for Residential Sub- division Street Design. Traffic Considerations in Subdivision Planning and Layout The principal chanee in this chapter was the addition of a list of traffic elements suegested for local aeency use when re- viewine a subdivision plan. The six ele- Conversion factors: feet x 0.3043 = m acre x 4046 = m= ments include eeneral requirements such as public street names; existing condi- tions such as property dimensions, lo- cations of existing streets. easements. and major vegetation; lot and block plans giving appropriate dimensions. proposed rights -of -way, and easements. as well as other general site data; a grad - ine, drainage, and erosion plan that in- cludes existine and proposed contours. estimates of volume of soil to be re- moved. etc.: a utility plan that includes existine and proposed public utilities; and street profiles and cross sections that give data on vertical curves and erades. Design Elements for Subdivision Streets This chapter includes sections on local streets, collector streets, and intersec- tion desien. There are 19 elements dis- cussed under local street design, such as terrain, development density, right-of- way width, pavement width. type of curbs, sidewalks. sight distance, park- ing. lighting, etc. There are 14 similar elements in the section on collector street desien and 10 elements relative to intersection desien. Local Streets The ranee of desirable street width for low development density (two or less dwelling units per gross acre) in level terrain (0 to 8 percent grade ranee) and rolling terrain (8.1 to 15 percent cross slope) is now 22 to 2S feet, increased from the 22- to 27 -foot range. A ranee of 5 to 6 feet has been estab- lished for desirable sidewalk distance from the curb face for medium and higher density development (more than 2.1 dwelling units per gross acre). The reason for this chanee is that a 28 -foot street in a 50 -foot right -of -way. with a 5- foot walk located one foot from the property line, as per many city stan- dards, results in only 5 feet remaining from the face of the curb to the street edge of the walk. Allowable maximum cul -de -sac leneth in low density development was in- creased from 1.000 feet to 1.500 feet. For medium density (2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre), the chanee was from 700 feet to 1.000 feet. These in- creases provide additional flexibility for development without significantly add- ing to the problems of emergency vehicle access or possible out -of -way travel. The minimum cul -de -sac radius was increased from 50 feet to 60 feet. The purpose of this change is to facilitate turnaround by fire equipment. tt ` . •t.. Paul C. Box, P.E. F'• (FL), chairperson ,�� �r• of ITE Technical „ . 4 Council Commit- - tee 5A -25A. 'is president of Paul C. Box and Asso- ciates, Inc.. Skokie. Illinois. ITE JOURNAL - MAY 11990 • 35 A discussion has been added on the problems of pedestrian walkway right - of -way between homes. A problem of interpretation has ex- isted in connection with local street radii. The recommended values are in- tended for use in midblock or non- inter- section curves. However. these are being interpreted by some agencies as also ap- plying to intersections where the config- uration is an "L" type. This was never intended by the prior committees be- cause an "L" intersection should be treated no differently from a "T" inter- section. Additional wording has been placed in the text and on the illustrative subdivision street plan figure. Collector Streets A need has been recognized to allow for narrower. two-way operation in certain locations where curb parking is not al- lowed. This could be adjacent to a park. along a river, etc. For these locations. A Toolbox for Alleviating Traffic Congestion This new report is intended for e!ected officials. business and com- munity leaders. representatives of the media. and others interested in learnina more about what options are available for reducing traffic conges- tion. The Toolbox examines the causes behind the growing traffic congestion problem and describes specific actions that can be taken to improve the situation. For each ac- tion. the relative benefits and costs are also presented. along with an ex- planation of the methods of imple- mentation. ITE. 1989, 154 pp., per - fecibound. Publ. No. IR -054A: 535 (S25iITE members), plus 100 ($5 minimum) for shipping and handling. An Executive Summary of the Toolbox is also available. Publ. No. IR- 054AX: S5 (S3 /ITE members), plus 10% (SS minimum) for shipping and handling. To order, call the ITE Bookstore at 202,554 -8050 (please have VISA or MasterCard number handy): or send your order to ITE Bookstore, 525 School St., S.W. Suite 410. Washing- ton, DC 20024 -2729 USA (prepay- ment required). 36 - ITE JOURNAL - MAY 1990 widths of 24 feet for conditions of no parking on either side and 30 feet for one -side parking have been added. These compare with the recommended collector street width of 36 to 40 feet for basic conditions where at least occa- sional curb parking could be expected on both sides of the streets. A section has been added on the use of utility and'or sidewalk easements par- alleling the street right -of -way. Recommended right -of -wav has been increased from 70 feet to 80 feet for high - density development in all types of terrain. The purpose of this change is to recognize the greater parkway or border area space possibly needed for utilities, as well as to improve the sidewalk set- back. This is a summary of proposed revi- sions to Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets, a Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transpor- tation Engineers. These revisions have been developed in accordance with formally adopted Institute pro- cedures designed to help and assure that a representative cross - section of parties are given opportunities to provide input. It should be noted that the recommendations are guidelines. not an exclusive set of acceptable pro- cedures. They are not necessarily in- tended to supersede specific local. re- gional, or state requirements. although those agencies may wish to modify their requirements as a result. It will, however, assist developers, as well as public agency planners. engi- neers, and reviewers, to understand essential elements in the planning and design of local and collector streets in typical residential subdivi- sions. It is important that there be lati- tude for addressing unique case -by- case situations. All input received to date was considered by the commit- tee so that this report would repre- sent the best consensus obtainable on the state -of- the -art at the time of ap- proval. This report was prepared by ITE Technical Council Committee 5A- 25A. Members were Paul C. Box. P.E. (FL), chairperson, Ned P. Becker. P.E. (M); Lyle L. Berg (M); Intersections The recommended minimum angle be- tween two intersecting streets has been decreased from 75 degrees to 70 de- grees. The committee has been unable to identify significant research relative to intersection angle .of either local or col- lector streets showing that the 5- degree reduction would have anv effect on traf- fic safety. However, a note showing 90 degrees as the preferred angle has been retained. References A number of out -of -date references have been deleted and replaced with current sources. William N. Ferro. P.E. (FL); and Roger L. Hatton. P.E. (F). Members of the Technical Council Department 5 Standing Committee on Transportation Design at the time this report was approved were Rich- ard L. Peterson. P.E. (M), chairper. son: Paul C. Box. P.E. (FL); Robert D. McMillen. P.E. (FL); and George B. Pilkington 1I. P.E. (M). Certain individual volunteer mem- bers of the Institute standards devel- oping bodies are employed by federal agencies, other governmental'offices. private enterprise, or other organi- zations. Their participation in the In- stitute standards developing activities does not constitute government agency or other organization en- dorsement of any Institute standards developing bodies or any Institute standards that are developed by such bodies. Copies of the complete proposed revision to this report are available from the Professional Programs De- partment of ITE. Any comments regarding the pro- posed changes should be submitted by Julv 15, 1990. Comments, questions, and any requests for a public hearing should be directed.to Professional Programs Department. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 525 School Street. S.W. Suite 410. Wash- ington. DC 20024 -2729. USA; tele- phone: 202.1554 -8050; FAX: 202/863- 5.186. TECHNICAL COUNCIL REPORT SUMMARY A Recommended Practice: Guidelines for Residential Street Design By ITE Technical Council Committee 5A -25A This is a summary of the revisions to Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Design, a Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers approved by the Institute in February 1993. The revised report supersedes the 1990 Proposed Revisions to Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Design and the 1984 Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets. The scope of the committee was to update the 1983 report on design of local and collector residential subdivision street elements, including intersections. Few chanees have been made to the existing guidelines; changes principally were made for additional clarification. An outline of general provisions in the present recommend- ed practice is given below, followed by a brief discussion of the revisions. Traffic Considerations in Subdivision Planning and Layout The principal change in this chapter was the addition of a list of traffic elements suggested for local agency use in review of a subdivision plan. The sir elements include gener- al requirements such as public street names: existing condi- tions such as property dimensions, streets, easements and major vegetation: lot and block plans giving appropriate dimensions, proposed rights of way and easements as well as other general site data: a grading, drainage and erosion plan. which includes existing and proposed contours, estimates of volume of soil to be removed and so forth: a utility plan, which includes existing and proposed public utilities: and street profiles and cross sections. which give data on vertical curves and grades. Design Elements for Residential Subdivision Streets This chapter includes sections on local streets, collector streets and intersection design. There are 19 elements dis- cussed under local street design, such as terrain, develop- ment density. right- of -wav width, pavement width. type of curbs. sidewalks, sight distance. parking, lighting and so forth. There are 14 similar elements in the section on collec- tor street design and 10 elements relative to intersection design. Design Elements of Local Streets The range of desirable street width for low development density (two or'few•er dwelling units per gross acre) in level class terrain (less than 8 percent grade range) and rolling ter- rain (8.1 percent to 15 percent grade) is now 20 feet (ft) to 28 ft, rather than 22 ft to 27 fL A range of 5 ft to 6 ft has been established for desirable side- walk distance from the curb face for medium and hieher density development (more than 2.1 dwelling units per gross acre). To convert from ft to m, rntdtipiy by 0.3048 Allowable maximum cul -de -sac length in low density development was increased from 1.000 ft to 1.500 ft. For medium density (2.1 to 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre), the change was from 700 ft to 1,000 ft. The minimum cul -de -sac radius was increased from 50 ft to 60 ft. The purpose of this change is to facilitate turn- around by fire equipment. A discussion has been added on the problems of pedway right -of -way between homes. Text regarding local street radii has been reworded to clearly state that the recommended values are intended for use in mid -block or non - intersection curves rather than intersections. The illustrative subdivision street plan figure also was revised to reflect this clarification. Design Elements of Collector Streets A need has been recognized to allow for narrower. two - way operation in certain locations where curb parking is not allowed, such as adjacent to a park, alone a river and so forth. For these locations, widths of 24 ft for conditions of no parking on either side or 30 ft for one -side parking have been added. A section has been added on the use of utility or sidewalk easements paralleling the street right of way. Recommended right -of -way has been increased for high - density development in all types of terrain from 70 ft to 80 ft. Design Elements of Intersections The recommended minimum angle between two inter- secting streets has been decreased from 75 deerees to 70 degrees. However, a note showing 90 degrees as the pre- ferred angle has been retained. 1 Ordering Information The full report (Publ.No. RP -011C. S25 for members /S35 for nonmembers) can be purchased from the ITE Bookstore. 525 School St.. S.W.. Suite 410. Washington. DC 20024: tele- phone 202/554 -8050; FAX: 2011363 -5486. ITE JOURNAL - SEPTEMBER 1993 - 19 This report was developed by t, • t ITE Technical Council Committee 5A -25A. Members were: Paul C. `• .tom Box, P.E. (chair) (FL); Ned P. �c Becker. P.E. (F); Lyle L. Bere (M); °i;F• �•� William N. Ferro, P.E. (FL); and Roger L. Hatton. P.E. (FL). Paul C. Box President Paul C. Box & Associates Skokie, IL Ordering Information The full report (Publ.No. RP -011C. S25 for members /S35 for nonmembers) can be purchased from the ITE Bookstore. 525 School St.. S.W.. Suite 410. Washington. DC 20024: tele- phone 202/554 -8050; FAX: 2011363 -5486. ITE JOURNAL - SEPTEMBER 1993 - 19 .• �> 1 j%1 r, AW MAN UAL Tab. C (1) 5 -8y 8820.9950 URBAN ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION .(�s�fica>baa Fac�ty 'Pro �ectedADT ._:V. Funcxia»E >::.. .I3es� -:C�aricter . Range INN_...,.. Collector Serves as a feeder Low to roderate 200 - 5,000 (Law Density) facility from operating deeds. ACT neighborhood and local streets to the collector/ arterial network. Also sarv*s es access for business and residential develoanent. Collector (High Density) Arterial (Low Density) Arterial (High Density) Collects traffic from local and feeder streets and connects with arterials. Can serve local business districts. Serves intracortmunity travel. Aummts hiph- density arterial Forms backbone of urban network. Serves as through facility. Moderate operating speed provides access and traffic mobility. Sorge access control with effoasis on traffic mobility Provides for through traffic and turning m+ovements. May provide divided roadway and access control. 1,000 - 10,000 ADT 5,000 - 15,000 ADT 12,000 Z up ADT *Additional average daily traffic may be allowed in a classification if a capacity analysis demonstrates that "level of service D" or better is achieved at the higher traffic volume. If the capacity analysis demcnetrates that additional lanes are required only during peak traffic hours, then each additional driving lane may be used as a parking lane during nonpeak hours. ab. C (2) 5- 892.210 `STATE AID MANUAL December 28. 1992 8820.9935 GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS: URBAN; 30 TO 35 M.P.H. DESIGN SPEED; NEW OR RECONSTRUCTION (Applies to projects on the FAS System, OIT System Bridge projects, and State Aid projects) In the following tables, total width in in feet, face-to-face of curbs. then a median is included in the design of the two -way roadway, add two feet to the dimension shorn. This provides a one -foot reaction area on either side of the median. xinintn median width is four feet. TWO -WAY STREETS ON&WAY STREETS suexer vf. Qauifty .. =1Pr�kl -=I= n9. :Parkliup= • :. - � a,a side' >Bector 1 -lane Collector Low or ■ors spree ■one low or 261 321 3x1 r2-LancArterist High 261 -2) (a- 11 ector low or Gds 56r 601 1-lane Arterial HigA was mate now rial low 301 361 G2� High ( <- 11 -11• {) (i- 11- 11 -10) (10.11- 11 -10) 4 -lane Arterial lw or 431 SA1 6G1 High (2.11.11- 11.11 -2) (10.11- 11.11.11 -2) (10.11 -11- 11.11.10) 6-Lane Arterial High Hone Hors (2-11.11 - 11.11.11 -11 -2) I I ON&WAY STREETS suexer vf. Qauifty �fe,7arting ;Par$tnp :Parkliup= Thrtu�h Lanai' :. bocci Sid.m: a,a side' loth skies: 1 -lane Collector Low or ■ors spree ■one High Z-Lars Collector Low or 261 3Z' 3a• Nigh (2- 11 -11 -2) (2 -11 -11•x1 I 1-lane Arterial Low was mate now I -Lana Arterial Low or 261 341 �. High (2-11-17 -2) (2-11- 11 -10) (10- 11- 11 -10) 3 -Lane Arterial Nigh 371 Gil 531 (2- 11- it -11 -Z) (2- 11- i1- 11 -10) (70- 11- 11- t1 -10) urban design roadways scat be a minim nine -ton structural design. A new or rehabilitated bridge mat have a curb -to -curb width equal to the required street width. HS -25 loading is required. Design speed is based on stepping sight distance. for (ederel -old projects the design speed eat equal or exceed the legal speed limit. Design speed less than the regulatory or legally posted speed for a limited number of locations within a project neat be adequately supported and documented and a design "caption east be approved by fwu►. Whw4 rer poenible, lens widths of 12 feet, rather than 11 feet, should be used. Refer to table 8920.9950 for classification, capacity, and peat -hair relationships. 8820.9945 GEON ETRICDESIGN STANDARDS: URBAN; RESURFACING. (Applies to projects on the FAS System, OR System Projects, and State Aid projects) in the following tables, total width is in feet, face -to -face of c rhs. When a radian Is included in the design of the two -ray roadway, add two feet to the diransion Shown. This provides a one -foot reaction area an either side of the median. Miniaua Radian width is far fact. TWO- -WAY STREETS Z"i ti -_ h�. �lone ao iir 'tldC.._.... ;i- �;�, •__.. .... FMbv ` %i'•;••.E+s :� : : : " :" :' : :` :' :_ :;Desiptl- IN `:;.. 'lanes. ... ...,.... Low 2A' 32' Ss' 7 Ton 2•lane Collector Low Pere More tlone T -Tan 1•Lane Cellactx Nish 2b' 32 36' 9 Ten Low tt' 32' 60' 7 Ton a•lar collector Low 211 29' 37' T -Ton 2-lane Collector Nioh [4' 52' 60' 9 Ton 2-Lane Arterial Low 26' 32' 42' 9 Tan 1 -Lane Arterial Low u' St' sc' 9 Ton 4-Lane Arterial Low 23' 31' 39' 9 -Ten 2-Lane Arterial High 1 _ Gi' 54' bc' 9 Ton 6 -Lae Arterial I Nigh 66' Yore Pone 9 Ton ONE -WAY STREETS oiabee :: ;Driesi'ty : :i ao iir arE1 .: no ;J' ; ;i- �;�, •__.. .... of .•.. r » Notli'Sldea�' or;rsia:•.�.' ;.eatKYtdes.'.: "Strueturel"::: " ' `:;.. 'lanes. ... ...,.... _ ....... .. '.�, •Strength.• Low Pere More tlone T -Tan 1•Lane Cellactx Ni Yene Yore were 9 -Ten Low 211 29' 37' T -Ton 2-lane Collector Nigh 23' 31' 19' 9 -ton 1 -Lane Arterial Low Yaw Mone Nor 9-Ton Low 23' 31' 39' 9 -Ten 2-Lane Arterial Nigh 24' 32' GO' 9-Tan 3-tone Arterial Nion 34' 42' 30' 9-yon Recovery arse storderde are not applicable for the above tables. Minisaw design speed is 30 miles per hour based an Stepping sight distance. for federal -aid projects, the design speed nat seal or &acted the legal speed limit. cation speed less than the regulatory or legally posted speed for a limited Tsrxer of locstions within a project mat be adiegwtely supported and aocutented and a design exception not be approved by FMYA. ter u ban roadway classification. see parts UM.2300. subpart 1; and BUD- 50 substituting present ACT for the projected ADT shorn. I� AVE: S. 61000 vn m f\) WASHI ION 'AVE. <� ! ^� g 0 62O C ADAMS AVE. � vG O LINCOLN R. N __ C= /B m (:F JEFFER SON n AVE. �\ Op,t. MALIBU trn DR. Q MADISON AVE. �� MAD [�4t m MONROE AVE. S. MON[. 61.� F9r. PARKWOOD ?` ; v n P. r AVE. JACKSON I�r- LSOd ' /AB op0 -1 0 14 (^ JACKSON n + - JAJ. !T z� v ., add In m o (A N AVE. S. • < p n AF ClO = o MN �n �T q z T_ VAN BUREN m AVE. i 5. ;! oG p� o 0 0 o v m INTERLA CIi -I CT. z �+ s = N o z A tAUOER KEL GREEN s - HARR iSON •AVE. :^ S. _ tj ,or,? WALNUT OR. v �p S CIR. SEY to GREEN FARMS R0 ; FARMS m CT X TYLER '� ('A LONpON x TER• > -� CT. o� TYLER DE ARBORN ST. r pOLK T ' TAMARAC AVE• r 9ERR>•• .a Q�' F z . �'� AVE. J, s n NEWPORT v� RIDGE RD. -� RIDGE �P o PIERCE c, s H COp Rp; c, _1 LARADA m ARiNUR STS a te+?' o � o z r ,RDA C`ao •S °v KINGSBER °. n R0. o O in r' O' m OE[/ r RY 0 —o '� GRIFFIT ST. 0 r 11. °z d ,OO o R� lF n o�� AK 9p DR. In P SCOTT o °v '�� v 1 �3`�y1 CAA�F io ^� ERS LA. SCHAEFER R0.R' Q BLAKC ° AVM 1B / KILLARNEY m LA. Rp qC p rn m O JOHN JOAN ST. �,Q�EY = R0. �/ E ` `^ v o— v O 9 VIEW A. O X20 0 �Q v ST. _o HOLLY RD. o m Q r DOD CT. GROVE '^ ,O SCHAEFER `(off z << ° EVANSWOOD D.O� ��r \t��S D KCRRSSE PL 1 OAKWO OD RD • n z c�,p Q o o r LA. O ti 5d ;� 650 0 z z •° n 1NTERL ACHEN RD. 0� — Go �,. x o BLAKE RD. n v a X � FMAPLE HILL RD. r P, In a -D "-� 9q A um+ < o o x OOH = vri HOME DALE RD. .p (A of me r PL. 0o In A � � � .. m �+ � RD. 0D a� m ,�.� 0 v z _ HAW THORNE . O < y n �• 0 03 rs :+ O 8O 1900LINGER RD. ��' fie— 111GHWO 00 0 o MEADOWBROO< RD. O )e SAN v HIGHWOOD DR. �s o , OpA VILL A LA. ° 0 ANNAWAY 11EA111ER a DUNDEE �, mo c Jd < g x m M OR Ii► LAKES = n v O1 C.IR. p' X v 7 m r-LA a AVE. .p� T� E, CHAN � W A • ;+ •FARBOU STUART AVE. '�)j`�,1 / N �_ m RD. ap R •AM1Id \'�� s< X s As r r. s m '�S O GLENGARRy 143380 s •sc r O p a z N �IO�16 � PKWY• �,f -jY� I 0. 0 -i� ,�j �d�, /� IaS m TRACY y�00 AVE. '� i J1 Up MERRIT PADDOCK RD. /• 510 �,� \� 9 nN r YIAY �j L 00 0 2 LD \S \� t��� C O A lll���� --- Io 1LI1 I^ JOIIRS0;1 DONCASTER o 1° :INTERLAC HEN o 7�a coq O DII' O ti BLUFF N v !.Q �• o Al0 < Z. r- ,A � P� � �f � J .�� GOYA LA. LOC ey Oo � z c! CAF pv z ,°� i OAK m LA. o� tidy ^0 H! DY o = J. RC(£ F,• �/ A t'� r OR. '' SKYLINE Dgp o BOG Y O c z v pN -i O _ r ! v ZGAR J AVE. a' i'S� rm I�1 n r n ,� n CA, Crn DR. I in• I] ? rlhruirn �� 6ws lntrr�ac ii�n ��vd. Edina. Mnnnesote 55.136 April 20, 1994 Harvey C. Hansen Parkxood Knolls Construction Co. 5307 Vernon Avenue 2 -dina, Minnesota 5436 Dear Harvey; This letter is a follow up to our telephone conversation this rporning. I called to see if you were willing to cone up with one or more alternative plans for the 24th Parkwood Knolls Addition. Since you have stated publicly that you are indifferent as to whether or not Interlachen Blvd. goes through to Malibu Drive and since that is one of the rain objections fron those of us in the neighborhood, I thought there was room for compromise. I even threw out one possible alternative. You did not like my alternative and you are unwilling to consider other plans. You said you are waiting for directions from the City of Edina. It is clear that you are saying you don't care if Irterlachen Blvd. goes through to Malibu Drive because you are sure that the City of Edina will insist on it. Therefore, you get what you want but the City is the bad guy. Zhis is an uncooperative stance which only strengthens our opposition to your plan. Since ly, l N,W,. Charles McI. Webster cc: City of Edina Planning Commission Members James M. Ronning 6416 Interlachen Boulevard Edina, Minnesota 55436 April 21, 1994 Commissioners City of Edina Planning Commission 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Subject: Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition Dear Commissioners: At the March 30, 1994, Planning Commission meeting I expressed my opposition to the above proposed subdivision primarily because the extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive would create a low resistance path between Blake Road, Interlachen Boulevard east of Blake Road and Highway 169 which would greatly increase the volume of transient vehicular traffic through our relatively quiet neighborhood. Another point I made was that the demographics of our neighborhood have changed considerably in recent years. ,There are currently 21 children living in homes affronting Interlachen Boulevard between Blake Road and the dead end'with an additional nine children living in homes on the adjoining cul -de -sacs. These children would be placed at an unacceptable risk by the ensuing increase in traffic levels.. Harvey Hansen said a number of times during the meeting that the extension of Interlachen Boulevard was not crucial to the implementation of his plans to develop the subject area. In fact, during an informal discussion following the meeting, Mr. Hanson stated that it would be more desirable if Interlachen Boulevard were cul -de -saced from both directions. This would make it economically feasible to increase the lot sizes in the new development and build larger, single family homes which would be more consistent with existing homes. Because there is a consensus on this issue between residents and developer, we urge you to abandon your plans to extend Interlachen Boulevard west-to Malibu Drive and formulate an acceptable alternative. Sincerely, es M. Ronning PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone 9 16 ,.�T1�,Car 2, X114. 9 TJMC�-1 A&OeC4 �- 5. i i 8. So s- I cr. Gf�-v - 916 ,`ILA q3J - //�-� 93 o - ?Fst 7� x� q�5- oSsT ql I , PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Park -wood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. t-� Name Address Phone # j-';We �/� /� - q33- �vs �rlil� ... n l/ e� .c l/)IAf it w '2�.1� �'(..)P0�11 �_�]n,ic�_ �'1� 15. 1`� lz -0(/61t PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Park-wood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. , //y q -/-0 3"?( %l � r -FLY YELL-140% 39-� - S0 2..5 01 PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone # S� 93F S-239 -7 q-�� /�Uy.3 R5g- 9-39 y G (�� clen f go l 113 1'- 129 Y7 7362- 3 177 ivd. '?M4 17 7 L� PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone # �' j 1. {,.�✓' yn f 2. gdll 3. �-- 3'r�U 4. �� •z I 4 S/{ /> nd 6g002Ai( UozU"o 1 7-70 -00 8S D fro-° °�� 1-3 3 15. A2 �,ba,� �rr�Icl�V„� /s t �� %,,, -�►� ?n Z b I IJ a MW j;5 ?10 Z PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Park. wood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. 4o/ Name Address Phone # '4z q31 - q��g 2. -4?o/ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. q� PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, l Ennesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name .. , 4�_ %�i �r B1/ /d 8Z14/0 67-36--449Z C'Xog&1.ty atw/p 'Mr 41,'DZ 13. \ � 15. PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands Name Address Phone # L-IP- E £t�;na ` "� ><.���w �r• ���i�M4r. �{qo� PRESc,�-�c o t (Pre3co +4- G . b4l,- '�(97v F' w / LL/ - 93g- 0 I o I . , 933 �e9-�8 ion if—OF r W- 9. _r) FA c—!< `�a°1 '' " 3 333 I()- 116/ 116wli �fo y 1119-J "Yf G'crcCe rte .. `�3S -SSZS� ?gr— 4 1 W I `) PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Park-wood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone # t_ I 1i �4 ( 1 /) �9zo Y. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Y0 3 s- - ---6 — PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Par",00d Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Park-wood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Park-wood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone # 2. << I 3� 3. �i .S0 Z 5. 6: 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. �3 � PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina a's Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. l G j Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone # 3� -173 &a6% Ci 3 7. V 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. f PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone # kvAl 1. 93 3 -7 —1�.Y P o 5 3/6 S °'-`7f J 4 3 3- V?- z�z 9z` -7277 WA S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ��V\q � PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Park rood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. • Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone # 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. r 0 PETITION TO DENY PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24th ADDITION SUBDIVISION We the undersigned object to the proposed subdivision on property labelled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. This property is generally located south of Van Valkenberg Park, north of Parkwood Road, east of Malibu Drive and west of Greenfarms Road in the City of Edina, Minnesota 55436, and is being developed by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company. We object to the following specifics: The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive. Housing density greatly exceeding previous proposals. • Extreme housing density threatening fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Name Address Phone # 3. 4. 6 �{�6 / V 1 V I %�.�.5 -3:2L1 hUGL"dvLS� 5. 7. �aao -7s7� s. �Z y 12. 13. 14. 15. We the undersigned are in attendance at the April 27, 1994, meeting of the City of Edina Planning Commission to express our opposition to the proposed subdivision labeled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. Our primary objections are the extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive and the proposed housing density. n n NAME /, n ADDRESS cle F y9 z s LnT� S. 52 t �- Ir I r PIP Wma ffl _ iff MitiMM, WA.'Al y, We the undersigned are in attendance at the April 27, 1994, meeting of the City of Edina Planning Commission to express our opposition to the proposed subdivision labeled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. Our primary objections are the extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive and the proposed housing density. NAME ADDRESS r �l 1541 `l 1 We the undersigned are in attendance at the April 27, 1994, meeting of the City of Edina Planning Commission to express our opposition to the proposed subdivision labeled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition: Our primary objections are the extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive and the proposed housing density. NAME ADDRESS iI--- . . • i / /11 1 n 1 �(g 3 6 "ce ,6f �f� eprq, . In tt- F A.-le We the undersigned are in attendance at the April 27, 1994, meeting of the City of Edina Planning Commission to express our opposition to the proposed subdivision labeled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. Our primary objections are the exi tension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive and the proposed housing density. NAME ADDRESS IV h /'7` /,IS /I7 Z-a-C- �If F1 -aeiAla I G 44o s --n u We the undersigned are in attendance at the April 27, 1994, meeting of the City of Edina Planning Commission to express our opposition to the proposed subdivision labeled by the developer and the City of Edina as Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition. Our primary objections are the extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive and the proposed housing density. / NAME ADDRESS C__4-_1 a / •/'WI ®R 1 Vq a 5 /41�� �p &A Subdivision Area #24 The Interlachen /Parkwood Knolls Coalition requests the following issues be considered by the Edina City Council regarding Subdivision Area #24: • The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive and making it a collector street. • No plan for the neighborhood park has been fully developed. • The proposed housing density exceeds previous proposals and asks for rezoning considerations. • The proposed housing density threatens the fragile ecosystem and wetlands. v •ilfiF' . Subdivision Area #24 The extension of Interlachen Boulevard west to Malibu Drive and making it a collector street. Rationale: • In 1974 recommendation was made to cul -de -sac Interlachen Boulevard. • The neighborhood is willing to accommodate a reasonable share of traffic from the new subdivision but does not want Interlachen Boulevard to become a collector street. — Safety of the children — Resident security — Character and symmetry of the neighborhood — Property values and neighborhood cohesiveness • It is not clear who, if anyone, benefits from making Interlachen Boulevard a collector street. — 150+ resident signatures — Developer doesn't care 0 Subdivision Area #24 Issue: No plan for the neighborhood park has been fully developed. Rationale: • The future neighborhood park must be planned to accommodate neighborhood users: — Easy and safe access — Sheltered from high volume traffic patterns • Van Valkenberg Park is not a neighborhood park and is not neighborhood friendly. Therefore, the neighborhood park should be planned to have its separate and unique identity. F] Subdivision Area #24 The proposed housing density exceeds previous proposals and asks for rezoning considerations. Rationale: • The current plan calls for more homes than originally planned on lots that are inconsistent with the older established Parkwood Knolls neighborhood. • The reasons for requesting rezoning appear to be questionable from a legal standpoint. Subdivision Area #24 ss ue: The proposed housing density threatens the fragile ecosystem and wetlands. Rationale:- • A determination must be made as to whether the current development plan complies with current wetland designations. • The full extent of the environmental impact of the development can not be understood until a comprehensive plan has been prepared, reviewed and approved. • To our knowledge, the following plans have not been submitted to the appropriate agencies for review and approval: — Grading and drainage plan — Wetlands definition map — Storm water holding plan • It appears some wetlands will be eliminated. If so, there must be mitigation. A process exists to determine if mitigation should be allowed, and it is unclear if that process has been completed. -A Subdivision Area #24 Issues Recommendations • The extension of Interlachen 1 Detailed plans of the complete subdivision should be prepared to Boulevard we to Malibu Drive. ensure the total long -term Impact on the neighborhood Is specified and understood by the neighborhood. 2 Table the plat until a review of Edina's CLUP Is conducted to evaluate the viability of turning Interlachen Boulevard In to a collector street 3 Redesign the roadways In the development to access Malibu Drive, County Road 169 and routes other than Interlachen Boulevard. • No plan for the neighborhood park 1 Incorporate the Involvement of the neighborhood pertaining to park accessibility, suitability of use and demographic needs. has been fully developed 2 Avoid putting through traffic roads by park. 3 Maintain access to and from Van Valkenberg Park In Its current state. 4 Develop the neighborhood park In a time frame that Is consistent with the rest of the subdivision development 1 No change In zoning be granted for this property on the • The proposed housing density basis that a clear and compelling reason for change has not exceeds previous proposals and been established. asks for rezoning considerations: 2 A new plan should be prepared that Is consistent with the CLOP, with the exception of Interlachen Boulevard being extended, requiring property developments to be In keeping with the topography and neighborhood characteristics. • The proposed- housing density 1 In order to ensure the preservation of the wetlands and compliance with current legislative and Judicial Interpretation, threatens the fragile ecosystem all required plans for the entire subdivision should be and Wetlands reviewed and approved by the appropriate agencies before any development begins._ April 26,1994 City of Edina Planning Commission 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 RE: Proposed Residential Development of land N.W. of Parkwood Knolls ( west of Green Farms, east of Malibu and north of Parkwood Rd.) To Whom it May Concern: We recently became aware of the above referenced proposed development from a neighbor and today went to the City Hall to review the plans. We were surprised to learn that the hearing was set for Wednesday, April 27, 1994. Because of the short time frame we are unable to attend the hearing on this matter, thus the reason for this letter. Having lived in the Parkwood Knolls neighborhood since the early 1950's, we have seen many changes and much growth. However, this proposed development concerns us for several reasons all pertaining to the density of the project (95 units). The gentleman that I spoke with at the City office informed me that the projected traffic increase from this project alone would be 1000 vehicles per day. Our concern is that the majority of this traffic would route through the Parkwood Knolls area via streets Iike Schaeffer Road, View Lane and Blake Road. I was told that there is a proposal to connect Interlachen Blvd. with Malibu Drive. However, this is not a guaranteed outcome. If it doesn't happen, the traffic would virtually all flow through the Parkwood Knolls neighborhood. If it does occur it would still be sorrily inadequate, as anyone traveling from the proposed project area to areas of Edina (ie. Vernon /Hwy 100, 50th and France, etc.) would flow through the Parkwood Knolls area. Our concern with this traffic increase goes beyond inconvenience, but extends to the safety of the pedestrians and especially the children in this neighborhood. This concern can not be overlooked. Finally, we are concerned that we happened on to the knowledge of this propoed development by chance. It occured to us that the residents that will be affected by this development and the increased traffic problems it will generate most likely are totally unaware of this situation. Therefore, we are recommending that all residents in J the Parkwood Knolls area be adequately informed of this matter so that they have ample opportunity to voice questions, concerns, objections, suggestions and comments. It is imperative that the existing residents of this neighborhood have this opportunity. The decision on this proposed development should be delayed until this communication is made. Finally, upon determining the approval or disapproval of this project, we would like to see the density of building greatly reduced and appropriate consideration and provisions for adequate and safe traffic patterns must be installed. At this time it is apparent that they do not exist. Thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions and serious concerns. Your attention and consideration is appreciated. Sincerely, � Ll J Dr. Marcus Gustafson and Elizabeth Gustafson 5725 Camelback Drive Edina, Minnesota 55436 Jay F. Cook and Karen M. Rye 6501 Parkwood Road Edina, Minnesota 55436 May 11, 1994 City Council City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 RE: Proposed Development Plan for Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition Dear Council Members: We attended the Planning Commission hearing on the above matter which was held approximately two weeks ago. We understand that the matter will be considered by the City Council at its meeting next Monday, May 16. Due to prior commitments we will not be able to attend the meeting. We are interested in the matter, however, and therefore would appreciate it if you would make this letter part of the record of the May 16 proceedings. Our views on the issues raised by the proposal and discussed at the Planning Commission meeting are as follows: 1. We oppose the opening of Interlachen Boulevard as a through street to Malibu Drive. Based on the increased traffic that would result, it is evident that the particular properties bordering Interlachen Boulevard that would be affected, and the general neighborhood, would be adversely impacted in terms of safety, aesthetics and property values. We are not aware of any reason at all, much less a compelling one, to turn Interlachen Boulevard into a through street, and given the neighborhood opposition to this aspect of the proposal and the developer's indifference to the outcome on the question, it seems that this question should not continue to be an issue at all. 2. We are concerned that the 80 or so homes to be built in the subdivision will generate a significant amount of traffic. While we oppose the opening of Interlachen Boulevard as a through street to Malibu Drive, we also believe that the, existing streets in the vicinity should share equitably in the City Council City of Edina May 11, 1994 Page 2 distribution of traffic to and from the subdivision. Therefore, we would strongly oppose any suggestion that Interlachen Boulevard not be extended beyond its current terminus at Interlachen Court; we believe it should be extended to at least provide a convenient means of ingress and egress to and from homes on Kelsey Lane and Cougar Trail. Our feelings with respect to an opening of some kind from the neighborhood to Malibu Drive are mixed - on the one hand an opening would provide an additional means of ingress and egress for the new homes which presumably would decrease the burden on Interlachen Boulevard and residential streets to the south of Kelsey Lane, but on the other hand an opening would invite through traffic and strangers into the area. Therefore, if the City Council decides that an opening to Malibu Drive is appropriate, we request that the City implement all reasonable methods to discourage through traffic. 3. We oppose the inclusion of townhouses or other multi - family structures in the subdivision. Their inclusion would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood, which is developed with substantial single - family residences, some on lots of one acre or more, and also likely would have a negative impact on the value of nearby lots and homes. We are not aware of any rationale for including townhouses or other multi - family structures in the subdivision, except that changes in wetland laws and regulations have had the effect of decreasing the number of single - family homes that can be built within the subdivision, and the developer wants to "recapture" the originally contemplated density by adding townhouses. Changes in wetland laws and regulations, which are based on a public policy of preserving valuable public resources and which therefore often have the effect of lowering density, should not be used as an excuse or rationale to increase density in a different section of the same general area, particularly when the structures which would achieve the increased density are incompatible with and adversely impact the neighborhood. 4. Based on discussions at .the Planning Commission meeting, it appears that there are significant concerns relating to wetlands, topography, depth of utility lines and other engineering matters, and the appropriateness of having certain of the proposed homes in the subdivision border both Malibu Drive and Cougar Trail. These seem to be serious concerns, and we suggest that they be addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council and the City's planning and building officials prior to construction; in this way the City might avoid being presented with problems when the exigencies of the situation only allow ad hoc and less than desirable solutions. Also, given the traffic issues, we City Council City of Edina May 11, 1994 Page 3 question whether it would be appropriate to engage a traffic consultant to do a current traffic study. matter. We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on this important Very truly yours, I ' V. Cook 2C Karen M. Rye -A 3-6� 1 •1 V 4 April 27, 1994 Edina Planning Department C/O Edina City Hall 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Planning Commission: We just learned of the appalling Kelsey Terrace development. Having lived on Stauder Circle since 1965, we strenuously object to the planned development unless direct access and egress is provided via Malibu Drive and Interlachen Boulevard. The winding streets in Parkwood Knoll simply could not accommodate the traffic the development would generate and would constitute a danger to the families and small children that stroll around the ponds and curving roads. This project should be rejected or postponed until a suitable transportation proposal is submitted for reasons above stated. Re ely submitt d, Darrel Ind Elizabeth Holt 5416 Stauder Circle Edina, MN 55436 WTt.r.r AM C. JOA3 661$ PARHWOOD ROAD EDINA. MIIVNESAOTA 66486 April 27, 1994 Dear Edina City Council Members, We are writing this letter, since we can not attend the meeting, to express our concern regarding the proposed development by Parkwood Knolls Construction Company in the area off of Kelsey Terrace and Malibu Drive. We have three areas of concern, they are the increase traffic, the access into the development, and the negative impact on the market value to our property. First, the Edina Planning Department has stated that the impact of traffic associated with this proposed development could be 1,000 cars per day. This increase is so significant that we believe all residents surrounding the proposed development be notified of this issue by the city. This will then enable the residents to voice their concerns on where and how access to this proposed development will effect all in the area. Secondly, the citizens in the Interlachen Blvd. area are opposed to Interlachen Blvd. being extended into this development due to the increase of traffic. If Interlachen Blvd. is not extended Parkwood Road would bear the brunt of the increase of traffic in and out of the development. Parkwood Road can not handle such an increase. Thirdly, we are very concerned of the increase of traffic negatively effecting the value of our existing home. After speaking to our realtor she.stated that the increase of traffic would definitely have a negative affect on the value of property in the area. Most residents in the surrounding area of this development are not aware of the proposal. It is very upsetting that our City of Edina has not informed all residents in the area who may or will be significantly affected by the increase of traffic. It is our hope that the decision in determining access to this development be delayed until all area residents are adequately informed on the impact that this proposed development will have on our neighborhoods. We also believe that a traffic study be performed and released to all area residents so that the impact will be known before any action is taken. We do not want our area streets to turn into a `Blake Road or Gleason Road" where traffic is heavy, fast, and constant. We hope that you as City Council Members remember and represent all members of the Edina area who currently pay taxes when you decide on this issue. Sincerely, William and Margaret Joas j�) I R. J. McMorrow 6504 Willow Wood Road Edina, MN 55436 r Z -C(L�- Z 933 -0219 AGENDA ITEM II.B a— `ALA — k. tL rL `�Q� -•- l.1). -ICJ �— c,t�.��. �--- �>-- )._T_�`�...�..��� ,�.�� lJi_.�. ^ IODU l %.S4,�6 LA), J C[sc..,., 1. C� I 0--A :1 4L, AGENDA ITEM II.B Dear Mayor Richards, May 16, 1994 We will not be able to attend tonight's meeting and hope you will consider the following when making_ a decision on the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. We live at 5112 Ridge Road. When we purchased our home in 1986, Green Farms Road was not developed. It was our understanding that it was the policy of the City of Edina that new developments would be built in ways to maintain the esthetic integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods. This was not the case of Green. Farms Road. Most of the trees were cut down. The houses that were built are disproportionately large to the size of the lots when compared with the homes of the neighboring streets. By extending Interlachen Boulevard through to Lincoln Drive, we are looking at further negative changes to our neighborhood. Our neighborhood is quiet, with old trees, narrow roads and children playing in the streets. There is no park to play in. Mr. Hansen has proposed to build a tot lot in his development. The problem is that should Interlachen be extended, the children will have to cross a busy street in order to play there. Secondly, the tot lot will be in the v middle of the wetlands thereby, offering maximum insect density as well as swampy ground. I doubt the children will. leave, playing in the street for playing at this park. Interlachen Boulevard, as it exists, is not wide enough to accommodate a parked car as well as two way traffic. That should tell the city council that it cannot handle heavy traffic. In addition, the grade of the road combined with the large trees, provides for a winter road that is dangerous due to poor visibility as well as heavy ice build up. Every year there are accidents at the Interlachen - Blake Road Intersection. when travelling west on Interlachen, it becomes very dangerous to turn south onto Ridge Road as the oncoming traffic is not visible and the cars cannot stop at the last minute because there is ice present from the first snowfall until spring. At the planning commission meeting, not a _ single person spoke in favor of the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. The developer does no care if the road goes through, the people who live in south Parkwood- Knolls don't care, the fire chief was reported as saying it didn't matter and experts hired to review the situation in 1974 said it would be detrimental to the neighborhood to pull Interlachen through to Lincoln Drive. With no dire need to access Highway 169 at Interlachen, why risk ruining a neighborhood by breaking the current cul -de -sac? By failing to vote against the extension of Interlachen Boulevard, the planning commission failed to meet its responsibility to carry out the needs and desires of the taxpayers it represents. Please do not let this happen at the city council meeting. There is no need for this road and the city engineer and planning commissioners are naive to think that no one would use it, except for those in the immediate neighborhood, as an access to Hwy. 169. Thank you for your time. Please vote against this road extension. Sincerely, Cindy L. Witkin Perry A. Witkin 1 r O J In O REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item # II. c. From: Craig Larsen Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Date: May 16, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: Comprehensive Plan 7 To Council Amendment. Street designation Park- Action ❑ Motion lawn Avenue between France and York Y Resolution Avenues South. ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends changing the designation of Parklawn from local to collector street. Info/Background- See attached Planning Commission minutes and staff report. Edina Planning Commission April 27, 1994 Page 12 Mr. Hansen asked if the commission could only vote on his first phase 22 houses along Cougar Trail). Commissioner Johnson said he has a problem with the plat in regards to grading, fill etc, adding with what has been presented so far, he cannot support the plat aspect of the proposal. ° A discussion ensued regarding the motions. Commissioner Johnson suggested the Commission should go back to Commissioner Ingwalsons original motion. His original motion encompassed the proposal as presented. Commissioner Ingwalson moved to recommend denial of the proposal as submitted. Commissioner Hale seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. The motion to deny the proposal as presented was approved 10 -0, 1 abstention. Commissioner Ingwalson reiterated in his opinion we are not a design agency, we react to plans as they are presented. He cannot support the extension of Interlachen Boulevard and the development of multi- housing units in this neighborhood. III. OTHER BUSINESS: IDPA'fl Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Designate Parklawn Avenue as Collector Street Mr. Larsen informed the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan does not depict Parklawn Avenue as a collector street. A collector street designation will quality the street for funds. Commissioner Runyan moved to recommend amendment of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner McClelland seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. IV. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hale moved for adjournment at 1 1 :10 p.m. EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT APRIL 27, 1994 Parklawn Avenue is shown as a "Local Street" on the.City.Land Use Map. The proposed amendment would change its designation to that of "Collector Street." This change in designation would be consistent with traffic projections contained in the Centennial Lakes master plan and in the Centennial Lakes Indirect Source Permit. The change will also allow the street to be put on the state aid system. The state aid funding is necessary to construct the street and bridge. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. lr. I� 1 � No I 1 9 1 m I m a I I R a a a I p 6 o a 8 W. 69TH °U REQUEST FOR PURCHASE ,�. o y y. TO: Mayor Richards and Council Members FROM: John Keprios, Director, Edina Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: May 5, 1994 AGENDA ITEM Iv . A . ITEM DESCRIPTION: Chevrolet S -10 pickup truck Companv 1. Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet 2. 3. 4. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet $8,899.14 Hennepin County Contract #2843A3 GENERAL INFORMATION: Amount of Quote or &d 1. $8,899.14 2. 3. 4. 5. Replacement truck for Edina Park and Recreation Maintenance Department gnature The Recommended bid is X within budget not within budge Department ; Kenneth Rosland City Walyo, Finance Director . REQUEST FOR PURCHASE v �• TO: Mayor Richards and Council Members FROM: John Keprios, Director, Edina Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00 DATE: May 5, 1994 AGENDA ITEM I V . B ITEM DESCRIPTION: Chevrolet S -10 pickup truck Companv Amount of Quote or Bid 1-Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet 1•$10,608.46 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED. QUOTE 'OR BID: Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet, $10,608.46 Hennepin County Contract 46284 GENERAL INFORMATION: Truck for Braemar Golf Course. Includes: V6 engine, AM /FM Radio and LS Differential. Signature The Recommended bid is —4— within budget not Department Kenneth Rosland City Wallin, flhance Director ° 0' REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor Richards and City Council FROM: John Keprios, Director, Edina Park and Recreation Dept. VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00 DATE: May 5, 1994 AGENDA ITEM Iv. C. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Chevrolet K2500 3/4 Ton 4x4 pickup with plow. Company Amount of Quote or Bid Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet $17,944.18 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Thane Hawkins Polar Chevrolet $17,944.18 Hennepin County Contract #2843A3 GENERAL INFORMATION: Replacement truck for Park and Recreation Maintenance Department. gnature The Recommended bid is within budget not Department d. City 11 Director a o; REQUEST FOR PURCHASE �rJ -ems- ry: TO: Mayor Richards and Council Members FROM: John Keprios, Park and Recreation Director VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00 DATE: May 10, 1994 AGENDA ITEM IV. D. ITEM DESCRIPTION: 72 inch Front Mount Lawn Mower Tractor Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. North Star Turf 1. $13,302.92 2. Wisconsin Turf Equipment 2. $14,479.74 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: North Star Turf - $13,302.92 GENERAL INFORMATION: Replacement for 1989 John Deere Front Mount Tractor Mower ignature The Recommended bid is within budget not Kenneth j � )�ec I Department_ City Wallin, finance Director 1 ° N' REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor Richards and Council Members FROM: John Keprios, Director, Edina Park and Recreation VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00 DATE: May 12, 1994 AGENDA ITEM IV . E . ITEM DESCRIPTION: Service Contract for the Edina Aquatic Center Company Amount of Quote or &d 1. USAquatics 1. $11,460 2. Nothern Aire 2. No Bid 3. Baker Pool 3. No Bid 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: USAquatics $11,460 (only supplier) GENERAL INFORMATION: Service contract for routine service of the swimming pool including filter system check, backwashing, feeders and contoller checks, adjustments chemical inventory and log sheets. gnature The Recommended bid is within budget not IF Finance Director Rosland, City Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: 16 May, 1994 AGENDA ITEM IV. F. ITEM DESCRIPTION: one - One Ton 4 -Wheel Drive Pick -up Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Thane Hawkins, Inc. �. $ 15,875.96 2. (Henn. Co. Contract 2' #2843A3 -232) 3. 3. .4• 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Thane Hawkins, Inc. $ 15,875.96 GENERAL INFORMATION: This purchase is for a one ton 4 -wheel drive pick -up which replaces a 1977 vehicle (unit number 25 -240). This purchase will be funded thru the equipment replacement fund in the street department. S gnat The Recommended bid is X within budget no' Public Works - Streets Department o) REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: 16 May, 1994 AGENDA ITEM IV. G. ITEM DESCRIPTION: one - One Ton 2 -Wheel Drive Pick -up Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Thane Hawkins, Inc. $ 13,634.13 2. (Henn. Co. Contract #2843A3-232) 2 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5 RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Thane Hawkins, Inc. $ 13,634.13 GENERAL INFORMATION: This purchase is for a one ton 2 -wheel drive pick -up which replaces a 1986 vehicle (unit number 25 -201). This purchase will be funded from the equipment replacement fund from the street department. ignat e' The Recommended bid is x within budget not Public Works - Streets Department Finance Director land. Cif& Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00 DATE: 16 May, 1994 AGENDA ITEM IV. H . ITEM DESCRIPTION: One 1/2 Ton Pick -up Company Amount of Quote or &d 1. Thane Hawkins, Inc. 1. $ 12,832.19 2. (Henn. Co. Contract 2. #2843A3 -232) 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Thane Hawkins, Inc. $ 12,832.19 GENERAL INFORMATION: This purchase is for a one -half ton pick -up which will replace a 1986 vehicle (unit number 70 -262). This purchase will be funded from the utility department equipment replacement fund. Public Works - Utilities Signatur a Depardmept \ The Recommended bid is — x — within budget not Finance Director Rosland, C" Manager REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, Director of.Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE 16 May, 1994 ITEM DESCRIPTION: one Dump Truck — Chassis only Company 1. Boyer Ford Truck 2. (State of Minnesota Contract .#C79094- 02733 -01) 3. 4. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR END: Boyer Ford Truck AGENDA ITEM iv -I . Amount of Quote or &d 1. $47,459.27 2. 3. 4. 5. $47,459.27 GENERAL INFORMATION: This purchase is for a dump truck chassis only which-will replace a 1982 vehicle (unit number 25 -332). This purchase will be funded from the equipment replacement fund in the Street Department. Sig atur The Recommended bid is within budget not w rks — Street De t. Depa e allin, Finance Director ity Manager q1�A' lrl\ ° '.j 0` REQUEST FOR PURCHASE J -S' •'^taw,nwJ TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Francis J. Hoffman, Director of Public Works VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: 16 May, 1994 AGENDA ITEM lv . J . ITEM DESCRIPTION: Clean & Repair 85" Arch Pipe - Pentagon Park Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. EMS (Environmental & Marine Services) 2. G.L. Contracting 3. 4. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: EMS GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. $ 7,980.00 2. $30,000.00 3. 4. 5. $ 7,980.00 This purchase is to clean and repair a large 85" diameter arch pipe in Pentagon Park. This pipe connects Parklawn Avenue - court area with storm sewers in Normandale Golf Course. This project will be funded from the stormwater utility fund. Public Works - Utilities Sig ature Depadment The Recommended bid is X within budget not within Kennieth Rosland, Director r-k o, s 4 �Il urii`��� AGENDA ITEM: IV.K. DATE: MAY 16. 1994 REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: Gordon Hughes VIA: Kenneth Rosland, City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 ITEM DESCRIPTION: 1994 -95 GOOSE REMOVAL CONTRACT Company Bid Amount 1. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 1. $21,000 2. No other bids 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED BID: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA GENERAL INFORMATION: We propose to extend the contract with the University of Minnesota through the summer of 1995 at an annual cost of $7,000. This cost is the same as the prior three year period. The attachment provides additional information. The Recommended bid is 0 (within budget) 2ZU4/7? nn h'Rosl nd, Clq Manager ADMINISTRATION Department (not within budget) John Wallin, Finance Director UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Twin Cities Campus . Monday, May 2, 1994 Mr. Gordon Hughes Assistant City Manager City of Edina 4801 W. 50th. St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Gordon: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife College of Natural Resources 200 Hodson Hall /980 Folwell Avenue St. Paul, MN 55108 -6124 612- 624 -3600 Fax: 612 -625 -5299 Enclosed are two copies of a new contract to manage the Canada goose population in Edina. Please sign and return one copy. I will forward it to the University Office of Research Administration; they will return a signed copy to you within a month or so. Note that the previous contract was for the 1989 -1992 period. The new contract covers 1993 -1996. Attached is a summary table of the Canada goose population survey and capture results for Edina in 1993. Also I have attached a graphs of the total geese removed in Edina from 1987 to 1993, and geese captured at the first 7 control sites (1987). The latter graph shows a steady decline of numbers until 1992. I believe that the increases in the past two years have been a result of the excellent breeding conditions. Sincerely yours, Dr. James A. Cooper Associate Professor and Wildlife Extension Specialist enclosures (3 ) The Department of Fisheries and Wildlife is the home department of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Table 1. The number of Canada geese counted and number captured, Edina, Minnesota, June, 1993. Site Counted Captured Young Breeders Non - Breeders* Total Young Breeders Non - Breeders* Total 60TH AND CODE 23 6 0 29 24 7 0 31 6241 KNOLL DRIVE 3 2 3 8 5 3 0 9 6400 TRACY AVE. 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 BRAEMAR PARK AND GOLF COURSE 0 0 42 42 18 4 0 22 COLONIAL CHURCH 4 2 2 8 11 6 0 17 EDINA GOLF COURSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HIGHLAND LAKE 0 0 13 13 0 0. 0 INTERLACHEN GOLF COURSE 38 10 48 96 42 12 0 54 LAKE CORNELIA 2 2 8 12 2 2 0 4 LAKE PAMELA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LONG BRAKE TRAIL - DELANEY BLVD. 21 10 0 31 29 10 0 39 MILL POND 17 6 0 23 27 14 2 43 MIRROR LAKE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NORTH NORMANDALE GOLF COURSE 15 6 0 21 0 0 0 SCHAEFER AND BLAKE ROAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SOUTHDALE- -POINT OF FRANCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VALLEYVIEW RD AND 62 12 4 0 16 11 4 0 15 -- - - - - -- --------------------- - - - - -- --------------- -- Total 138 50 116 304 169 62 2 234 *Note -- Non - breeders usually leave the area after the late May count, but before the last June capture time. j to co V j ao ao cc 1 j co to j j to (O N to to W O Number of Geese 1 N W O O O n 7 d cD N O P* n O 7 as a o� cc c� 1rt .0 .0 CD CL m CL cD 0 n rt CD CL IN O 3 rt CD n rr `< O .k m CL j Go V e W Q� alp, REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Agenda Item # V.A. FROM: CRAIG G. SWANSON Consent Traffic Safety Information Only ❑ DATE: MAY 169 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA SUBJECT: © To Council TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF Action ® Motion REPORT ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Motion to accept the recommendation. Info/Background: Section A outlines four (4) new or changed regulatory actions. Section B recommends the denial of a request to upgrade Larada Lane at Willow Wood Road to a four (4) way stop. TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW MAY 3, 1994 The staff review of traffic safety matters occurred on May 3, 1994. Staff present included the Assistant City Manager, the City Engineer, the Chief of Police, the Traffic Safety Coordinator, and the Public Works Traffic.Control Specialist. From that review, the below recommendations are provided. On each of the items, persons involved have been contacted and the staff recommendation has been discussed with them. They have also been informed that if they disagree with the recommendation or have additional facts to present, they can be included on the May 16, 1994, Council agenda. 4Fr.TI0NJ A• Requests on which the staff recommends approval. (1) Request to improve parking control at Valley View Road at Braemar Boulevard near the ballpark complex. The Committee concurred to recommend to replace the "No Parking Anytime" sign missing from the linking roadway and to install a "No Parking Here to Corner" sign 30' south of the linking roadway on the westerly side of Braemar Boulevard. (2) Removal of "No Parking" restrictions on the east frontage road (Normandale Road) to TH 100. Request made by Christ Presbyterian Church and two area residents who desired short term ability to park on Normandale Road for parties or garage sales. The staff discussed the reason for the restriction and the nature of the roadway. Currently, both sides of Normandale Road are "No Parking" from W. 66th Street to W. 70th Street. These restrictions were established because it is a 24 foot roadway with designated pedestrian -ways on the outer 6 foot edge on both sides. During the snow season on Sunday mornings, parking on both sides restricted the passage of larger vehicles such as firetrucks. To assure accessibility by emergency vehicles and to protect the pedestrian -ways, the restriction was established. �t TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REVIEW May 3, 1994 Page 2 A review by staff of other 24 foot roadways revealed parking usually being permitted on one side or the other. Additionally, it was concluded that one pedestrian -way would be adequate and the west side was the most appropriate location. Some off - street parking would be provided for the church which is consistent with other churches in the community. The staff concluded and recommends the removal of the "No Parking" prohibition on the east side of Normandale Road with the exception .of a minimal safe distance north of the W. 70th Street intersection. (3) Request by the Edina City Engineer to install a "Stop" sign on Harold Woods Lane at Schaefer Road. The staff recommends the above request. (4) Request to replace the "Dead End" sign on Lake Ridge Road at Blake Road. The staff recommends the above request. (5) Request by the Edina City Engineer to install "Stop" signs on the Normandale Golf Course driveway easement at the westerly driveway to the Fidelity lot. The staff recommends the above request. SECTION B: Requests on which the staff recommends denial of request. (1) Request to upgrade the intersection of Larada Lane and Willow Wood Road from a two -way "Stop" to a multi -way "Stop". Three speed surveys were conducted that revealed speeds similar to other residential streets in Edina. No accidents were reported at the intersection on the basis of a three (3) year review. Volumes appeared low estimating less than 600 cars daily. Geometrics were described as poor sight distances for the east leg of Willow Wood Road due to shrubs, trees, fences, and topography. Southbound Larada at Willow Wood Road is a downgrade that would not be conducive to the placement of a safe "Stop" sign. The staff concluded to not recommend the installation of a multi -way "Stop ". TRAFFIC- SAFETY STAFF REVIEW May 3, 1994 Page 3 SECTION C: Requests which are deferred to a later-date or referred to others. (1) Request for the installation of "Stop" signs on Josephine Avenue at W. 64th Street and /or W. 65th Street to control speed and volume. The staff concluded to defer this item until its June discussion. A. o e� 0 npopul� ,800 REPORT /RECOMMENDATION riayur rci�►iarua anu To: Edina City Council Agenda Item #"' B' From: John Kepri os , Director Consent ❑x Park and Recreation Dept. Information Only ❑ Date: May 12, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: Temporary 3.2 beer ❑ To Council license for Central Division softball tournameni Action ❑ Motion Van Valkenburg Park ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: To approve temporary 3.2 beer license for the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Labor Day weekend Central Division Softball Tournament at Van Valkenburg Park. Info /Background: The Edina Park and Recreation Department is hosting the 1994 MRPA -USSA Central Division Adult Mens "B" and Women's "D" softball tournament Friday, September 2 - Monday, September 5, 1994. Current Ordinance (900.16, subd. 2.E) states that the "license shall be issued for three consecutive days only." MRPA would prefer to be licensed to sell beer for all four days, however, the request is to sell beer on only Sat. - Mon. to be in compliance with the ordinance. Park and Recreation professional staff and Park Ranger will be present at the tournament to monitor all activities. V, A. o e '. 4 ;h o REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council From: Francis Hoffman City Engineer Date: 16 May, 1994 Subject :Agreement with City 'of Bloomington for Construction, Maintenance, & Law Enforcement on Minnesota Drive and Cantina Del Rio Addn. Recommendation: Agenda Item # ° c Consent Cj Information Only Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA 57 To Council Action ir —xi Motion Resolution Ordinance �! Discussion Approve joint powers agreement with City of Bloomington which covers Minnesota Drive from Johnson Drive (west termini) to Edinborough Way (east termini) and joint law enforcement activities as it covers Cantina Del Rio Addition and Minnesota Drive. Info /Background: The Cities of Bloomington and Edina have developed a joint powers agreement which will cover cost sharing of construction, maintenance of Minnesota Drive and define responsibilities for law enforcement on Minnesota Drive and Cantina Del Rio Addition property (property is in both Bloomington and Edina). The basic elements of the agreement are the following: A. National Car Rental System, Inc. will pay for a portion of the west section improvements to Minnesota Drive per the assessment agreement between Edina and National Car Rental. B. Edina will pay for a portion of the main storm sewer from France Avenue to Johnson Drive and maintain the main storm sewer line (stormwater utility fund). C. Bloomington will pay for all other construction costs west of France .Avenue and maintain all other elements west of France Avenue. Report /Recommendation Agenda Item V.C. Page Two D. Bloomington will pay for a portion of the east section - improvements to Minnesota Drive east of France Avenue. E. Edina will maintain all improvements east of France Avenue. F. Bloomington will provide all public safety /law enforcement services to the Cantina Del Rio Addition property (located in both Edina and Bloomington) and Minnesota Drive west of France Avenue. G. Edina will provide public safety and law enforcement activities on Minnesota Drive east of France Avenue. H. Each party holds the other party harmless for the activities of each party iri carrying out the duties and responsibili- ties of the.agreement. I. Finally, if either party desires to reconstruct or render usable either the west or east section improvements, then an addendum or new agreement shall be necessary. AGREEMENT FOR DIVISION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR MINNESOTA DRIVE AND FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES ON MINNESOTA DRIVE AND CANTINA DEL RIO ADDITION THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 1994, by and between the City of Bloomington, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota ( "Bloomington "), and the City of Edina, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota ( "Edina "). WHEREAS, Bloomington has completed construction of a street and storm sewer (including curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, landscaping and related improvements) (herein together called the "West Section Improvements ") along a street known as Minnesota Drive, from France Avenue west to Johnson Avenue (the "West Section ") which West Section lies along the common corporate limits of Bloomington and Edina; and WHEREAS, said West Section is located one -half in Edina and one -half in Bloomington, and Bloomington has requested Edina to share in the cost of constructing the West Section Improvements (the "Construction Cost ") and, because the street is one - half in Edina and serves Edina traffic and citizens, Edina is willing to share such Construction Cost to the extent and in the manner herein stated; and WHEREAS, street and utility improvements have also been made in that portion of Minnesota Drive lying along the common corporate lines of Edina and Bloomington from France Avenue east to Edinborough Way (the "East Section "); and WHEREAS, Bloomington has completed construction of a street (including curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, landscaping, and related improvements) over essentially the south one -half of the East Section from France Avenue east approximately 700 feet (the "Bloomington East Section Improvements "), and Edina has completed comparable street improvements over the balance of the East Section, together with the construction of water lines, sanitary sewer pipes and storm sewer pipes therein (the Edina East Section Improvements "); and WHEREAS, the lands included in the plat of "Cantina Del Rio Addition" are located at the intersection of Minnesota Drive and Edinborough Way and lie in both Edina and Bloomington; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59 (the "Joint Powers Act "); and Z WHEREAS, the parties hereto wish to set forth their respective obligations with regard to the West Section Improvements and the East Section -- Improvements and to the provision of utility and public safety and law enforcement services to Minnesota Drive and Cantina Del Rio Addition; NOW THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE. MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND TERMS HEREIN, IT IS HEREBY AGREED THAT: 1. ALLOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS (a) To provide for a proper allocation between the parties of the costs paid by Bloomington for construction of the West Section Improvements lying within the corporate limits of Edina, including interest thereon (which amount the parties agree totals approximately $295,600), and of -the costs paid by Edina for construction of the Edina East Section Improvements lying within the corporate limits of Bloomington, including interest thereon (which amount the parties agree totals approximately $32,000), after taking into account and giving credit to each party for costs paid by them with respect to the improvements located in the corporate limits of the other party, the parties agree that (i) Edina shall pay $60,600 to Bloomington within 30 days from the date hereof, (ii) Edina shall remit to Bloomington all receipts of the special assessment (together with interest and penalties thereon) which has been levied by Edina against the property owned and occupied by National Car Rental System, Inc. ( "National Car "), as provided in an Assessment Agreement dated 15 November, 1993, between Edina and National Car which provides for a special assessment in the amount of $181,000, together with 7.5% interest thereon (the "National Car Special Assessment "); and (iii) Bloomington shall retain $22,000 in connection charges paid to Bloomington for property legally described as "Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Cantina Del Rio Addition" which is located in both Edina and Bloomington, which connection charges are assigned to Bloomington by Edina. The 15 -year payment schedule for the National Car Special Assessment is attached thereto as Exhibit I. Edina will remit to Bloomington all amounts paid to Edina in respect of the National Car Special Assessment, including interest and penalties thereon, within thirty (30) days of receipt by Edina. (b) Bloomington acknowledges that apart from the obligations to remit amounts received pursuant to subparagraph 1(a) ,Edina is not responsible for the payment of the National Car Special Assessment or liable in any manner to Bloomington for any failure by the responsible party or parties to pay the National Car Special Assessment in a timely manner. 2. UTILITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES - MINNESOTA DRIVE AND CANTINA DEL RIO ADDITION (a) As a part of this Agreement Edina agrees to provide the property legally described as "Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Cantina Del Rio Addition ", with water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer service. Bloomington agrees to provide public safety services as the primary responder. 3. CONSTRUCTION INDEMNITIES (a) Bloomington was responsible for the supervision and direction of the construction of the West Section Improvements and of the Bloomington East Section Improvements. As such, Bloomington agrees to indemnify and hold Edina, and its officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and contractors, harmless from and against any and all loss, cost, damage and expense, including, .without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees whether suit be brought or not, due to any claim or demand arising out of, or claimed or alleged to arise out of, any act or omission of Bloomington or its employees, agents, representatives, contractors or suppliers, in connection with the planning, engineering or construction of the West Section Improvements or the Bloomington East Section Improvements, subject, however, to the provisions of Paragraphs 4(a) and 4(c) hereof. (b) Edina was responsible for the supervision and construction of the Edina East Section Improvements. Therefore, Edina agrees to indemnify and hold Bloomington, and its officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and contractors, harmless from and against any and all loss, cost, .damage and expense, including, without limitation reasonable attorney's fees whether suit be brought or not, due to any claim or demand arising out of, or claimed or alleged to arise out of, any act or omissions of Edina, or its employees, agents, representatives, contractors or suppliers, in connection With the planning, engineering or construction of the Edina East Section improvements. 4. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES AND INDEMNITIES (a) West Section'Storm Sewer Improvements Until the parties hereto agree otherwise in writing, Edina shall maintain, without charge to Bloomington, the storm sewer comprising a part of the West Section Improvements in good and operating condition without cost to Bloomington and shall hold Bloomington, and its officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and contractors, harmless from and indemnified against any loss, cost or damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees whether suit be brought or not, due to any claim or demand arising out of or claimed or alleged to arise out of, the negligence of Edina, its employees, officers, -agents, representatives or contractors, in so maintaining, or failing to so maintain, the storm sewer improvements. Bloomington hereby grants to Edina such easements and rights to enter on, over, under and across the portion of the West Section and the West Section Improvements within Bloomington as. may be necessary or desirable from time to time for Edina to fulfill its obligations and duties under this Paragraph. (b) Other West Section Improvements .Until the parties agree otherwise in writing, Bloomington shall maintain, without charge to Edina, the street surface of the West Section, and any sidewalks adjacent thereto, and the water line on the south side thereof, in good and operating condition, N -- - including- snowplowing,..and shall -hold-Edina, and - its officials, officers,_employees, agents, representatives and contractors, harmless from and indemnified against any loss, cost damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees whether suit be brought or not, due to any claim or demand arising out of or claimed or alleged to arise out of, the negligence of Bloomington, its employees, officers, agents, representatives or contractors, in so maintaining, or failing to so maintain, said street surface, sidewalks or water line. Edina hereby grants to Bloomington such easements and rights to enter on, over, under and across the portion of the West Section within Edina as may be necessary or desirable from time to time for Bloomington to fulfill its obligations and duties under this Paragraph. (c) East Section Improvements Until the parties hereto agree otherwise in writing, Edina shall maintain, without charge to Bloomington, the street surface of the East Section, and the water line, sanitary sewer pipe and storm sewer pipe constructed by Edina and located in the East Section, in good and operating condition, including snowplowing, and shall hold Bloomington, and its officials, officers, employees, agents, representatives and contractors, harmless from and indemnified against any loss, cost, damage or expense, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys fees whether suit be brought or not, due to any claim or demand arising out of, or claimed or alleged to arise out of, the negligence of Edina, its employees, officers, agents, representatives or contractors, in so maintaining, or failing to so maintain, the said street surface, water line, sanitary sewer pipe or storm sewer pipe. Bloomington hereby grants to Edina such easements and rights to enter on, over, under and across the portions of the East Section within Bloomington as may be necessary or desirable from time to time for Edina to fulfill its obligations and duties under this Paragraph. 5. RECORDS: CONTRACTS- All records kept by Bloomington and Edina with respect to the East Section Improvements or West Section Improvements shall be subject to the examination by the representatives of each at reasonable times during normal business hours. All contracts let and purchases made by Edina or Bloomington in connection with fulfillment of their respective obligations under this Agreement, shall conform to the requirements applicable to the contracting and purchasing part in connection with such contracts and purchase. 6. FULL AGREEMENT: RECONSTRUCTION (a) This Agreement encompasses all East and West Section Improvements and maintenance responsibilities as it relates to Minnesota Drive (common border street) between Edinborough Way (the east termini) to Johnson Drive (the west termini). (b) If either party desires to reconstruct or render unusable either West or East Section Improvements, than an addendum or new agreement shall be necessary. 7. NOTICES All notices, reports or demands required .or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of the party to which notice is being given, or when deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail, postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the parties at the following addresses: To Edina: 4801 West 50th Street Edina, Minnesota 55424 Attention: Director of Public Works To Bloomington: 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Attention: Director of Public Works IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF BLOOMINGTON Its Mayor Its Manager CITY OF EDINA Its Mayor Its Manager EXHIBIT 1 15 YEAR PAYMENT SCHEDULE FIXED PRINCIPAL PAYMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT $181,000 INTEREST RATE 7.50% YEAR .PRINCIPAL;.. INTEREST TOTAL PAYMENT ENDING BALANCE: 1994 12,066.67 13,575.00 25,641.67 168,933.33 1995 12,066.67 12,670.00 24,736.67 156,866.67 1996 12,066.67 11,765.00 23,831.67 144,800.00 1997 12,066.67 10,860.00 22,926.67 132,733.33 1998 12,066.67 9,955.00 22,021.67 120,666.67 1999 12,066.67 9,050.00 21,116.67 108,600.00 2000 12,066.67 8,145.00 20,211.87 96,533.33 2001 12,066.67 7,240.00 19,306.67 84,466.67 2002 12,066.67 6,335.00 18,401.67 72,400.00 2003 12,066.67 5,430.00 17,496.67 60,333.33 2004 12,066.67 4,525.00 16,591.67 48,266.67 2005 12,066.67 3,620.00 15,688.87 36,200.00 2006 12,066.67 2,715.00 14,781.67 24,133.33 2007 12,066.67 1,810.00 13,876.67 12,066.67 2008 12,066.67 905.00 12,971.67 0.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS 181,000.00 108,600.00 289,600.00 II I I I I I I �1 I I 8, WEST I EAST SECTION I J SECTION MINNESOTA DR MINNESOTA DR. — o ro I Z I 0 W CANTINA DEL RIO W I ADDITION Z a �I I I I i L W I gyp. Otte REPORT /RECOMMENDATION To: Mayor & City Council From: Francis Hoffman / City Engineer Date: 16 May, 1994 Subject: Stormwater Projects General Maintenance and Improvements Recommendation: Agenda Item # v .�. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA To Council Action ❑ Motion ❑' Resolution Ordinance ❑ Discussion Approve projects for construction or maintenance work and funding by the stormwater utility fund. Info /Background: The City staff has developed several general improvement projects and /or maintenance repair projects that are needed. These projects are defined on the following page with estimated costs to include engineering costs. A graphic is also included for project location. Appropriate Department of Natural Resources (DNR) permits have been obtained for the different maintenance projects on Nine Mile Creek and reviewed by Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. These projects will be funded from the stormwater utility fund. The projects are listed on the following page and marked on loca- tion maps attached. Report /Recommendation Agenda Item V.D. Page Two Project No. Location. Estimated Cost.. STS -217 From Indian Hills Road to $ 45,131.07 Indian Head Lake. (Replaces existing system of pipe and ditch.) STS -228 Easement Line from W. 77th $ 43,362.06 Street to Normandale Golf Course Stormwater outlet. (Replaces existing smaller line which is deteriorating.) STS -232 Nine Mile Creek at 7401 Metro $ 13,886.25 and 72nd & Metro - Bebo Bridge. (Clean up and restore bank at 7401 Metro area and clean out excess silt /sand from beneath 72nd Street Bridge.) STS -233 From Highland Lake to Vernon $ 88,574.49 Avenue along Glengarry Park- way. (Install small forcemain to pump lake when necessary due to high water.) City has pumped lake three times in past seven years over land and streets. STS -234 Braemar Boulevard & Valley $ 13,317.00 View Road - adjacent ponding area. (Remove build up of sand and silt from pond.) STS -235 Pine Grove Road, Easement Line $ 10,848.00 to Mirror Lakes. (Small pipe to drain street to Mirror Lakes, water currently drains on to private property and stands in depression.) STS -236 58th & Ashcroft. (Replace and $ 7,388.75 add catch basins.) KEY ! f Tp rA " Rv ` a. 0 v { IAN r PROPOSED STORM SEWER o 13 0 013 NOANANOALE ISE NOANAND GOLF CLUB O 0 7 O O O 0 O a U77TH Sr — — W Q W V KEY L PROPOSED STORM SEWER 0 0 0 0 0 STSM232' NINE MILE: CREEK-7401 METRO & 72NU4, METRO: BEBQ:.:: BRIDGE.'. w i IT-f 7=1 ST W L�L ....... "am 41, a:1 0 7 oQa.;t PROPOSED CHANNEL REPAIR [3 E3 [3 [313 cm cm z. . rr- "- min WME cc a NI of N W J� i r =1 caorc�+ u J N 0 a O I _ D 4 �� KEY ST&234 BRAEMAR BLVD: & VALLEY VIEW RD. U OR cT �4 yoo KEY PROPOSED POND EXCAVATION p p p p p 11 BRAEMAR 1 ■ I' PIN EGROVE'..'ROAD yl�a►1►)►�i ; KEY PROPOSED •' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ `- STS -23:6 58TH & ASHCROFT U 0 5M ST M 0 W� La S W JIM s� T I � s 99TH ST KEY PROPOSED STORM SEWER 0 0 0 1313 J M W s W =Z± J � t O O O C2 IL I A. O • ,N�Rtl10M�o0 • REPORT/RECOMMENDATION To: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item #V-E. From: Craig Larsen Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Date: May 16, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA Subject: Revised I -494 To Council JPO Agreement. Action ❑Motion Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: Authorize execution of revised agreement by Mayor and Manager. Info /Background: The purpose of the revised agreement is to add the cities of Plymouth and Maple Grove to the 1 -494 Commission. No other changes have been made. The City's financial obligation remains at 10 cents per capita. i JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Richfield are Parties to this Agreement and are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. Minnesota Statute 471.59 permits two or more governmental units, by agreement of their'governing bodies, to jointly and cooperatively exercise any power common to each of them. The Parties to this Agreement have chosen to execute a cooperative agreement providing for the joint exercise of powers to improve mobility in and along the I-494 Corridor. This Agreement amends the 1988 I494 Corridor Commission Joint Powers Agreement between the cities of Bloomington, Eden Prairie, Edina, Minnetonka and Richfield and adds the cities of Maple Grove and Plymouth. ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PURPOSE The primary purpose of this Agreement is for the member municipalities to jointly and cooperatively work to improve mobility in the I -494 Corridor. ARTICLE 2. OWSI� The Parties hereto agree to establish an organization to be known as the I -494 Corridor Advisory Commission to carry out the objectives of this Agreement. ARTICLE 6. POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION 6.1) The powers and duties of the Commission shall include the powers set forth in this article. 6.2) . It may cooperate with the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding preparation of the environmental impact analysis of I494 improvements and implementation of those improvements in the I-494 Corridor. 6.3) It may cooperate with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to secure a roadway indirect source permit from the. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and access revision approval from the Metropolitan Council and Federal Highway Administration. 6.4) It may research and recommend funding strategies for I -494 construction. 6.5) It may research and implement travel demand management strategies and ordinances, develop model ordinances, and recommend joint action on such strategies and ordinances by the Parties. 6.6) It may research and make recommendations to the Parties regarding other matters related to the Commission's purpose. 6.7) It may cooperate with affiliate members and appropriate groups to further the objectives of the I-494 Corridor Study. It may consult with and assist affiliate members and appropriate groups to facilitate travel demand management strategies and programs. 6.8) It may cooperate with the Metropolitan Council, Regional Transit Board, Metropolitan Transit Commission, Southwest Area Transit Commission, Maple Grove Transit and other organizations to develop transit operation plans. 6.9) It may monitor land use development, traffic volumes and travel characteristics in the I- 494 corridor. 6.10) It may, with consent of the city council of each Party, update the I -494 Corridor Study and expand it as necessary. 3 L 7.2) Each commissioner and alternate shall serve until a successor is appointed and assume his or her responsibilities. Commissioners and alternates shall serve at the pleasure of the Council appointing them. When a Council appoints a commissioner or alternate, it shall give notice of the appointment to the Commission's Secretary- Treasurer. 7.3) ' Each commissioner shall be responsible for notifying his or her alternate of meetings which the alternate should attend. In the absence of a commissioner, his or her alternate shall have all the rights and responsibilities of the commissioner, except that no alternate may be, or act as, an officer of the Commission. 7.4) There shall be no voting by proxy, but all votes must be cast by the commissioner or designated alternate at a Commission meeting. 7.5) A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum. 7.6) A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled by the Council of the Party whose position . on the Commission is vacant. 7.7) The Commission may choose by majority vote to designate affiliate members. These members may participate in discussions of the Commission but may not vote. In addition, these members shall be sent notices of all meetings, but a failure to notify these members shall not invalidate any action. Affiliate members may be excluded from lawful closed meetings of the Commission. The Commission may further define the role of affiliate members and may establish different requirements for each affiliate member. ARTICLE 8. MEETINGS 8.1) The Commission shall meet at least quarterly on a schedule determined by the Commission. 8.2) Special meetings of the Commission may be called (a) by the Chair or (b) upon written request of a majority of the commissioners. A minimum of five days' written notice of special meetings shall be given to the commissioners. 5 �i 10.2) Compensation of Commission staff shall be established by the Commission. 10.3) The Commission may provide for compensation, benefits and other terms and conditions that it deems necessary. ARTICLE 11. FINANCIAL MATTERS 11.1) Commission funds may be expended by the Commission in accordance with the procedures established under the Minnesota Municipal Contracting Law, Minn. Stat. 471.345, as if any one party were acting. The contract value amounts in that law for each party may not be aggregated. Legal instruments other than checks shall be executed after Commission approval, by any two officers. 11.2) The financial contributions of the Parties in support of other Commission functions shall be per capita. Each of the Parties shall pay to the Commission an amount as annually approved by the Parties not to exceed $.10 per capita based on the most recent Metropolitan Council population estimates. This amount may be used by the Commission to pay its expenses. The Parties shall make their financial contributions to the Commission on an annual basis. 11.3) A proposed budget and recommended financial contributions of the Parties shall be formulated by the Commission and submitted to the Parties on or before August 1 of each calendar year. By. October 1 of each calendar year, the Council of each Party shall approve, modify, or reject the proposed Commission budget and the Party's financial contribution and give notice of its action to the Commission. The budget shall be deemed approved by a Party in the absence of action by October. 1. Final action adopting a budget for the ensuing calendar year shall be taken by the Commission on or before December 15 of each year. The budget shall be adopted upon approval by at least five Parties. 11.4) Any Party may inspect and copy the. Commission books and records at any and all reasonable times. All books and records shall be kept in accordance with normal and accepted accounting procedures and principles used by Minnesota statutory cities. 7 14.2) Distribution of Assets - Upon dissolution of the Commission, all remaining assets of the Commission, after payment of all obligations, shall be distributed among the Parties that are Parties to the Agreement at the time of dissolution, in proportion to their contributions for the year in which the dissolution occurs and in accordance with procedures established by the Commission. The Commission shall continue to exist after dissolution for such period, no longer than six months, as is necessary to wind up its affairs, but for no other purpose. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each undersigned municipality has caused this Agreement to be signed on its behalf on the date indicated below. Dated: Dated: Dated: CITY OF BLOOMINGTON BY Its Mayor BY Its Manager CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BY Its Mayor BY Its Manager CITY OF EDINA BY Its Mayor BY Its Manager 9 I COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION - - -- -- -- - - - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM - -_ ---- - - - -PO -NUM_ -- OBJECT - -------------------------------------------------------------------- 05/16/94 $849.38 AAA LICENSES & PERMITS 051094 EQUIPMENT OPER LIC & PERMITS 05/16/94 $873.30 AAA LICENSES & PERMITS 051094 EQUIPMENT OPER LIC & PERMITS 145613 $1,722.68* 05/16/94 - $82.20 AAGARD ENVIRONMENTAL S RUBBISH REMOVAL 5943042 POOL OPERATION RUBBISH REMOVA 05/16/94 $43.00 AAGARD ENVIRONMENTAL S RUBBISH REMOVAL 5941424 50TH ST OCCUPA RUBBISH REMOVA 05/16/94 $43.00 AAGARD ENVIRONMENTAL S RUBBISH REMOVAL 5941425 YORK OCCUPANCY RUBBISH REMOVA 05/16/94 $43.00 AAGARD ENVIRONMENTAL S RUBBISH REMOVAL 5941423 VERNON OCCUPAN RUBBISH REMOVA 145614 $46.80* 05/16/94 $72.00 AARRESTAD, DRU AC INSTRUCTOR 051094 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 05/16/94 $16.25 AARRESTAD, DRU CRAFT SUPPLIES 051094 ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 145615 $88.25* 05/16/94 $6.67 AASEN, LAURIE MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 050594 METER READING MILEAGE 145616 $6.67* 05/16/94 $123.47 ACTION MAILING SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 6011 GENERAL(BILLIN PROF SERVICES 145617 $123.47* 05/16/94 $17.15 ACTION MESSENGER SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 135221 ED ADMINISTRAT SVC CONTR EQUI 145618 $17.15* 05/16/94 $393.63 ADVANCED STATE SECURIT CAM RENTAL 13349 ED BUILDING & SVC CONTR EQUI 145619 $393.63* 05/16/94 $414.36 ADVANTAGE BUSINESS CEN TEEN DANCE 1354 teen dance pro EQUIP REPLACEM 145620 $414.36* 05/16/94 $23.96 ALL FIRE TEST INC FIRST AID SUPPLIES 013361 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 145621" $23.96* 05/16/94 .$5.33 ALTERNATOR REBUILD REPAIR PARTS 22769 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 3805 145622 $5.33* 05/16/94 $381.75 AMERICAN BUSINESS FORM PRINTING 425365 GOLF ADMINISTR PRINTING 145623 $381.75* 05/16/94 $21.57 AMERICAN LINEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 043094 /G RANGE GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $38.60 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 043094/G GRILL LAUNDRY 05/16/94 $176.00 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 043094 FIRE DEPT. GEN LAUNDRY 05/16/94 $159.55 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 043094 CITY HALL GENE LAUNDRY 05/16/94 $63.42 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 043094 YORK OCCUPANCY LAUNDRY 05/16/94 $32.36 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 043094 50TH ST OCCUPA LAUNDRY 05/16/94 $12.47 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 043094 LABORATORY LAUNDRY 05/16/94 $150.51 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 043094 ED BUILDING & LAUNDRY 05/16/94 $38.74 AMERICAN LINEN LAUNDRY 043094 VERNON OCCUPAN LAUNDRY 145624 $693.22* 05/16/94 $163.00 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSO CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 042794 PLANNING CONF & SCHOOLS Page 2 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR ------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION-- _ - - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM OBJECT -------- PO -NUM. --------------------------------------- 145625 $163.00* 05/16/94 $2,210.00 AMERICAN RED CROSS CPR TRAINING 16247 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 145626 $2,210.00* 05/16/94 $107.43 AMERICAN SERVICES CORP EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC 001333 VERNON OCCUPAN EQUIP MAINT 145627 $107.43* 05/16/94 $33.79 AMOS 0. OR PHYLLIS BRI AMBULANCE FEES 050994 GENERAL FD PRO AMBULANCE FEES 145628 $33.79* 05/16/94 $25.00 ANDERSON, ELIZABETH H SERVICES CL /EB 052494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 145629 $25.00* 05/16/94 $380.81 ANITA LEBERT GENERAL SUPPLIES 4168 CLUB HOUSE GENERAL SUPPLI 145630 $380.81* 05/16/94 $239.04 AQUA ENGINEERING GENERAL SUPPLIES 6383 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 145631 $239.04* 05/16/94 $70.56 ARMSTRONG TORSETH SKOL ADA 0494 CONTINGENCIES PROF SERVICES 145632 $70.56* 05/16/94 $43.50 ASPLUND COFFEE COST OF GOODS SOLD F 68595 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 145633 $43.50* 05/16/94 $240.00 ASSOCIATION OF TRAININ CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 003184 POLICE DEPT. G CON? & SCHOOLS 145634 $240.00* 05/16/94 $28.89 AT & T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 52106495 52107955 ART CENTER BLD CENT SVC GENER TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $17.58 AT & T INFO SYSTEM TELEPHONE 145635 $46.47* 05/16/94 $21.68 AT &T CONSUMER PRODUCTS TELEPHONE 042994 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 145636 $21.68* 05/16/94 $18.37 AT &T PHONE 041894 CENTENNIAL LAK TELEPHONE 145637 $18.37* 05/16/94 $1,029.77 AU BON PAIN INC VOL RECOGNITION 042094 CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLI 145638 $1,029.77* 05/16/94 $•30.00 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CEN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 23477 23464 EQUIPMENT OPER EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS CONTR REPAIRS 05/16/94 $42.00 AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CEN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 145639 $72.00* 05/16/94 $95.69 AWD COOLERS OF MINNESO GENERAL SUPPLIES 60938 ART CENTER ADM GENERAL SUPPLI 145640 $95.69* 05/16/94 $39.52 AXT, LYLE COST OF GOODS SOLD F 042894 GUN RANGE CST OF GD FOOD Ki COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 3 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT _VENDOR - - -- DESCRIPTION-- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM ------ OBJECT --- - - - -PO -NUM. - -- - -- -- ------------------------------ 05/16/94 - - - - $39.52 -- - - -- ------- - - AXT, LYLE COST OF GOODS SOLD F 050394 GUN RANGE CST OF GD FOOD 145641 $79.04* 05/16/94 $209.28 B & S INDUSTRIES INC HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 10030071 FIRE DEPT. GEN HAZARD. MATERI 145642 $209.28* 05/16/94 $139.52 BAILEY NURSERIES PLANTS 50778 PENDING TRANSF CIP 145643 $139.52* 05/16/94 $813.85 BARR ENGINEERING COMPA PROF ENG SERVICES 2327354- GENERAL STORM PROF SERVICES 145644 $813.85* 05/16/94 $1,175.00 BARRY SIEWERT CREATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 050994 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 145645 $1,175.00* 05/16/94 $347.50 BEACON PRODUCTS CO. INFIELD MIXTURE 310957 FIELD MAINTENA INFIELD MIX 05/16/94 $600.00 BEACON PRODUCTS CO. LINE MARKING POWDER 310958 FIELD MAINTENA LINE MARK POWD 145646 $947.50 *. 05/16/94 $1,391.00 BEAR COMMUNICATIONS IN GENERAL SUPPLIES 011937 NORMAN. MAINT. GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $460.00 BEAR COMMUNICATIONS IN GENERAL SUPPLIES 011937 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 145647 $1,851.00* 05/16/94 $123.88- BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 54777 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $149.50 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 55064 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $253.85 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 54827 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 145648 $527.23* 05/16/94 $100.00 BENNETT, WAYNE POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145649 $100.00* 05/16/94 $7.12 BERTELSON BROS. INC.' GENERAL SUPPLIES 1355480 ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $18.98 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1355480 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $14.86 BERTELSON BROS. INC.. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1355481 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $83.13 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1355480 PARK ADMIN. GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $36.52 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1355480 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $406.40 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1332710 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $83.50 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1288800 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $16.04 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1329210 POLICE DEPT. G OFFICE SUPPLIE 05/16/94 $104.16 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1329060 POLICE DEPT. G OFFICE SUPPLIE 05/16/94 $12.78 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1309540 POLICE DEPT. G OFFICE SUPPLIE 05/16/94 $28.03 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1329030 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $56.91 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1329030 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $28.54 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1302341 FIRE DEPT. GEN OFFICE SUPPLIE 145650 $896.97* 05/16/94 $29.40 BEST LOCKING SYSTEMS O GENERAL SUPPLIES 003488 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 145651 $29.40* 05/16/94 $75.00 BETSWORTH, JACKI SERVICES CL /EB 052694 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 4 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT -- ---- PO -NUM_- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 145652 $75.00* 05/16/94 $48.64 BFI OF MN INC RECYCLING 940400. ED BUILDING & RUBBISH REMOVA 05/16/94 $5,105.56 BFI OF MN INC REFUSE 940400 50TH STREET RU PROF SERVICES 145653 $5,154.20* 05/16/94 $65.26 BIFFS INC OUT HOUSE RENTAL BI024300 FIELD MAINTENA PROF SERVICES 05/16/94 $65.26 BIFFS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE BI024301 FIELD MAINTENA PROF SERVICES 05/16/94 $210.50 BIFFS INC RUBBISH REMOVAL BI024299 MAINT OF COURS RUBBISH REMOVA 145654 $341.02* 05/16/94 $434.48 BILL OLSON SOD & BLACK DIRT MULTIPLE TREES & MAINTE SOD & DIRT 145655 $434.48* ° 05/16/94 $384.00 BISHOP TRAVEL CENTER CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 016170 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONF & SCHOOLS 145656 $384.00* 05/16/94 $127.11 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS BLACKTOP 65031 GENERAL MAINT BLACKTOP 05/16/94 $166.62 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS BLACKTOP 065036 'GENERAL MAINT BLACKTOP 145657 $293.73* 05/16/94 $30.00 BLACKEY, LORI CLASS REFUND 042794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145658 $30.00* 05/16/94 $100.00 BLOOD, DAVID POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145659 $100.00* 05/16/94 $528:05 BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS PARTS 308786 311043 EQUIPMENT OPER EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 05/16/94 $46.06 - $45.54 BOYER TRUCKS BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR REPAIR PARTS 303733 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $164.63 BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS 309481 309112 EQUIPMENT OPER EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 05/16/94 $144.19 $134.36 BOYER TRUCKS BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS 310227 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 - $98.34 BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS 304707 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 145660 $873.41* 05/16/94 $30.00 BRETHEIM, JENNY REFUND ADAPTIVE SWIM 042694 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 145661 $30.00* 05/16/94 $5,255.00 BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLAS POWER DOORS J06214 -0 CONTINGENCIES PROF SERVICES 3818 145662 $5,255.00* 05/16/94 $251.35 BRISSMAN - KENNEDY INC CLEANING SUPPLIES 3219651 CITY HALL GENE CLEANING SUPPL 145663 $251.35* 05/16/94 $414.38 BRO -TEX INC TOWELS 120916 PUMP & LIFT ST GENERAL SUPPLI 3717 145664 $414.38* 05/16/94 $140.58 BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 13700 ' TRAFFIC SIGNAL GENERAL SUPPLI 145665 $140.58* Y .Y 1=Y u7y m/es>�etITR0. s ►'eN .. .�. Lei: yl!` eYYI? �0!! �. IIiNe Y1R. f1K17 !Rit��W!`i�Yf:.�i::....1 -.. .. ..... . �.:'� °...cYlt+l•nV��IC1 L�:^l1Kf.'tY.:iL'WWS� =CY/:. b:�a.�:.. .. -. -. _. �. _ _ . COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 5 CHECK NO --------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT -- - - - - -- VENDOR- - - -- -- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION-- - - - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM ------------------------------ OBJECT PO NUM. 05/16/94 $62.50 BUCKNAM, SUE GENERAL SUPPLIES 050694 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 145666 $62.50* 05/16/94 $75.00 BUDAS, STEVE SERVICES CL /EB 060494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 145667 $75.00* 05/16/94 $94.37 BUIE, BARBARA MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 050994 ED ADMINISTRAT MILEAGE 145668 $94.37* 05/16/94 $65.99 BUILDERS SQUARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 14451055 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $18.05 BUILDERS SQUARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 14451054 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 145669 $84.04* 05/16/94 $100.00 BUTLER, GEORGE POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145670 $100.00* 05/16/94 $88.20 CALLAHAN, FRAN APRIL MILEAGE 042894 PUBLIC HEALTH MILEAGE 145671 $88.20* 05/16/94 $263.32 CARLSON PRINTING BUSINESS CARDS 59774 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $223.38 CARLSON PRINTING BUSINESS CARDS 59771 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 145672 $486.70* 05/16/94 $26.82 CATCO REPAIR PARTS 342403 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $367.06 CATCO REPAIR PARTS 342372 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 145673 $393.88* 05/16/94 $141.75 CDP GENERAL SUPPLIES 1910935 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI 145674 $141.75* 05/16/94 $34.08 CEDAR LAKE FLORAL DINNER MEETING 559554 CITY COUNCIL MEETING EXPENS 05/16/94 $104.11 CEDAR LAKE FLORAL VOLUNTEER RECOG 558838 CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLI 4061 145675 $138.19* 05/16/94 $348.16 CEI TOOLS 75986 PUMP & LIFT ST TOOLS 145676 $348.16* 05/16/94 $34.17 CELLULAR ONE SERVICE C EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC MTKA 022 POLICE DEPT. G EQUIP MAINT 145677 $34.17* 05/16/94 $18.62 CELLULAR ONE TELEPHONE 042194/P PUMP & LIFT ST GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $57.54 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 042194 /P ANIMAL CONTROL GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $10.60 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 042194/P PATROL TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $24.50 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 042194/P PATROL TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $56.45 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 042194/P PATROL TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $10.60 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 042194/P INVESTIGATION TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $10.92 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 042894 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $14.08 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 042894 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $69.66 CELLULAR ONE PHONE RENTAL 042194/F FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP RENTAL �,,,.,w..:a, u�r�wieub:n4•!fren, �uv,CUiw!• :.,cn,��..� .. ......,..:ce eir!w�nrn�h.e•�:x�-�.0 m�.•v�w.�..- e�..:..,>.� .. .... _ �. .. :,.....c�•se.�:+. . ar�!ecxn•�ax7iM[�saKra:: Page 6 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 CHECK NO DATE. CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE - - - - -_ PROGRAM -_ - -- OBJECT -- __-- _- PO - NUM. - 05/16/94 $59.60 CELLULAR ONE PHONE RENTAL PHONE 042194/F 042894 FIRE DEPT. GEN DISTRIBUTION EQUIP RENTAL GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $14.34 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR CELLULAR PHONE 042194/P PATROL TELEPHONE 05/16/94 05/16/94 $597.57 $193.90 CELLULAR ONE GENERAL SUPPLIES 042894 SPECIAL ACTIVI GENERAL SUPPLI 145678 $1,138.38* 05/16/94 $297.14 CELLULAR ONE MCQUIRE PARK 4137 IBR #2 PROG MCQUIRE,PARK 145679 $297.14* 05/16/94 $700.66 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 2738 ENGINEERING GE EQUIP REPLACEM 3723 145680 $700.66* 05/16/94 $84.50 CENTENNIAL LAKES /EDINB GENERAL SUPPLIES 1107 CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLI 145681 $84.50* 05/16/94 $523.35 CHARTER GOLF INC INVENTORY SUPPLIES 051694 GOLF PROG INVENTORY SUPP 145682 $523.35* 05/16/94 $1,686.40 CHEERFUL INTERNATIONAL INVENTORY SUPPLIES 051694 GOLF PROG INVENTORY.SUPP 145683 $1,686.40* 05/16/94 $128.00 CITY BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD B B 76407 76539 YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $64.00 CITY BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD 145684 $192.00* 05/16/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVI WINDOW CLEANING 55920 55921 VERNON OCCUPAN 50TH ST OCCUPA CONTR REPAIRS CONTR REPAIRS 05/16/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVI WINDOW SERVI WINDOW CLEANING WINDOW CLEANING 55919 YORK OCCUPANCY CONTR REPAIRS 05/16/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE 145685 $43.14* 05/16/94 $116.00 CLASSIC PRO GENERAL SUPPLIES 2590 RANGE GENERAL SUPPLI 145686 $116.00* 05/16/94 $550.00 CLEAN -FLO LAB AQUATIC WEED CONTROL 6672 WEED CONTROL PROF SERVICES 145687 $550.00* 05/16/94 $127.50 CLUBKID ADVERTISING OTHER 050494 ED ADMINISTRAT ADVERT OTHER 145688 $127.50* 05/16/94 $268.00 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD SOLD F M 041594 01258853 VANVALKENBURG YORK SELLING CST OF GD FOOD CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $82.95 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01156453 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 05/16/94 $86.65 $92.05 COCA COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01155414 50TH ST SELLIN VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $385.40 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01208627 145689 $915.05* 05/16/94 $399.38 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE B CHAIR 8772 8770 CENT SVC GENER CENT SVC GENER EQUIP REPLACEM EQUIP REPLACEM 3928 3930 05/16/94 $399.38 COMMERCIAL FURNITURE B CHAIR 145690 $798.76* �,,,.,w..:a, u�r�wieub:n4•!fren, �uv,CUiw!• :.,cn,��..� .. ......,..:ce eir!w�nrn�h.e•�:x�-�.0 m�.•v�w.�..- e�..:..,>.� .. .... _ �. .. :,.....c�•se.�:+. . ar�!ecxn•�ax7iM[�saKra:: COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 7 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION - - - - - -- INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT - - - - - -- ---- - - - -PO -NUM. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05/16/94 $132.15 COMMUNICATIONS PLUS IN GENERAL SUPPLIES 1000 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 145691 $132.15* 05/16/94 $25.00 CONNOLLY, BOB SERVICES CL /EB 051994 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 145692 $25.00* 05/16/94 $30.00 CONNOLLY, BOB SERVICES CL /EB 060494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 145693 $30.00* 05/16/94 $54.31 CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQU SAFETY EQUIPMENT 73180 EQUIPMENT OPER SAFETY EQUIPME 3694 145694 $54.31* 05/16/94 $52.61 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 0379025 ENGINEERING GE GENERAL SUPPLI 145695 $52.61* 05/16/94. $1,386.67 CRIMMINS MD, TIMOTHY J MEDICAL SERVICES MAY 1994 FIRE DEPT. GEN PROF SERVICES 145696 $1,386.67* 05/16/94 $19.00 CRITTENDEN GOLF INC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 050994 GOLF ADMINISTR DUES & SUBSCRI 145697 $19.00* 05/16/94 $213.00 CRITTER CONTROL BEAVER REMOVAL 23195 MAINT OF COURS PROF SERVICES 145698 $213.00* 05/16/94 $39.87 CROWN PLASTIC GENERAL SUPPLIES 23325 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 145699 $39.87* 05/16/94 $33.88 CRYSTEEL DIST INC REPAIR PARTS 13628 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 145700 $33.88* 05/16/94 $331.33 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENT LAB SUPPLIES 3414429 LABORATORY GENERAL SUPPLI 145701 $331.33* 05/16/94 $344.95 CURTIS 1000 ENVELOPES 75980010 COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLI 145702 $344.95* 05/16/94 $37.20 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. CONTRACTED REPAIRS 64231 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 3707 05/16/94 $452.69 CUSHMAN MOTOR CO. CONTRACTED REPAIRS 5631 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 3703 145703 $489.89* 05/16/94 $1,135.50 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS PUMP TEST E82 5078 FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP MAINT 05/16/94 $665.00 CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC 5083 FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP MAINT 145704 $1,800.50* 05/16/94 $31.50 D.C. HEY CO. SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 3938371 ED ADMINISTRAT SVC CONTR EQUI 145705 $31.50* 05/16/94 $84.14 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPM PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 157293 FIRE DEPT. GEN PROTECT CLOTHI 145706 $84.14* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 8 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM --------------- OBJECT - -_ -PO -NUM_ ____ 05/16/94 $194.10 ----------------------------------------- DAVE'S DAIRY DELIVERY COST OF GOODS SOLD F 043094 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 145707 $194.10* 05/16/94 $373.05 DAVEES WATER EQUIPMENT REPAIR PARTS 48528 DISTRIBUTION REPAIR PARTS 3872 145708 $373.05* 05/16/94 $373.56 DAYSTARTER REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS 3863 3332 EQUIPMENT OPER EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS REPAIR PARTS 3688 05/16/94 $160.76 DAYSTARTER 145709 $534.32* 05/16/94 $889.35 DCA INC HOSPITALIZATION 61091 62053 CENT SVC GENER CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO HOSPITALIZATIO 05/16/94 05/16/94 $885.50 $873.95 DCA INC DCA INC HOSPITALIZATION HOSPITALIZATION 61490 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 145710 $2,648.80* 05/16/94 $98.70 DELEGARD TOOL CO. TOOLS 35904 EQUIPMENT OPER TOOLS 145711 $98.70* 05/16/94 $300.00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC S TELETYPE SERVICE SERVICE 94Q1191 94Q1192 POLICE DEPT. G POLICE DEPT. G TELETYPE SERVI TELETYPE SERVI 05/16/94 $480.00 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC S TELETYPE 145712 $780.00* 05/1.6/94" $1,360.00 DERHAAG MOTOR SPORTS I CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 01759 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 145713 $1,360.00* 05/16/94 $312.00 DETERMAN WELDING WATER REMOVAL FROM G 240718 RANGE PROF SERVICES 3677 145714 $312.00* 05/16/94 $31.41 DIAMOND ART & CRAFT DI COST OF GOODS 120217 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 3747 145715 $31.41* 05/16/94 $725.02 DIESEL INJECTION SPEC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 12333 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 145716 $725.02* 05/16/94 $501.00 DIETRICHSON, BILL ART WORK SOLD 051094 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 145717 $501.00* 05/16/94 $3,105.00 DIGITAL MATRIX SERVICE SOFTWARE UPGRADE /ENG 13694 ENGINEERING GE EQUIP REPLACEM 3383 145718 $3,105.00* 05/16/94 $495.23 DISPATCH COMM /MN RADIO SERVICE 12932 EQUIPMENT OPER RADIO SERVICE 145719 $495.23* 05/16/94 $1,402.10 DON BETZEN GOLF SUPPLY INVENTORY SUPPLIES 050194 GOLF PROG INVENTORY SUPP 145720 $1,402.10* 05/16/94 $100.00 DONOHUE, PAT SERVICES CL /EB 052494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 145721 $100.00* 05/16/94 $12,389.34 DORSEY & WHITNEY LEGAL 306403 LEGAL SERVICES PRO SVC - LEGA �....... , . .....�... ._: ....:n,:��i::+a�N.�a�w:om�axen; TS��x,w�•a�a.s, w. ... -_.. .- � � � .. _.. -..,, s,w�r!wn�a.tax,[n�a�u�w _�a�c ...,.... .., . -. .. _ � .. -.... .. _..., w_��►+�.. - � _. .. COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 9 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------=------------------------------------------ 145722 $12,389.34* 05/16/94 $25.00 DOUVILLE, JOHN DUES /CITY CLERK 050994 ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 145723 $25.00* 05/16/94 $2.75 E.A.H. SCHMIDT & ASSOC SALES TAX 16358. FIRE DEPT. GEN REPAIR PARTS 145724 $2.75* 05/16/94 $70.03 EAGLE ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 9515 CITY HALL GENE CONTR REPAIRS 145725 $70.03* 05/16/94 $51.94 EARL F. ANDERSON REPAIR PARTS 132270 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $672.17 EARL F. ANDERSON GENERAL SUPPLIES 131971 PATHS & HARD S GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $411.09 EARL F. ANDERSON GENERAL SUPPLIES 132100 PAVEMENT MARKI GENERAL SUPPLI 3784 145726 $1,135.20* 05/16/94 $867.80 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 354902 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $170.80 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 355543 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $3,310.60 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 354904 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE. 05/16/94 $2,659.35 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 354951 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $1,755.80 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 358018 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $11.70 EAST SIDE.BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 358019 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $310.00 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 050194 GRILL CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $273.15 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 357952 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $728.40 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 357954 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $1,289.20 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 359936 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 145727 $11,376.80* 05/16/94 $106.50 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATIO SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 2720056 CENTENNIAL LAK SVC CONTR EQUI 05/16/94 $90.53 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATIO SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 2720060 ED BUILDING & SVC CONTR EQUI 145728 $197.03* 05/16/94 $21.56 EDINA ATHLETIC BOOSTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 050594 PARK ADMIN. GENERAL SUPPLI 145729 $21.56* 05/16/94 $142.86 EDINA FIREMEN'S RELIEF CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 050394 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONF & SCHOOLS 145730 $142.86* 05/16/94 $342.48 EGGHEAD SOFTWARE FL GRAPHICS 9018654 COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLI 145731 $342.48* 05/16/94 $300.00 EMPLOYEES CLUB VOLUNTEER SERVICES 042994 CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLI 145732 $300.00* 05/16/94 $57.00 ERLING DECORATING WALLPAPERING 042694 CITY HALL'GENE CONTR REPAIRS 145733 $57.00* 05/16/94 $194.22 FACILITY SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 97764 CITY HALL EQUIP REPLACEM 3166 145734 $194.22* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 REPAIR PARTS 98503, Page 10 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT 95297 VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT _______PO_NUM_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 05/16/94 $6.07 FAST 1 HOUR PHOTO GENERAL SUPPLIES 11055 ED ADMINISTRAT GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $11.58 FAST 1 HOUR PHOTO GENERAL SUPPLIES 11310 ED ADMINISTRAT GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $67.41 FAST 1 HOUR PHOTO ADVERTISING OTHER 10953 ART CENTER ADM ADVERT OTHER 3591 145735 $85.106* 145736 145737 145738 145739 145740 145741 145742 145744 05/16/94 $148.04 FAST FRAME $148.04* 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 05/16/94 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00* $123.07 $13.85 $136.92* $618.88 $618.88* $184.88 $184.88* $840.00 $840.00* $420.00 $420.00* $10.3.14 $135.79 $488.87 $153.82 $407.40 $196.41 $70.26 $139.20 $756.37 $488.88 $262.37 $874.55 $50.04 $50.59 $72.92 $488.87 $229.64 $4,969.12* $357.00 $565.60 $23.40 FIRSTAT NURSING SERVIC FIRSTAT NURSING SERVIC FLOYD LOCK & SAFE CO FLOYD LOCK & SAFE CO FORRESTER'S FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY G.V. LARSEN & ASSOC GADEN, MELANIE GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I GANZER DIST INC GANZER DIST INC GANZER DIST INC GENERAL SUPPLIES INSURANCE INSURANCE 1290044 ART CENTER ADM GENERAL SUPPLI 3836 189008 CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE 199010 CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES D56291 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 3954 REPAIR PARTS 98503, EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 95297 GOLF ADMINISTR GENERAL SUPPLI CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 050494 PARK ADMIN. CONF & SCHOOLS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 050694 ART CENTER /OFFICE 051094 RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVAL ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES MAY 1994 FIRE DEPT. GEN RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 CITY HALL GENE RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 PW BUILDING RUBBISH,REMOVA MAY 1994 LITTER REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 LITTER REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 LITTER REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 ART CENTER BLD RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 POOL OPERATION RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 CLUB HOUSE RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 GENERAL MAINT RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 ARENA BLDG /GRO RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 ED BUILDING & RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 YORK OCCUPANCY RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 VERNON OCCUPAN RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 GUN RANGE RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 LITTER REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVA MAY 1994 MAINT OF COURS RUBBISH REMOVA COST OF GOODS SOLD B 179290 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 179288 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 179290 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 11 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05/16/94 $330.00 GANZER DIST INC COST OF GOODS SOLD B 179289 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 145745 $1,276.00* 05/16/94 $6,784.06 GEAR FOR SPORTS INVENTORY SUPPLIES 051694 GOLF PROG INVENTORY SUPP 145746 $6,784.06* 05/16/94 $180.00 GILLIS, LOUISE - AC INSTRUCTOR 051049 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 145747 $180.00* 05/16/94 $3,371.75 GOLFCRAFT INVENTORY SUPPLIES 051694 GOLF PROG INVENTORY SUPP 145748 $3,371.75* 05/16/94 $100.00 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFF DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 03.79850 FINANCE DUES & SOBSCRI 145749 $100.00* 05/16/94 $36.93 GRAINGER REPAIR PARTS 49861836 DISTRIBUTION REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $490.20 GRAINGER REPAIR PARTS 49861742 PUMP & LIFT ST REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $59.34 GRAINGER REPAIR PARTS 25017125 PUMP & LIFT ST REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $639.97 GRAINGER REPAIR PARTS 96212983 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $175.58 GRAINGER REPAIR PARTS 49521485 CITY HALL GENE REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $147.09 GRAINGER TOOLS 49861691 GENERAL MAINT TOOLS 145750 $1,549.11* 05/16/94 $43.50 GRAINGER CREDIT TAKEN TWICE 49580646 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 145751 $43.50* 05/16/94 $36.47 GRAUSAM, STEVE GENERAL SUPPLIES 050394 LIQUOR 50TH ST GENERAL SUPPLI 145752 $36.47* 05/16/94 $262.73 GREAT AMERICAN MARINE REPAIR PARTS 2561 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 145753 $262.73* 05/16/94 $813.28 GREER, PAT SERVICES CL /EB 050394 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 145754 $813.28* 05/16/94 $11,763.00 GREUPNER, JOE PROFESSIONAL SVCS - 050994 GOLF ADMINISTR PRO SVC - GOLF 145755 $11,763.00* 05/16/94 $69.79 GRINNELL FIRE PROTECTI 2 1/2" VALVES FOR PA 13804067 PARKING RAMP REPAIR PARTS 3451 145756 $69.79* 05/16/94 $145.27 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY REPAIR PARTS 265724 PUMP & LIFT ST REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $319.50 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY TIRES & TUBES 264695 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 05/16/94 $1,904.46 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY TIRES & TUBES 61732 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 145757 $2,369.23* 05/16/94 $288.00 HARMON CONTRACT GLAZIN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 3215020 CENTENNIAL LAK CONTR REPAIRS 145758 $288.00* 05/16/94 $30,391.00 HARRIS HOMEYER CO. INSURANCE APRIL CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE r .. _:i V..i ➢:.Wi .'1 ^.+', .v. I'LL:. ..'1. .. _ _ � _�i.. ��,: �r /F�LM:i'fLL��L'u!+i�.: C11:::. _ __ ... � � - :'IL 2Gi F=i LA4p Page 12 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ---- - - -- INVOICE ---- -- PROGRAM - - - -- OBJECT-------- PO -NUM_- 05/16/94 ------------------ $16,696.00 - ----------------------------- HARRIS HOMEYER CO. PREMIUM APRIL CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE 145759 $47,087.00* 05/16/94 $100.00 HED, CURTIS SERVICES CL /ED 052694 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER •145760 $100.00* 05/16/94 $124.80 HEDGES, DIANA CRAFT SUPPLIES 051094 ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 145761 $124.80* 05/16/94 $125.00 HEGMAN, STEVE VOL RECOGNITION 042694 CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLI 4056 145762 $125.00* 05/16/94 $178.80 HEIMARK FOODS COST OF GOODS SOLD F 042994 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 145763 $178.80* 05/16/94 $527.84 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICA FIRST AID SUPPLIES 3308 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 145764 $527.84* 05/16/94 $132.82 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIF EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC 050594 POLICE DEPT. G EQUIP MAINT 145765 $132.82* 05/16/94 $4,635.60 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASU WORKHOUSE /JAIL 002415 LEGAL SERVICES BRD & RM PRISO 145766 $4,635.60* 05/16/94 $490.00 HERMAN MILLER INC. EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 137119 CITY HALL EQUIP REPLACEM 3166 145767 $490.00* 05/16/94 $100.00 HILL, PRISCILLA ART WORK SOLD 051094 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER_ 145768 $100.00* 05/16/94 $372.75 HIRSHFIELD'S PAINT MFG LINE MARKING POWDER 29320 FIELD MAINTENA LINE MARK POWD 145769 $372.75* 05/16/94 $100.00 HOFFMAN, WILLIAM POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145770 $100.00* 05/16/94 $182,845.50 HOME INS RETRO ADJUSTMENT 051794 CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE 145771 $182,845.50* 05/16/94 $30.43 HOME JUICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 21511 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 145772 $30.43* 05/16/94 $128.54 HORIZON CHEMICAL CO IN CHEMICALS 40844 POOL TRACK GRE CHEMICALS 3920 145773 $128.54* 05/16/94 $1,400.00 HOSPITALITY SUPPLY ICE MAKER 1705032 GC CIP CIP 145774 $1,400.00* 05/16/94 $120.00 HUMPHREY RADIATOR CONTRACTED REPAIRS 042794 041894 EQUIPMENT OPER.CONTR EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIRS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $83.50 HUMPHREY RADIATOR REPAIR PARTS r .. _:i V..i ➢:.Wi .'1 ^.+', .v. I'LL:. ..'1. .. _ _ � _�i.. ��,: �r /F�LM:i'fLL��L'u!+i�.: C11:::. _ __ ... � � - :'IL 2Gi F=i LA4p COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 13 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM ---------- OBJECT PO NUM. --- ------- - - - - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05/16/94 $135.00 HUMPHREY RADIATOR CONTRACTED REPAIRS 041994 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 05/16/94 $130.00 HUMPHREY RADIATOR CONTRACTED REPAIRS 042594 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 145775 $468.50* 05/16/94 $56,206.00 HUNERBERG CONSTRUCTION NORMANDALE CLUB HOUS 043094 NORMANDALE CLU CIP 145776 $56,206.00* 05/16/94 $9,637.17 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVI ARBITRAGE REBATE 050194 POLICE SEIZURE DUE TO OTH GOV 145777 $9,637.17* 05/16/94 $17,587.63 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVI ARBITRAGE REBATE 041294 POLICE SEIZURE DUE TO OTH GOV 145778 $17,587.63* 05/16/94 $92,290.49 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVI ARBITRAGE_ REBATE 0412 POLICE SEIZURE DUE TO OTH GOV 145779 $92,290.49* 05/16/94 $138.00 ISIA PRINTING 042324 ARENA ADMINIST PRINTING 145780 $138.00* 05/16/94 $112.45 J & W INSTRUMENTS INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 74558 PUMP & LIFT ST OFFICE SUPPLIE 145781 $112.45* 05/16/94 $252.88 J.H. LARSON ELECTRICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 04264845 ST LIGHTING OR GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $297.64 J.H. LARSON ELECTRICAL REPAIR PARTS 04144811 FIRE DEPT. GEN REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $67.56 J.H. LARSON ELECTRICAL REPAIR PARTS 04134807 FIRE DEPT. GEN REPAIR PARTS 145782 $618.08* 05/16/94 $100.00 JAMES, WILLIAM F POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145783 $100.00* 05/16/94 $150.00 JANY, EDWARDO CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 042994 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONF & SCHOOLS 05/16/94 $47.48 JANY, EDWARDO MEETING EXPENSE POLI 050294 POLICE DEPT. G MEETING EXPENS 145784 $197.48* 05/16/94 $31.95 JERRYS PRINTING PAPER STOCK D6989 CITY HALL GENE PAPER SUPPLIES 05/16/94 $9.58 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING D6860 PARK ADMIN. PRINTING 05/16/94 $65.50 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING 050394 PUBLIC HEALTH PRINTING 05/16/94 $261.10 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING D7143 ART CENTER ADM PRINTING 05/16/94 $124.64 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING D6903 ART CENTER ADM PRINTING 05/16/94 $103.77 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING D6903 ART CENTER ADM PRINTING 05/16/94 $56.37 JERRYS PRINTING PRINTING D7000 PARK ADMIN. PRINTING 05/16/94 $70.85 JERRYS PRINTING SALES TAX D6164. ART CENTER ADM PRINTING 145785 $723.76* 05/16/94 $463.41 JIM HATCH SALES TOOLS 3485 GENERAL MAINT TOOLS 3796 05/16/94 $95.74 JIM HATCH SALES TOOLS 3498 CENTENNIAL LAK TOOLS 145786 $559.15* 05/16/94 $60.00 JOHNSON, LAURIE SERVICES /ADAPTIVE RE 050594 SPECIAL ACTIVI PROF SERVICES 145787 $60.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 14 CHECK NO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT ---- - - - -PO -NUM_ 05/16/94 $3.76 JOHNSON, NAOMI OFFICE SUPPLIES 051094 ART CENTER ADM OFFICE SUPPLIE 05/16/94 $43.27 JOHNSON, NAOMI GENERAL SUPPLIES 051094 ART CENTER BLD GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $127.13 JOHNSON, NAOMI CRAFT SUPPLIES 051094 ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 145788 $174.16* 05/16/94 $100.00 JOHNSON, WALTER POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145789 $100.00* 05/16/94 $2,145.91 JP FOODSERVICES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 043094 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD CLEANING SUPPL 05/16/94 $91.55 JP FOODSERVICES INC JP FOODSERVICES INC CLEANING SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 043094 043094 GRILL GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 05/16/94 $276.77 $332.58 JP FOODSERVICES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 043094 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 145790 $2,846.81* 05/16/94 $71.89 JR JOHNSON SUPPLY TREES, FLOWERS, SHRU 40043 ED BUILDING & TREES FLWR SHR 145791 $71.89* 05/16/94 $14.19 JULIEN, DIANE GENERAL SUPPLIES 050994 LABORATORY GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $15.50 JULIEN, DIANE LICENSES & PERMITS 050994 EQUIPMENT OPER LIC & PERMITS 05/16/94 $7.00 JULIEN, DIANE CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 050994 TRAINING CONF & SCHOOLS 145792 $36.69* 05/16/94 $68.47 K & K SALES REPAIR PARTS 79243 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 145793 $68.47* 05/16/94 $207.25 KAR PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 511542 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 145794 $207.25* 05/16/94 $65.24 KEA INCORPORATED BOOKS & PAMPHLETS 2101 POLICE DEPT. G BOOKS & PAMPHL 145795 $65.24* 05/16/94 ,$30.00 KEPRIOS, JOHN GENERAL SUPPLIES 050494 PARK ADMIN. GENERAL SUPPLI 145796 $30'.00* 05/16/94 $38.82 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 100879 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $383.19 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 099754 BUILDINGS GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $129.59 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 100241 GENERAL STORM GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $62.11 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 100622 BUILDINGS GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 05/16/94 $68.49 $53.14 KNOX COMM CREDIT KNOX COMM CREDIT PAINT SHELF FOR GUN RANGE 100300 100541 CLUB HOUSE BUILDING MAINT PAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 3883 05/16/94 $61.66 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 099559 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 3787 05/16/94 $111.76 KNOX COMM CREDIT TOOLS 100559 BUILDING MAINT TOOLS 3881 145797 $908.76* 05/16/94 $997.78 KREMER SPRING & ALIGNM CONTRACTED REPAIRS 053221 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 145798 $997.78* 05/16/94 $925.15 KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 105385 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE MIX . 05/16/94 $797.50 KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 105264 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS I... •. Pr .vl! a YN?!;?VI014_74!l J£Yli!TC�,L'Slry��pCY._ �. ... ...�vf..��[I:•_.l.v [..Y...Y4.�. �:.W �.Y1�v:�..a•i .,. .. % Li} �ILnLII :it•�RY'!2'!17'�3�Lry:[�oe.,eY K.�''..I'. ... . COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 15 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION ---------------------------------------------------- INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO -NUM_- --------- - - - - - -- 05/16/94 - - - - - -- -- $84.00 - - -- -- -------- KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 105264 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $1,099.15 'KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 104780 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $214.90 KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 104881 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 145799 $3,120.70* 05/16/94 $30.00 KVASNICK, BARB SERVICES CL /EB 060494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 145800 $30.00* 05/16/94 $527.00 LABOR RELATIONS ASN. PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 040194 ADMINISTRATION PROF SERVICES 145801 $527.00* 05/16/94 $103.24 LANCRETE, LAURA MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 050394 PARK ADMIN. MILEAGE 145802 $103.24* 05/16/94 $49.50 LATTIMER, MARY CLASS REFUND 042794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145803 $49.50* 05/16/94 $492.02 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1042277 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $338.76 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1039397 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $491.73 LAWSON PRODUCTS TOOLS 1034564 EQUIPMENT OPER TOOLS 05/16/94 $25.78 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1039398 ST LIGHTING OR REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $476.02 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1027442 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $61.22 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1030156 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $78.07 LAWSON PRODUCTS ACCESSORIES 1016467 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 05/16/94 $282.02 LAWSON PRODUCTS ACCESSORIES 1039399 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 05/16/94 $176.30 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1042274 EQUIPMENT OPER.REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $135.47 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1042276 ST LIGHTING OR REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $396.15 LAWSON PRODUCTS REPAIR PARTS 1027444 ST LIGHTING OR REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $93.02 LAWSON PRODUCTS TOOLS 1042278 CENTENNIAL LAK TOOLS 145804 $3,046.56* 05/16/94 $28.77 LEEF BROS. INC. LAUNDRY 043094/G MAINT OF COURS LAUNDRY 145805 $28.77* 05/16/94 $23.00 LEFEVERE, JEANNE CLASS REFUND 042794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145806 $23.00* 05/16/94 $41.00 LEFEVERE, JEANNIE CLASS REFUND 050494 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145807 $41.00* 05/16/94 $1,525.95 LEITNER COMPANY SOD & BLACK DIRT .032894 MAINT OF.COURS SOD & DIRT 145808 $1,525.95* 05/16/94 $64.04 LIEN INFECTION CONTROL SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 0501 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI 05/16/94 $201.24 LIEN INFECTION CONTROL SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 050194 GOLF DOME SVC CONTR EQUI 05/16/94 $97.37 LIEN INFECTION CONTROL RUBBISH REMOVAL 040194 GOLF DOME RUBBISH REMOVA 145809 $362.65* 05/16/94 $61.26 LITIN PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 88822 ART CENTER ADM GENERAL SUPPLI 145810 $61.26* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 16 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM - - - -- OBJECT ---- - - - -PO -NUM. ------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - -- ...: �. a.... �,: :.,_,i,,;,k.��.u:�M1:.o.sa.c:.., .�.. _; -...:. s�.-�r.e..iu:eert xKr,�t¢��iwe•se.. �;...S;,�r•v... }C}:al "e�lelit 2fT9•L4V'R.C. JiCSnw.•, :�K�- •>.�._ -_. -� - 05/16/94 $32.92 LUGER, JEFFREY CONT ED /GOLF COURSE 050994 GOLF ADMINISTR CONF & SCHOOLS - 145811 $32.92* 05/16/94 $334.20 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 28566 YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLIN CST CST OF OF GDS GDS MIX MIX 05/16/94 $100.26 M AMUNDSON COST COST OF GOODS OF GOODS SOLD SOLD M M 28538 28472 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 05/16/94 $317.49 $217.23 M AMUNDSON M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 28302 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS GDS MIX MIX 05/16/94 $217.23 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 28397 YORK SELLING 50TH ST SELLIN CST CST OF OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $233.94 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 28378 145812 $1,420.35* 05/16/94 $36.04 M. SHANKEN COMMUNICATI WINE MAGAZINE 094157 094635 VERNON SELLING LIQUOR 50TH ST CST DUES OF & GDS SUBSCRI MIX 05/16/94 $36.04 M. SHANKEN COMMUNICATI DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 145813 $72.08* 05/16/94 $1,253.02 MAC QUEEN EQUIP INC. REPAIR PARTS 2943086 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 145814 $1,253.02* 05/16/94 $40.00 MADDEN, MARY REFUND WATER SAFETY 050994 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 145815 $40.00* 05/16/94 $41.00 MARIE - CLAUDE GOULD CLASS REFUND 042794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145816 $41.00* 05/16/94 $29.50 MARK VII SALES MISC OLD SOLD M STORE 1, 242499 VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLIN CST CST OF OF GDS GDS BEE MIX 05/16/94 $31.20 MARK VII SALES COST COST OF GOODS OF GOODS SOLD B 245157 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $2,253.04 MARK VII SALES VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 242553 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 05/16/94 $2,299.50 $82.40 MARK MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 245156 YORK SELLING CST CST OF OF GDS GDS MIX BEE 05/16/94 $656.45 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 242498 STORE 1, 50TH ST SELLIN YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $124.90 MARK VII SALES MISC MISC OLD OLD STORE 1, 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 05/16/94 $1.50 $20.80 MARK VII SALES MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 242500 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS GDS MIX BEE 05/16/94 $1,981.30 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 242501 245113 VERNON SELLING 50TH ST SELLIN CST CST OF OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $496.25 MARK VII SALES COST COST OF GOODS OF GOODS SOLD SOLD B B 042994 GRILL CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $640.00 $57.60 MARK VII SALES MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD F 042994 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD MIX 05/16/94 05/16/94 $9.20 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 247851 YORK SELLING YORK SELLING CST CST OF OF GDS GDS BEE 05/16/94 $2,356.85 MARK VII SALES COST COST OF GOODS OF GOODS SOLD SOLD B B 247852 245162 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $241.50 MARK -VII SALES MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 245115 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 05/16/94 $6.80 $2,471.85 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 245116 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 145818 $13,760.64* - 05/16/94 $353.16 MARSARS GENERAL SUPPLIES 042994 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 145819 $353.16* 05/16/94 $595.75 MARSH - LARSON DISTRIBUT SOLAR SCREEN 042794 CONTINGENCIES PROF SERVICES 145820 $595.75* ...: �. a.... �,: :.,_,i,,;,k.��.u:�M1:.o.sa.c:.., .�.. _; -...:. s�.-�r.e..iu:eert xKr,�t¢��iwe•se.. �;...S;,�r•v... }C}:al "e�lelit 2fT9•L4V'R.C. JiCSnw.•, :�K�- •>.�._ -_. -� - COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 17 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR - - - -- DESCRIPTION - - -- -- - - - - -- INVOICE - PROGRAM - - - -- -- ------ OBJECT - - - - -- PO NUM. --------------------------- - - - - --- - - - - -- - - - -- t 05/16/94 $498.42 MCCAREN DESIGN TREES, FLOWERS, SHRU 10938 ED BUILDING & TREES FLWR SHR 145821 $498.42* 05/16/94 $27.26 MCCARTHY, LOWELL MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 050394 FIELD MAINTENA MILEAGE 145822 $27.26* 05/16/94 $55.96 MCKENZIE, TOM CONT ED /POLICE 050694 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 145823 $55.96* 05/16/94 $278.56 MCNEILUS STEEL REPAIR PARTS 111858 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 3885 05/16/94 $440.24 MCNEILUS STEEL ACCESSORIES 109699 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 145824 $718:80* 05/16/94 $105.44 MENARDS TOOLS 30240251 BUILDING MAINT TOOLS 145825 $105.44* 05/16/94 $100.00 MERFELD, BURT POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145826 $100.00* 05/16/94 $2,513.40 MERIT SUPPLY FERTILIZER 36026 FIELD MAINTENA FERTILIZER 05/16/94 $461.03 MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES 36002 ED BUILDING & CLEANING SUPPL 4009 05/16/94 $235.79 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 35911 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL.SUPPLI 05/16/94 $447.83 MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES 35878 PW BUILDING CLEANING SUPPL 05/16/94 $348.78 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 35936 EQUIPMENT OPER GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $419.34 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 35870 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 3705 145827 $4,426.17* 05/16/94 $25.00 MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE FEES 5182.01 GENERAL FD PRO AMBULANCE FEES 05/16/94 $316.•96 MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE FEES 23274 GENERAL FD PRO AMBULANCE FEES 05/16/94 $726.00 MESSERLI & KRAMER AMBULANCE FEES 22984 GENERAL FD PRO AMBULANCE FEES 145828 $1,067.96* 05/16/94 $308.45 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD F 1567 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 05/16/94 $329.88 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 1395 FIELD MAINTENA GENERAL SUPPLI 145829 $638.33* 05/16/94 $35.00 METRO LEGAL SERVICES TRACT SEARCH 420663 CDBG PROG PROF SERVICES 3935 05/16/94 $25.00 METRO LEGAL SERVICES TRACT SEARCH 420664 CDBG PROG PROF SERVICES 3936 145830 $60.00* 05/16/94 $792.00 METRO-WASTE CONTROL BUILDING PERMITS APRIL 19 GENERAL FD PRO BUILDING PERMI 145831 $792.00* 05/16/94 $176,152.41 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPOR CONSTRUCTION PYMT #1 ST. IMPROV BA CIP 145832 $176,152.41* 05/16/94 $485.84 MIDWEST CHEMICAL SUPPL PAPER SUPPLIES 10414 CITY HALL GENE PAPER SUPPLIES 145833 $485.84* COUNCIL CHECK-REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 18 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR---------- DESCRIPTION-- - - - - -- INVOICE - -_- PROGRAM ---------------------------------- OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------- 05/16/94 -- $223.44 - - - - -- - - MIDWEST SPORTS MARKETI - - -- GENERAL SUPPLIES 114380 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 145834 $223.44* 05/16/94 $41.41 MIDWEST WIRE & STEEL GENERAL SUPPLIES 91186 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $24.46 MIDWEST WIRE & STEEL GENERAL SUPPLIES 92259 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 145835 $65.87* 05/16/94 $60.00 MILWAUKEE STRAP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 5292 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 145836 $60.00* 05/16/94 $134.00 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE CONTRACTED REPAIRS 05111654 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 145837 $134.00* 05/16/94 $1,071.00 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 30180 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 05/16/94 $1,050.00 MINNEAPOLIS & SUBURBAN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 30181 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 145838 $2,121.00* 05/16/94 $102.20 MINNEAPOLIS SPOKESMAN HELP WANTED ADS 9192 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 145839 $102.20* 05/16/94 $3,018.00 MINNEGASCO HEAT 051694 051694 ARENA BLDG /GRO CITY HALL GENE HEAT HEAT 05/16/94 05/16/94 $572.17 $3,989.70 MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO HEAT HEAT 051694 GOLF DOME HEAT 05/16/94 $1,830.20 MINNEGASCO HEAT 051694 ED BUILDING & HEAT 05/16/94 $1,487.44 MINNEGASCO HEAT 051.694 PW BUILDING HEAT 145840 $10,897.51* 05/16/94 $105.80 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 150933 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $41.22 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 150933 LIQUOR 50TH ST GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $15.95 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 050194 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $104.96 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 150934 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $191.25 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 150935 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $138.44 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 150636 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $81.95 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 150482 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $68.12 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 150481 YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLI 145841 $747.69* 05/16/94 $81.68 MINNESOTA COUNTY ATTOR BOOKS /POLICE 050294 POLICE DEPT. G BOOKS & PAMPHL 145842 $81.68* 05/16/94 $62.84 MINNESOTA D.N.R. GENERAL SUPPLIES 050994 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 145843 $62.84* 05/16/94 $509.64 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT 0 UNCLAIMED PROPERTY 050494 CONTINGENCIES PROF SERVICES 145844 $509.64* 05/16/94 $65.00 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR INC SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 040395 ED BUILDING & SVC CONTR EQUI 145845 $65.00* 05/16/94 $130.00 MINNESOTA FIRE SERVICE CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 042594 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONF & SCHOOLS 144420 05/16794 $94.90 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY MIX 150312 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX $94.90* .i •,. :Y 10!1."on>.. .. f.. .:tur.w ^I:•;9rry.�t Tv .:: ..�.. - i. ... ...M. iU.iN Y .!+. - i L. NItt SIR^�'� .., _. .. i. .,mow COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 19 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 145846 $130.00* 05/16/94 $25.00 MINNESOTA STATE HORTIC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 042694 PARK ADMIN. DUES & SUBSCRI 145847 $25.00* 05/16/94 $15.00 MINNESOTA STATE TREASU LICENSES & PERMITS 050394 TRAINING LIC & PERMITS 145848 $15.00* 05/16/94 $155.00 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT ADVERTISING OTHER 194486 ART CENTER ADM ADVERT OTHER 145849 $155.00* 05/16/94 $468.13 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 414591 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $277.45 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 414590 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $37.19 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 410241 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 - $187.88 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 412745 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $139.60 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 410240 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $126.20 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 410611 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $177.06 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 411520 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $200.75 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 411358 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 3825 05/16/94 $370.62 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO IRRIGATION PARTS 413047 FIELD,MAINTENA REPAIR PARTS 3961 145850 $1,609.12* 05/16/94 $20.77 MINNESOTA WANNER REPAIR.PARTS 0021388 FIELD MAINTENA REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $10.03 MINNESOTA WANNER REPAIR PARTS 21345 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 145851 $30.80* 05/16/94 $17.00 MIRMAN, JULIA REFUND TENNIS 050994 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 145852 $17.00*- 05/16/94 $100.00 MN DARE OFFICERS ASSOC DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 042994 POLICE DEPT. G DUES & SUBSCRI 145853 $100.00* 05/16/94 $150.00 MN PUBLIC EMPLOYER LAB DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 022694 ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 145854 $150.00* 05/16/94 $1,381.23 MN STATE TREA /BLG IN BUILDING PERMITS APRIL 19 GENERAL FD PRO BUILDING PERMI 145855 $1,381.23* 05/16/94 $81.00 MN WOMENS PRESS INC ADVERTISING PERSONNE 1744 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 145856 $81.00* 05/16/94 $39.00 MOBILE CELLULAR UNLIMI GENERAL SUPPLIES 911543 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 145857 $39.00* 05/16/94 $46.00 MPLS HEALTH DEPT PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 1729 POLICE DEPT. G PROF SERVICES 145858 $46.00* 05/16/94 $189.88 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCI HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I8497662 FIRE DEPT. GEN HAZARD. MATERI 145859 $189.88* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 20 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE --------------- PROGRAM - - - -- OBJECT---- - - - -PO -NUM. 05/16/94 -------------------------------- $207.37 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 255900 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD GD FOOD 05/16/94 $587.80 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 254533 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF 05/16/94 $282.76 EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 736208 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD $61.63 NEBCO 145860 $1,016.30* 05/16/94 $867.98 NEDOROSKI, DAN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 042994 CITY HALL GENE CONTR REPAIRS 145861 $867.98* 05/16/94 $50.00 NELSON, BRADEN GOLF DOME RECEIPTS 051094 GOLF PROG GOLF DOME RECP 145862 $50.00* 05/16/94 $30.50 NESTINGEN, KAREN CLASS REFUND 042794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145863 $30.50* 05/16/94 $110.70 NEVCO SCOREBOARD COMPA PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 127137 ATHLETIC ACTIV PROF SERVICES 145864 $110.70* 05/16/94 $189.14 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGN SIGNS & POSTS 2016386 STREET NAME SI SIGNS & POSTS 145865 $189.14* 05/16/94 $100.00 NISSEN, DICK POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145866 $100.00* 05/16/94 $18.04 NORDIC TRACK REPAIR PARTS 5393942 POOL TRACK GRE REPAIR PARTS 145867 $18.04* 05/16/94 $58.78 NORTHERN AIRGAS OXYGEN 55397 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 2617 145868 $58.78* 05/16/94 $479.25 NORTHERN STUMP REMOVAL STUMP REMOVAL 050394 MAINT OF COURS PROF SERVICES 4066 145869 $479.25* 05/16/94 $137.70 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 89058 85036. VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 05/16/94 $49.00 $72.00 NORTHSTAR ICE NORTHSTAR ICE UNDERPAYMENT COST OF GOODS SOLD M 90192 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $71.40 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 90189 50TH ST SELLIN 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $36.60 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS COST OF GOODS SOLD M SOLD M 88216 89056 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 05/16/94 $55.80 $37.20 NORTHSTAR ICE NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 87457 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 $55.80 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 88219 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 145870 $515.50* 05/16/94 $324.41 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPP COST OF GOODS SOLD F 218196 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 3751 145871 $324.41* 05/16/94 $205.57 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO ` TIRES & TUBES NW9717 NW9975 EQUIPMENT OPER EQUIPMENT OPER.TIRES TIRES & TUBES & TUBES 05/16/94 $227.70 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES TIRES & TUBES NW9902 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 05/16/94 05/16/94 $128.44 $437.61 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW9858 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 21 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR - - - -- DESCRIPTION - -- - - - - -- INVOICE PROGRAM - - - - OBJECT -- --------PO-NUM_- ------------ -------------- 05/16/94 - - - - -- - - $65.50 - - -- -- NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW9894 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 05/16/94 $23.08 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW9690 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 05/16/94 $57.00 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW9711 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 145872 $1,144.90* 05/16/94 $467.26 NOVAK'S GARAGE CONTRACTED REPAIRS 7023 CENTENNIAL LAK CONTR REPAIRS 145873 $467.26* 05/16/94 $60.46 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 GENERAL MAINT LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $20,662.33 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 ST LIGHTING RE LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $211.96 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 MAINT OF LOURS LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $2,697.35 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $195.41 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 PONDS & LAKES LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $69.54 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 PONDS & LAKES LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $6,016.15 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 PARKING RAMP LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $50.55 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 CIVIL DEFENSE LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $1,768.01 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 CITY HALL GENE LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $2,406.09 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 PW BUILDING LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $1,299.57 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 ART CENTER BLD LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $2,666.13 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 BUILDING MAINT LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $2,516.87 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 CLUB HOUSE LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $3,092.19 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 ST LIGHTING OR LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $85.03 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 CENTENNIAL LAK LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $6,107.40 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 ED BUILDING_& LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $905.98 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 GOLF DOME LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $30.41 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 VERNON OCCUPAN LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $20.21 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 TANKS TOWERS & LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $10,192.26 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 DISTRIBUTION LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $3,504.25 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 PUMP & LIFT ST LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $273.45 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694 GUN RANGE LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $7,237.55 NSP. LIGHT & POWER 051694 ARENA BLDG /GRO LIGHT & POWER 05/16/94 $69.25 NSP LIGHT & POWER 051694, POOL OPERATION LIGHT & POWER 145875 $72,138.40* 05/16/94 $200.00 NYHLENS FILTER RECYCLI HAZ. WASTE DISPOSAL 5301 SUPERV. & OVRH HAZ. WASTE DIS 145876 $200.00* 05/16/94 $3,975.00 O'BRIEN SHEET METAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 13634 CONTINGENCIES EQUIP REPLACEM 2225 145877 $3,975.00* 05/16/94 $91.59 OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING 32322 POLICE DEPT. G PRINTING 3461 145878 $91.59* 05/16/94 $101.60 OLD DUTCH FOODS COST OF GOODS SOLD F 042994 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 145879 $101.60* 05/16/94 $67.00 OLSON, SCOTT REFUND SOCCER 050594 GOLF DOME DOME RENTAL 145880 $67.00* 05/16/94 $74.00 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 669905 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 22 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. _________ 05/16/94 - --- $74.00 - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 670212 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 145881 $148.00* 05/16/94 $243.80 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 40554 YORK SELLING SELLIN CST OF GD WINE CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $149.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF COST OF GOODS SOLD GOODS SOLD W W 40555 40393 50TH ST VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 05/16/94 $27.50 $238.90 PAUSTIS & SONS PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 40392 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 145882 $659.20* 05/16/94 $24.47 PEHRSON, KEN MAIL BOX 042794 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 145883 $24.47* 05/16/94 $106.05 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD M M 22896308 22896108 50TH ST SELLIN YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX CST OF GDS MIX 05/16/94 05/16/94 $125.80 $49.00 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GENERAL GOODS SOLD SUPPLIES 043094 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI MIX 05/16/94 $46.20 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD M 23496305 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS CST OF GD FOOD 05/16/94 $417.75 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF COST OF GOODS SOLD GOODS SOLD F F 043094 22705403 GRILL ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 05/16/94 $105.50 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING 145884 $850.30* 05/16/94 $4,267.30 PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONT CONSTRUCTION 042594 MAINT OF COURS SHARED MAINT 145885 $4,267.30* 05/16/94 $10.00 PEPIS, SYLVIA CLASS REFUND 050494 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145886 $10.00* 05/16/94 $374.18 PETERSON.PONTIAC -GMC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 240048 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 145887 $374.18* 05/16/94 $20.00 PETERSON, DAVID SERVICES CL /EB 050394 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 145888 $20.00* 05/16/94 $2.12 PETTY CASH GENERAL SUPPLIES EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 051694 051694 ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLI EQUIP REPLACEM 05/16/94 $10.28 $1.00 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 051694 PLANNING MILEAGE .05/16/94 05/16/94 $2.00 PETTY CASH POSTAGE MEETING EXPENSE 051694_ 051694 FINANCE ASSESSING POSTAGE MEETING EXPENS 05/16/94 05/16/94 $20.40 $13.50 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 051694 ASSESSING MILEAGE 05/16/94 $2.55 PETTY CASH MILEAGE MEETING OR ALLOWANCE EXPENSE 051694 051694 PUBLIC HEALTH INSPECTIONS MILEAGE MEETING EXPENS 05/16/94 05/16/94 $5.20 $4.24 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH EDUCATION PROGRAMS 051694 HUMAN RELATION EDUCATION PRGM 05/16/94 $9.05 PETTY CASH GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 051694 051694 CENT SVC GENER PARK ADMIN. GENERAL SUPPLI GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 05/16/94 $9.83 $28.29 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH CONTRACTED REPAIRS 051694 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 05/16/94 $32.62 PETTY CASH MEETING EXPENSE 051694 ADMINISTRATION MEETING EXPENS 145889 $141.08* 05/16/94 $118.78 PINNACLE SIGNS & GRAPH GENERAL SUPPLIES 4111 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 145890 $118.78* ' - .»�- •]::.aJil��Vl.�1`._NI:'PLL 2L'Ynal��tiY r.:::y.� .. .. � .. _ �. �.. �YIFJ):: o. 11111i] Ifl! r} iK175fY:1'in'p!`RYY:�1::`a.l -.� - �..��vi Y�'•.I}i!I�:wIIiIY.JI!C42LK 17R.QS6'SIW G`iGY N ]::w l: .�' .. .. - -•.• COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 23 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05/16/94 $480.47 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL REPAIR PARTS 1489527 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 145891 $480.47* 05/16/94 $33.12 PLUNKETTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 714314 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 145892 $33.12* 05/16/94 $207.68 POLAR CHEVROLET REPAIR PARTS RZ221999 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 145893 $207.68* 05/16/94 $225.00 POSTMASTER MONTHLY NEWSLETTER 032794 CENT SVC GENER POSTAGE 145894 $225.00* 05/16/94 $161.51 POWER INVESTIGATIONS I BACKGROUND CHECK 003397 VERNON LIQUOR PROF SERVICES 05/16/94 $166.41 POWER INVESTIGATIONS I BACKGROUND CHECK 003396 LIQUOR YORK GE PROF SERVICES 145895 $327.92* 05/16/94 $399:96 POWER PROCESS EQUIPMEN REPAIR PARTS 134735 DISTRIBUTION REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $457.70 POWER PROCESS EQUIPMEN REPAIR PARTS 134736 LIFT STATION M REPAIR PARTS 145896 $857.66* 05/16/94 $724.73 PRECISION BUS SYSTEM TRANSCRIBER /DICTATOR 046761 ADMINISTRATION EQUIP REPLACEM 3815 145897 $724.73* 05/16/94 $84.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC 10114 , ARENA ICE,MAIN EQUIP MAINT 145898 $84.00* 05/16/94 $3,605.00 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING PROF ENG SERVICES 93022.07 GENERAL(BILLIN PROF SERVICES 145899 $3,605.00* 05/16/94 $99.00 PRYOR RESOURCES INC CONT ED /POLICE 050694 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 145900 $99.00* 05/16/94 $254.71 QUALITY REFRIGERATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS 092424 GRILL CONTR REPAIRS 05/16/94 $191.45 QUALITY REFRIGERATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS 0922 ARENA CONCESSI CONTR REPAIRS 145901 $446.16* 05/16/94 $94.32 QUICK SERVICE BATTERY REPAIR PARTS 64844 EQUIPMENT OPER•REPAIR PARTS 145902 $94.32* 05/16/94 $1,437.50 REDWOOD SIGNS BY HORNI ENTRY SIGN 1651 MAINT OF COURS SHARED MAINT 145903 $1,437.50* 05/16/94 $64.97 REITZ INDUSTRIES AMMUNITION 284 POLICE DEPT. G AMMUNITION 145904 $64.97* 05/16/94 $492.03 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4164 ED BUILDING'& GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $185.61 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4157 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $236.69 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4161 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI ]45 ,) 05 $914.33* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 24 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE --------- ---- PROGRAM - - - -- OBJECT-------- PO -NUM_- -------------------------------------------'= 05/16/94 $1,830.75 -------------------------------------- REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 88183 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $1,862.70 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 88182 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $78.50 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 88755 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE BEE 05/16/94 $3,601.55 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 88180 YORK SELLING CSt OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 - $37.50 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 86519. YORK SELLING CST OF GDS $159.60 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 87945 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE .05/16/94 05/16/94 $467.75 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 87949 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 - $60.00 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 86520. VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $2,337.90 REX.DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 87328 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE GDS BEE 05/16/94 $1,871.15 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 87325 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF BEE 05/16/94 $1,365.55 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 87407 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS 145906 $13,477.95* 05/16/94 $52.00 RICHFIELD PLUMBING CO SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 9777 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI 145907 $52.00* 05/16/94 $27.00 RIEDELL SHOES GENERAL SUPPLIES 113235 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 145908 $27.00* 05/16/94 $3,609.00 ROLLINS HUDIG HALL OF INSURANCE 113299 CENT SVC GENER INSURANCE 145909 $3,609.00* 05/16/94 $81.78 SCHMITZ, THOMAS FIRST AID SUPPLIES 042794 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 145910 $81.78* 05/16/94 $254.94 SCHUMANN'S BAKERY COST OF GOODS SOLD F 043094 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 145911 $254.94* 05/16/94 $120.00 SEIDEL, ROXANNE SERVICES CL /EB 050394 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 145912 $120.00* 05/16/94 $35.00 SENSIBLE LAND USE CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 050594 PLANNING CONF & SCHOOLS 145913 $35.00* 05/16/94 $450.00 SHANNON'S ROOFING COMP GENERAL SUPPLIES 042294 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 145914 $450.00* 05/16/94 $50.00 SHELP, NANCY AC INSTRUCTOR 051094 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 145915 $50.00* 05/16/94 $100.00 SHEPARD, JOHN POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145916 $100.00* 05/16/94 $17.00 SHERRILL, BECKY REFUND 050394 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 145917 $17.00* 05/16/94 $112.04 SICO INC REPAIR PARTS 234061 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 145918 $112.04* 05/16/94 $127.84 SMITH & WESSON AMMUNITION 26343001 POLICE DEPT. G AMMUNITION COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 25 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION -- INVOICE - -- PROGRAM- - OBJECT - - - - - PO -NUM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 145919 $127.84* 05/16/94 $1,000.00 SMITH, CATE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE EPCL94 -0 CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 145920 $1,000.00* 05/16/94 $160.00 SMITH, CECELIA DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 050594 ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 145921 $160.00* 05/16/94 $3,625.00 SOUTH HENNEPIN REGIONA PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 1ST QRT SOUTH HENNEPIN PROF SERVICES 145922 $3,625.00* 05/16/94 $50.00 SOUTHSIDE BIG BAND SERVICES CL /EB 060594 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 145923 $50.00* 05/16/94 $500.75 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 37814 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $3,507.70 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 37813 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $649.10 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 37675 50TH ST SELLIN CST 05/16/94 $1,567.25 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 37674 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 145924 $6,224.80* 05/16/94 $312.00 SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN CAB GSTN VIDEO 042894 COMMUNICATIONS PROF SERVICES 145925 $312.00* 05/16/94 $303.63 SPS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2188375 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $33.50 SPS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2189550 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL.SUPPLI 05/16/94 $27.54 SPS REPAIR PARTS 2190219 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $8.95 SPS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2191540 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $54.03 SPS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2194491 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 145926 $427.65* 05/16/94 $654.64 STAR TRIBUNE ADVERTISING PERSONNE 043094 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 145927 $654.64* 05/16/94 $24.50 STARS, MARGIE CLASS REFUND 050494 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145928 05/16/94 $21.00 STOLTENBERG, KATE CLASS REFUND 042794 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 145929 $21.00* 05/16/94 $136.32 STREICHERS AMMUNITION.- 84804.1 POLICE DEPT. G AMMUNITION 3995 145930 $136.32* 05/16/94 $108.43 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR PARTS 202369 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $209.35 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET REPAIR PARTS 177971 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $1,120.36 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET CONTRACTED REPAIRS 179021 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 145931 $1,438.14* 05/16/94 $44.53 SUPERAMERICA GASOLINE 051294 EQUIPMENT OPER GASOLINE 145932 $44.53* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 26 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM --------------- OBJECT --- - - - -PO -NUM_ 05/16/94 --------------------------------------------------------------- $100.00 SWANSON, HAROLD POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145933 $100.00* 05/16/94 $16.61 SYSTEM SUPPLY BILLING SUPPLIES 5027 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $84.16 SYSTEM SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 005028 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $23.00 SYSTEM SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 005028 GOLF ADMINISTR GENERAL SUPPLI 145934 $123.77* 05/16/94 $243.24 T.C. MOULDING & SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD 118077.1 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 3752 145935 $243.24* 05/16/94 $59.11 TARGET SUPPLIES 16576 SPECIAL ACTIVI GENERAL SUPPLI SUPP 05%16%94 $138.34 TARGET GENERALISUPPLIESES 65170 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERALISUPPLI 145936 $274.67* 05/16/94 $761.00 THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 030494 ADMINISTRATION PROF SERVICES 05/16/94 $184.00 THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 0304 ADMINISTRATION PROF SERVICES 145937 $945.00* 05/16/94 $168.69 THE HOWE COMPANY FERTILIZER I763897 CENTENNIAL LAK FERTILIZER 145938 $168.69* 05/16/94 $59.11 THE KANE SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 5496215 POOL TRACK GRE,PROF SERVICES 145939 $59.11* 05/16/94 $932.94 THE PREST COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 205 PUMP & LIFT ST GENERAL SUPPLI 145940 $932.94* 05/16/94 $477.12 THE PRINT SHOP MONTHLY NEWSLETTER 23523 SENIOR CITIZEN CITIZEN GENERAL SUPPLI GENERAL SUPPLI 3736 3321 05/16/94 $498.42 THE PRINT SHOP MONTHLY NEWSLETTER 23332 SENIOR 145941 $975.54* 05/16/94 $306.50 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 7078 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE GD WINE 05/16/94 $293.00 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 7118 VERNON SELLING CST OF CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $373.00 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 7119 YORK SELLINGIN CST OF GD WINE 141459 $l,q4g.36 05/16/94$1,65 04,$360.36 THOMAS & SONS CONSTRUC CONSTRUCTION PYMT #1 SIDEWALK CIP 145943 $50,360.36* 05/16/94 $402.50 THOMAS MOORE INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 20607 PLANNING PROF SERVICES 145944 $402.50* 05/16/94 $9,958.75 THOMSEN- NYBECK PROSECUTING 83221 LEGAL SERVICES PROF SERVICES 145945 $9,958.75* 05/16/94 $39.00 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF.GOODS SOLD M 32766 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX - ,.._.�.��.! ".'�iY':Il�;wli lti_SM3!Kt:'[u.�L'�:W S +::i �:�b.••..1. ,. __. - .- _�..+.!�.-.i e�l!wl::�'!JJrP9LV11.1tl�L�:'V r...ei ub•+.�. -.. -. -.... _ �,' ,...•ys•�iF'.�L^,.irlplil�!°.fi M1]'� <tl :,1.ww�•iY�: •. COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 27 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT --- - - - - PO -NUM_ ---------------- OS/16/94 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- $2,212.85 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 32766 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $65.75 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD -M 32674 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX - 05/16/94 $373.05 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 32674 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $2,213.20 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 32306 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/16/94 $37.75 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD M 32306 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 145946 $4,941.60* 05/16/94 $134.49 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUP WELDING SUPPLIES 266772 EQUIPMENT OPER WELDING SUPPLI 145947 $134.4 "9* 05/16/94 $2,137.54 TRAVAUX BY NEEDLEWORKS INVENTORY SUPPLIES 051694 GOLF PROG INVENTORY SUPP 145948 $2,137.54* 05/16/94 $2,095.60 TREADWAY GRAPHICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 0024266 DARE GENERAL SUPPLI GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $53.99 TREADWAY GRAPHICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 0024152 DARE 145949 $2,149.59* 05/16/94 $25.00 TRETTEL, KATHY SERVICE CL EB 060994 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 05/16/94 $33.47 TRETTEL, KATHY GENERAL SUPPLIES 060994 ED ADMINISTRAT GENERAL SUPPLI 145950 $58.47* 05/16/94 $155.36 TWIN CITY TRUCK EQ INC REPAIR PARTS 51368 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 145951 $155.36* 05/16/94 $5.33 U.S. WEST COMMUNICATIO LONG DISTANCE CONNEC A178002- POOL OPERATION TELEPHONE 145952 $5.33* 05/16/94 $204.35 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 29362600 CITY HALL GENE REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $292.88 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 28932300 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 05/16/94 $134.34 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 29646100 PRE - EMPTION EQUIP REPLACEM 05/16/94 $187.64 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 8066100 PRE - EMPTION EQUIP REPLACEM 05/16/94 $136.27 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 29667600 ST LIGHTING OR REPAIR PARTS 3806 145953 $955.48* 05/16/94 $27.53 US WEST CELLULAR PHONE BILL 041094 /C ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 05/16/94 $60.28 US WEST CELLULAR PHONE BILL 031094 /C ADMINISTRATION DUES & SUBSCRI 05/16/94 $27.38 US WEST CELLULAR EQUIPMENT RENTAL 042094 FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP RENTAL 05/16/94 $39.53 US WEST CELLULAR EQUIPMENT RENTAL 042094 FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP RENTAL 05/16/94 $27.38 US WEST CELLULAR EQUIPMENT RENTAL 042094 FIRE DEPT. GEN .EQUIP RENTAL 145954 $182.10* 05/16/94 $865.57 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 CLUB HOUSE TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $52.42 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 MAINT OF COURS TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $102.49 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 POOL OPERATION TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $240.21 US, WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 ARENA BLDG /GRO TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $35.30 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 GUN RANGE TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $47.37 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 FIRE DEPT. GEN TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $50.45 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 051694 051694 DARE CENT SVC GENER TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 05/16/94 05/16/94 $4,367.08 $99.32 US WEST US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 CENTENNIAL LAK TELEPHONE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 28 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION-- - - - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM -------- OBJECT --- - - - -PO - - - - -- -NUM. _______ 05/16/94 ___ $282.60 _ _ US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 051694 COMMUNICATIONS ART CENTER BLD TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 05/16/94 05/16/94 $171.98 $171.28 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 051694 SKATING & HOCK TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $182.35 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 051694 SENIOR CITIZEN BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 05/16/94 05/16/94 $52.05 $142.43 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 051694 VERNON OCCUPAN TELEPHONE 05/16/94 $194.16 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 051694 051694 YORK OCCUPANCY 50TH ST OCCUPA TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 05/16/94 05/16/94 $173.00 $50.45 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 051694 PUMP & LIFT ST TELEPHONE 145956 $7,280.51* 05/16/94 $12.80 US WEST PAGING PAGER 05008282 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 4023 145957 $12.80* 05/16/94 $67.00 VAUGHN DISPLAY GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 001981 001672 BUILDING MAINT CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $138.88 VAUGHN DISPLAY 145958 $205.88* 05/16/94 $40.00 VERMONT E.T.V. TRAINING MATERIAL FI 042694 FIRE DEPT. GEN TRAINING AIDS 145959 $40.00* 05/16/94 $54.89 VERNON LIQUOR STORE VOLUNTEER RECOG 042294 CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLI 145960 $54.89* 05/16/94 $31,.256.50 VERSATILE VEHICLE GOLF CARS 42894 GOLF PROG MACH. & EQUIP 145961 $31,256.50* 05/16/94 $114.33 VIKING ELECTRIC REPAIR PARTS 1326039 CITY HALL GENE REPAIR PARTS 145962 $114.33* 05/16/94 $184.14 VIKING SAFETY PRODUCTS SAFETY EQUIPMENT 500703 GENERAL MAINT SAFETY EQUIPME 145963 $184.14* 05/16/94 $100.32 VOSS LIGHTING REPAIR PARTS 239602 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 145964 $100.32* 05/16/94 $100.00 WALSH, WILLIAM POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145965 $100.00* 05/16/94 $38.70 WATER PRO GENERAL SUPPLIES 561630 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 3880 145966 $38.70* 05/16/94 $36.28 WATERSTREET, JOAN 'JOAN MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 050294 050294 POLICE DEPT. G POLICE DEPT. G MILEAGE PRISONER MEALS 05/16/94 05/16/94 $46.28 $12.48 WATERSTREET, WATERSTREET, JOAN PRISONER MEALS MEETING EXPENSE 050294 POLICE DEPT. G MEETING EXPENS 05/16/94 $3.04 WATERSTREET, JOAN MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 050294 050294 POLICE DEPT. G POLICE DEPT. G MILEAGE DUES & SUBSCRI 05/16/94 05/16/94 $10.00 $175.83 WATERSTREET,' JOAN WATERSTREET, JOAN CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 050294 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 05/16/9,4 $5.19 WATERSTREET, JOAN UNIFORM ALLOWANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 050294 050294 POLICE DEPT. G POLICE DEPT. G UNIF ALLOW GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $94.37 WATERSTREET, JOAN Is COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu May 12 1994 01:40:51 Page 29 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 145967.' $383.47* 05/16/94 $241.28 WEIGLE, SUE MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 051094 PARK ADMIN. MILEAGE 145968 $241.28* 05/16/94 $90.00 WERT, CAPRICE CLEANING 016335 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI 145969 $90.00* 05/16/94 $305.42 WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. REPAIR PARTS 11437 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 145970 $305.42* 05/16/94 $208.75 WILENSKY GALLERY ART WORK SOLD 051940 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 05/16/94 $250.00 WILENSKY GALLERY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 051940 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 145971 $458.75* 05/16/94 $79.00 WINE MERCHANTS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 06927 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $127.00 WINE MERCHANTS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 06928 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $79.00 WINE MERCHANTS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 06926 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $199.00 WINE MERCHANTS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 06861 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $99.00 WINE MERCHANTS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 06862 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 145972 $583.00* 05/16/94 $107.81 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 51165 RANGE CIP 05/16/94 $2,295.61 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 50707 RANGE CIP 05/16/94 $106.22 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY WATER PURCHASED 50902 RANGE WATER PURCHASE 145973 $2,509.64* 05/16/94 $229.57 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 37639 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $595.65 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 37538 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $60.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 15554 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/16/94 $174.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 15570 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 145974 $1,059.22* 05/16/94 $100.00 WROBLESKI, HENRY POLICE SERVICES MAY 1994 RESERVE PROGRA PERS SERVICES 145975 $100.00* 05/16/94 $861.21 XEROX CORP EQUIPMENT RENTAL 41659857 CENT SVC GENER EQUIP RENTAL 145976 $861.21* 05/16/94 $319.50 Y.R. SHARP INC NORMANDALE CLUB HOUS 042594 NORMANDALE CLU CIP 145977 "$319.50* 05/16/94 $69.33 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SAFETY EQUIPMENT 54189396 ED ADMINISTRAT SAFETY EQUIPME 05/16/94 $13.85 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 54189409 CITY HALL GENE GENERAL SUPPLI 05/16/94 $61.43 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 54189381 CITY HALL GENE GENERAL SUPPLI 4059 145978 $144.61* $1,028,666.39 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Thu May 12 1994 01:42:45 Page 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUND # 10 GENERAL FUND $396,604.76 FUND # -11 C.D.B.G. $60.00 FUND # 12 COMMUNICATION $1,282.03 FUND # 15 WORKING CAPITAL $7,886.53 FUND # 23 ART CENTER $5,624.98 FUND # 26 SWIMMING POOL $234.07 FUND # 27 GOLF COURSE $148,224.16 FUND # 28 ICE ARENA $13,204.00 FUND # 29 GUN RANGE $460.71 FUND # 30 EDINB /CENT LAKES $20,195.12 FUND # 40 UTILITY FUND $24,147.74 FUND # 41 STORM SEWER $1,208.39 FUND # 50 LIQUOR FUND $63,069.18 FUND # 60 CONSTRUCT FUND $226,652.29 FUND # 66 IBR #2 FUND $297.14 FUND # 72 POLICE SEIZURE $119,515.29 $1,028,666.39 I e:�wvasu: n.csLTrrva�i, �,. _.a�.a. .. - .. _.. .., „��. .. -.�a ��_, .. ..... .... .. .: .r. - <o •�. a,.�. .,.�. . - ... COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May ; 11-1 08:50:42 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04/07/94 $85.00 MPCA STORM SEWER PERMIT 040694 ST. IMPROV BA CIP 144391 $85.00* 04/08/94 $267,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 040894 LIQUOR PROG CASH 04/08/94 - $267,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 040894 LIQUOR PROG CASH 144392 $.00* 04/11/94 $22.00 PETTY CASH MEETING EXPENSE 041194. ASSESSING MEETING EXPENS 04/11/94 $24.65 PETTY CASH POSTAGE 041194. CENT SVC GENER POSTAGE 04/11/94 $60.00 PETTY CASH CIGARETTE INSPECTION 041194. GENERAL FD PRO CIGARETTE LICE 04/11/94 $19.71 PETTY CASH ADAPTIVE. REC 041194. PARK ADMIN. OFFICE SUPPLIE 144393 $126.36* 04/12/94 $20,207.47 FIDELITY BANK FICA /MEDICARE 041294 GENERAL FD PRO PAYROLL PAYABL 144394 $20,207.47* 04/12/94 $28,812.83 PERA PERA 041294 GENERAL FD PRO P.F,.R.A. PAYAB 744395 $28,812.83* 04/12/94 $19.62 PERA PERA 041294 GENERAL FD PRO P.E.R.A. PAYAB 144396 $19.62* 04/12/94 $2,363.38 EAGLE WINE WINE 12121 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 - $26.96 EAGLE WINE WINE DISCOUNT 12123 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 - $23.63 EAGLE WINE WINE DISCOUNT 12121 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $2,696.16 EAGLE WINE WINE 12123 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $2,084.30 EAGLE WINE WINE 12122 50TH'ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 - $20.84 EAGLE WINE WINE DISCOUNT 12122 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 1.44397 $7,072.41* 04/12/94 $29.80 ED PHILLIPS & SONS MIX 19792 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/12/94 $1,205.60 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 19596 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $570.92 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 19685 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$5.56 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR DISCOUNT 19514 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $319.96 ED PHILLIPS &,SONS WINE 19558 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $18.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS MIX 19643 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/12/94 $2,149.77 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 19573 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $659.77 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 19635. 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF'GD WINE 04/12/94 $214.40 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 20444 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $1,915.40 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR 18636 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $38.31 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR DISCOUNT 18636 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 - $38.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CREDIT 148749 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 04/12/94 $1,923.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 19597 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $1,642.54 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 19686 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $474.21 ED PHILLIPS & SONS WINE 19577 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $38.65 ED PHILLIPS & SONS MIX 19644 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/12/94 - $38.37 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR DISCOUNT 18591 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $1,918.40 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR 18591 50TH ST SELLIN CST-OF GD LIQU j 04/12/94 - $11.95 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR DISCOUNT 19517 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $278.03 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR 19514 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 Page 2 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT ----- PO -NUM_ -- -----'---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04/12/94 $597.64 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR 19517 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 $1,917.40 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR 18629 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $15.94 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR DISCOUNT 19518 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $797.17 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR 19518 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $38.35 ED PHILLIPS & SONS LIQUOR DISCOUNT 18629 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 - $45.10 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CREDIT 9008745 50TH ST SELLIN CASH DISCOUNTS 114398 $161,439.58* 04/12/94 $1,045.02 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR 12211 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $80.90 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 12211 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $80.04 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR 12212 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 -$1.60 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR_DISCOUNT 12212 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $147.35 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR 12209 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 $372.92 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR 12213 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 -$2.95 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 12209 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 -$7.46 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 12213 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $1,348.50 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR 12214 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $26.97 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 12214 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $764.05 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR, 12215 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $15.28 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 12215 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $180.56 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. MIX 12216 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/12/94 -$1.81 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. MIX DISCOUNT 12216 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $3,272.60 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR 12217 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $64.65 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 12217 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 - $71.54 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CREDIT 02078 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 04/12/94 - $12.15 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CREDIT 01944 50TH ST SELLIN CASH DISCOUNTS 04/12/94 - $13.23 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CREDIT 02028 VERNON SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 04/12/94 $1,166.19 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. LIQUOR 12210 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $23.32 GRIGGS COOPER & CO.. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 12210 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 144399 $11,055.37* 04/12/94 -$1.37 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE DISCOUNT 1747351 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $558.24 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1749142 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $840.30 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1747344 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$5.47 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE DISCOUNT 1749142 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 -$8.29 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE DISCOUNT 1747344 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $$181.45 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1747385 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$1.77 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE DISCOUNT 1747385 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $2,035.52 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR 1749126 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $40.49 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 1749126 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $783.92 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1749100 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$7.71 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE DISCOUNT 1749100 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $37.90 JOHNSON WINE CO. MIX 1749118 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/12/94 -$.38 JOHNSON WINE CO. MIX DISCOUNT 1749118 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 - $325.50 JOHNSON WINE CO. CREDIT '1707546 VERNON SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 04/12/94 $56.12 JOHNSON WINE CO. MIX 1747302 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/12/94 -$.56 JOHNSON WINE CO. MIX DISCOUNT 1747302 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 3,797.51 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR 1747328 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/')4 $75.' 6 JOHNSO?N WINE u�)- IJQIIOR I)TF1(7011NT 1747328 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/1;!;' •I 1 .`r J(.IIN' N WIr1l; rr I Ir)UOI? 1'14731.0 VERNON SI 1,1 1N �'':'1' 01-1 (;1) LIQI1 Cpl COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 PagA;`3 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-- 04/12/94 - $50.13 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 1747310 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $625.40 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1747336 VERNON•SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$6.11 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE DISCOUNT 1747336 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $125.68 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1747294 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$1.25 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE DISCOUNT 1747294 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 5485.08 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1747286 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$4.77 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE DISCOUNT 1747286 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $947.35 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR 1747369 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $18.84 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 1747369 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $471.28 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR 1747377 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 -$9.36 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR DISCOUNT 1747377 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $138.18 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1747351 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE .114400 $1.3,048.23* 04/12/94 $136.90 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 39892 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $44.00 PAUSTIS & SONS BEER 39892 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 04/12/94 $141.85 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 39893 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $27.50 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 39894 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $35.00 PAUSTIS & SONS BEER 39970 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 04/12/94 $185.00 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 39895 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 144401 $570.2S* 04/12/94 $847.49 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE 11.619 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$8.47 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DISCOUNT 11619 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 -$5.74 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DISCOUNT 11618 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $721.86 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE 11617 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $574.03 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE 11618 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$7.22 PRIOR WINE COMPANY WINE DISCOUNT 11617 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 1.44402 $2,121.95* 04/1- 2/94 $160.94 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR 176860 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 ';3,236.10 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR 176877 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 -$1.61 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR DISCOUNT 176860 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 - $64.72 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR DISCOUNT 176877 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $2,330.14 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR 176862 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $46.60 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR DISCOUNT 176862 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $134.20 QUALITY WINE BEER 175143 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 04/12/94 $234.72 QUALITY WINE WINE 175864 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 -$2.35 QUALITY WINE WINE DISCOUNT 175864 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $3,749.97 QUALITY WINE WINE 176737 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 - $37.50 QUALITY WINE WINE DISCOUNT 176737 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $2,901.56 QUALITY WINE WINE 176760 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 $29.02 Q1 JAIITY WINE WINE DISCOUNT 176760 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $3,127.91 QUALITY WINE WINE 1, 176767 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 - $31.28 QUALITY WINE 411NE DISCOUNT 176767 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/12/94 $1,655.44 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR 176859 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/12/94 - $33.11 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR DISCOUNT 176859 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 144403 $].7,284.'79* 04/12/94 $307.75 THE WINE COMPANY WINE 6518 50TH ST SELLIN.CST OF GD WINE 04/12/94 - $78.00 THE WINE, COMPANY CREDIT 6262 VERNON SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 144404 $ 29.75- COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 Page 4 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO _NUM. 04/12/94 Y $101.00 WINE MERCHANTS WINE 06660 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF it GD WINE 144405 $101.00* 04/12/94 $370.25 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE 37138 15509 50TH ST SELLIN VERNON SELLING CST OF CST OF GD WINE GD WINE 04/12/94 04/12/94 $172.00 $256.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE WINE 37137 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE WINE 04/12/94 $525.95 WORLD CLASS WINES INC WINE 37117 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD 144406 $1,324.20* 04/19/94 $300.00 AMERICAN RED CROSS CPR TRAINING 16211 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 144407 $300.00* 04/22/94 $207,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 042294 042294 LIQUOR PROG LIQUOR PROG CASH CASH 04/22/94 - $207,000.00 CITY OF EDINA PAYROLL TRANSFER 144409 $.00* 04/26/94 $20,895.54 FIDELITY BANK FICA /MEDICARE 042694 GENERAL FD PRO PAYROLL PAYABL 144410 $20,895.54* 04/26/94 $19.62 PERA PERA 042294 GENERAL FD PRO PAYROLL PAYABL 144411 $19.62* 04/26/94 $28,565.12 PERA PERA 042694 GENERAL FD PRO P.E.R.A. PAYAB 144412 $28,565.12* 04/27/94 $27,880.81 MEDICA CHOICE HOSPITALIZATION 21102386 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 144413 $27,880.81* 04/27/94 $167.55 QUALITY WINE BEER 180294 180445 VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING CST OF CST OF GDS BEE GDS BEE 04/27/94 $64.10 QUALITY WINE WINE WINE 180293 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/27/94 $917.10 QUALITY WINE QUALITY WINE LIQUOR 180453 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU. 04/27/94 04/27/94 $3,331.41 $197.51 QUALITY WINE LIQUOR 180900 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 144414 $4,677.67* 04/27/94 $343.53 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE 1811090 1811082 VERNON SELLING VERNON SELLING CST OF CST OF GD WINE GD WINE 04/27/94 $56.38 JOHNSON WINE CO. WINE WINE 1811108 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/27/94 $494.14 JOHNSON WINE CO. JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR 1811124 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/27/94 04/27/94 $2,476.93 $1,325.21 JOHNSON WINE CO. LIQUOR 1811116 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 144415 $4,696.19* 04/28/94 $6,701.02 ANDERSON NEW CARPET DE CARPET 032494 CLUB HOUSE CIP 144416 $6,701.02* }44 449- (9r} 2,194 �n C' � COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 Page.S CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT -------- PO . - -- - -, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04/18/94 -$.84 EAGLE WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 14088 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT -^ 04/18/94 $45.80 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 14454 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/18/94 -$.46 EAGLE WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 14454 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $83.89 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 14088 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX ° 04/18/94 $1,324.95 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 14566 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$1.32 EAGLE WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 14637 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 - $13.25 EAGLE WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 14566 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 -$2.71 EAGLE WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 14567 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $270.70 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 14567 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $717.90 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 14568 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$7.18 EAGLE WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 14568 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT�� 04/18/94 $198.00 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 14633 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE t 04/18/94 -$1.98 EAGLE WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 14633 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT `F{{ 04/18/94 $132.00 EAGLE WINE COST of GOODS SOLD L 14637 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU Via;}; 145246 $2,745.50* 04/18/94 -$33.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CASH DISCOUNTS 148828 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS { 04/18/94 $97.10 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21689 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $292.40 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21695 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $534.45 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21696 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $351.75 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21697 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $1,292.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21698 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $378.66 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21748 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $120.41 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 21749 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 -$2.41 ED PHILLIPS & SONS TRADE DISCOUNTS 21749 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $914.39 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21783 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $849.75 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21784 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $79.10 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 21785 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 04/18/94 $1,175.73 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 21797 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $23.51 ED PHILLIPS & SONS TRADE DISCOUNTS 21797 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $600.98 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 21800 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 $143.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 21691 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 - $12.02 ED PHILLIPS & SONS TRADE DISCOUNTS 21800 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $40.90 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 22100 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 145248 $6,799.68* 04/18/94 - $69.25 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 02300 VERNON SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 04/18/94 $1,688.17 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 14632 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $33.76 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 14632 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $2,038.06 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 14635 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $40.76 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 14635 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 - $108.31 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 02251 50TH ST SELLIN CASH DISCOUNTS 04/18/94 - $22.44 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 14636 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 - $71.52 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 14640 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $1,121.98 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOO S SOLD L 14636 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 $929.32 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 14638 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $18.59 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 14638 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $3,470.94 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 14639 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 $69.42 GRIGG`; COOPER & ('O. TRADE? DISCOUNTS 14639 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT (14/18/94 GR1(.( ;!: l'(i l`i:l: r c CoST OF GOODS SOLD L 14640 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU C' � COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 Page 6 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT = -------------------------------------------------------- VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE- PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. ---------------------------- 145249 $12,404.08* 04/18/94 - $81.89 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1749134 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $22.09 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780030 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $4,118.11 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1749134 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 -$.22 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780030 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 - $39.32 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780212 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $56.94 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780048 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$.56 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780048 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $336.49 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780055 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$3.32 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780055 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $76.63 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780063 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$.76 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780063 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $53.06 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS'SOLD M 1780071 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/18/94 -$.53 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780071 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $1,076.80 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L ,1780089 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $21.38 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780089 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $1,779.54 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1780097 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $35.40 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780097 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $402.37 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780105 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$3.95 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780105 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $105.99 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780121 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$1.05 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780121 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $207.27 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780139 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$2.06 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780139 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $258.94 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1780147 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 -$5.15 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780147 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $787.81 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1780154 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $15.66 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780154 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $378.29 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780162 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$3.70 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780162 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 -$.43 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUN'T'S 1780170 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $44.06 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780170 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $85.41 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780188 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$.84 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780188 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $564.01 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780196 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$5.58 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780196 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 ;37.90 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 1780204 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/18/94 -$.38 JOHNSON WINE CO. 'TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780204 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 >1,980.72 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1780212 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $55.97 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780220 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $256.34 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1780246 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$2.52 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1780246 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $2,813.29 JOHNSON WINE CO- COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1780220 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 - $210.41 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 1784628 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 04/18/94 -$6.12 JOHNSON WINE CO. TRADE DISCOUNTS 1785781 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $309.18 JOHNSON WINE ''O. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1785781 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 145253 $15,254.04" 04/18/94 $27.50 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 40057 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 P1g_e,7 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -6. I, 04/18/94 $27.50 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 40058 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $64.90 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 40116 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 145254 $119.90 *� y{�` 04/18/94 $681.07 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 14018 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 1 -r' 04/18/94 -$1.28 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRADE DISCOUNTS 15314 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 -$6.81 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRADE DISCOUNTS 14018 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $64.50 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 14019 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/18/94 -$.65 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRADE DISCOUNTS 14019 VERNON SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $119.65 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 14020 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$1.20 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRADE DISCOUNTS 14020 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT�HA 04/18/94 $904.59 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 14021 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$9.05 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRADE DISCOUNTS 14021 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $90.00 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 14022 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/18/94 -$.90 PRIOR WINE COMPANY TRADE DISCOUNTS 14022 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $128.20 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 15314 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 145255 $1,968.12* �!�! 04/18/94 $1,614.84 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 178408 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 $344.10 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 178420 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 04/18/94 $1,087.71 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 178421 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 - $10.88 QUALITY WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 178421 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 $500.47 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 178422 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/18/94 -$5.00 QUALITY WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 178422 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT 04/18/94 - $20.68 QUALITY WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 178607 50TH ST SELLIN TRADE DISCOUNT ;',•:.,,: 04/18/94 $1,033.93 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 178607 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/18/94 $2,246.51 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 178609 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU "i•. 04/18/94 - $44.93 QUALITY WINE TRADE DISCOUNTS 178609 YORK SELLING TRADE DISCOUNT �: {(,' 04/18/94 $267.00 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 178404 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 04/18/94 $1,813.69 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 178648 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 145256 $8,826.76* 04/18/94 $228.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 15512 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE; 04/18/94 $325.10 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 37253 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 145257 $553.10* 04/25/94 $237.20 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 16363 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $211.88 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 16364 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/25/94 $54.85 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16770 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $824.08 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16424 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $451.34 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16427 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $475.60 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16429 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE t 145261 $2,254.95* 9d 04/25/94 - $14.01 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 148826 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINS 04/25/94 $660.20 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 23745 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE���i 04/25/94 $645.85 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 23809 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $685.84 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 23839 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINB4�,,:6 04/25/94 $1,144.69 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 23883 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINS 04/25/94 $896.60 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 23951 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE ! �` i COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 Page 8 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT - - -PO -NUM. ------------------------'---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 04/25/94 $441.85 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 24066 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 -$5.58 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 148814 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $20.90 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 24067 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $33.50 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 24703 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $955.05 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 24103 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $976.93 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 2411 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $1,570.09 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 24110 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $628.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 24112 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 04/25/94 $571.20 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 24113 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $607.93 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 24118 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $550.20 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 24119 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 1.1 52C3 $10,369.2.1* 04/25/94 $2,365.6.8 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 16940 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $2,973.47 GRIGGS COOPER & CO.- COST OF GOODS SOLD L 16941 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $487.09 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 16942 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $90.02 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 10865 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $1,130.51 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 16943 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $2,248.05 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 16947 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $462.87 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 16945 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $32.63 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 16946 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 1452x4 $9,'190.32* 04/25/94 $202.04 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1785807 50T14 ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $353.55 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1811157 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $775.36 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1811165 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $L,245.43 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1811173 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $69.02 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1811181 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $137.59 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1811140 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $112.76 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1814177 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $,106.43 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1814227 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $484.45 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1814185 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $669.27 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1814193 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $86.67 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1814201 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $320.9.9 JOHNSON WINE ''O. COST OF GOODS SOLD l., 1814219 YORK SELLTNG CST OF GD ILQU 04/25/94 $25.2.4 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16426 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $558.51 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16428 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 :1.,553.05 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16430 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 '617.15 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16425 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $25.24 PRIOR ?9INE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 16944 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WIIJE c;6 ;2, 7'79. ! 9* 04/25/94 $89. "/5 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOOd'S SOLD B 178424 SOTH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 04/25/94 $54.00 QUALI'T'Y WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 179320 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 04/25/94 $17.95 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 180296 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 04/25/94 $969.93 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 180297 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 04/25/94 $107.70 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 180298 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 04/25/94 1 , 260.: "? QUALITY WINE COST OF ;OODS SOLD L 180442 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF Gf.: LIQU COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 Page 9 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. ------------------------------ 04/25/94 ------- $12.10 --------- - - QUALITY WINE - - -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COST OF GOODS SOLD L 177421 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD.LIQU 04/25/94 $2,329.75 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 180444 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 145267 $4,741.47* 05/02/94 $360.70 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 19175 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $533.16 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 19176 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $84.66 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 18112 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $60.59 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 19177 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $171.27 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 50538 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $111.15 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 19178 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $364.11 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 19179 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $25.79 EAGLE WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 19181 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 145592 $1,711.43* 05/02/94 $62.70 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 22949 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $90.70 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 25844. VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $306.88 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 26492 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94' $266.13 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 26000 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $445.75 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26005 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $54.50. ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 26020 50TH ST SELLIN CST -OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $92.00 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26022 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $175.20 ED'PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26072 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $505.30 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26076 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $480.60 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26078 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $461.65 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD,W 26218 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $56.25- ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 26219 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $557.03 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26282 50TH ST:SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $839.43 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26289 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $1,579.37 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26325 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $53.08 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 26361 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $129.77 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 26449 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $654.05 ED PHILLIPS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD L 26454 VERNON.SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 145594 $6,810.39* 05/02/94 -$3.91 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 02638 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 - $24.54 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 03103 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 - $14.68 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 03136 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 $55.26 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 10864 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $2,271.77 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 19316 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $1,614.09 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 19317 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $1,044.83 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 19318 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 - $13.19 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 02593 VERNON SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 $217.96 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 19319 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $164.86 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 19800 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $671.08 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 19320 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU ; t: 05/02/94 $1,229.90 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 19321 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU:',. 05/02/94 $4,349.42 GRIGGS COOPER & CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 19322 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 145595 $11,562.85* 05/02/94 - $190.09 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 1790229 50TH ST SELLIN CASH DISCOUNTS', .T.. 05/02/94 $1,767.32 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1722545 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 - $106.13 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 1790237 50TH ST SELLIN CASH DISCOUNTS r.1t P 05/02/94 - $70.45 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 1790252 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 - $188.79 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 1790245 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 $2,179.02 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1837905 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $1,303.42 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1837897 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $125.12 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 1837889 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $387.04 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1837871 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 - $10.72 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 1808583 VERNON OCCUPAN CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 - $13.76 JOHNSON WINE CO. CASH DISCOUNTS 1808575 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 $777.35 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1839810 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $801.76 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1839844 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $1,645.73 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1839851 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU I 05/02/94 $206.96 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1839869 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE ` 05/02/94 $31.03 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 1839836 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $141.67 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1839828 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE !i 05/02/94 $1,006.42 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1839802 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $3,118.69 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1839794 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 1 ; 05/02/94 $839.88 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1839786 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU j 05/02/94 $15.16 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD M 1839778 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX i 05/02/94 $358.09 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1839760 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $945.53 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD L 1839752 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $814.11 JOHNSON WINE CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD W 1837913 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 145597 $15,884.36* 05/02/94 $652.70 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 18685 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $85.93 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 18682 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $50.49 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 18686 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $775.04 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD L 18683 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $59.99 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 18687 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $42.07 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 18684 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 05/02/94 $790.22 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 18681 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 145598 $2,456.44* 05/02/94 $1,511.28 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 182259 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $15.56 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 182258 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $2,115.86 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 182257 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $197.45 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 182104 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 05/02/94 $1,639.79 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 182102 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 $17.50 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 182101 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 05/02/94 $2,864.57 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 182318 YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $219.46 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 183022 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 05/02/94 $848.34 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 182100 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE f 05/02/94 $729.13 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD W 180295 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 05/02/94 - $48.15 QUALITY WINE CASH DISCOUNTS 180790 50TH ST SELLIN CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 - $50.95 QUALITY WINE CASH DISCOUNTS 181119 YORK SELLING CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 - $117.20 QUALITY WINE CASH DISCOUNTS 181703 50TH ST SELLIN CASH DISCOUNTS 05/02/94 $831.36 QUALITY WINE COST OF GOODS SOLD L 182096 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU ;;112. 1 QUAT,TTY WT NF COST OF C;OODS SOLD R 182099 VERNON SFI,I,lNO CST OF GDS BEE �I COUNCIL C CHECK REGISTER F FOR HAND CHECKS T Thu M May 5 5 1994 0 08:50:42 P CHECK NO D DATE C CHECK AMOUNT V VENDOR D DESCRIPTION I INVOICE P PROGRAM OBJECT P --- - - PO I ---------------------------------- - .1 _ COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:50:42 Page'11 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR _ DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NuM ----------------------- =------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ ------ E,-- $347,246.96 �;; FUND # 60 CONSTRUCT FUND $85.00 $347,246.96 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY FOR HAND CHECKS Thu May 5 1994 08:54:27 page.', - - - - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUND # 10 GENERAL FUND $126,827.37 • t; „., 1, FUND # 27 GOLF COURSE $6,701.02 f'Ilhl 50 LIQUOR FUND FUND # 4 $213 , 633.57 ; (• ,, , ,. �I FUND # 60 CONSTRUCT FUND $85.00 $347,246.96