Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-08-01_COUNCIL PACKETAGENDA EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY EDINA CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 1, 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 July 18, 1994 III. PAYMENT OF HRA CLAIMS as per pre -list dated 07/28/94 Total: $14,782:84 IV. ADJOURNMENT EDINA CITY COUNCIL * I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Council Meeting of July 5 and July 18, 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. Final Rezoning Amendment' to the Comprehensive Plan - Planned Commercial District PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District. R -1 to Planned Residence District. PRD -4, and Preliminary Plat Approval - 4101 West 50th Street, 5014, 5016 and 5024 Halifax Avenue B. Preliminary Rezoning - Planned Commercial District. PCD -4 to Planned Commercial District. PCD -3 and Final Development Plan - 3500 West 69th Street C. Final Plat Approval - Lewis Ridge Townhouses D. Appeal from Zoning Board of Appeals Decision - 28 Foot Front Yard Setback Variance and 31 Foot Lot Depth Variance to Construct a Single Dwelling Unit on a Platted Lot (5908 Vernon Avenue) III. CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IV. AWARD OF BIDS * A. Edina Aquatic Center Public Address and Sound System * B. Police Car Equipment * C. Change Order - Contract with Perkins Landscape Contractors for Keystone Wall at 13th Tee Oasis - Braemar Golf Course Agenda Edina City Council August 1, 1994 Page Two V. RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS ' A. Herbicide Moratorium /Action Plan B. Proposed Cellular Installation - Edina Fire Department C. Order of Council Agenda D. Lobbying Bill /Vendor Letter * E. Appointment of Primary Election Judges F. Report on Meeting - Deve lope r /Parkwoods Knolls Coalition Concerning Parkwood Knolls 22nd Addition VI. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS * A. Petition for Sidewalk - South Side of Parklawn between 4101 Parklawn Avenue and France Avenue VII. INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES VIII. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL IX. MANAGER'S MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS X. FINANCE A. Police /School Liaison Officer B. Payment of Claims as per pre -list dated 07/28/94 Total: $665,659.99 SCHEDULE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS /EVENTS Mon Aug 15 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers Thurs Aug 18 1995 Preliminary Budget Hearing 5:00 P.M. Council Chambers Thurs Aug 25 1995 Preliminary Budget Hearing 5:00 P.M. Council Chambers Wed Sept 7 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers Mon Sept 19 Regular Council Meeting 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers MINUTES OF THE EDINA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JULY 18, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Commissioners Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ADOPTED Motion was made by Commissioner Smith and was seconded by Commissioner Kelly to approve the HRA Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE HRA MEETING OF JULY 5. 1994, APPROVED Motion was made by Commissioner Smith and was seconded by Commissioner Kelly to approve the BRA Minutes of July 5. 1994, as presented. Motion carried on rollcall vote - four ayes. REBATE OF EXCESS TAX INCREMENTS TO EDINA SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVED Executive Director Hughes explained that a letter had been received from the Board of Education for the Edina Public Schools requesting that the HRA rebate the excess tax increments resulting from the 1988 excess levy referendum. The rebate would be collected from the Grandview Tax Increment Financing district in the amount of $20,000.00. The HRA has granted similar rebates to the School district since 1991. Rebated funds have been used for a variety of projects which benefit both the School District and the City. In 1991, funds were used to recondition tennis courts at the Community Center. In 1992, rebated funds were applied to the cost of rehabilitation of the track at Kuhlman Field. In 1993, funds were used for replacing the playing surface in the field house at Edina High School. At the School District's suggestion, rebated funds would be applied to the cost of replacing the playing surface at the field house. The project costs approximately $200,000.00, therefore the HRA rebate could be applied for a number of years towards this project. As an alternative, the rebate could be applied towards the cost of improving handicap accessibility to the seating area and to an upgrade of the press box at Kuhlman Field. Based upon our past policies, staff would recommend that the rebate be directed towards replacement of the playing surface at the field house. The requested rebate is for 1994 only; future rebates would be considered on a year -by -year basis. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Smith introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina. Minnesota, does hereby approve payment of rebate of excess tax increments in the amount of $20,000.00 from the Grandview Tax Increment Financing District for the year 1994 to Independent School District No. 273 to be used for the cost of replacing the playing surface in the Edina High School Field House. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Commissioner Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. CLAIMS PAID Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve payment of the ERA claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated July 15, 1994, and consisting of one page totalling $20,755.98. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Paulus. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, 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 Jul 28 1994 00:32:08 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $24.64 CELLULAR ONE SLIDES 072094 GRANDVIEW MISC 012602 $24.64* 08/01/94 $206.25 DORSEY & WHITNEY LEGAL FEES 372031 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO FEES LEG /S 012603 $206.25* 08/01/94 $203.42 HERMAN MILLER INC. REMODELING 179719 GRANDVIEW EQUIPMENT 012604 $203.42* 08/01/94 $7.00 LINHOFF SLIDES 248414 50TH STREET MISC 012605 $7.00* 08/01/94 $14,166.67 PARTNERS FOR SENIOR CO HRA BOND PAYMENT AUGUST 1 EDINBOROUGH LOAN TO OTH FU 012606 $14,166.67* 08/01/94 $174.86 SANDERS WACKER WEHRMAN ARCH FEES 94071324 GRANDVIEW PRO FEE ARCH /E 012607 $174.66* $14,782.84 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JULY 5, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of removal of Item VII.A. - Rubberized Railroad Crossing Material. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Ri.:e. Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF CLOSED COUNCIL FSEETING JUNE 20, 1994, APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve the minutes of the Closed Council Meeting of June 20, 1.994. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED ON SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. 5 -67 - VALLEY LANE FROM CREEK DRIVE THROUGH 5521 VALLEY LANE: PROJECT ORDERED Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Engineer Engineer Hoffman reported that a petition had been received for a new sidewalk on the south side of Valley Lane from Creek Drive to the existing sidewalk (5501 Valley Lane to City park area west of 5521 Valley Lane). Sidewalk for this portion on Valley Lane was not constructed in 1990 with the Valley Lane sidewalk project because of neighbors' objection. Staff has reviewed the project area and would support the request for sidewalk. The estimated cost of construction is $20,488.14 to be state aid funded. It was noted that letters of support have been received from Pam /Harvey Johnson, 5505 Valley Lane and H. Jed and Lee Hepworth Schubert, 5509 Valley Lane. Engineer Hoffman said the property owner at 5517 Valley Lane was concerned about the large evergreen trees on his property. He was told that staff believes the trees can be preserved. Public Comment Residents speaking in support of the sidewalk project were: Larry Leistiko, 6508 Creek Drive; Pam and Harvey .Johnson, 5505 Valley Lane; Jim Tallon, 6512 Creek Drive; Neil Solberg, 5504 Valley Lane; Nancy Lawrence, 6512 Ridgeview; and Barbara Eller, 5513 Valley Lane. Gordon Hoff, 5517 Valley Lane, said he had spoken with Engineer Hoffman about the possibility of the loss of mature evergreens on his property. He stated that of the six homes affected, only three had signed the petition. Safety is a true concern, but the accident /safety record should be examined. He suggested as alternatives on his property to stop the sidewalk at the trees and continue on after the trees or to replace them with smaller trees. Mr. Hoff said he would object to trimming them up for construction of the sidewalk as that would decrease the appeal of his home. Paul Ratelle, 5521 Valley Lane, said he did not favor the sidewalk as this is a traffic issue not a sidewalk issue. He pointed out that a sidewalk would attract children to play out there. He told Council his property would bear the greater impact as he has the largest frontage. Further, that he had underground sprinkler heads and lights that would need to be moved. Member Rice introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION ORDERING SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -67 BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that this Council heretofore caused notice of hearing to be duly mailed to owners of each parcel within the affected area on the following proposed improvement: SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -67 - SOUTH SIDE OF VALLEY LANE FROM 5501 THROUGH 5521 and at the hearing held at the time and place specified in said notice, the Council has duly considered the views of all persons interested, and being fully advised of the pertinent facts, does hereby determine to proceed with the construction of said improvement including all proceedings which may be necessary in eminent domain for the acquisition of necessary easements and rights for construction and maintenance of such improvement; that said improvement is hereby designated and shall be referred to in all subsequent proceedings as SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT NO. S -67, cost of which shall be paid from municipal state aid funds. Motion for adoption of the resolution was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *LOT DIVISION APPROVED FOR 4951 AND 4953 LINCOLN DRIVE Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the following described property is at present a single tract of land: Lot 2, Block 1, LANDMARK ADDITION, and WHEREAS, the owners have requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: PARCEL A: The north 63.00 feet of Lot 2, as measured at right angles to the north line thereof, Block 1, LANDMARK ADDITION, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL B: That part of Lot 2, Block 1, LANDMARK ADDITION, lying south of the north 63.00 feet, as measured at right angles to the north line thereof, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the requested subdivision is authorized under Code Section 810 and it has been determined that compliance with the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations of the City of Edina will create an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purpose of the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the City of Edina Code Sections 850 and 810; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the City Council of the City'of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of the second above described Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Code Sections 850 and 810 are hereby waived to allow said division and conveyance thereof as separate tracts of land but only to the extent permitted under Code Section 810 and Code Section 850 subject to the limitations set out in Code Section 850 and said Ordinances are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provisions thereof, and further subject, however, to the provision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the City of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *HEARING DATE SET FOR PLANNING MATTERS Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice setting August 1, 1994, as hearing date for the following planning matters: 1) Final Rezoning - Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District, R -1 to Planned Residence District, PRD -4 and Preliminary Plat Approval - 4101 West 50th Street, 5014, 5016 and 5024 Halifax Avenue. 2) Preliminary Rezoning - Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 to Planned Commercial District, PCD -3 and Final Development Plan - 3500 West 69th Street. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. PUBLIC HEARING CONDUCTED* RESOLUTION ADOPTED VACATING ALLEY IN BLOCK 1. STEVEN'S 1ST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Engineer Engineer Hoffman reminded Council that Haymaker Construction, Inc., is proposing a new multi - family building at the corner of West 50th Street and Halifax Avenue. A public alley transverses east -west through the site and the developer has requested that the alley be vacated. The utility companies and staff have reviewed the request. Staff would recommend to vacate the public alley but retain a 10 foot wide utility easement over the westerly ten feet of the alley for_NSP, USWest and Paragon Cable. Engineer Hoffman responded to Member Rice that this vacation would be conditioned upon on the proposed development receiving final approval. Mayor Richards then called for public comment; no comment or objection was heard. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, subject to the final approval of the Haymaker multi - family development at West 50th Street and Halifax Avenue: RESOLUTION VACATING ALLEY IN BLOCK 1, STEVEN'S 1ST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council, adopted the 6th day of June, 1994, fixed a date for a public hearing on a proposed vacation of public alley south of West 50th Street and West of Halifax Avenue in Block 1, STEVEN'S 1ST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS; WHEREAS, two weeks' published and posted notice of said hearing was given and the hearing was held on the 5th day of July, 1994, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHEREAS, the Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City and of the public that said street vacation be made; and WHEREAS, the Council has considered the extent to which the vacation affects existing easements within the area of the vacation and the extent to which the/, vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric, cable television, or telephone poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes,,mains, and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to continue maintaining the same, or to enter upon such alley or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following described alley is hereby vacated effective July 6, 1994: That part of the north half of the Alley dedicated in Block 1, STEVEN'S 1ST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the southerly extension of the west line of the east 20.00 feet of Lot 2, said Block 1 and lying westerly of the southerly extension of the west line of the east 5.00 feet of Lot 1, said Block 1, and That part of the south half of said Alley in Block 1 lying easterly of the northerly extension of the west line of the east half of the vacated alley in said Block 1 and lying westerly of the northerly extension of the west line of the east 5.00 feet of Lot 7, said Block 1. Said vacation did not affect, and there was continued, reserved, and retained, by the said resolution ordering the vacation,.the'following easement and authority in,.on and under the above vacated area: 1. The City of Edina reserves in favor of Northern States Power Company, U.S. West-Communications and Paragon Cable a utility easement within said described vacated alley for the maintenance, replacement, repair and removal of, and for otherwise attending to, underground conduit, manholes, cables, wires and poles required for telephone communications, electric lines, and cable television to provide service to customers along this route. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause a notice of completion of proceedings to be prepared, entered in the transfer record of the County Auditor, and filed with the County Recorder in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. FIRST READING GRANTED FOR ORDINANCE NO. 1994 -6 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTIONS 1200 AND 1230 TO PERMIT SIDEWALK CAFES AND ORDINANCE NO. 1994 -7 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION 460 TO PROVIDE NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTING SIGNS Assistant Manager Hughes recalled that at the meeting of June 20, 1994, the Council directed staff to prepare ordinance amendments affecting a proposed sidewalk cafe at 50th and France. Ordinance No. 1994 -6 and Ordinance No. 1994 -7 encompass the changes needed to accommodate the proposed restaurant as well as its signage. With respect to Ordinance No. 1994 -6, the Council should note that some sections deal with issues other than sidewalk cafes. These issues were included in the ordinance amendment simply for the purpose of revising the structure of the Code. The relevant section of the Ordinance No. 1994 -6 is Subdivision 2, "Sidewalk Cafes ". This subdivision provides that a permit be issued by the City Manager and lists additional requirements for issuance of permits and operation of sidewalk cafes. The ordinance also includes a recommended annual fee of $500.00 for a sidewalk cafe permit. Ordinance No. 1994 -7 accommodates the proposed projecting sign. The current City Code allows projecting signs but restricts the maximum sign area to 10 square feet per facing. The ordinance amendment increases the allowable sign area per facing to 20 square feet. However, buildings which use projecting signs must reduce the amount of wall signage from 15 percent of the wall area to five percent. Staff believes that the reduction is justified in order to avoid the cluttered look caused by different styles of signage. The ordinance also establishes a maximum distance that a sign may project from a building based upon the width of the adjoining sidewalk. The ordinance amendment is more liberal in this regard than the recommendations contained in the design framework for 50th and France that was prepared by BRW in connection with the renovation project. The design framework recommends that projecting signs extend a maximum of four feet. The proposed ordinance amendment allows a six foot projection in order to accommodate the sign envisioned by the proposed restaurant. Existing projecting signs at 50th and France are those of the Edina Theater and Hootens Cleaners. At the meeting of June 20, 1994, staff expressed concern with the ramifications of liberalizing the requirements for projecting signs. Staff continues to have this concern in that projecting signs potentially conflict, from an aesthetic standpoint, with the elements of the 50th and France streetscape. The Council should consider this impact when reviewing the proposed ordinance. Member Rice asked if the City would be able to reverse its action allowing sidewalk cafes if it determined that it was not a good idea. Attorney Gilligan answered that once a permit has been issued it would be difficult to revoke unless the ordinance requirements and standards had not been met and there would also be the expectation by the permitee that it would be renewed. To make the ordinance more defensible, the Council could consider adding a sunset provision. Member Smith said he felt the ordinance was not restrictive enough. Assistant Manager Hughes explained that the intent was to make the ordinance more restrictive by including the second part of the definition of sidewalk cafe under (ii). "Sidewalk Cafe. Tables, chairs, benches and appurtenant equipment located on a sidewalk (i) for the exclusive use by patrons of an abutting food establishment as defined in Section -720 of this code, or (ii) where the service of food or beverages is offered to persons, using such tables and chairs." Presentation by Proponent Wayne Kostroski, proponent, presented graphics of the proposed restaurant. He pointed out one change from the original proposal - planters would now be placed inside the fence rather than outside which would move the tables from ten to twelve inches further inward. Responding to Member Rice, Mr. Kostroski said that when the outdoor dining season is completed, the railings would come out and the openings would be capped. Public Comment Perry Anderson, representing Belleson's, stated that they are delighted at the prospect of having a new, quality restaurant come to downtown Edina, and especially right next to their store. He said their primary concern is with the outdoor seating and overhead canopy which would jut out approximately four feet and further obscure visibility of their store front from motorists traveling on West 50th Street. Studies show that normally a motorist has seven seconds to notice and read a typical billboard. He emphasized that a store's storefront and signage over it is its billboard and noted that this year Belleson's celebrates its 46th anniversary at the same location. Allowing a larger sign as requested will draw more attention to the restaurant and even more away from Belleson's. Mr. Anderson asked the Council not to approve the sign ordinance amendment. Jeff Pierce, White Oak Gallery, said they will soon be the adjacent tenant on the west side of the proposed new restaurant. He expressed his excitement with the restaurant concept and the impressive track record of the proponent. In looking at the plans, the design for the space and the use of the street front, he felt it was sensitive to the 'downtown' atmosphere of 50th and France. Mr. Pierce said he had no issue with either the sidewalk dining or the signage and would support the proposed ordinance amendments. Mr. Kostroski interjected that his interpretation of the ordinance amendment as now proposed was that it would be more restrictive, i.e, if a store owner placed tables and chairs on the sidewalk a permit would be required in order to serve food or beverages to any such customers. Assistant Manager Hughes explained that under the present City Code street furnishings are allowed on public sidewalks subject to approval of the City Engineer as to location so as to avoid danger to vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed ordinance would control the sale of food or beverages to persons using such private furnishings. Marty Rud, Edina Properties, re- stated his support for the proposed sidewalk cafe as expressed at the previous meeting. While respecting the comments of Perry Anderson, he said he did not agree with Mr. Anderson as he felt this use would be very helpful to adjoining businesses and good for the entire 50th and France commercial area. Concerning the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance, Member Rice asked if the requirements for projecting signs would apply to restaurants only. Assistant Manager Hughes explained that the ordinance amendment would apply to all uses in the Planned Commercial District. He reiterated staff's concern with liberalizing the requirements for projecting signs, a's such signs would potentially conflict from an aesthetic standpoint with the existing streetscape in the 50th and France commercial area. Mr. Kostroski observed that while the proposed amendment to the sign ordinance applies to all businesses, the importance of a projecting sign to the restaurant industry is clearly visibility. He indicated that the investment in the subject location is substantial and not without risk and it is critical that the restaurant be visible, particularly coming from the intersection to the east. Mark Haymaker, Haymaker Construction, identified himself as the proponent for the multi - family housing building at 50th Street and Halifax Avenue. He said he was for the outside restaurant seating but felt there should be some control over the lighting of the signage in terms of neon, or blinking lights. He added that he had no objection to a projecting sign. Council Comment /Action Member Kelly indicated she liked the outdoor dining concept but was concerned with the size of the proposed projecting sign. Mr. Kostroski pointed out that if the sign was only four feet, it would be obscured by the adjacent tree. He explained that they hope to use the same type of signage at other locations so that the restaurant would become recognizable by the sign design. Mayor Richards said he would support the sign ordinance amendment as proposed because it would only allow signs to project proportionally from the face of the building, i.e. no more than the lesser of one -third of the sidewalk width, or'six feet. He submitted that the proposed usage would promote and enhance the abutting properties on both sides as well as the entire 50th and France area. Member Smith suggested that, in addition to proof of insurance, the sign ordinance amendment also provide for naming the City as an additional named insured in case of an accident. Member Rice asked staff to look at the size of the trees in that particular location because he agreed they did block some of the visibility. He said he would support the ordinance amendment to permit sidewalk cafes but because of some reservations about future permit requests he felt the provision should sunset on December 31, 1995. Relative to the sign ordinance amendment, Member Rice said he would not support that as he felt the restaurant would succeed or fail not because of the sign, but upon good value, great service, good food, and ambiance. Member Paulus said she would support both ordinance amendments because she felt the restaurant as proposed would be a positive for the 50th and France area and a place people would want to frequent. She added that she would not favor a sunset provision to the ordinance permitting sidewalk cafes because in order to renew a permit the requirements of the ordinance would have to be met. Member Paulus offered Ordinance No. 1994 -6 - An Ordinance Amending Section 1200 and 1230 of the City Code to Permit Sidewalk Cafes for First Reading as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk, subject to modification prior to Second Reading to include language relative to annual review and indemnification of the City. Motion was seconded by Mayor Richards. Member Rice offered an amendment to the motion for First Reading of Ordinance No. 1994 -6 to include a sunset provision of December 31, 1995. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Rice, Smith Nays: Kelly, Paulus, Richards Motion failed. Mayor Richards then called for vote on the main motion for First Reading of Ordinance No. 1994 -6. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards First Reading granted. Member Paulus offered Ordinance No. 1994 -7 - An Ordinance Amending Section 460 to Provide New Requirements for Projecting Signs for First Reading as presented and on file in the office of the City Clerk, subject to modification prior to Second Reading to include language relative to indemnification of the City. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Member Rice offered an amendment to the motion for First- Reading of Ordinance No. 1994 -7 to include a sunset provision of December 31, 1995. Motion to amend failed for lack of second. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Nays: Rice First Reading granted. BID AWARDED FOR RUBBERIZED RAILROAD CROSSING MATERIAL Mayor Richard said he had asked this item be removed from the Consent Agenda to ask why the City is responsible for a purchase regarding the railroad. Engineer Hoffman answered that the Soo Line Railroad is going to redo its trackage at Dewey Hill Road and Valley Lane and will install the new crossing material at each site if the City provides the material. Member Smith made a motion for award of bid for purchase of rubberized railroad crossing material to recommended low bidder, Reidel Omni Products, at $12,680.96. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *BID AWARDED FOR REDWOOD TEE SIGNS AND POSTS FOR BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for redwood tee signs and posts for Braemar Golf Course to recommended low bidder, Earl F. Andersen, at $7,040.15. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR GRADING /SODDING OF TWO FAIRWAYS AT BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for grading and sodding of two fairways at Braemar Golf course to recommended low bidder, Perkins Landscape, at $8,790.70. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR COMMUNICATIONS LINK WITH LOGIS/US WEST Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for communications link with LOGIS/USWest to sole source, USWest/LOGIS, at $8,446.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR REVERSIBLE EDGE SNOW PLOW AND WING Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice for award of bid for one reversible edge snow plow and wing to recommended low bidder, J. Craft, at $12,390.21. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR BOILER AND MACHINERY INSURANCE Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded.by Member Rice for award of bid for boiler and machinery insurance to Traveler's Insurance Company, at $7,490.00. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *CHANGE ORDER APPROVED FOR BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE EXPANSION ADDITIONAL WORK Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to approve Change Order No. 9 in the amount of $8,220.00 for final adjustments to the Braemar Golf Course expansion contract awarded to Arnt Construction Company. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. PROCESS FOR RELEASE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION DISCUSSED Attorney Gilligan recalled that over the last few years the Council has been asked to release or modify several conservation restrictions. He referenced the recent request for a partial release of the conservation restriction on the Dalquist Addition which was denied by the Council. Since it is likely that the City will receive a revised request to release a portion of the Dalquist Addition conservation restriction, the Council may wish to review the City's present procedure for considering such requests for releases or, modifications: Attorney Gilligan explained that conservation restrictions have been granted in favor of the City pursuant to M.S. 84.64 in order to retain land or water areas predominantly in their natural, scenic, open or wooded condition, and to forbid certain uses or actions for the property. A conservation restriction, which is not a public easement, does not give the City any rights to use the property other than to enter onto the property to assure compliance or to enforce the restriction by injunctive action. M.S. 84.65, subdivision 3, provides that a conservation restriction may be released by the City and does not require the City to give any notice or hold a public hearing in connection with such release. While not required by law, it has been the City's practice to follow the notice and hearing procedure for vacation of public easements under M.S. 412.851. The City has required that the owner of the property subject to the conservation restriction submit an application for the release in the form provided in Code Section 820 for vacation of easements and pay the required fee. The City has not required that a majority of the owners of land which abuts the conservation restriction sign the application as is required for a petition for vacation of a public easement, but has followed the notice requirements under M.S. 412.951 for two weeks' published and posted notice and mailing of written notice to abutting property owners. For the recent release request on the Dalquist Addition, written notice was mailed to all property owners who were noticed when the plat was considered. Attorney Gilligan said that the Council may wish to consider whether staff should continue to follow a process for release of conservation restrictions similar to the process followed for vacation of public easements. As an alternative, the City could modify the notice requirements to not require published notice but expand the mailed notice requirement to include all property owners who received mailed notice in connection with the subdivision request. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to continue to follow the practice that has been used for past requests to release or modify conservation restrictions. SUN NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DEADLINES DISCUSSED Connected with the same issue on procedure, Planner Larsen explained the process staff follows on public hearings. The assumption is made by staff that the Council will set the recommended hearing date for the reason that the Planning Commission meets on Wednesday night and the Council sets the hearing date the following Monday night. In order to meet . publication deadlines notice must be sent to the Edina Sun - Current, As the official newspaper, on the prior Thursday. If the Council does not set the hearing date as anticipated, the process is started over when the date is set. Discussion followed as to whether staff should make such an assumption. Planner Larsen clarified that if notice is sent to the official newspaper after Council sets the hearing date, planning matters would be pushed back two to three weeks depending on the cycle. Attorney Gilligan interjected that the statute requires some period of time for publishing and posting notice - it does not require a formal resolution calling for a hearing. He said in some cities this is done at the staff level with no formal action by the council. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that Attorney Gilligan work with staff and provide Council with a full outline of past practice and recommended procedure. REMOVAL OF BRAEMAR TENNIS COURTS ORDERED Park and Recreation Director Keprios presented the recommendation of the Edina Park Board from its meeting of June 14, 1994, that the Braemar tennis courts be removed. He presented history on the issue summarized as follows. The Braemar courts are over 20 years old and have been repaired several times. The existing surface is basically laykold asphalt which is beyond its life expectancy and repair stage and needs to be totally replaced. Estimated cost for replacement of the surface is between $20,000 - $30,000 based on contractor bids. The Edina Park Board first made this recommendation at its August 10, 1993, meeting. The Council referred the matter back to the Park Board for study of all of the City's tennis courts. A task force committee, chaired by Andrew Montgomery and Jean Rydell, undertook this study. The committee's general comments were that tennis appears to be on the decrease and that it does not appear that $30,000 is a prudent expenditure of funds which could be better spent for playground equipment, paving for basketball, etc. Tennis courts if not repaired should be dismantled and fences removed. Staff would concur with the Edina Park Board's recommendation to remove the Braemar tennis courts for the following reasons: 1. Lack of available funding to adequately maintain tennis courts. 2. Lack of tennis court use. 3. The Lewis Park tennis courts built in 1987 are in proximity. 4. Ample tennis court time is available to meet the current demand. Director Keprios noted that Bill Jenkins, Park Board Chair, was present to answer questions. Chairman Jenkins told Council that although the Park Board was reluctant to make the recommendation it felt it was prudent to remove the Braemar courts at this time and restore the area to a landscape condition. Harvey Dow, 6212 Loch Moor Drive, said that when the Braemar courts were in better shape and prior to the construction of the Lewis Park courts they were heavily used. He explained that he has played on a newly developed court surface in Toronto, Canada, which originated in Switzerland, consisting of ground up rubber and polymer which can be applied to an existing surface. As the material sets, colored granules are added so that the color is permanent. After that dries, loose granules are applied and the surface then plays like clay. The other advantage is that there is zero maintenance except for relining about every four years. He suggested that the City consider using this new surface which would be easier for seniors to play on and in the long run would actually cost less. It, Member Rice asked Mr. Dow what in his judgement has led to the decline in use of outdoor tennis courts. Mr. Dow said he felt tennis is a cyclical sport which may account for the current decrease in play. Member Smith suggested that the Park Board look at creating a small picnic area if the tennis courts are removed. Member Paulus suggested that a temporary sign be placed at the site advising users of the location of the nearest tennis courts. Member Rice made a motion to approve the recommendation of the Edina Park Board for removal of the Braemar tennis courts. Motion was seconded by Member. Paulus. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *PETITION FOR ALLEY PAVING /CONVERSION TO PUBLIC ALLEY REFERRED TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to refer the petition for alley paving /conversion to public alley in the 4100 block of Sunnyside Road to the Engineering Department for processing. Motion was carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *PETITION FOR STANDARD STREET LIGHTING (LANTANA LANE) REFERRED TO ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Rice to refer the petition for standard lighting on Lantana Lane to the Engineering Department for processing. Motion was carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. COUNCIL ADVISED OF 1995 BUDGET HEARINGS Manager Rosland advised Council of the following proposed schedule of 1995 Budget hearings noting that the two latter dates are for the purpose of receiving public comment: Monday, July 18 5:30 to 6:30 P.M. (Budget Assumptions) Thursday, August 18 5:00 to 7:00 P.M. (Preliminary Budget) Thursday, August 25 5:00 to 7:00 P.M. (Preliminary Budget) Member Paulus made a motion approving the 1995 Budget hearing dates as recommended. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice; Smith, Richards CLAIMS PAID Member Rice made a motion to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated June 30, 1994, and consisting of 33 pages: General Fund $264,419.11; C.D.B.G. $3,025.00; Communication $9,606.66; Working Capital $12,635.79; Art Center $10,751.51; Swimming Pool $2,020.34; Golf Course $32,414.74; Ice Arena $2,382.00; Gun Range $457.62; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes $20,419.20; Utility Fund $293,027.09; Storm Sever $6,035.77; Liquor fund $89,801.91; Construction Fund $52,970.11; TOTAL $799,966.85. Member Paulus seconded the motion. 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 9:50 P.M. City Clerk OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL JULY 18, 1994 ROLLCALL Answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith and Mayor Richards. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve and adopt the Council Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. PROCLAMATION ADOPTED - LIBRARIES CHANGE LIVES WEEK Motion of Member Kelly was seconded by Member Paulus and carried unanimously for adoption of a Proclamation announcing July 25, 1994, as Libraries Change Lives Week in Edina. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1994, APPROVED Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to approve the minutes of the regular Council Meeting of June 20, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVED FOR PARKWOOD KNOLLS 24TH ADDITION - (OUTLAT A. PARKWOOD KNOLLS 22ND ADDITION) Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen clarified that under agenda item II.A the request is for preliminary plat approval only with no rezoning requested for the Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition plat. Agenda item II.B - Request to Amend Comprehensive Land Use Plan, is directly related to the plat proposal. However, this request is different from the plat proposal and is not being requested by the proponent but by Interlachen / Parkwood Knolls Coalition, a group of residents in the subject area. Planner Larsen reminded Council that this is a 53 acre plat of undeveloped land in greater Parkwood Knolls bounded on the west by Malibu Drive, on the south by Parkwood Road, on the east by Green Farms Road and by Van Valkenburg Park on the north. At its meeting of May 16, 1994, the Council considered and continued the proposed plat for Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition to allow the developer to address the concerns and comments made. At that time the proposed development included 16 townhouse units, seven zero lot line single dwelling units and 72 single dwelling lots. A revised preliminary plat has been presented eliminating the townhouses and zero lot line lots. The revised plat now illustrates 91 single dwelling unit lots which is consistent with the overall plan approved in 1978 for this tract of land. In addition to the land use changes there are a number of other changes to the street system and lots within the plat: 1) Interlachen Boulevard continues westerly to connect to Malibu Drive, but with a revised alignment. The revised plan contains two sharp curves, one of which approaches 90 degrees. In order to provide a 90 degree turn, a small land trade between the City and the proponent would be needed. 2) The revised,plan does not illustrate townhouses or zero lot line lots, but contains some smaller single dwelling lots along the Interlachen frontage. Most of these lots are 85 to 95 feet wide, which compares to a 75 foot lot width for zero lot line lots on Malibu Drive. 3) The revised plan provides direct access to Van Valkenburg Park from Interlachen Boulevard. 4) The revised plan eliminates the through lots (double street frontage) along Malibu Drive which were on the earlier plan. 5) The proposed phasing of the development has changed from the earlier plan. Phase I would now include the construction of Interlachen Boulevard and the development of lots fronting on the new street. Phase II would involve the westerly portion of the site including the streets labeled Cougar Court and Cougar Trail. In staff's opinion, the revised plan provides a connection to the existing road system to the southeast, the northeast and the northwest. The total number of lots is the same as in the 1978 plan. The proposed road system is similar to the 1978 plan. The proposed preliminary plat does not require a rezoning or an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Planner Larsen said staff would recommend approval of the revised overall development plan and preliminary plat approval for Phase I of the development, subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat approval. 2. Developer's Agreement covering public improvements. 3. Watershed district grading permit. 4. Wetlands alteration permit, as required. Planner Larsen concluded by referring to a memorandum dated July 15, 1994, from City Engineer Hoffman stating that the revised plan had been reviewed by the Engineering staff and commenting on concerns relative to the extension and design of Interlachen Boulevard. Roger Anderson, Roger A. Anderson & Associates, stated he was the civil engineer for the proponent, Harvey Hansen, and they had nothing further to add at this time. He said the Planning staff has worked with them over the past two months to refine the plan and the City Planner has done a good job in explaining the changes and the rational for those changes. He said they are essentially back to the 1978 plan that was approved for this parcel. Member Rice asked about the phasing for the proposal. Mr. Anderson responded that the revised plat depicts each phase as a concept. It is the developer's intention to resolve the Interlachen Road issue and to- proceed with Phase I according to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Department. Phase II may be extended to the summer of 1995. Development of the remaining parcel has not been determined at this time but the intent is to develop the remaining portion as illustrated. Public Comment George Parker, 4917 Ridge Road, told Council that there is an 18 foot drop in grade elevation between his property and the Fink property (9 percent grade) which reduces visibility for drivers. He said he was concerned about the potential for an accident from the additional traffic that could shortcut through the neighborhood from Highway 169. He said since Maloney Avenue, located two blocks north of Interlachen Boulevard, already functions as a collector street making Interlachen a through street does not make sense. Dale Renner, 6321 Interlachen Boulevard, said he was co -chair of the Interlachen /Parkwood Knolls Coalition. He said the current plan does not support the best interests of the established neighborhood. No one wants the increased traffic resulting from connecting Interlachen Boulevard to Malibu Drive. The neighborhood is not concerned about the traffic generated by the new homes in the development but is concerned about the current number of. vehicles on Highway 169 that could easily connect over via Interlachen and Blake Road if Interlachen is made a collector street. The established neighborhood should not have to carry an inordinate amount of traffic burden for a development that has no residents today. The plan also represents a totally avoidable increase danger to their homes and families; studies have shown the impact of traffic in relation to crime. It is unclear how this particular plan benefits the developer and /or the City over some other more acceptable configuration. The coalition would recommend to Council: 1) do not approve the current plan, 2) require a meeting between the neighborhood and the developer to discuss options that all can live with, and 3). change the Comprehensive Plan to provide a circuitous route for Interlachen Boulevard and not connect directly to Malibu Drive. He suggested a number of alternatives to connecting Interlachen directly with Malibu Drive. Lisa Fish, 5408 Larada Lane, agreed that development will occur on this parcel and the density is not the issue. She said the concern for all is the roads and the increased outside traffic that will be brought into the area. The quality of homes in the established neighborhood is high, there is very little crime and it is safe. She urged the Council not to change that and said neither the new homes or the established neighborhood will benefit with the proposed connection of Interlachen thru to Malibu Drive. Cindy Witkin, 5112 Ridge Road, said she witnessed a car nearly hit a child who was rollerblading at the intersection of Interlachen /Blake Road. The trees, narrowness of the road, and speed all were contributors to the near accident. This potential will only increase if Interlachen Boulevard is put thru. She said she had not heard one compelling reason to put Interlachen through to Malibu Drive but has heard many reasons to not put it thru. Ms. Witkin said a poll of her neighborhood indicated that if the road is put thru they will all use it to get to Highway 169. She concluded that this discussion could end if another way was found to route traffic through the neighborhood. Peter Simpson, 509 Blake Road, commented that Interlachen and Blake Road is a terrible intersection. The concern is if Interlachen is put thru it will be a short cut to Highway 169 and the increased traffic will eventually result in widening of the road by the county. If Interlachen is put thru, he said funds should be allocated to build a safer intersection at Blake and Interlachen. He suggested that the development maintain short, serpentine streets much like the surrounding area. Bob Froemming, 4930 Interlachen Court, said he agreed with everything that has been said about traffic congestion. He questioned whether anyone present does not consider Interlachen now as a main thoroughfare from Highway 100 to Hopkins. He asked where else in Edina is there a road where cars travel so fast for over two miles without a STOP sign. If Interlachen Boulevard is put thru to Malibu Drive he said it will reroute the cars from the present Interlachen /Blake intersection thru the Parkwood Knolls neighborhood. Nancy Webster, 6645 Interlachen Boulevard, voiced two objections to the proposed plat. First, was the number and location of the small lots. They understood when they built five years ago that the development to the west would have homes similar in size and value to those on Green Farms Road, Interlachen Court and Interlachen Circle, i.e. traditional, single family homes on 1/2 to 3/4 acre lots with a corresponding tax structure. She said that the location of the smaller lot homes (1/4 acre) would not be consistent with the original plan for this area and would considerably change the character of the immediate neighborhood and lower property values. She suggested that a limited number of smaller lot homes be constructed on the westerly portion of the development where there are double bungalows and zero lot line homes already. Logically, the lots should increase in size as you move east within the proposed subdivision. Second, was to reinforce how dangerous Interlachen Boulevard will be if it is allowed to be a thru street with the increase in traffic that this will bring. She emphasized that Interlachen is particularly dangerous going east in winter when ice builds up at the intersections. She urged the Council to give serious consideration to the plan suggested by the neighborhood coalition whereby Interlachen would not be a thru street and would only handle the traffic from the new homes. Molly Marinovich, 6517 Stauder Circle, said she was part of the Parkwood Knolls group, and they are opposed to any plan that would bring increased traffic to their neighborhood. She urged Council to consider the alternative plan as presented by the coalition. Ingrid Mantyh, 6413 Interlachen Boulevard, voiced support for the neighborhood plan that was presented. She said there is a question of philosophy here - this country is strewn with neighborhoods developed sloppily and without any effort to preserve the habitat and priorities of the families already living there. She said we should do better and it is time to take a stand for it. Joseph Terry, 5109 Ridge Road, indicated that the area has narrow streets, hills, and no sidewalks and were designed for light traffic. Connecting Interlachen thru would be a disaster for the new development as well as the existing neighborhoods. Tom Seitz, 6320 Interlachen Boulevard, said he was vehemently opposed to the revised plan regarding Interlachen Boulevard. He said the 90 degree curve would impact the development specifically but would not do much to enhance the existing condition of Interlachen. Also, if the ingress /egress to Van Valkenburg Park is located near the curve, it will be difficult for any activity there. He submitted that if there was opportunity for dialogue between the neighborhood coalition, the developer and the City, to come up with a proper proposal that would affect everyone positively it could be a win /win situation and would take the 'us' versus 'them' out of the formula. Mary Seitz, 6320 Interlachen Boulevard, pointed out that they live on the edge of the pond and are the first house to see the traffic coming west on Interlachen. There is a lot of disrespectful traffic including construction/building trucks whose attitude seems to be 'this is not my_ neighborhood'. If Interlachen Boulevard is opened up to the west it will invite more of this type of non - neighborhood traffic. Jim Ladner, 4931 Green Farms Road, spoke to issues in his letters of April 23, 1994 and July ll, 1994: 1) The deceased Carl Hansen, original developer, had told him that the idea of extending Interlachen to the west was conceptual and that prior to replatting the remaining land it was his plan to alter the plat to eliminate a thru route to the west. 2) Present traffic on Interlachen Boulevard currently travels in excess of 30 MPH; a thru street would be an additional hazard to children and neighborhood walkers. 3) Logically the density should be reduced to 10% fewer single family units rather than increasing the density. 4) Develop a plan that will divide the access for future residents equally between north, south, east and west. He urged the Council to deny the plan as proposed by the developer. Terry Swanson, 6501 Interlachen Boulevard, observed that although the neighborhood has changed over the 13 years she has lived there, it still has retained some of its original character. She said the traffic pattern will create a significant change in the neighborhood and urged the Council to respect the residents already living in the area. Wayne Packard, 4909 Prescott Circle, said that with recent development in the area the traffic has increased considerably and will only grow because drivers will try to avoid the meters on the highways. He asked if the developer is required to estimate the amount of traffic generated by a new development. He said that although he was in favor of the proposed development, he was apprehensive about other traffic that may be generated because of this plan. Floyd Kuehnis, 4926 Interlachen Court, said he echoed everything that has been said in opposition to the proposed plan. In order to resolve the issues, he suggested that the developer meet with the neighborhood to allow for some input in the process as opposed to one way presentations. Robert Rusnak, 6232 Idylwood Lane, made the following points: 1) the residents in attendance care about what happens to their neighborhood, 2) all are opposed to any degradation of their neighborhood (decreasing lot size, increasing population density, increasing traffic in neighborhood), 3) the character of the neighborhood should be maintained, i.e. low traffic pattern, cul -de -sacs. He concluded by saying that any proposal for this parcel should be consistent with the existing neighborhood. Nancy Diele, 5608 Interlachen Boulevard, said she has lived there for 30 years and has seen animals and a child die on Interlachen Boulevard. As a resident on the eastern part of the road, she cautioned against the potential bottleneck at Interlachen /Vernon from the increased traffic and said they have to use it on a daily basis. Bernie Nelson, 5008 Schaefer Road, stated he has not heard any reason why Interlachen Boulevard needs to go thru. He said traffic at Interlachen and Blake backs up at various times during the day now and can only get worse if the road is put thru. He concluded by objecting to putting Interlachen thru. Mattie Greif, 6629 Parkwood Road, said that previously she believed the residents on Interlachen were overstating concerns about traffic until she remembered what has happened in her area since Malibu went through and now believed their concerns are valid. Response for Proponent Roger Anderson responded that the comments of the neighborhood have not fallen on deaf ears. He pointed out that the process to this point has taken many months to develop the plat within the guidelines of the City's Comprehensive Plan which shows Interlachen as a collector street going thru. The developer has offered some concessions: 1) a sharp curve in the roadway, 2) grade changes, 3) lower density, and 4) the zoning request was dropped. Harvey Hansen, proponent, said this is the final 53 acres of the 600 acres his father, Carl Hansen, purchased in 1949 -50 and they have done a good job in developing it. In 1977 -78 the Comprehensive Plan was discussed as it related to this parcel and the City wanted to see three things done: 1) Extension of Malibu Drive (accomplished). 2) Park property (accomplished). 3) Extension of Interlachen Boulevard. Mr. Hansen said they were opposed to the extension of Malibu Drive to Lincoln Drive. The City's purpose was to spread the traffic out, hence Malibu Drive went thru and Interlachen Boulevard was designated to go thru which was a matter of public record. Council Comment /Action Member Smith asked if there would be a problem with making Interlachen Boulevard circuitous by crossing Cougar Court over to Cougar Trail an alternative. Planner Larsen said there might be some grade changes to consider. Member Kelly asked Planner Larsen to speak to the Comprehensive Plan which showed Interlachen connecting to Malibu Drive. Planner Larsen said this started in 1974 and concluded in 1978 when the plan was adopted showing Interlachen connected to Malibu. At that time the Council looked at the entire neighborhood and decided, on a basis of equity for all, that there should be as many ingress /egress points for the neighborhood as possible. Malibu Drive to Lincoln Drive was one, Interlachen is another and in 1978 Ridge Road was connected to the Parkwood Knolls area. The basis for the decision at that time was equity, although delivery of services, (plowing, street maintenance, emergency vehicle access) probably was part of the decision. Member Rice.asked if ingress /egress to the park was a legitimate concern and if Interlachen is connected to Malibu, what could be done to discourage thru traffic. Planner Larsen said that a plan for a possible park and access has not yet been developed. He referred to suggestions made by the City Engineer that would both slow traffic and increase driving time to discourage thru traffic. Mayor Richards reflected that Edina is a community that includes all people, rather than excluding people. He said he would resist an attempt to exclude people and if such a philosophy were adopted Edina would be less desirable than it is today. All would agree that neighborhoods should not be adversely impacted, but to develop exclusive neighborhoods has never worked. Credit should be given to prior councils who set the theme of how Edina should be developed. Mayor Richards said he believed the developer did listen to the suggestions at the last meeting, that the revised plan is responsive, that the density of 1.7 units per acre is consistent with much of northwestern Edina and the road configuration as proposed will provide circulation for this area of the City. He concluded by saying he would support the plan as presented. Roger Anderson answered Member Smith that his suggestion of connecting Interlachen Boulevard through Cougar Court to Cougar Trail would not follow the Comprehensive Plan and would create a number of double frontage lots which are not allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Member Rice said he had great confidence in the way Edina has been developed and the results achieved so far. Edina has been recognized as one of the best planned communities which consistently has held its property values. Most of the residents live here because they are concerned about their biggest investment - their homes. He said some of the comments made have reminded him of a billboard advertising "Minnesota's First Gated Community" and hoped Edina has not come to that. Concerning Interlachen Boulevard, Member Rice said he believed that thru traffic could be contained by some disincentives. Member Rice said this developer has done a good job in developing the Parkwood Knolls area, but he had some concern about when the subsequent phases of this development would occur. He said he would support the proposal but would ask staff to build in sufficient disincentives on Interlachen if it is extended. Member Smith said he had no problem with the proposal as to lot size but questioned why the Comprehensive Plan has to be followed to put Interlachen thru to Malibu Drive. Mayor Richards responded that this property will develop with a minimum of 91 units and the burden of the additional traffic coming from the development should be distributed equally by providing ingress and egress in all directions. Member Kelly said she was disappointed that the developer has not met with the neighborhood and encouraged that this be done. While eliminating the townhouses from the development is a positive, she felt that all the lots in should be consistent in size, e.g. 1/2 to 3/4 acre as most of Parkwood Knolls has been developed. Member Kelly said she concurred with the Comprehensive Plan and the extension of Interlachen Boulevard thru to Malibu for public safety reasons and for service reasons as was the intent. She indicated support for preliminary plat approval; however, the plan should be completed as to each phase before she could support final approval. Member Smith made a motion to continue the hearing.so that: 1) the developer could present a complete plan for all 91 lots, and 2) staff and the developer consider an alternative road configuration for Interlachen with no connection to Malibu, and 3) a study be done on traffic from the proposed development. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Smith Nays: Paulus, Rice, Richards Motion defeated. Member Rice moved preliminary plat approval for Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition, subject to: 1) Final plat approval, 2) Developer's agreement, 3) Watershed District grading permit, 4) Wetlands alteration permit as required, 5) Developer submitting a detailed plan for phasing of the development, and 6) A traffic study of traffic generated by the development and alternatives for traffic distribution, cost of which to be the responsibility of the developer. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Richards Nays: Smith Motion carried. Mayor Richards encouraged the developer to meet with neighborhood residents to allow a free exchange of information between all parties concerned. (Member Rice asked to be excused from the meeting at this point on the agenda because of a family death.) NO ACTION TAKEN ON REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In conjunction with the discussion on the preliminary plat for Parkwood Knolls 24th Addition, no action was taken on the request from the Parkwood Knolls Coalition to change the existing language in the Comprehensive Plan concerning the extension of Interlachen Boulevard. PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON PETITION TO VACATE STORM SEWER EASEMENT ON LOT 15, BLOCK 1. SOUTHDALE ADDITION (6900 CORNELIA DRIVE): DOCUMENT TO BE DEVELOPED TO CLEAR UP TITLE Affidavits of Notice were presented, approved and ordered placed on file. Member Paulus stated that she would not participate in the discussion or vote on this matter. Presentation by City Attorney City Attorney Gilligan advised that during a recent real estate transaction it was discovered that a portion of the garage on Lot 15, Block 1, Southdale First Addition (6900 Cornelia Drive) is encroaching over a City storm sewer easement. The City Engineer has confirmed that a 54 inch storm pipe going into Lake Cornelia and is located in the easement area. Because of the close proximity of the pipe to the garage staff would recommend that the City not vacate any portion of the easement but authorize an agreement that would permit the encroachment to continue subject to certain conditions: 1) No work would be done to the garage that would damage the City's storm sewer pipe or further encroach on the City's easement, 2) The homeowner would indemnify and hold the City harmless from any additional costs as a result of the encroachment which the City may incur in connection with any repair or reconstruction of the storm sewer pipe, and 3) If the garage were ever destroyed or removed, no further encroachment over the easement area would be permitted. This agreement that would be recorded in the real estate records and run with the land. The title company working with the homeowner has agreed that this type of consent would clear up the title. Discussion followed on whether item 3 would prevent the homeowner from rebuilding the garage if destroyed or removed. Attorney Gilligan said that condition could be left out if the other two conditions were in place. Member Kelly made a motion directing the City Attorney to draft an agreement for Council approval, to be recorded and run with the land, whereby the City would consent to the encroachment of the garage on the easement area provided that: (i) no work would be done to the garage that would damage the City's storm sewer pipe or further encroach on the City's easement, and (ii) the homeowner would indemnify and hold the City harmless from any additional costs as a result of the encroachment which the City may incur in connection with any repair or reconstruction of the storm sewer pipe. Ayes: Kelly, Smith, Richards Abstaining: Paulus Motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 1994 -6 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTIONS 1200 AND 1230 TO PERMIT SIDEWALK CAFES ADOPTED ON SECOND READING Assistant Manager Hughes recalled that on July 5, 1994, the City Council granted First Reading to Ordinance No. 1994 -6 which provides a permit process for sidewalk cafes. The Council directed staff to include certain revisions to the ordinance. The revisions have now been made and staff would recommend Second Reading and adoption as amended and presented. Mayor Richards called for comment or discussion on the ordinance. No comment or objections was heard. Member Smith moved Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 1994 -6 as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1994 -6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 1200 AND 1230 OF THE CITY CODE TO PERMIT SIDEWALK CAFES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Subd. 2 of Subsection 1200.02 of Section 1200 of the City Code is amended by adding a new paragraph Q. as follows: "Q. Sidewalk cafes as defined by Subsection 1230.01 of this Code subject to a permit issued pursuant to Subsection 1230.07 of this Code." Section 2. Subsection 1230.01 of Section 1230 of the City Code is amended by adding a new definition as follows: "Sidewalk Cafe. Tables, chairs, benches and appurtenant equipment located on a sidewalk (i) for the exclusive use by patrons of an abutting food establishment as defined by Section 720 of this Code, or (ii) where the service of food or beverages is offered to persons using such tables, chairs, and benches." Section 3. Paragraph 0. of Subsection 1230.02 of Section 1230 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "0. Consume intoxicating or non - intoxicating malt liquor, wine, or intoxicating liquor,'as defined in Section 900 of.this Code, except that: 1. Non - intoxicating malt liquor and wine which is dispensed by the City or by an authorized agent of the City may be consumed subject to other applicable provisions of this Code and subject to the rules and regulations of the Park Director pursuant to Subsection 1230.06 in the following places: a. Inside the clubhouse of a golf course. b. Inside a programmed park or indoor recreational facility located in a park, except picnic shelters, warming houses, ice arenas or maintenance buildings. c. Within the ballfield complex of Van Valkenburg Park. 2. Non - intoxicating malt liquor, intoxicating malt liquor, and wine may be consumed at sidewalk cafes which are licensed in accordance with Section 900 of this code and which are authorized by a permit issued pursuant to Subsection 1230.07 of this Code." Section 4. Paragraph R. of Subsection 1230.02 of Section 1230 of the City Code is amended to read as follows: "R. Park or occupy a vehicle or occupy a street or sidewalk to sell any farm produce or any other product or property, or for conducting any business or selling of services except as provided in Subsection 1230.07 of this Code." Section 5. Section 1230 of the City Code is amended by adding a new Subsection 1230.07 as follows: "1230.07. Special Permits for Pushcarts and Sidewalk Cafes. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Section 1230, certain pushcarts and sidewalk cafes are permitted on sidewalks subject to the requirements of this Subsection. Subd. 1 Pushcarts. Pushcarts, as defined by Section 720 of this Code, may be located on sidewalks within the area included in the plan prepared by the H A entitled, "50th and France Commercial Area Plan" dated December 3, 1974, subject to a permit issued pursuant to this Subdivision. A. In addition to the requirements of Section 160 of this Code, no permit shall be issued for a pushcart unless the following requirements are met: 1. The pushcart must be licensed.in accordance with Section 720 of this Code. 2. The applicant for a permit must possess a valid food establishment license or take -out food license, pursuant to Section 720 of this Code, for a food establishment located in the 50th and France commercial area. 3. The pushcart shall not exceed 8 feet in length, 4 feet in width, and 8 feet in height. 4. The pushcart shall be equipped with casters or wheels to permit ease of movement. 5. The pushcart shall be equipped with facilities for the disposal of trash generated by the pushcart. B. In addition to the requirements of Section 720 of this Code, the following requirements shall apply to the operation of pushcarts: 1. Pushcarts shall be parked on public sidewalks only in those locations specified in the permit. 2. Pushcarts shall be stored indoors following the close of business each day. 3. Only food or beverages for immediate consumption may be offered from the pushcart. 4. Cleaning, servicing, and maintenance of the pushcart shall be undertaken only in an area approved by the Sanitarian. C. Permits issued pursuant to this Subdivision shall expire on March 31 of each calendar year. D. The number of permits which may be in force under this Subd. 1. at any one time shall not exceed six. Subd. 2 Sidewalk Cafes. Sidewalk cafes may be located on sidewalks subject to a permit issued by the City Manager pursuant to this Subdivision. Applications for a sidewalk cafe permit shall be made on forms supplied by the Clerk and shall include a plan drawn to scale which illustrates the exact location of the proposed sidewalk cafe together with distances and dimensions of the adjoining buildings, the sidewalk, the distance to and location of the travelled portion of the street and distances to all obstructions in the vicinity. The application shall be accompanied by the fee in the amount set forth in Section 185 of this Code. If the application is denied, the permit application fee less $100 shall be returned to the applicant. A. In addition to the requirements of Section 160 of this Code, no permit shall be issued or renewed for a sidewalk cafe unless the following requirements are met: 1. The applicant must possess a valid food establishment license pursuant to Section 720 of this Code. 2. A distance of at least 200 feet shall be maintained between the nearest point of the sidewalk cafe to the nearest point of property used for residential purposes. 3. The applicant must furnish to the Clerk, evidence that public liability insurance has been procured for any death or personal injury arising from the ownership, maintenance, or operation of the sidewalk cafe in amounts not less than $100,000 for injury to or death of one person, or $300,000 for any one incident, and not less than $50,000 for damage to property arising from any one incident. The applicant shall maintain such insurance in effect at all times during the term of the permit. The City shall be named as an additional insured in the policy providing such insurance. 4. The applicant shall indemnify and hold the City and the City's officials and employees harmless from any loss, cost, damage and expenses arising out of the use, design, operation, or maintenance of the sidewalk cafe. 5. The area occupied by the sidewalk cafe shall abut and shall be operated as part of the food establishment operated by the applicant. No part of the sidewalk cafe shall adjoin any premises other than the applicant's food establishment. 6. The City Manager shall find that the sidewalk cafe will not unduly restrict the safe usage of the sidewalk by the public after taking into consideration the location of obstructions, vehicular traffic and other impediments to the passage of pedestrians. The City Manager shall renew a permit only upon finding that the operation of the sidewalk cafe complied with all provisions of this Subdivision and did not constitute a nuisance as defined by Section 1035 of this Code. B. In addition to the requirements of Section 720 of this Code, the following requirements shall apply to the operation of sidewalk cafes: 1. Only food or beverages for immediate consumption may be offered for sale. 2. Intoxicating or non - intoxicating malt liquor or wine may be consumed only if the sidewalk cafe is licensed pursuant to Section 900 of this Code. 3. No expansion of the area occupied by the sidewalk cafe from that shown on the permit application shall be made. 4. No tables, chairs, furnishings, planters, railings or other obstructions shall be placed or remain on the sidewalk between November 1 and April 1 except on a day to day basis when the sidewalk cafe is open for business. 5. The applicant shall maintain the sidewalk cafe in a clean and sanitary condition as required by Section 720 of this Code. 6. The applicant shall promptly replace or repair any damage to the sidewalk or other public property caused by the applicant's use of the sidewalk as a sidewalk cafe. C. Permits issued pursuant to this Subdivision shall expire on March 31 of each calendar year." Section 6. Section 185 of the City Code is amended by adding a new fee as follows: SEC. SUBSEC. PURPOSE OF FEE /CHARGE AMOUNT FEE NO. 1230 1230.07, Sidewalk cafe permit $500.00 261 Subd. 2 Section 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage and publication. ATTEST: City Clerk Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Ordinance adopted. Mayor ORDINANCE NO. 1994 -7 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE SECTION 460 TO PROVIDE NEU REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTING SIGNS ADOPTED ON SECOND READING Assistant Manager Hughes reminded Council that on July 5, 1994, the Council granted First Reading to Ordinance No. 1994 -7. Ordinance No. 1994 -7 would amend the sign ordinance to permit larger projecting signs in the commercial district. The Council directed staff to include certain revisions to the ordinance. The revisions have been made and staff would recommend Second Reading as amended and presented. Mayor Richards called for comment or discussion on the ordinance. No comment or objection was heard. Member Paulus moved Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 1994 -7 as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1994 -7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 460 TO PROVIDE NEV REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTING SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA ORDAINS: Section 1. Subd. 12 of Subsection 460.03 of Section 460 of the City Code is amended as follows: "Subd. 12. Projecting Signs.. Projecting signs shall be permitted only in the Planned Commercial District, subject to the following restrictions: A :. The maximum sign area shall be 20 square feet per facing. B. Not less than eight feet of clearance shall be provided between the sidewalk elevation and the lowest point of the projecting sign. C. Signs shall project from the face of the building no more than the lesser of (i) one -third of the sidewalk width or, (ii) six feet. Sidewalk width shall be measured perpendicular to the face of the building at the proposed sign location. D. The maximum sign area of wall signs located on the same building of the projecting sign shall not exceed five percent of the wall area. E. Proof of insurance and indemnification shall be provided in accordance with Subd. 5 of Subsection 460.06." Section 2. Subd. 5 of Subsection 460.06 of Section 460 of the City Code is amended by adding a new last sentence as follows: "The owner shall also indemnify and hold the City and the City's officials and employees harmless from any loss, cost, damage and expenses caused by the projecting sign." Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage and publication. ATTEST: City Clerk Motion for adoption of the ordinance was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Ordinance adopted. Mayor DECISION TO REMOVE BRAEMAR TENNIS COURTS UPHELD Harvey Dow, 6212 Loch Moor Drive, said he was speaking for a number of residents who could not attend. He read a proposal, signed by residents in the area, asking the Council to reconsider its action on July 5, 1994, to remove the Braemar tennis courts. The reason the courts were not used recently was because of their poor condition. Properly maintained, these courts will have a positive impact on property values. It was emphasized that these courts are indeed a 'neighborhood facility'. The proposal stated that the cost to tear out these courts and remove.the fencing will likely be more than the cost to properly resurface. It asked that the Council rescind the order to remove and to see that proper surfacing of the Braemar courts is effected as soon as possible. The following residents spoke in support of the request to rescind the Council's prior action and resurface the Braemar courts: Stanford Gillman, 7120 Gleason Road; Lonnie Skrentner, 6161 Loch Moor Drive; Dave Johnston, 7420 Hyde Park Circle; Lane Jorgenson, 7132 Mark Terrace Drive; Dick Coonrod, 7133 Gleason Road; Michael Grunewald, 7200 Schey Drive; Margaret Twito, 7117 Tralee Drive; and Bill Greer, 7125 Schey Drive. Mayor Richards explained that the function of the Park Board is to oversee the various park facilities and make recommendations to.the Council concerning those facilities. Following an earlier recommendation of the Park Board, the Council requested that a study be made of the use and condition of all 44 tennis courts in the City. Based on the results of the study, the Park Board recommended that the Braemar tennis courts be removed. As to fiscal responsibility, Mayor Richards said the Council faces pressure on that issue continually and residents keep saying 'keep the spending down'. The reality is that the City cannot afford to do everything that is wanted by the citizens. He told the audience that the City has fewer than five more employees today than it had ten years ago and yet the services the City provides is something to take pride in. Mayor Richards recalled that there was some discussion at the last meeting about uses for the tennis court area and staff was challenged to come back with alternative uses for the Council to consider. Member Paulus commented that she was flooded with phone calls on this issue. As to citizens not being notified when the Council discussed the Braemar tennis courts, she said the five Council Members are elected to make such decisions. Further, that if all the residents were asked which courts to close it would be impossible to come to a consensus. Member Paulus emphasized that the tax dollars are already being stretched and maintenance is being deferred. This issue concerns the Park and Recreation budget which cannot be stretched further. Her conclusion was that the Council acted prudently in making the decision to remove the Braemar courts. Member Kelly commented that the issue of the City's tennis courts has gone on for a year and that a lot of thought about the community as a whole was part of the decision. She agreed that a plan should be developed so that the neighbors would know of the proposed use for that area. Member Smith recalled that when the tennis courts at Lewis Park were proposed he voted against that because he felt the City had enough courts. He also was concerned about the cost to refurbished those some day which is the issue being discussed now - maintenance of the City's assets whether they are used or not. Member Smith concluded that the Council made an economic decision two weeks ago. He concurred that a plan be developed for use of that area. Mayor Richards called for Council action on the request to rescind the decision on the Braemar tennis courts. No motion being offered, Mayor Richards said the Council decision of July 5, 1994 to remove the Braemar tennis courts would stand. *AWARD OF BID CONTINIIED TO AUGUST 15, 1994 FOR ONE 1.75 4 -WHEEL DRIVE ARTICULATED LOADER Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to continue the award of bid for one 1.75 4 -wheel drive articulated loader to the Council meeting of August 15, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *AWARD OF BID CONTINUED TO AUGUST 15, 1994 FOR ONE 3.5 4 -WHEEL DRIVE ARTICULATED LOADER Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly to continue the award of bid for one 3.5 4 -wheel drive articulated loader to the Council meeting of August 15, 1994. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR ARROWHEAD LAKE AERATION SYSTEM Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly for award of bid for Arrowhead Lake aeration system to sole bidder, Clean Flo Laboratories, at $9,735.27. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *BID AWARDED FOR ONE MANHOLE PULLER /EXTRACTOR Motion was made'by Member Smith and was seconded by member Kelly for award of bid for one manhole puller /extractor to sole bidder, MacQueen Equipment, Inc., at $14,286.97. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. TRAFFIC SAFETY STAFF REPORT OF JULY 12, 1994 APPROVED Traffic Safety Coordinator Swanson explained that under Section A(1) of the Traffic Safety Staff Report of June 12, 1994, the staff reviewed and discussed the intersection controls on St. Johns Avenue between Golf Terrace and West 58th Street for the purpose of installation of a STOP sign. Most of the facts were unchanged from the previous discussion on the issue and were weighed against the Residential Stop Sign Policy and the Multiway Stop Sign Policy as adopted by the City Council in 1993. The conclusion was that installation of STOP signs was not warranted except for a STOP sign for westbound Lexington Street at St. Johns Avenue as westbound Lexington Avenue serves as an outlet to a church parking lot. Customarily, parking lot exits stop upon entering a street. Coordinator Swanson presented a graphic showing traffic control signs in the area, noting that all are STOP signs except the one on Oak Drive which is a YIELD sign. Volumes and 85- percentile speeds were also included. Typically, Wooddale Avenue, Concord Avenue and West 58th Street are collector roadways carrying volumes from 1250 to 4300 daily. The east /west neighborhood streets carry volumes under 300 daily. The volume on St. Johns, counted for a 48 -hour period on a Wednesday /Thursday, has an average volume of 133 vehicles daily. This is unchanged from a count taken during the school year. Lisa Finsness, 4536 Tower Street, made the following arguments in support of STOP signs on St. Johns Avenue: 1) No way to slow the traffic on St. Johns from Golf Terrace to West 58th Street which is going to fast, particularly before and after school, 2) A north /south STOP sign at West 56th Street which had slowed traffic was taken out, 3) Traffic from east of Wooddale uses St. Johns to Woodland Road to get to the Community Center, 4) Poor visibility at St. Johns /Woodland intersection, 5) Sidewalks are not financially realistic considering the age mix of the neighborhood, 6) Pedestrians use the street to walk to the Lake Harvey area, 7) Liability for the City if traffic on St. Johns remains uncontrolled following a petition signed by 55 residents for STOP signs, and 8) Children walk to school during good weather. Ms. Finsness concluded by asking the Council to reconsider the request for a north /south STOP sign on St. Johns at Woodland and at Oak Drive. Also speaking in support of STOP signs on St. Johns Avenue were: Bill Robinson, 4521 Tower Street; and Sue McGill, 4525 Tower Street. Sheila Lissick, 4501 Oak Drive, said her home abuts Wooddale Avenue where cars travel 45 to 55 MPH regularly. While there are occasional cars and blind corners on St. Johns, Wooddale Avenue is a killer and a real problem.. Ms. Lissick mentioned that her house backs up to Lexington and because of the traffic from the church she concurred that there should be a STOP sign for westbound Lexington at St. Johns Avenue. Coordinator Swanson referred to the Residential Stop Sign Policy premise that STOP signs should not be installed in an attempt to control speed. Studies show that the speed before /after a STOP sign is not affected by the sign and may create a false sense of security. The Traffic Safety staff does understand the concern of the neighborhood as well that of other neighborhoods in years past and the City has used the warrant process for the installation of STOP signs; the warrant process was used for the removal of the STOP sign at Oak Drive. The Traffic Safety staff considered the larger question, "Are Edina's uncontrolled intersections unsafe ?" "Is the.current warrant process appropriate or should the City consider a patterned system similar to that in the southwestern part of Minneapolis ?" This grid system stops a vehicle at every two blocks. One suggestion was that a computerized map of existing controls be produced of the eastern half of Edina for the Council to review in relationship to roads such as St. Johns. Member Paulus made a motion to approve the recommended action in Section A(1) to install a STOP sign for westbound Lexington Street at St. Johns Avenue. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. Member Kelly made a motion to approve installation of a north /south STOP sign on St. Johns Avenue at Woodland Road. Motion was seconded by Member Smith. Ayes: Kelly, Smith Nays: Paulus, Richards Motion failed. Member Smith made a motion to approve the recommended action in Section A(2) that winding road signs with a 25 MPH advisory be posted at the north and south ends of Delaney Boulevard. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly,, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried•. Member Kelly made a motion to accept the recommended action in Section B(1 -4) and to acknowledge Section C of the Traffic Safety Staff Report. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. The City Engineer was asked to report at the meeting of August 15, 1994, on the staff time involved to produce a computerized map of existing intersection controls in the eastern half of Edina. ADVISORY BOARD OF HEALTH RECOMMENDATION ON HERBICIDE SPRAYING DISCUSSED Matthew Peterson, Community Health Services Advisory Committee (CHSAC) Chair, presented the recommendation of the CHSAC on the use of pesticides on park grounds and other public properties in the City. Mr. Peterson explained that this issue was referred to the CHSAC by the Council after receiving letters and calls from Edina residents and citizens' groups concerned with the City's practice of spraying chemicals on park grounds. He said the CHSAC met on July 13, 1994, with concerned residents, representatives of the LWV and City staff to discuss policy options and implementation ideas. The recommendation of the CHSAC is as follows: The CHSAC recommends to the Edina City Council that it immediately require city departments to place a moratorium.on the spraying or application of pesticides. This moratorium would apply to the grounds, waters, facilities and equipment at the 38 city parks and at miscellaneous public properties in the City. This moratorium does not apply to the revenue facilities in the City parks system, including the Braemar and Normandale Golf Courses, Braemar Arena, and Edinborough facilities, or to Arneson Gardens, the Courtney Fields in the Braemar complex, or the ball fields at Van Valkenburg Park. Also not included in the moratorium are those boulevards, medians, natural areas, and city mowed areas that are not commonly or appropriately used for recreational purposes. This moratorium is to continue in effect until the Park Department and ' associated city offices can research and propose an implementation plan intended to achieve the following: 1. Discontinuance of spraying or application of pesticides by the City or its contractors in as many locations and situations as possible. 2. Management of playing fields and open grassy areas of city parks and other public properties for weed, insect and disease control by alternative means involving no or significantly less use of potentially hazardous chemicals. 3. In general use park areas, spraying shall not be conducted for the. primary purpose of improving the aesthetic appearance of grassy areas. Only more critical issues of turf management such as surface safety, wind and water erosion control, serious insect infestation, control of water runoff, and the health of trees and related vegetation shall be justification for targeted pesticide application. 4. Inform the residents of the city regarding lower cost, cost reduced hazard approaches to park and grounds management. Help citizens.to accept a higher "weed tolerance" and slower acting methods of problem control. This implementation plan and new policy proposal to be presented by the Park Department to the CHSAC for'its review by March 31, 1995. Mr. Peterson said he had met with Park Director Keprios this morning to discuss the recommendation. Director Keprios was enthused by the opportunity to consider alternatives to herbicide application. He was asked to classify park properties in terms of its use so that required use of herbicides would be limited. In making its recommendation, the CHSAC took into consideration the following: 1) Park Department does not apply herbicides on or near playgrounds or around grills and picnic areas; 2) The procedure has been to promptly post an area after spraying. This policy will be changed to posting before spraying; 3) Pesticides are only applied in a narrow band of weather conditions and only by city employees who have been certified as trained sprayer operators, 4) Edina School District has enacted a ban on all spraying, and 5) U of M and State Department of Agriculture offers many progressive ideas for communities in this area of concern. The following individuals spoke in support of the recommendation of the CHSAC: Lou Rohman, 7301 Oaklawn Avenue; Cathy Nelson, 7117 West Shore Drive; Tina Thevenin, 8761 Lakeview Drive, Bloomington; Sheila Lissick, 4501 Oak Drive; Connie Hondl, LWV representative; Ruth Sauer, 3901 West 49th Street; and Kristine McKeon - Rohman, 7301 Oaklawn Avenue. Mayor Richards asked Park Director to comment on the recommendation. Park Director Keprios said he would support the proposed moratorium as recommended by the CHSAC. He said he saw his job as providing safe ground cover, e.g. safe for users, environment, humans, pets, but pointed out that all those are not necessarily compatible with the use of herbicides. Director Keprios said he was eager to learn more about the issue and to know what success the Minneapolis Park Board has had with their non - spraying policy. Mayor Richards asked if the City had any contractual obligations for this growing season and whether the Park Board has had a chance to discuss the recommendation. Director Keprios replied that he needed to check on any contracts; further that the Park Board has not seen the recommendation. Member Smith made a motion that staff be directed to bring back on August 1, 1994, a plan and process for the use of herbicides, the development of a policy regarding the use of pesticides and the need for a moratorium ordinance. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. APPOINTMENT MADE TO HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Mayor Richards advised that the Edina School Board has recommended appointment of Erick Strand to the Human Relations Commission as a School representative to fill the unexpired term'of Geoffrey McCray who has resigned from the Commission. Member Smith made a motion for consent of the Mayor's appointment of Erick Strand as School representative to the Human Relations Commission to fill an unexpired term to February 1, 1997. Motion was seconded by Member Kelly. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. *PERMIT AUTHORIZED FOR DISCHARGE OF FIREARM TO CONTROL BEAVERS AT BRAEMAR PARR Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly authorizing issuance of a permit to allow discharge of a firearm for beaver removal in Braemar Park. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *RESOLUTION APPROVING DESIGNATION OF POLLING LOCATION FOR PRECINCT 19 Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved approval: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING LOCATION EDINA PRECINCT 19 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that Calvary Lutheran Church, 6817 Antrim Road, Edina, MN 55439, be designated as the polling location for Precinct 19. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 15, 1994, SET FOR PARTIAL RELEASE OF CONSERVATION RESTRICTION ON LOT 4 AND LOT 5 - MARK DALOUIST ADDITION Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly setting August 15, 1994, as hearing date on the petition for partial release of the conservation restriction on Lot 4 and Lot 5 of the Mark Dalquist Addition. Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. *HEARING DATE OF AUGUST 15: 1994, SET FOR VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 5. BLOCK 7. WOODBURY PARK NEAR LAKE HARRIET (3617 W. 55TH STREET) Motion was made by Member Smith and was seconded by Member Kelly for adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF EASEMENT FOR UTILITY PURPOSES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby found and determined after receipt of the petition of the owner of the land affected thereby that the following described easement for utility purposes should be considered for vacation, in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 412.851 and 160.29: The easterly five feet of the following described strip of land: A ten (10.0) foot strip of land for a storm sewer or drainage ditch, the West property line of which is described as follows: Commencing at the South property line of West 55th Street and the centerline extended of Drew Avenue South, thence South a distance of two hundred. and fourteen (214.0) feet along the centerline of Drew Avenue South extended. 2. This Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the form of notice included in paragraph 3 hereof for the purpose of holding a public hearing on whether such vacation shall be made in the interest of the public. 3. The Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the time, place and purpose of said hearing to be published once a week for two weeks, in the Edina Sun - Current, being the official newspaper of the City, the first publication at least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing and to post such notice, at,least 14 days prior to the date of such hearing, in at least three (3) public and conspicuous places within the City, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851. Such notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON VACATION OF UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota, will meet at the Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street on August 15, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the proposed vacation of the following utility and drainage easement: The easterly five feet of the following described strip of land: A ten (10.0) foot strip of land for a storm sewer or drainage ditch, the West property line of which is described as follows: Commencing at the South property line of West 55th Street and the centerline extended of Drew Avenue South, thence South a distance of two hundred and fourteen (214.0) feet along the centerline of Drew Avenue South extended. All persons who desire to be heard with respect to the question of whether or not the above proposed easement vacation is in the public interest and should be made shall be heard at said time and place. The Council shall consider the extent to which such proposed easement vacation affects existing easements within the area of the proposed vacation and the extent to which the vacation affects the authority of any person, corporation, or municipality owning or controlling electric, telephone, or cable poles and lines, gas and sewer lines, or water pipes, mains and hydrants on or under the area of the proposed vacation, to continue maintaining the same or to enter upon such easement area or portion thereof vacated to maintain, repair, replace, remove, or otherwise attend thereto, for the purpose of specifying, in any such vacation resolution, the extent to which any or all of any such easements, and such authority to maintain, and to enter upon the area of the proposed vacation, shall continue. BY ORDER OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL Marcella M. Daehn, City Clerk Motion carried on rollcall vote - five ayes. ITINERANT FOOD LICENSE FOR EDINA MORNINGSIDE ROTARY DISCUSSED Manager Rosland said he had a request From the Edina Morningside Rotary concerning itinerant food licenses required by the City. Their group has been asked to support three events hosted by the 50th and France Merchant's Association. All profits are turned back to support community projects. Because the fee for an itinerant license is $70.00 per event, they are asking that the City consider issuing one itinerant food license for the season. Following discussion, the Council asked the City Attorney to check into the legal ramifications and work with staff to bring back a recommendation on the issue. RESPONSE TO AUDITOR MANAGEMENT LETTER DEFERRED TO AUGUST 15, 1994 Because of the late hour, Manager Rosland suggested that discussion on the response to the auditor management letter be deferred to August 15, 1994. The Council unanimously agreed to defer the matter to the meeting of August 15, 1994. CLAIMS PAID Member Smith made a motion to approve payment of the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated July 15, 1994, and consisting of 28 pages: General Fund $1,820,301.30; C.D.B.G. $1,695.00; Communication $156.22; Working Capital $10,321.67; Art Center $6,486.70; Swimming Pool $12,997.04; Golf Course $101,413.31; Ice Arena $16,755.49; Gun Range $343.22; Edinborough /Centennial Lakes $40,622.60; Utility Fund $53,617.59; Storm Sewer $2,378.67; Recycling $39,779.77; Liquor Fund $66,121.76; Construction Fund $231,444.85; IBR #2 Fund $316,435.00; TOTAL $2,720,870.19; and for confirmation of payment and the following claims as shown in detail on the Check Register dated July 13, 1994, and consisting of 10 pages: General Fund $107,111.37; Working Capital $290.00; Liquor Fund $291,939.63; TOTAL $399,341.00. Member Paulus seconded the motion. Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Smith, Richards Motion carried. There being no further business on the Council Agenda, Mayor Richards declared the meeting adjourned at 11:35 P.M. City Clerk I II 10 REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: Kenneth Rosland FROM: kris Aaker DATE: August 1, 1994 SUBJECT: Z-94 -1, and S -94 -3, Final Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval for 4101 West 50th Street, and 5014,5016,5024 Halifax Recommendation: Agenda Item # II. A. ❑ Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends F1 To HRA © To Council Action Motion Resolution ® Ordinance Discussion The Planning Commission recommends Final Rezoning, Preliminary Plat approval, and amendment to Comprehensive, Plan and 50th and France Avenue Plan subject to: 1. Final Plat Approval 2. _ Landscaping Bond 3. Watershed District Grading Permit Info /Background: See attached plans and Planning Commission minutes. The landscaping plan and grading plan have been revised to reflect concerns of the Planning commission. LOCATION MAP 1 1637 1 - — - _ 1901 1905 i i 1901 r— i _ _I I I I 1909 I /9D9 -T ---_ j 1903 1 1905 /912 1915 i 1 1916 -20 1916 1917 3916 3911 13910 3936 3922 -30 13916 1907 — — — - - 19 1/2 ST M i 1909 1920 1921 — — 7- �— 3935 i 1621 1911 1921 I 1925 1 I 1 1915 ^ 1926 ' 1929 1917 —r -1932 i N ' i = 11915 -I 1919 1936 11220 11200 1 1120 I� 4100 3916 °1 3926 13922 139!1 1 3906 I 50TH ST M 1211 1 1201 I If2f T/101 1 3915 1 -1�. ^ �II 3911 ITS .5001 1215 , 50031 I 1 1 5005 �' 1 y 5000 - f 6 I 1 5016 i 5017► 5011 1 5007 P4 �~ 9020 ~ 3913 i 1 5009 T� 5021 5021 5016 I 5020 I W 1 5011 1 I z 025 5021 I 39261 1 12 5013 \ 15032 15026 5029 5 5022-36 j 5036 _ IfI j 5015 5010 ST �) 5033 5032 I 1075 \ 5050 f 6 I 5017 r— 1 s�s� ---11 ~ 5011 5101 I 5100 5037 5036 f8 1 5019 � i I \ 5151 ST 1 5105 I 5101 M — ---}— — '0 7 5101 5100 1 I � 1 510! Ii 5100 SIOf� 1 5109 I 5108 5101 5100 5103 ~ —`- —~ 1 5105 S1D/� 5105 I I 5101 1 5113 I 5112 i 5105 5101 11 1 51 00 1 Sf05 — 1— --4 r— —� —y � 5 109 , j S 5109 I I5107 5108 I 1 5117 5116 i ' .1 5109 5108 5115 5112 1 3 -7 1 r5 l09 5112 ' 1 521 5120 J o 1 5113 1 5111 i i St !!7 t— 5!!6 ~� _� 5112 1 -�- 1 I 5121 1 5116] REZONING NUMBER Z -94 -1 and S -94 -3 L O C A T 10 N South of West 50th Street and west of Halifax Avenue REQUEST PCD -4 , Planned Commercial District, R -1 , Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD -4, Planned Residence District EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT -DRAFT P.C. MINUTES 6/29/94 Z -94 -1 Final Rezoning PCD -4, Planned Commercial District and R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD-4, Planned Residence District. Haymaker Construction and S -94 -3 Preliminary Plat Approval /Haymaker Addition and Amendment to Comprehensive Plan from Commercial to High Density Residential 4101 West.50th Street Location: 4101 West 50th Street and 5014,5016,5024 Halifax Ave. Mr. Larsen informed .the Commission the City Council, on May 16, 1994, granted Preliminary Rezoning for the. subject redevelopment. The approved plan calls for a 24 unit, three story condominium development. Included in that approval was a building setback variance for the easterly side of the building. At its closest point the building provides a 21 foot setback where 36 feet is required. A total of 56 parking spaces are provided, forty of those are under building spaces. The underbuilding count is four greater than that contained in the preliminary plan. Mr. Larsen explained the proponents have now submitted plans in support of their request for Final Rezoning approval. Included in those plans are floor plans, grading plan, landscape plan and schedule, and final site plan and building elevations. The proposed development is essentially identical to the plan. given preliminary approval. The site plan is unchanged. The exterior materials will be a combination of brick and stucco. The grading plan, however, is slightly different than the preliminary plan. The ground elevation at the building was shown at 887 on the preliminary plan. The final grading plan raises the elevation to 890 feet. According to the proponent the change was necessary to accommodate the garage entry and assure proper drainage. Mr. Larsen concluded the Final Development plans are consistent with those given preliminary approval. Density, parking, and landscaping comply with ordinance requirements. The building setback variance along the east property line remains the only variance requested. Mr. Larsen stated staff recommends amendment of the Land Use Plan and 50th and France Avenue plans, Final Rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval with the following conditions: 1 . Final Plat approval. 2, Approval of grading plan by City Engineer and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Alley Vacation. This will be heard by the City Council on July 5, 1994. 4. Developers Agreement. The proponent, Mr. Haymaker was present. Mr. Tracy Eickhorn- Hickes Attorney for Mr. Haymaker was present Chairman Johnson noted the 16 surface parking spaces depicted, and pointed out property owners may choose at times to park on the surface lot instead of in the parking garages. Chairman Johnson said if that happens parking could become a problem, especially when someone is having a party. Chairman Johnson said a concern of his is the possibility of on- street parking, and suggested posting no parking signs on one side of the street. Mr. Larsen responded in his opinion the 40 underground parking stalls plus the 16 surface parking stalls are adequate. Chairman Johnson noted the amount of greenspace present on the site and asked if a Proof -of- Parking Agreement could be implemented if additional parking is needed. Mr. Larsen stated he does not recommend a Proof -of- Parking Agreement. He pointed out the proposed plan exceeds city ordinance requirements. In response to the concern regarding over -flow parking Mr. Larsen suggested if a owner is planning a large party the city would not object to visitors occasionally parking in the city ramp. Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Larsen if Mr. Hoffman is comfortable with the proposed change to the drainage swale. Mr. Larsen said Mr. Hoffman has reviewed plans, and suggested the change. Mr. Tracy Eickhorn- Hickes, told commission members they are willing to work with staff, and the watershed district, and implement all drainage plans suggested. . ' Commissioner Hale asked Mr. Haymaker if there is another way to solve the drainage issue. Mr. Haymaker stated after study of the original plan it was noted that drainage went directly into the basement parking area. Continuing, Mr. Haymaker said he hired Sunde Surveyors, and they suggested raising the grade to prevent drainage problems. Mr. Haymaker concluded all water run -off from the building will tie into the storm sewers. Commissioner Johnson said his concern is with the overall appearance and mass of the structure, and suggested lessening the scope of the building by planting larger caliper trees. Continuing, Commissioner Johnson stated the trees that buffer residential properties should be six inch instead of the proposed two inch and 12 feet instead of the proposed six feet. Commissioner Johnson pointed out because the site requires a variance we have more control, and can recommend additional and larger plantings to soften the impact of the building, especially to the south and west. Chairman Johnson asked Commissioner Johnson to clarify his concern. Commissioner Johnson pointed out the elevation of the site has been raised, and a three story building will be constructed. If we accept the present landscaping schedule it will take a number of years before the trees mature. Commissioner Johnson said larger and taller trees will soften the mass of the building, and bring it into proportion with the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson pointed out this is an established neighborhood and larger, taller more mature plantings are warranted. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Larsen if the current landscaping is acceptable by city standards. Mr. Larsen responded the proposed landscaping plan meets city standards when implemented with the existing trees on site. Commissioner McClelland suggested planting more Evergreens on the south side. Evergreens provide coverage year round. Commissioner Swenson said in her opinion she wants to see a variety of trees planted. She pointed out evergreens are full and the bottom and tapper off toward the top where deciduous trees are small at the bottom and are full at the top. She stated she believes this variety is needed. Mr. Haymaker asked if the commission is expecting the landscaping to hide the building adding that would not be possible. Commissioner Johnson said he only wants to see landscaping in proportion with the building. Mr. Haymaker concluded by explaining a landscaping architect was hired to develop a plan, and he is not sure of the architects vision for the site. Commissioner Johnson reiterated in his opinion it will take too many years for the proposed trees to mature and offer relief. Commissioner Johnson pointed out this property is in unique because single family homes are so near. Commissioner Johnson concluded he endorses the proposal but wants to see larger and taller trees on the south and west property lines. Mr. Haymaker said it is his understanding that a six inch Spruce tree can grow as much as two feet per year. Mr. Haymaker added his vision of the site is a clean, landscaped, maintained site. Not a overgrown site. Commissioner Faust asked Mr. Haymaker his construction schedule, and the cost of the proposed condos. Mr. Haymaker said the site needs to be abated, and the property prepared for construction adding he is uncertain on the exact time frame. Mr. Haymaker indicated the price of the units will begin at around $220 -240 thousand. Mr. Haymaker reported presently there have been inquiries requesting larger units. If potential buyer confirm on larger units the total number of units in the building may decrease. Commissioner Ingwalson asked Mr. Haymaker what type of materials will be used on the roof. Mr. Haymaker said the roof will be mansard style with asphalt shingles. W Commissioner Byron stated he supports the plan presented suggested the commission should clarify our position on the discussion that has occurred on landscaping. Commissioner Johnson explained his position is he supports the proposal, but prefers the landscaping to be proportionate to the building and the established neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson stated this can be accomplished in his opinion by planting a variety of trees and vegetation and increasing the caliper of the trees. Commissioner Byron added he wants the council to understand if we recommend an increase in tree size it is for more than screening. We are trying to achieve a proportionate balance with the size of the building, and the size of the mature trees that exist in this neighborhood. Chairman Johnson said if we approve this proposal we can recommend as a condition of approval increase tree sizes. Chairman Johnson asked Commissioner Johnson if he would be comfortable adding that as condition #5. Commissioner Johnson said he is comfortable with recommending it as a condition of approval. Commissioner Workinger said he is concerned with the depicted grading and slope which drains toward the garage. Mr. Larsen pointed out that issue is a concern of staff's, and as indicated the change in elevation will cause a change in drainage. Mr. Archie Smith, 5017 Indianola, said his concern is with drainage. He added his property is the most impacted and suggested constructing a catch basin in the alley. Mr. Smith added he agrees the landscaping should be larger and taller. Commissioner Runyan asked Mr. Smith where his property drained. Mr. Smith stated his property drains to the east. He pointed out his yard is the lowest point in the area. Mr. Larsen clarified staff and Mr. Haymaker are aware of the drainage issue. Commissioner Swenson asked Mr. Larsen if drainage concerns would be handled jointly between planning and engineering staff, Mr. Haymaker, and Mr. Smith. Mr. Larsen responded that is correct. He pointed out staff and Mr. Haymaker are aware of the drainage, and everyone will work together. , Mrs. Smith stated she wants the trees moved up higher on the slope to provide more screening. Commissioner Ingwalson moved to recommend final rezoning approval subject to staff conditions, and the additional condition to modify the landscaping plan to allow for larger, taller plantings on the south and west side, this is to be approved by staff. Commissioner Swenson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 29, 1994 Z -94 -1 Final Rezoning PCD -4, Planned Commercial District and R -1, Single Dwelling Unit District to PRD-4, Planned Residence District. Haymaker Construction and S -94 -3 Preliminary Plat Approval /Haymaker Addition and Amendment to Comprehensive Plan from Commercial to High Density Residential 4101 West 50th Street Location: 4101 West 50th Street and 5014,5016,5024 Halifax Ave. The City Council, on May 16, 1994, granted Preliminary Rezoning for the subject redevelopment. The approved plan calls for a 24 unit, three story condominium development. Included in that approval was a building setback variance for the easterly side of the building. At its closest point the building provides a 21 foot setback where 36 feet is required. A total of 56 parking spaces are provided, forty of those are under building spaces. The underbuilding count is four greater than that contained in the preliminary plan. The proponents have now submitted plans in support of their request for Final Rezoning approval. Included in those plans are floor plans, grading plan, landscape plan and schedule, and final site plan and building elevations. The proposed development is essentially identical to the plan given preliminary approval. The site plan is unchanged. The exterior materials will be a combination of brick and stucco. The grading plan, however, is slightly different than the preliminary plan. The ground elevation at the building was shown at 887 on the preliminary plan. The final grading plan raises the elevation to 890 feet. According to the proponent the change was necessary to accommodate the garage entry and assure proper drainage. M Recommendation The Final Development plans are consistent with those given preliminary approval. Density, parking, and landscaping comply with ordinance requirements. The building setback variance along the east property line remains the only variance requested. Fran Hoffman has reviewed the grading plan and has a concern about the drainage on the west side of the building. A modification may be necessary to ensure this site does not increase run off on to adjacent properties. The Watershed District has not approved the grading permit at this writing. They are scheduled to review the plan at their July meeting. Staff recommends amendment of the Land Use Plan and 50th and France Avenue plans, Final Rezoning and Preliminary Plat approval with the following conditions: 1 . Final Plat approval. 2, Approval of grading plan by City Engineer and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Alley Vacation. This will be heard by the City Council on July 5, 1994. 4. Developers Agreement. 0 MINUTES OF THE RECUTAR MEETING OF THE EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT CITY HALL MAY 16, 1994 .answering rollcall were Members Kelly, Paulus, Rice, and Mayor CONSENT AC APPROVED Motion vas made by Member Rice and vas seconded by Member Paulus to' a a the Council Consent Agenda items as presented. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Ri chards Motion carried. it W"VLiVU yr ntiitC ll iifiiVq a+ WKLL;.0 - c uvnMj-Ln %.aunliQ 7vin "n1YP.liJAKi Motion of Member Rice vas seconded by Mem us and-carried uaanimoosly for adoption of a Resolution of Appreciation - 50 versary of Edina Covenant Church. *MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 2. 1994 APPROVED". n vas made by Member Rice and vas seconded by Member Paulus to approve the m f the Regular Co=cil Meeting of May 2, 1994, PRELIMINARY REZONING GRANTED - PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. PCD -4 AND SINGLE DVELI.ZNC UNIT DISTRICT. R -1 TO PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT. PRD -4 FOR 4101 VEST 50TH STREET. 5014, 5016 AND 5024 HALIFAX AVENUE Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen recalled that the request for preliminary rezoning from Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 and Single Dwelling Unit District, R -1 to Planned Residence District. PRD -4 for 4101 West 50th street, 5014, 5016 and 5024 Halifax Avenue was considered by the Council on April 18, 1994, and continued to May 16, 1994, to allow the proponent to present a revised plan for Council consideration. The revised plan illustrates a three story 24 unit building, compared to the earlier 26 unit building. Building width 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 %. slightly below the allowable 308 coverage. The plan illustrates 36 under building parking spaces and 16 surface spaces and the parking conforms with ordinance requirements. The proposed density conforms to( zoning ordinance requirements and to the 50th and France Redevelopment Plan. The proposal 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 corner of the building. 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 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 allowing the area to be heavily landscaped. The proponent has prepared a model of the proposed development illustrating the spacial relationship to neighborhood buildings. Presentation by Proponent Tracy Eichorn-Hicks stated that he was an attorney representing the proponent, F Haymaker Construction. He recalled that the proposal was first heard by the Council on March 21, 1994. At that meeting the Council had raised several issues: building length, lot coverage, exterior design, building materials and aesthetic appeal but had generally agreed that the proposed land use was appropriate. On April 18. 1994, the proponent presented a revised plan which reduced the building length from 260 feet to 235 feec, reduced the number of units from 28 to 26 and reduced the lot coverage from 35.78 to 31.98. The facade of the building was reworked and the surface parking was moved to the south allowing the building to be more centered on the site. The revised plan also eliminated the curb cut on West 50th Street. The Council had commenced that it was a good land use, Was a good transition and that generally the Council was encouraged by the changes chat had been made. The Council did indicate that they wanted to see more detail as to how the building ;could be sited in comparison to other buildings and the buffer transicion in terms of spacial relationships. Mr. Eichorn -Hicks said that the following changes have been proposed: 1) building length reduced to 210 feet, 2) building height lowered to 36 feet, 3) green space on the south increased to 35 feet, and 4) units reduced in number to 24. He said the proponent had met with the residents of the neighborhood the past Wednesdav and their response was good. He concluded by asking the Council to consider favorably the revised plan for the development, including the requested 15 foot setback variance. Public Comment Penny Van Kampen. 5117 Halifax Avenue, said she still had a concern about the exterior materials for the building and the landscaping. Robeta Costellano, 4854 France Avenue, asked where the building height was measured from because of the grade changes on the site. Andy Costellano. 5108 Corgas Avenue, commented that good progress has been made by moving the parking lot back and reducing the building height. Because the building is only set back 15 feet from Halifax Avenue, he questioned the marketability of the units. Council Commenc /Action Mayor Richards noted that approval of preliminary rezoning is recommended subject to: 1) final rezoning, 2),replacting, 3) amendment of Comprehensive Plan. 4) amendment of 50th and France Plan. 5) vacation of alley, and 6) watershed district grading permit. He suggested that a development contract that would address specifics of exterior materials. landscaping, etc. be made a condition for final plat approval. Member Rice commented that the plan as revised conforms co ordinance requirements for lot coverage and density. He said he agreed with the suggestion that a development contract be a condition for final plat approval for this landmark property. He said he had some concern about the closeness of the building to West 50th Street because of the sight lines concerning traffic safety and asked staff to look at that issue. Member Rice made a motion to approve preliminary rezoning and to adopt the following ordinance, subject to: 1) final rezoning. 2) replatting. 3) amendment of Comprehensive Plan. 4) amendment of 50th and France Plan. 5) vacation of the alley. 6) watershed district grading permit. and 7) development contract as condition for final plat approval: ORDINANCE NO. 850 -A4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 850) BY REZONING PROPERTY TO PLANNED RESIDENCE DISTRICT, PRD -4 FROM PLANNED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, PCD -4 AND FROM SINGLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT. R -1 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1.. Subsection 850.06 of Section 850 of the Edina City Code is amended by adding the following thereto: "The extent of the Planned Residence District, PRD -4 is enlarged by the addition of the following property: Parcel l: The vest 24.62 feet of Lot 1 and the East 20 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, STEVENS' 1ST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS, according to the recorded plat thereof. Parcel 2: Lot 6. Block 1. STEVENS' 1ST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS, together with the East 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent thereto lying between the extension Westerly of the North and South lines of said Lot according to the recorded plat thereof. Parcel 3: Lot 7, Block 1, STEVENS' 1ST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS, except the East 5 feet thereof, together with the East 1/2 of the vacated alley adjacent thereto lying between the extension Westerly of the North and South lines of said Lot 7, according to the recorded plat thereof. Parcel 4: The East 96 feet of Lot 1. Block 1. STEVENS' FIRST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS, excepting therefrom the Easterly 5 feet thereof conveyed to the Village of Edina for Highway purposes by Deed dated May 19, 1922, and recorded in Book No. 956 of Deeds on page 334. Also, excepting therefrom that part of Lot 1. Block 1, STEVENS' FISST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS. lying South of the North 7 feet of said Lot 1. Vest of East 5 feet of said Lot 1, Easterly of a curved line concave to the East line, radius 353.33 feet drawn from a point in South line of North 7 feet of said Lot 1. distance i5 feet West of East line of said Lot 1 to point in West line of East 5 feet of said Lot 1, distance 90.66 feet South of the North line of said Lot 1. Also excepting therefrom that part of Lot 1, Block 1, STEVENS' FIRST ADDITION TO MINNEAPOLIS, lying South of the North 7 feet of said Lot 1. westerly of the following described line: A curved line which is concave to the East and has a radius of 353.33 feet and is drawn from a point in the South line of the North 7 feet of said Lot 1, distance 15 feet vest of the East line of said Lot 1 to a point in the West line of the East 5 feet of said Lot 1, distant 90.66 feet South of the North line of said Lot 1 (Line "A"); AND Northeasterly of a curved Line, concave to the Southwest. having a radius of 30.00 feet, and which is tangential with the South line of the North 7 feet of said Lot 1 and with said Line "A ". Hennepin County. Minnesota. Parcel 5: Lot 1, Block 1, CLEBVIEY ADDITION. The extent of the Planned Commercial District, PCD -4 is reduced by removing the property described above as Parcel 1 and Parcel 4 from the PCD -4 District." Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and publication. Motion for preliminary rezoning was seconded by Member Kelly. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus. Rice. Richards Motion carried. Affidavits of Notice were presented, UNiT E UNiT A UNIT A r., fC REPORT /RECOMMENDATION TO: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item #I I • B FROM: Kris Aaker Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA DATE: August 1, 1994 x❑ To Council SUBJECT: Preliminary Rezoning Action Motion PCD -4 to PCd -3 Planned Commercial District. xx Resolution 3500 West 69th Street ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning and also recommends that the Council waive the second reading of the rezoning. Info /Background: See attached plans, planning commission minutes and staff report. - DRAFT P.C. MINUTES 6/29/94 Z -94 -3 PCD -4, Planned Commercial District to PCD -3, Planned Commercial District 3500 West 69th Street. General Growth Management, Inc. Mr. Larsen informed the Commission the subject site is located in the south central area of the Southdale Center property. The site was formerly developed with a service station, but is currently vacant. The proposed rezoning would make the zoning for this site consistent with, the zoning of the shopping center. Mr. Larsen said the proposed rezoning would allow for the redevelopment of this site for a banking facility. The development envisions a building with 1,826 square feet of floor area along with four drive through teller lanes. The site plan illustrates 10 parking spaces, including one disabled parking space. The primary exterior material is shown as brick. r Mr. Larsen explained the proposed building meets the 50 foot setback required by the PCD -3 district. The plan also meets' ordinance requirements for parking, parking setbacks and stacking spaces for the drive through lanes. Mr. Larsen pointed out the plan for the southeast Edina Transit /Walkway would enter Southdale property just to the east of this site. At this point we do not have the necessary easement in place to secure this access. The access would not interfere with the centers ring road system, and would connect to the existing sidewalk on center. property. Mr. Larsen concluded the plans submitted meet the requirements for final rezoning approval. Staff recommends rezoning approval,'including waiver of second reading with the following conditions: 1. Granting Transit /Walkway Easement 2. Watershed District Grading Permit Mr. Ron Thomas was present representing General Growth Management, the proponent. Chairman Johnson questioned Mr. Larsen if the City is still considering a transit system, or is the "Bee Line" the system that will be implemented in this area. . Mr. Larsen said the city is still considering implementing a transit system and the present request will not affect the ring road system. The "Bee Line" transit system is independent. Chairman Johnson asked Mr. Thomas how many other "spot" areas are within the Southdale campus that could be redeveloped. Mr. Thomas explained_ there are two other sites within the Southdale Campus. The Firestone site which is owned by J.C. Penney Co., and the Midas site. Continuing, Mr. Thomas said the Midas building is earmarked to be razed when the lease runs out. , Commissioner McClelland asked Mr. Thomas who owns the Midas site. Mr. Thomas responded the Midas site is owned by Equitable. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr: Larsen what would prevent Southdale from constructing independent stores in the parking area. Mr. Larsen said if all requirements are met nothing would prevent development of "spot" stores, adding he believes the major department stores do not want their visibility obstructed by buildings. Mr. Larsen said this situation is self - policing. Mr. Thomas agreed, he stated he very seriously doubts the management company for Southdale would provide incentives to spot develop. Commissioner Workinger questioned if the subject site needs to be abated. Mr. Thomas said the site was abated in 1993. Commissioner Workinger asked if the site requires additional curb cuts. Mr. Thomas said there will be no change to the site. Commissioner Workinger asked why staff has recommended waiving the second reading. Mr. Larsen explained the plans presented are complete, and everything that needs to be accomplished has been accomplished. Commissioner Swenson questioned if the trees will remain. Mr. Thomas responded they will try to save all vegetation by relocating them and replanting. Commissioner Ingwalson asked if the subject site will be sold to the bank or will it be leased. Mr. Thomas stated the bank will lease the site. Chairman Johnson asked if the bank will have independent signage from Southdale. Mr. Larsen said the bank is proposing individual signage including a monument freestanding sign. Chairman Johnson asked if monument signs are allowed in this zoning district. Mr. Larsen said freestanding sign are allowed in this district, and pointed out southdale has four identification monuments located on the four corners. Mr. Larsen said signage for the bank will require sign permits, staff approval and will meet city signage requirements. Commissioner Hale moved to recommend rezoning approval subject to staff conditions and waiving 2nd reading. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. LOCATION MAP I r FAIRVI SOUT ®� HOi, si W. - - I � 1 ao� 7/ /0, SOUTHDALE ` SHOPPING CENTER O r 1 5o j TH. REZONING NUMBER Z -94 -3 L O C A T 10 N 3500 West 69th Street Ll SOUTH ST M YI ■ f�l REQUEST Rezone from PCD -4, Planned Commercial District to PCD -3, Planned Commercial District EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT EDINA PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT JUNE 29, 1994 Z -94 -3 PCD -4, Planned Commercial District to PCD -3, Planned Commercial District 3500 West 69th Street. General Growth Management, Inc. The subject site is located in the south central area of the Southdale Center property. The site was formerly developed with a service station, but is currently vacant. The proposed rezoning would make the zoning for this site consistent with the zoning of the shopping center. The proposed rezoning would allow for the redevelopment of this site for a banking facility. The development envisions a building with 1,826 square feet of floor area along with four drive through teller lanes. The site plan illustrates 10 parking spaces, including one disabled parking space. The primary exterior material is shown as brick. The proposed building meets the 50 foot setback required by the PCD -3 district. The plan also meets ordinance requirements for parking, parking setbacks and stacking spaces for the drive through lanes. The plan for the southeast Edina Transit /Walkway would enter Southdale property just to the east of this site. At this point we do not have the necessary easement in place to secure this access. The access would not interfere with the centers ring road system, and would connect to the existing sidewalk on center property. The proponents have submitted plans that meet the requirements for final rezoning. Plans include grading, drainage, and landscaping plan and schedule. The proponents are requesting that the commission and council waive the second reading of the rezoning. Recommendation The proposed rezoning is consistent with zoning on the majority of the centers' site. The proposed development meets all zoning ordinance standards and requires no variances. Development of this site will not change or interfere with the existing ring road system. The plans submitted meet the requirements for final rezoning approval. Staff recommends rezoning approval, including waiver of second reading with the following conditions: 1. Granting Transit /Walkway Easement 2. Watershed District Grading Permit )R: asroo'oo' R =60.00 L-47.12 T- -24.85 LC-45.92 - 2.82 11'06' =2.00 -3.15 , f -2.017 = 2.83 IL._ GENERAL GROWTH CENTER COMPANIES, INC. SOUTHDALE CENTER PARKING LOT 1= 72.08'00' R =100.00 =125.90 -72.83 LC =11 .75 J Z. ,cam. °► 011?/ � ^ JI W Q $ \j 0 4t /• '514 *��nin / TA &A oar X06 ,a s I E* PINE N 'A U g� • Olo• YAPLL O! MAKE 4� �'` BITUMINOUS AREA G P GRASS AND o' `ol YY w .AB:.E INFONMAncm. S %onnCAro% OF ^ E 'O:PHCR IIUTY LOCA-CNS PRIOR I.^, ANY BASED ON %OUND LOCATOR, -SED ON raw LGC4IOR MARKINGS IASED ON FOUND LOCATOR MARKINGS IS APPROKIMArE ONLY AND IS BASED ON .uRVEYOR Br IHC OwCR. THE LOCAnON Of A WATER SERVICE OR THE TIME or THIS SURVEY. 'Y WOICAIINC UNDEkGRCUND FUEL TANKS A GAS SIAION PREAOUSLT LOCATED LEGEND: PLANTED g q�2'ri- A •PK' DENOTES •PK(- NAIL PROPERTY CORNER. 4 0 AREA Y ' s LIGHT. ' °0' m SPRINKLER VALVE. •. I- •, WII O,e• MAPLE SP VAL-ER T! vAl'E S, lF 6• YAPiE * 6•Pg UNDERCROUND TELEPHONE CABLE. — —, + — — — 2 TL7.-:i -E NOEFKAROM'!DEv[C WIC -/ �. BASE T=5.02 0.5 CONCRETE CURB LC =7.08 j PINE Qz. G 014• MAPLE 368.98 —I- K JNDERG OUNO,„ :w(n.� .'C 3, SANITAaN 89'S2'S4� E�� T - -0 5 CONCRE R CURB I WEST 69TH w .AB:.E INFONMAncm. S %onnCAro% OF ^ E 'O:PHCR IIUTY LOCA-CNS PRIOR I.^, ANY BASED ON %OUND LOCATOR, -SED ON raw LGC4IOR MARKINGS IASED ON FOUND LOCATOR MARKINGS IS APPROKIMArE ONLY AND IS BASED ON .uRVEYOR Br IHC OwCR. THE LOCAnON Of A WATER SERVICE OR THE TIME or THIS SURVEY. 'Y WOICAIINC UNDEkGRCUND FUEL TANKS A GAS SIAION PREAOUSLT LOCATED LEGEND: oe nJu R =128.70 :ENOTES :RON •IROPERrY CORNER A •PK' DENOTES •PK(- NAIL PROPERTY CORNER. 4 0 TREES. s LIGHT. ' w SPRINKLER VALVE. {,— UNDERGROUND GAS MAIN. — — — _- — -- — — UNDERCROUND TELEPHONE CABLE. — —, + — — — UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC CABLE. SS — UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. T=5.02 0.5 CONCRETE CURB 92s -�ssc� 06*ASH Q16•IIAPIL * rwlE GRASS AND \ •Z• OKA COMC.6ASE O 16•YARi SD PRINKLER EVALA VE TE PLANTAV To.! I.: 1 =17'52'00' oe nJu R =128.70 L= 400p.�1223 Rc�a �1°• 33 r LC?S& nl o FYNI JONCRE TE ....0 —B 1°45.00.00" R =40.00 IPali D L- 361.442 C 130.61 1 1= 859.0408'54' L= 7.87 T=5.02 LC =7.08 -- _ 0.5 CCNCREIT CURB STREET LEGAL OESCR,Pnom: TRACI H, REGISTERED LAND SURVET NO. 679. FUS Or InE AEOSIRAR OF nRLS W AND FOR .IENENPIN .. COuk^— M`NNESOTA 1 HEREBY CEJIRrY, CHAT IRIS SURVET. PLAN OR REPORT WAS PREPARED By ME On UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION . AND THAI 1 AY A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER' THE LW or THE STATE Or MINNESOTA. - DATE: ' +1T711r REG. NO. 13792 k ASSOCIATES. INC. oe nJu C. E. COULTER PWFESSION'L REDSRFCD SWYEYORS Rc�a �1°• IAUa, KISG A IORA nl o FYNI FAaYm rAFAA'I IRFFIa. Ip �1N ��• IPali D 9Q1 K a I f. coao'. 1.:41.n' s.es' 00,04011 J .-J.w 6�•l.19" WE5T " (ogTH STREET SITE PLA ® . ��!''j4o' Zo1�111[, ¢ Gobi �1�oRMA'flof� f4&*WTwI TAFb11 `024 A *-,tY myj 6 Anal C PAfoll,C LzJUT S ec `flF p1 4ml G091VA CA40wtb mo• ru} ARw rmf x a n I �ca41 D�IPil�t� eoa4s v?- rrMw nur d ,p sfE/eD w�D e+f��>r r� u :� rlW�r�i 1 P.JW OPUS nib ►ta,rse�R cr Trite i� ONO FOR x.1eN >I�' w.a.+op" �Ytyor. I.I sdd Rws• N{MoN �fapR1 'ueor ficTlFPi �a ed row+• e4u>Y A +r'� ewe tr.d wnepl (1.w �w �'�- - e • .WD wrr, vl115 sa.e f wmgvr. mm�eei�.e s•e')A}a Or rqulb Hob - . wa f L e.M 6CHMIT Ch �6,6501,ICIATE6 M n Q Q U 1, T �Tt Fj B L 1 N K tf.11AA. 1-IINNt0 U'I n 6gµ1, MV, �) t+wT ta^lw f NwATI or aW,DN�a�"YS,t'Ta 1� !G DtTtIMIIO al�+� t Wff, L�ww �I �s,�a 1 or ALL, ufa1nV%' WA.en,wa►R�w4+RR,EY)PR+M Te a eunw inn F �ww�iW� eL, P wr Parr f 0 jE is, her Haer w �1. 0 L • l.15' . W 5T �OTH STREET �aiub.l,'y/O• i1a}!+� anrR ■woc�Tad a �7nes�• J41O ��'. - -�o�- •d f�� . Y Y Y�d•a•OID y ..r Wr S rTk%A • wAR' '...r..+ .,op .a.n'! -wm ►Y 2.8 r w .nom ar..luR J W.ayafC %bat•Gal. aYx� — _�� —N1L s, — aa4i�Iaf>f W� �Of6b u.q �c�T W • f.,rv10.1 � M d•d, fyf�YA OI+I��R A M ..14•,f•aD R a� ' n �r �Kf�QI N•aif101 A 4y fli .i�L•IiL atYl L ( 6CHMIT C4 (560CIATU PA E "ackml 9A%)91 1 WCHITECT6 MA�QUETTC BARK eGIUA. `INNe30'fA 0 ,L,. -d 40.1!• •40.Od 11.4ti • 1.si 6CfiMITT k3 )cSoOCIATEcS PA •UT 6iYlf II RCMITECTS � .•.., ..; it si}A• .T+Mrti .wt!i ..rvwe^ j+u• 1•MiV rof- - V-41, IM. iWR►4 Y.�pl•�YUOM•,•->MUlI•A h T• IM.V�►r. I'i (`) WWTIW %AL MVT ft tea. MMf N1 C•(, �fWe 1 P.Y.6 >WL W F..Allo IJW IJ 1.114 311N440 avrtel vMr jr ro►, w,b�J, w� rrr -0 ro ww+s -=Npb vnu►1 N.A�, ral vrx� >erw+1 rkrr �+1. >, >tLn 4-IS &.uw rYsIV14LAL, u1rtL.t1l • rWJ 1Wsft Wr nb4vf • .r0 AI ' D1. Lu �a Wit, r,r•14. L1 4PLL VAWW .f M• Jr q" L4f4o Pooh •F Istis -VA"rf rvLL 9"T 2...4, -aj q.IM AMD DLTAic r•F ARWI 6 rNR : IXAR 4 s41TPJ.M Loa hL W AT iw. Ala .(Dlrrr>VA TMF /o..lc !►�'•: u)f'r4 ►�'MA* 6.V-V& ?Lts ft, M Y -%-W PLAOT MATWALS LIST t •rwr' H 1�1d E0T U� rY M� 4126�Favf1 R �' 9%6w IWIs JY.t 1• 7i1+YaJM E'/a•IwL Eb CAMP, 10MIPS;JS W� alLL+1' e d winJ+: �w• TA U (Jxi:•RA 31' DN. 66 ' AwlFb t. "toRT/W -i •� 4wwkf- ow ` i..010 - - rrt • IMPG �� ,�'i• �• _ 1 rY•/�1q>' 1 1 •�wl Jrr'•i afht w - -.� —�- -dw1� .. ` alb .i yyylT lw Jr n�rlv ,- A, . I;� nH'bPM T i9 I T 7 r r r ,�r�, ,end 6CfiMITT k3 )cSoOCIATEcS PA •UT 6iYlf II RCMITECTS � .•.., ..; it si}A• .T+Mrti .wt!i ..rvwe^ j+u• 1•MiV rof- - V-41, IM. iWR►4 Y.�pl•�YUOM•,•->MUlI•A h T• IM.V�►r. I'i (`) WWTIW %AL MVT ft tea. MMf N1 C•(, �fWe 1 P.Y.6 >WL W F..Allo IJW IJ 1.114 311N440 avrtel vMr jr ro►, w,b�J, w� rrr -0 ro ww+s -=Npb vnu►1 N.A�, ral vrx� >erw+1 rkrr �+1. >, >tLn 4-IS &.uw rYsIV14LAL, u1rtL.t1l • rWJ 1Wsft Wr nb4vf • .r0 AI ' D1. Lu �a Wit, r,r•14. L1 4PLL VAWW .f M• Jr q" L4f4o Pooh •F Istis -VA"rf rvLL 9"T 2...4, -aj q.IM AMD DLTAic r•F ARWI 6 rNR : IXAR 4 s41TPJ.M Loa hL W AT iw. Ala .(Dlrrr>VA TMF /o..lc !►�'•: u)f'r4 ►�'MA* 6.V-V& ?Lts ft, M Y -%-W PLAOT MATWALS LIST (,WHOP qwt, E0T U� rY M� 4126�Favf1 R �' 9%6w IWIs JY.t 1• 7i1+YaJM E'/a•IwL Eb CAMP, 10MIPS;JS W� alLL+1' 'b uMwdtR >r►tr0,lkr YL:beb Y .4. TA U (Jxi:•RA 31' DN. 66 N741" 3111114- AwlFb t. "toRT/W -i •� 4wwkf- MAD O-UETTF, BANK EDIIN ,. IIIN"C'3 )T.'• I a. Elm i ,*&T tv Ale or .. .11 11 I I I � I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I rIF�T Favor~ Zoe4 t& F T ± �sC*n MITT C� A660C IATE6 nA M L \ � U I�, tI1 t�l I I3 I1 N K • AI °I CHITCCT6 ftA1.e' y61. fo• one M AVA opPIPAN JOEyTMF-141 6GMPaNY� LWI M I TT , 2 kr2zl g! . Arm Cx� REPORT /RECOMMENDATION T0: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item # II. C. FROM: Kris Aaker F] Consent Information Only E Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA DATE: August 1, 1994 Fx1 To Council SUBJECT: Action Motion S -94 -2, Final Plat Approval. Lewis Ridge 0 Resolution Townhomes ❑ Ordinance Discussion Recommendation: Final Plat approval subject to: 1. Executed Developer's Agreement 2. Executed access easement to Lewis Ridge Parkway Info /Background: The City Council approved the Preliminary Plat and Final Development Plan at their June 20, 1994, meeting. Subdivision dedication was satisfied with Phase I of this development. support the motion but would not preclude r. Clark the opportunity to come back with a reasonable deve t for the property. Mayor Richards then called for vote on the n. Ayes: Kell us, Rice, Smith, Richards Mot' arried. 1 1 FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PRELINIHARy PLAT APPROVED FOR LEVIS RIDGE TOWNHOMES (LOT 2 BLACK 1 AND OUTLOT B. LEWIS RIDGE) Affidavits of Notice were presented, �O approved and ordered placed on file. �i Presentation by Planner Planner Larsen presented the request for Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat approval for the Lewis Ridge Townhomes located on,Lot 2, Block 1 and Outlot B, Lewis Ridge Parkway. The, subject property is zoned Planned Residence District (PRD -3). The approved zoning anticipated a three story, 54 unit condominium building which would be the mirror image of the existing Lewis Ridge which has not been developed. A..proposal has been submitted by a new property owner which would replace the 54 unit condo building with a 15 unit townhouse development. As a result, the overall density would be reduced to approximately six units per acre with a net of approximately 5.2 units per acre. Access to the development would be by Lewis Ridge Drive, a private street. It is staff's understanding that necessary easements to utilize this access to service the 15 unit project are in place. The proposed development requests two setback variances. First, unit 12 along the north property line maintains a 30 foot setback where 35 feet is required. All other building setbacks comply with ordinance standards. Second, along the easterly property line, the drive aisle comes-within six feet of the property line; ten feet is the required setback. Thus, a five foot building setback variance and a four foot parking setback variance are requested. The proposed exterior materials and landscaping plan meet or exceed ordinance minimums. The buildings will be primarily stucco with brick fronts and wood shake roofs. Two unit types will be constructed, one with 2,720 square feet and the other with 2,880 square feet of floor area. The proposed use would be consistent with PRD -3 zoning which makes no distinction between townhouses and apartment style condominiums except that townhouses are required to have two enclosed parking spaces. The switch to townhouses would reduce density and would lower the expected trip generation from the site. Staff would support granting the two requested variances. The combination of grade change and landscaping should eliminate any negative impact on adjacent properties. In both cases, the grade on adjacent properties is significantly above the grade on this site. At its meeting on June 1, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Final Development Plan and Preliminary Plat, subject to: 1) Final Plat Approval, 2) Developers Agreement, 3) Watershed District Grading Permit, and (4) Permanent easement for access to Lewis Ridge Parkway. Presentation by Developer Ron Clark, Ron Clark Construction, commented that on the north side of the parcel a finger of land comes out to Cahill Road which is the access point for the development which they close not to use because of the terrain. Also, La Chataignier condominiums are immediately to the south and have a permanent monument there. Mr. Clark said he had met numerous times with the Lewis Ridge Condominium owners and has negotiated and purchased from them an easement to use their current driveway off of Cahill Road into where the.private drive for the townhomes would begin. Mr. Clark explained that 11 lower profile, rambler walkout units would be oriented to the park and would be bermed and heavily landscaped to provide maximum privacy for the Lewis Ridge Condominiums and the new townhomes. The four units to the north would be two story homes with a double tiered, 12 foot high retaining wall because of the steep grade and the five foot building setback variance is requested for this area. Public Comment Glen McDonald, 7200 Cahill Road, stated he was a member of the La Chataignier Board. He told Council that the Board is in full accord with the proposal and would hope that the development would proceed. Mr. McDonald said the Board's only concern is that they want assurance that access to the townhomes will be from Lewis Ridge Drive as proposed. Joanne Gruggen, La Chataignier, 7200 Cahill Road, asked for clarification of the variance request on the east for the driveway. Planner Larsen explained that this variance is requested because the driveway off Lewis Ridge Drive near the first two units only would come within six feet of the easterly property line that abuts La Chataignier Condominiums. Ms. Gruggen said her concern was that the entire length of the driveway would be too close. Member Smith introduced the following resolution and moved adoption: RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LEWIS RIDGE TOWNHO14ES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that the Final Development Plan for Lewis Ridge Tornhomes, Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot B, Lewis Ridge, presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of June 20, 1994, be and is hereby approved. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards Resolution adopted. Member Smith then introduced the following resolution and moved adoption, subject to 1) final plat approval, 2) developers agreement, 3) watershed district grading permit and 4) permanent easement for access to Lewis Ridge Parkway RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR LEWIS RIDGE TOVNHOMES BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the.City of Edina, Minnesota that that certain plat entitled "LEVIS RIDGE TOVNHOMES" platted by Ron Clark Construction and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of June 20, 1994, be and is hereby granted preliminary plat approval. Motion was seconded by Member Paulus. Rollcall: Ayes: Kelly, Paulus, Rice, Smith, Richards. Resolution adopted. Brad Teslow, t 62nd Street, spoke a questions in his letter presented to Council rega a rec sewer backup at his residence because of a lift station failure. He sa at at least four times since 1958 the lift station has failed. Ma ichards s sted that because his questions were of a technical natur ey would best be answe Dick Pelinka, Utility Supervisor. Teslow commented that he wanted ass a that the mechanism being in led at the lift station would prevent re- occurr Mayor Richards ask r. Teslow to work with staff regarding his concerns. i L MAP F314AL [DEVELOPMENT NUMBER e_s._,s=_s._,PLAN L O C A T 10 N Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot B, Lewis Ridge REQUEST A 15 Lot Townhouse Plat EDINA PLANNING DEIPARTMEi1T LEWIS RIDGE TOWNHOMES r i n f 1, n R 1 xe•1r . 1s.o a 0 . •q of Z '_ _. w -tr.to f d � P1P O ,IS 1i SLICE IM FEET I xrc 1 1a.n GIWIT1M M T1t1 It1RVIC fMTM If Moo ON FMO43I DRUM . weor[1 Tea t1Iw11o1r - - r w. m+wn uattrtw 1 ww lwrrt 1 11 w 1 I w' r 1 1 as /xw'r1 r ■ 1 rrr 1 1 It It owe 'r t 1 11.0 1 rw -r 1 1 3111.0 1 rw' .i Ir 1 1 IIw'1r. 1 71.A 1 rt1'0' 1 t1 rw 1 Orr 1 11 tl.11 1 04'71' 1 N w.w IMw'r1 11 18.111 1 ire, r■ 1. 11.111 Ixw'rt 11 w�11 Iwo tr t 11 M" 1 x11'71' 1 tC / R L. _- _ O t .B 1 GI I , r "cCMM FMW 8009 RSSOCIRTES. INC. ER1ti Etll not tYatitfllf RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT FOR LEVIS RIDGE TOWM014ES BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Edina, Minnesota, that that certain plat entitled "LEWIS RIDGE TOWNHOMES ", platted by R.E.C., Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and Americana Bank, a Minnesota banking association, and presented at the regular meeting of the City Council of August 1, 1994, be and is hereby granted final plat approval. ADOPTED this 1st day of August, 1994. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS CITY OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of August 1, 1994, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this 28th day of September, 1994. Marcella M. Daehn City Clerk REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: Kenneth Rosland Agenda Item # II. D . FROM: Kris Aaker ❑ Consent Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA DATE: August 1, 1994 x❑ To Council SUBJECT: 5908 Vernon Avenue, A Action ❑ Motion 31 foot lot width variance and a 28 foot ❑x Resolution frontyard setback variance F] Ordinance Discussion Recommendation: Info /Background: The subject property subdivided in 1971 requires both a lot depth and frontyard setback variance for development. In 1980 variances were approved by the Board of Appeals and were upheld with findings by the Council. No home was built and the variance lapsed. In 1987 identical variances were reviewed and denied by the Board of Appeals based on house design. The 1987 denial was never appealed. On July 7, 1994, the Zoning Board heard and denied identical variances based on house design. Enclosed for reference are the following: * Staff Report * Meeting Minutes: 1980, 1987, 1994 July 12, 1994 Edina City Clerk City of Edina 4801 West 50th Edina, MN 55424 Gentlemen, I am requesting a hearing before the Edina City Council on August 1, 1994 to appeal the decision made by the Zoning Board of Appeals & Adjustments on July 7th, 1994. Sincerely, Dave Thomas DT /ba Please reply to: Dave Thomas 6220 Orchid Excelsior, MN 55431 474 -7486 A 1 r. A��1< e. �' city of Edina July 8, 1994 Mr. David Thomas /Virginia T. Leach 6620 Orchid Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: B -94 , -27 A 31 foot lot w-ihtb variance and a 28 foot frontyard setback variance for Lot 7, Block 2, Mirror Lakes Meadow 2nd Addition to Edina Highlands Dear Mr. Thomas and Ms. Leach: In connection with your recent request which was heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on July 7, 1994, may we advise you that same has been denied. If you wish to appeal the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Edina City Council, a letter of intent must be submitted to the City Clerk no later than May 2, 1994. If you have further questions on this matter, please contact either Kris Aaker or me at 927-8861. Sincerely, Jackie HoogenaKKer Zoning Board of Appeals h City Hall (612) 927 -8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX (612) 927 -7645 TDD 161 21 927-5461 EDINA, MINNESOTA 55324 -1394 DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD JULY 7, 1994 Members present: Runyan, Utne, Ingwalson B -94 -27 David Thomas /Virginia Leach 5908 Vernon Avenue Lot 7, Block 2, Mirror Lakes Meadow 2nd Addition to Edina Highlands Request: A 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot frontyard setback variance to construct a new single dwelling unit Ms. Aaker informed the Board the subject property is deficient in lot depth. The ordinance requires a minimum 120 foot depth as measured from a straight, line connecting the midpoint of the front and rear lot lines. The lot has a measured depth of 89 feet, therefore, a 31 foot lot depth variance is requested. Ms. Aaker pointed out the subject property also requires a frontyard setback variance. A new dwelling must respect the frontyard setback of the neighboring property. The westerly adjacent lot is the only other lot on the block facing Vernon. The dwelling next door maintains a 58 foot frontyard setback, therefore to maintain a 30 foot frontyard setback a 28 foot setback variance is required. Ms. Aaker explained the subject property was subdivided in 1971. In 1980 identical variances as those now requested were processed for the purpose of constructing a new dwelling on the lot. The Boards 1980 approval was appealed by a neighbor to the City Council. The City Council approved the variances with findings.. A building permit was never issued in 1980, therefore, the variances lapsed. Ms. Aaker reported in 1987, the applicant submitted application for the same variances requested in 1980. The building footprint was identical to the previous request. The board denied the variance request however, not on the grounds of it's appropriateness. The board recognized the right to develop the property but denied the request on the grounds that the plans presented were not considered sensitive to topography and that the home did not maintain the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Ms. Aaker concluded explaining the lot in question is a legally platted lot. The proposed home will conform to all setback, height, and coverage requirements with the exception of the frontyard setback. Granting the lot depth variance will preserve a substantial property right to develop the lot and granting the frontyard setback variance will permit the reasonable use of the property. Staff recommends approval of the variances as presented. The granting of the variances will correct extraordinary circumstances, with regard to lot configuration and setback. Ms. Aaker stated approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1 . Curb cut and access shall be reviewed and permitted by Hennepin County. 2. Drainage patterns and utility connection shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 3. Review of the project and permit obtained by the watershed district if deemed necessary by them. Mr. Thomas was present and interested neighbors were present. Mr. Hale commented in his opinion the rear view of the proposed house will negatively impact the neighbors to the rear of the subject -site on Dundee Road. Mr. Ingwalson asked Ms. Aaker if the rear yard setback of the proposed house is conforming. Ms. Aaker clarified the subject lot is non - conforming in lot depth and requires a lot depth variance, but the house has been designed to meet the 25 foot rear yard setback stipulated by city ordinance. Mr. Hale observed the proposed house is depicted with a deck, and questioned Ms. Aaker on how close a deck can be built to lot lines. Ms. Aaker noted an unenclosed deck can be constructed five feet from the side and rear property lines. Mr. Dick Hinkie, 5600 Dundee Road told board members he cannot support the house that has been designed for the site. He stated one concern of his is potential flooding problems that may result from construction of a new house. He pointed out there is the possibility that construction of a new house could cause water to run down the hill and cause damage to his property. Mr. Hinkie told the board in his opinion when the city council approved this subdivision they made a mistake, and should correct that mistake, and deem the property unbuildable. Mr. Hinkie pointed out many things have changed since subdivision approval including the fact that Vernon Avenue has become a very busy street, and is not desirable to live on. Continuing, Mr. Hinkie stated if the proponent is allowed to construct a house on this property the house should be put in sideways, and be a low style home, like a rambler. Mr. Hinkie concluded if a two story walk -out home is allowed to be constructed on this site the new house will appear, from my vantage point, to resemble the IDS Tower. Mr. Ingwalson commented when he viewed the lot it appeared to be a flat lot and questioned how a walk -out can be constructed. Mr. Thomas clarified that the subject lot is not flat. In response to Mr. Hinkie's comments he explained that in the 60's and 70's, ramblers were the house of choice but in the 90's a two story home is the preference. Concluding, Mr. Thomas said when he purchased the lot he was told the lot was buildable. Mr. Thomas pointed out he has paid taxes on this lot for a number of years, and the taxes paid reflect the lot as buildable. Mr. Thomas said he has lived in Edina since 1939, his children reside in Edina, and he believes the proposed house will benefit the neighborhood. Mr. Thomas.noted a family member may decide to live in the proposed house. Mrs. Hinkie told the board that this property has been a "hot" issue in the neighborhood for a number of years. Mrs. Hinkie stated another concern of hers is if a two story house is allowed to be constructed the properties below on Dundee Road will loose sunlight and their property values will be reduced. A discussion ensued between the proponent and Mr. and Mrs. Hinkie. Mrs. Utne commented there appears to be a number of concerns raised, and a number of issues occurring presently between the proponent and neighbors. Mrs. Utne stated the lot in question did receive subdivision approval, and this board cannot comment on if the council made a wise decision in allowing subdivision. Mrs. Utne pointed out the council did approve this subdivision, and the property owner does have the right to develop his property. Continuing, Mrs. Utne stated in her opinion our duty is to consider granting a variance for lot depth and lot width, with the option of suggesting house design. Mrs. Utne added she is not sure if legally we as a body can deny someone the right to develop their property because we do not like the proposed house design. Mrs. Utne concluded she has a concern with the amount, and the speed of vehicles that travel Vernon Avenue, adding she can support the variance request with the recommendation that the driveway for the proposed house be constructed with a turn -a -round so vehicles can enter Vernon front first. Mr. Runyan questioned Mr. Thomas if fill will be required for this site. Mr. Thomas explained there will be grading on the site, and the hill will be cut into, adding he is not sure if additional fill is needed. Continuing, Mr. Runyan asked Mr. Thomas if he would be willing to design a turn -a -round on the site. Mr. Thomas responded that is not a problem. Mr. Runyan commented the house that has been designed for this site in his opinion does not blend well with the topography. Mr. Runyan pointed out.-the house will appear very tall from the rear. Mr. Thomas explained the site is relatively small, and if one were to construct a rambler style home on this site the footprint would be slightly over 1000 square feet. He pointed out that is a small house in Edina. Continuing, Mr. Thomas stated additional vegetation will be planted so the view of the home will be obstructed during the spring, summer and early fall months by vegetation. Mrs. Utne noted the plans presented are thorough, and the requested variances are documented. Board members should note their opinion, and we should vote on the variances. Mrs. Utne moved variance approval subject to staff conditions, and the additional condition that a turn -a -round be constructed allowing vehicles to enter Vernon Avenue front first. There was no second to Mrs. Utnes motion. Mr. Ingwalson explained his concern is with the appropriateness of the structure. He pointed out the site is very restrictive, adding he has a problem with the building height. Mr. Ingwalson said in his opinion the structure will be detrimental to the present neighbors. Mr. Hale stated he agreed with Mr. Ingwalsons observation. He said the proposed house is too tall for the neighborhood, and the proposed deck will be too close to the property line. Mr. Runyan said he is not opposed to the variance, but has a problem with the house design. Mr. Thomas stressed he has owned this site for a number of years, paid taxes on this site, and has considered many different design options. Mr. Thomas said a two story traditional colonial home presented this evening will fit the site. He reiterated if one were to construct a rambler style house, the house would be very small. Mr. Thomas pointed out because of the limitations of this site, and the previous denial by the board he has not been able to sell the lot. He reiterated two story homes are in demand. Mr. Thomas concluded saying he does not think it is right to deny him the right to construct the house of his choice on his property Mr. Hale moved to deny variance approval. Mr. Ingwalson seconded the motion. Ayes; Hale, Runyan. Nays, Utne. Motion to deny carried. LOCATION MAP 3mr, •'�I: ■. �: !jam,_ VARIANCE. NUMBER B -94 -27 LOCATION 5908 Vernon Ave. REQUEST A 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot frontyard setback variance EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STAFF REPORT JULY 7, 1994 B -94 -27 David Thomas /Virginia Leach 5908 Vernon Avenue Lot 7, Block 2, Mirror Lakes Meadow 2nd Addition to Edina Highlands Zoning: R -1 Request: A 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot frontyard setback variance to construct a new single dwelling unit Background: The subject property is deficient in lot depth. The ordinance requires a minimum 120 foot depth as measured from a straight line connecting the midpoint of the front and rear lot lines. The lot has a measured depth of 89 feet, therefore, a 31 foot lot depth variance is requested. The subject property also requires a frontyard setback variance. A new dwelling must respect the frontyard setback of the neighboring property. The westerly adjacent lot is the only other lot on the block facing Vernon. The dwelling next door maintains a 58 foot frontyard setback, therefore to maintain a 30 foot frontyard setback a 28 foot setback variance is required. Issues /Analysis The subject property was subdivided in 1971. In 1980 identical variances as those now requested were processed for the purpose of constructing a new dwelling on the lot. The Boards 1980 approval was appealed by a neighbor to the City Council. The City Council approved the variances with findings (see attachment). A building permit was never issued in 1980, therefore, the variances lapsed. In 1987, the applicant submitted application for the same variances requested in 1980. The building footprint was identical to the previous request. The board denied the variance request however, not on the grounds of it's appropriateness. The board recognized the right to develop the property but denied the request on the grounds that the plans presented were not considered sensitive to topography and that the home did not maintain the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. The current proposal is to construct a single dwelling unit within the same building envelope as the other two previous requests. The home is a two story walkout with brick and siding for finishes. In 1987 the proposal was denied based on the type of home design. The current design appears to be similar to previous requests. The board should note that the proposed home is well within the building height requirements of the code, lot coverage and meets all of the setback standards with the exception of frontyard. Conclusion /Recomm end atiori The lot in question is a legally platted lot. The proposed home will conform to all setback, height, and coverage requirements with the exception of the frontyard setback. Granting the lot depth variance will preserve a substantial property right to develop the lot and granting the frontyard setback variance will permit the reasonable use of the property. Staff recommends approval of the variances as presented. The granting of the variances will correct extraordinary circumstances, with regard to lot configuration and setback. Approval should be subject to the following: 1. Curb cut and access shall be reviewed and permitted by Hennepin County. 2. Drainage patterns and utility connection shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 3. Review of the project and permit obtained by the watershed district if deemed necessary by them. LL" ea (- `- �;, � / e 0 CITY OF EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Case Number Date Fee Paid 4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET . EDINA, MINNESOTA 55424 Application for: (612'92'886' [ ] LOT DIVISION [ ] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ( ] REZONING [ ] FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN VARIANCE [ ] PLAN AMENDMENT [ ] PLAT Proposed Name APPLICANT: Name mix L. w.2 Address S d1y 5' S-3 % Phone (L( �, ) '=/ % �� - -7 Y� 'PROPERTY Name 4IR*ER -- Address Z 2 v 02G (If Different from Above) Phone ((1 /"L ) L-/ y- 7- Legal Description of Property -7 A4- 4cz-,K z-- , ?`—O //V) ! � /L c� yl L" ' �/'� S _ _ A el:�- 6,:'4 -' Li-',; -C �J Property Address Present Zoning �� P. I . D. # _ //-/ - �' Explanation of Request: / /-= T �� T LI-R A-P 44,-� G .f c-1 A J- G `7— (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: Name T Phone ( ) SURVEYOR: Name Phone ( ) Proper Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date— _ . . 1185 �= -- �,_...,. . s . ` - - -- � _ _ �--• Application .... page 2 Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: (If yes, please explain. Use additional sheets if necessary.) YES NO a) Relieve an undue hardship which was not self- imposed or a mere inconvenience. b) Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. c)._, Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. d) Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. :.a To the Members of the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments: Reference Case File: B- 94 -27, Applicants Virginia R. Leach/Dave Thomas Property Address: 5908 Vernon Ave. Unfortunately, neither my wife or I (out of the country) can attend this meeting, yet this issue is a very important one. In summary, here are the issues. They remain unchanged from previous proposals as far as I can tell. 1. The lot was incorrectly platted by the city. The map says it is 20 feet deeper than it is. 2. The lot has been for sale numerous times over many years and no individual thinks it is worth buying and building on because it is too small. 3. There is a significant safety concern for a driveway onto Vernon in a 40 mph zone. There will not be room for an auto to turn around on the property so that they will have to back out onto Vernon. 4. Vernon has become a nuisance: too much traffic, too many speeders. The area of this lot and that belonging to 5600 Dundee have been left natural (wild grapes, etc.) as a, barrier to the noise and pollution of Vernon. A dwelling would destroy this. Given the above, the city should remove the lot from the buildable plat. Here are additional issues faced before. 1. Since no one wants to by the lot and build their own home on it for obvious reasons, previous plans were for a spec home. 2. Past Zoning Boards turned down requests to build spec homes on this site, because they were poorly planned and would denigrate neighboring property. Even though, for the reasons cited above, no dwelling should be built on this site, residents suggested that a smaller, one or one and one -half story home, turned sideways and tucked into the hill might work. A two story, full basement, maybe with a walk -out is unacceptable. It would look like the IDS tower, looking down over the neighbors. Assuming this is the same builder and the same general plan. The Board has no reason to accept the variance. There are other remedies for the owner of the land to seek economic gain other than to destroy the area and severely damage the value of neighboring homes by building a dwelling in an area that was mistakenly mis- platted. Sincerely, Richard E. and Patricia A. Hinkie 5600 Dundee Rd., Edina, MN 55436 To: Zoning Board of Appeals and Adjustments The City of Edina, Minnesota From: Dorothy E. McIntyre, 5540 Dundee Road 'z- ' Sylvia M. Logerquist, 5540 Dundee Road Subj: Testimony In Opposition to the Proposal for Variances at 5908 Vernon Avenue 1 Y PP Date: June 29, 1994 We have owned the lot to the north of the Subject Property since 1978. We have attended all hearings regarding this lot since the first meeting on June 19, 1980 and deeply regret that we will be out of state on business on July 7th. It is our understanding that we have no option to request a postponement, thus our written testimony is submitted for your consideration prior to the hearing. The following information is presented to oppose the request from Virginia R. Leach /Dave Thomas for the Zoning Board to grant a 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot front yard setback variance to the lot at 5908 Vernon Avenue. Background information: In 1979, we purchased the property at 5540 Dundee Road. At that time, the realtor from Burnet Realty told us that the lot had been subdivided and the Subject Property was for sale for $23,000. Margaret Willis, original owner of both lots, continued to offer the Subject Property for sale. In 1980, we received a letter from the City of Edina, notifying us of a hearing before this board requesting variances for the Subject Property. It was the first indication to us that the lot did not meet city ordinance requirements. At the first hearing on June 19, 1980, we learned that in 1971 the Planning Commission and City Council had been provided with misinformation and may have believed that the property to be created by the subdivision complied with the standards of the Edina Zoning Ordinance. In fact, it did not comply. Based on this inaccurate information, the lot was subdivided, creating the lot at 5908 Vernon Avenue. We learned that Dave Thomas had purchased the lot from Margaret Willis at a reduced price of $13,000. He proposed to build a two -story single family dwelling on the lot and needed variances to do so. We, and other neighbors to the east and west, presented testimony opposing the variances as being excessive and severe, that the proposed dwelling would be too large for the subject property and the elevation of the proposed dwelling would have a negative impact on neighboring property- owners. The variances were granted and later expired. At a second hearing in 1987, Thomas requested the same variances but presented incomplete plans for a three -level single family dwelling. The request for variances was denied. At the third hearing scheduled for July 7, 1994, the request for variances and a proposed house plan will again be heard. To date, we have not been able to obtain a copy of the house plans. However, the house plans distributed in the For Sale box by Skip Thomas, Realtor for the lot, are for a four - bedroom, three - ievel house. If the proposal continues for a such a dwelling, it will not meet the action of the Zoning Board in 1980 when it limited its approval to the following conditions: a) the variance is limited to the plans presented (in 1980). Rationale to Support Denial of Variance Request: City Ordinance No. 801 -A5, 1971 (see attached). It notes that a variance may be granted "but only upon a general finding that an unusual hardship on the land exists, and a specific finding that: e) the granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or to other land or improvements in the neighborhood of the land. 1. It is our understanding that the Ordinance was established to ensure that individuals could be relieved of unusual hardships created by situations outside their control. In this situation, the "hardship" is self- imposed. Dave Thomas purchased a sub - standard lot for considerably less than the market value of a lot in Edina, gambling that he could obtain variances on the lot. With the variances, he can build, sell and leave its resulting problems to us. It is our position that Thomas' claim of hardship is not valid, does not meet the intent of the Ordinance, and should not be corrected by the City of Edina. Such an action would reward the speculator and penalize legitimate property owners. 2. Granting of these variances and the building of a multi -level dwelling will be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood. The lot is small. House plans and the survey stakes added last week indicate major excavation into the hillside to accommodate a dwelling. Our homes on Dundee Road are built considerably lower than the elevation of Vernon Avenue, thus the saturation and flow of rainwater is important to us. All of the water in the neighborhood flows down to Dundee Road and collects for the storm sewers located in front of our home and that of Hinkie's at 5600 Dundee Road. In recent years, severe rains have flooded homes and permanently damaged one. home along that street. Under the current conditions and landscaping, we have experienced rainfall of as much as 12 inches in four hours with no collapsed walls or water damage to our homes. Removal of the hill, trees and shrubbery on the adjoining lot will change this pattern and could jeopardize our homes during severe storms. In summary: In 1980, while standing in our yard, Dave Thomas advised us not to oppose him. He described his past experiences with property in Edina and his ability to obtain special approval because of, as he described it, his considerable influence in Edina. That may be so, but we as citizens of Edina also have the right to oppose anyone whose motive is to speculate, get the rules changed and turn a profit, while negatively impacting our homes. We do not support changing the intent of the city ordinance for a situation created by the property owner. We are asking you, the Zoning Board, to support the homeowners on Dundee Road and to deny the variances requested for the lot at 5908 Vernon Avenue. We appreciate the opportunity to present our position to you and to the City Council. DEM:ne99- 794hear Village Council of the Certified Copy Ordinance No.801 -- Village of Edina, Nlinnesota(Seal) Dated - 119. to Filed Apr. 12, 1971 Whom it Concerns Book 71 Hennepin County Records Page 3878+11 An Ordinance Amend i nc,; Grd i ranee No. 801 of the Village by Providing for Variances The V I I I age Counc i I o f the V I I I age of Ed i na, hi i nnesota, Or-do; ris : Sec. 1. Section 6 of Ordinance No. 8U1, as amended, is further amended by adding thereto an additional paragraph reading as follows: " I f a var i once from the app I i ca t i on of the r•egu I at i ons of th i s d i r:c:rtice was requested by the owner or his agent, the Commission may in its report recommend granting such variance in whole or in part, but only upo a general finding that an unusual hardsl- it on the land and a apeci fic finding that (n the hardship in not o more inconvenience, (b the hardals ip is cauord by the Particular' vItyr: i c411 at,t•r•c.trr��t shops or topoorapit ical cant i t i ons of tho l otid i rrc I tideJ its 0— 111.8t. (c) the condition or conditions upun which tfir rectitt•r: lut• u vdt'ic:trC.r I s bob*J are un Iquo and not panora I 1 y apt• I i c..:� I c: tee o t1r�•t• I�r �,.cr• �� , (J) the hardslt ip Is ' eauaod by this urn i n;,nco dnJ not t•y Mn) 1•: +rs. prosontly havino an interest in tho land, and (Q) the Dronting of the variance will not lie sut��t,�ntiNl ly �J: �t•invr:tat to thG pull is we 1 fare or to other I anJ or iaprovot -%otr is in the nv i ijbbor - hood of the land." Svc. 2. This ordinance shall become offect ivv u; Oh i to p.,en.a4Jr at"i pultl ;cation, and when affective steal l 11c f i l c.i w i tir tlrr ot'f ice C.f t11c Rcg i ater of DeeJs, Hennepin County, P i nne:,v tr. Statewide Plumbing and Mechanic's Lien Heating Inc. Dated December 2, 1966 (Minnesota Corporation) Filed December 2, 1966 120. vs Book 346 of Liens, page 4T5 J. Richard Tuthill Claim: $1,433.T5 Doc. No. 3634To6 Mr. Dommer added the lot is heavily wooded and exceeds 1 and 1/2 acres in size. The lot is difficult to develop, however, the proposed plan exceeds all other ordinance requirements and will preserve a good number of the trees. Mr. Dommer concluded staff recommends approval of the variance as presented. Granting of the variances will allow reasonable use of the property and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proponents, Mr. and Mrs. Murphy and their architect Mr. Bonner were present. Mr. Bonner explained to the Board the vegetation along the "neck" driveway will be preserved as much as possible. Mr. Bonner added he anticipates the loss of one large oak tree and some smaller caliber trees. Mr. Bonner pointed during the summer the house would be heavily screened due to the dense vegetation. Mrs. Patterson whose property abuts the driveway expressed concern about possible erosion of the driveway after it is constructed. Mr. Runyan told Mrs. Patterson the City's Engineering and Building Departments will evaluate the submitted plans on the drive -way assuring its correct construction. Mrs. Utne moved for variance approval. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. III. OLD BUSINESS B -87 -39 Thomas Barron Builders, Inc. 5908 Vernon Avenue Lot 7, Block 2 Mirror Lakes Meadow 2nd Addition to Edina Highlands Request: A 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot front yard setback variance to construct a new single dwelling unit Mr. Dommer reviewed for the Board what had taken place at the previous Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting regarding this issue. The proponent, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Barron, the developer and interested residents were present. A considerable discussion ensued between members of the Board, the proponents and interested neighbors. The Board concluded the property owner has the legal right to develop his property but special attention should be given to its development. The character and symmetry of the neighborhood must be maintained and the placement of the house must blend into the topography. Mrs. Utne moved for variance approval subject to staff conditions with the recommendation the plans are to be altered to better suit the site. Mrs. Utne said the previous plans submitted (1980) in her opinion suited the site better. Mrs. Utne asked Mr. Dommer if it is reasonable to request an alteration of the plan. Mr. Dommer said a'recommendation to alter the plans to better suit the site is reasonable but the variances needed more than likely would change from the ones requested. Mrs. Utne withdrew her motion. Mr. Palmer moved to deny the variance request not on the grounds of it appropriateness, the Board recognizes the right to develop this property but denial on the grounds that the plans presented are not sensitive to the topography and do not maintain the character and symmetry of the neighborhood. Mrs. Utne. seconded the motion. Mr. Runyan and Mr. Bentley voted Aye. Mr. Olson voted Nay. The motion carried. IR low HoWN . am mugs gon .�';�y • -;ems '� ^- a won NUMBER LOCATION REQUEST EDINA B -87 -39 5908 Vernon Avenue A 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot front yard setback variance to construct a new single dwelling unit. PLANNING DEPARTMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS HELD ON DECEMBER 3, 1987 AT 7:30 P.M. EDINA CITY HALL MANAGERS CONFERENCE ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman David Runyan, Rose Mary Utne, James Bentley and Len Olson MEMBERS ABSENT: John Palmer STAFF PRESENT: Philip Dommer, Associate Planner Jackie Hoogenakker, Secretary I. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Mrs. Utne moved for approval of the August 6, and the October 1, 1987 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meetings. Mr. Olson seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. II. NEW BUSINESS: B -87 -39 Thomas Barron Builders, Inc. 5908 Vernon Avenue Lot 7, Block 2 Mirror Lakes Meadow 2nd Addition to Edina Highlands Request: A 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot front yard setback variance to construct a new single dwelling unit. Mr. Dommer informed the Board in 1971 a lot division was approved which created the subject lot. In 1980 identical variances as those now requested were granted for a new dwelling at the subject property. The minutes of that meeting and subsequent appeal are attached. Although variances were granted, a dwelling was never constructed on the lot and the variances have since lapsed. Mr. Dommer added the current proposal is to construct a single family dwelling facing Vernon Avenue. The dwelling is proposed to maintain a 30 foot front yard setback. The westerly adjacent lot is the only other lot in this block facing Vernon Avenue and the dwelling maintains a 58 foot -front yard, therefore a 28 foot setback variance is requested. The dwelling conforms to other setback and lot coverage requirements -. Mr. Dommer explained lot depth is required to be a minimum of 120 feet as measured by a horizontal line connected from the mid point of the front and rear property lines. The subject lot has a depth of 89 feet, therefore a 31 foot lot depth variance is requested. The 123 foot lot width and 10,856 square feet lot area conform to the minimum standards of the ordinance. Mr. Dommer concluded staff recommends approval of the variances as presented. The front yard variance is appropriate because a normal front yard will be provided and there is visual separation from the adjacent dwelling. By bringing the home forward, it also reduces the impact on the property to the rear. Since the lot is already platted, granting of the lot depth variance also preserves a substantial property right to permit reasonable use of the land and corrects extraordinary circumstances that apply to the property. The following conditions should apply: 1. The developer provides documentation of the required utility easement to Dundee Road. 2. Sewer and water charges are paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. An access permit is granted from Hennepin County. The proponent, Mr. David Thomas, Mr. Thomas Barron the builder, and interested neighbors were present. Ms. D. McIntyre of 5540 Dundee Road explained the history of the property to the Board and acknowledged her awareness of the possibility of future development of the site in question. She pointed out the subdivision which created this property contained incorrect measurements. The incorrect measurements resulted in the creation of a lot that virtually cannot be developed without variances. Ms. McIntyre asked the Board when reviewing this request to also consider the steep topography and dense vegetation of the site. Mr. L. Olson asked the proponent why a house wasn't constructed immediately after the variances were granted in 1980. Mr. Thomas said the house was not constructed due to a pending court case regarding the utility easement. He added he has owned this property for a number of years and is requesting variances which would grant him the option of constructing a house on a platted lot. Mr. Runyan asked Ms. McIntyre if the utility easement was granted by her and Ms. Logerquist. Ms. McIntyre said the utility easement over their property was strongly resisted by them but the court made a decision that the easement must be granted to allow development of the property in question. Mr. Thomas told the Board Ms. McIntyre and Ms. Logerquist received a sum of money for the easement over their property. Mr. Richard Hinkie of 5600 Dundee Road stated he strongly objects to the proposal. He expressed concern over the topography of the site, possible water runoff problems and the hazard of allowing another driveway onto Vernon Avenue. Mr. Hinkie said in his opinion the site is not buildable by today's standards. He asked the Board to note that many changes have occurred in Edina since 1980 and these changes should be noted when making a decision. Mr. Runyan responded that many of the concerns of Mr. Hinkie's will be addressed as part of the building permit review,process. Mr. Runyan then questioned Mr. Dommer on the traffic issue. Mr. Dommer responded that traffic on Vernon Avenue has increased since 1980 and since Vernon Avenue is a county road, staff has recommended that an access permit from Hennepin County be required as part of the variance. This would allow professional traffic consultants the opportunity to review the situation. Ms.. McIntyre commented that another important item has changed since the lot was platted in 1971 and that is the perception of the depth of the lot. Ms. McIntyre pointed out that the Council thought they were approving a legal lot and at this point it is of no benefit to further perpetuate a mistake. Mr. Dommer responded that there was a discrepancy in lot depth at the time of platting, however, the correct depth was known when the variance was granted in 1980 and affirmed by the City Council after an appeal. Mr. Dommer continued that the subject proposal maintains the required 25 foot rear yard setback and could do so regardless of the depth of the lot. A discussion ensued between the Board and the neighbors over the suitability of the current building plan. Mr. Hinkie said that the property was level from front to rear and is not a walkout lot as shown. Mr. Runyan questioned the builder about the plan. Mr. Barron responded that the home was designed for the site and the garage end would be built into the hillside and act as a retaining wall. Mrs. Utne told the Board she is very sympathetic to the concerns of the residents and the rights of the property owner. She added this is a platted lot and questioned the role of the Board and if it is bound to allow a property owner the right to develop his property. Mr'. Runyan said he believes as a Board decisions must be based on if the requested variances are found to be reasonable or unreasonable. Mr. Dommer added the intent of granting a variance is to also correct an "undue hardship." He explained this means that the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance if a variance is not granted and the plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances unique to his property which were not created by him, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. Mr. T. Barron, the builder said if this variance is not granted the Board will be eliminating the right of a property owner to develop his property. He added in his opinion the discussion centering around the buildability of this lot is irrelevant. Mr. Barron pointed out what is relevant is that this Board is reviewing this case on an individual basis which will help them to come to an agreement on if they consider the variance requests before them reasonable. He pointed out when the Council approved the subdivision which created the property in question they in a sense said "this lot is buildable" Mr. Barron expressed frustration and asked the Board to address the issue of the variances. He asked the Board to note the variances requested have not changed from the variances previously granted. Mr. L. Olson moved for approval of the variances as presented and subject to staff conditions. Mrs. Utne seconded the motion. Mr. Bentley voted Nay. Mr. Runyan said at this point he would vote.Nay. He added he would like to take another look at the property. The motion failed. A discussion ensued between Board Members, the proponent, his builder and residents of the area. It was agreed that this situation is difficult. The Board proposed that they should continue this hearing to the December 17, 1987 Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting. This would enable the Board to re- examine information on the property, view the property and to have 5 Board Members present to consider the request. Mr. Runyan moved to continue the hearing to Thursday, December 17, 1987 at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Bentley seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion carried. III. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Jaculin Hoogenakker EDINA BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS STAFF REPORT DECEMBER 3, 1987 B -87 -39 Thomas Barron Builders, Inc. 5908 Vernon Avenue Lot 7, Block 2 Mirror Lakes Meadow 2nd Addition to Edina Highlands Zoning: R -1 Request: A 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot front yard setback variance to construct a new single dwelling unit. In 1971 a lot division was approved which created the subject lot. In 1980 identical variances as those now requested were granted for a new dwelling at the subject property. The minutes of that meeting and subsequent appeal are attached. Although variances were granted, a dwelling was never constructed on the lot and the variances have since lapsed. The current proposal is to construct a single family dwelling, facing Vernon Avenue. The dwelling is proposed to maintain a 30 foot front yard setback. The westerly adjacent lot is the only other lot in this block facing Vernon Avenue and the dwelling maintains a 58 foot front yard, therefore a 28 foot setback variance is requested. The dwelling conforms to other setback and lot coverage requirements. The lot depth is required to be a minimum of 120 feet as measured by a horizontal line connected from the mid point of the front and rear property lines. The subject lot has a depth of 89 feet, therefore a 31 foot lot depth variance is requested. The 123 foot lot width and 10,856 square feet lot area conform to the minimum standards of the ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variances as presented. The front yard variance is appropriate because a normal front yard will be provided and there is visual separation from the adjacent dwelling. By bringing the home forward, it also reduces the impact on the property to the rear. Since the lot is already platted, granting of the lot depth variance also preserves a substantial property right to permit reasonable use of the land and corrects extraordinary circumstances that apply to the property. The following conditions should apply: 1. The developer provides documentation of the required utility easement to Dundee Road. 2. Sewer and water charges are -paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. An access permit is granted from Hennepin County. LL d 0 Zj I 6 J n 1 �. i 2C,. i ,L.ti h• s� hereh y certify that this is s aEa true and correc_ -repres_ntatio.. of a / survey of the bou�� pries cf all that hart of Lo*_ 7, 81oc� 2, ;•IIRRO ; LI'l:ES ''EAI:Ctd -WO02' ;ECO ►: --; i AD^ITION TO EDINA HIGHLANDS, Hennenir County, "ion- esota, lyina Southerly of `he followi ^g �escriba,l lire: Commencina at the lortheast corner of said Lot 7; -� thence Southerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance or 15.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence '-lesterly at right angle to the said Easterly - line to an intersection .-tit`r the Westerly lire of said Lot 7 and there terminating, and of tFe location of all buildings thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said ;and. Surveyed by me this day of , �.._ 1 971 . c..ITH, MI(V ESOTA ?EG. l,U. 8611 JOB • DRnwlr E3MAUEM & ASSOC., 111E DATE- CHECK _ 6440 flying cloud d r i v BOOK REVISED _ l eden pra i ri e , minn. —r--S.—;)4 /d 3 3 1 OF POR F 2 M C L' M L • ZL a X. • T: is U7, III LOT 7 - MIRROR L!KES , 'lf%D0!,T WOOD SECOND ADDTTION FDI`:A HIGHLANDS APPF.AI, FROM BOARD 0` :1PPE:':LS tiD .......... \DJL'ST :- STS DZCIS ION CO;:TI \UED TO AUGUST 4- 1(JS0, COU - IfEETING FOR k- iNDIVGS. Affidavits of Notice were presented by Cleric, approved N as to form and ordered placed on file. Mr. Hughes advised Council that the O Board of Appeals and Adjustr,.ents approval of a 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 7, :Mirror Lakes Meadow Flood, Sec- ond Addition, Edina Highlands (5908 Vernon Ave.) had been appealed by Mr. Nor- -D man E. Stewart, 5607 Heather Lane, and Ms. Dorothy McIntyre, 5540 Dundee Rd. a Mr. Hughes recalled that on June 21, 1971, Council had approved the lot division Q creating the lot in question as a buildable lot, but that the survey which ioas submitted after Council approval illustrated a lot depth which was less than a previous graphic, causing the lot to be smaller than the minimum lot standards v required by ordinance. Mr. Hughes explained that S & B Partnership proposes to build a single family dwelling facing Vernon Ave. Council's attention was called �,a�'0� to the fact that Mr. Stewart had withdrawn his appeal, but, in so doin had sai that his architect had said that a one -story single family residence would be d more suitable in design for the lot than the dwelling proposed. Mr. Stewart said that, because he and his wife should live in a one -story house because of health problems and do not want to leave the neighborhood, he had tried to put- chase the property and build a one -story g L- shaped house thereon. Mr. Hu he s recalled that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments had granted the variance, subject to the following conditions: 1) that the variance is limited to the Plans presented; 2) that a landscaping plan for the berm is a Planning staff approved by the Planning prior to the issuance of a building permit; 3) that the developer provide documentation of the required utility easement to allow connection to sewer and water in Dundee Road; and 4) that sewer and water connection charges are paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Hughes also advised that the variances had been recommended for the following reasons: 1) development plans are desirable and appropriate for the site and should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity; 2) the pro- posed variance will preserve a substantial property right to permit a reasonable use of the land; 3) the proposed variance will correct extraordinary circum- stances' unique to the property and strict enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. Mr. Timothy Whitten, representing S & B Partnership, showed a drawing indicating the way the proposed house would set on the lot and said that there would be-approximately 30 feet from the ground to the top of the house and that the house is compatible with others in the area. Ms. McIntyre objected that she will be living in "the bottom of a bowl" with a 2' -i story house on top of the hill and urged that the variances be denied. In response to a question of Councilwoman Schmidt, Mr. Hughes said that lie believes that the variances are r proper in terms of the restraints of the lot and that it would be difficult to develop any dwelling on the lot without these types of variances. Councilwoman Schmidt said that she did not think that there should be any objection as to the height of the house or as to how the house sets, inasmuch as Indian lulls area properties with similar situations have held up in value. Councilman Richards said that he believed that the Council must take into account that the subject property has been a buildable lot since 1971 and that -the impact on the neigh- borhood inight be 1;r..:.cr with a one -story dwelling which would require greater variances. lie then moved that the matter be continued to August 4, 1980, so that the staff could prepare findings, Decisions and ] teasons in favor of grant- ing the variance• 7 for review and decision by the Council. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman 'imidt. Ayes: Hicharc.. Schmidt, Courtney Nays: None Mot io.i carried. In respun::e to a request of Mr. Stewart that h.is alternate plan:: also he con - tildered, Mr. Erickson said that the Council must re: ;poled to the question of the vrirl:uicv- -; before getting into :i second question. 11r. Stewart asked that a copy Of these Minutes be sent to him. lie was advised that copies of the Finding..,, Decisions and Reasons would also be sent to hi to rl,n Nrnnnnnnro m as well as to Ms. 1fcInty, .tnri � U. LOT 7, MIRROR LAKES MC.ADOW WOOD SECOND ADDITION EDINA HIGHLANDS VARIANCES UPHELD. Mr. Hughe: recalled that the appeal from the Board of Appeals and Adjustments Decision for a lot depth variance and a front yard setback for Lot 7, Mirror Lakes Meadow Wood Second Addition Edina Highlands had been continued from the Council Meeting of July 18, 1980, so that the staft could prepare Findings, l/ Decisions and Reasons relative to the variances for review and decision by the Council, a copy of which is attached hereto and made z part o.f these Minutes. Ms. Dorothy McIntyre, 5540 Dundee Rd., reiterated tier objections which she made at the Council Meeting of July 18, 1980. She referred to item 9, Page 4,-of the Findings, Decisions and Reasons and said that is "where our case begins and ends" and that the City is still using ttie wrong map after nine years. Ms. McIntyre was reminded by the Council that the lot in question had been declared a buildable .lot in 1971 and that denial of the variance would con- 8/11/80 128 stitute an undue hardship which was not self imposed and that the front yard setback was influenced by the unusual setback to the West. Councilman Richards then moved that the Council deny the appeal and affirm the decision of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments in approving the variances, including the following conditions to the variance: 1. The variance is limited to ttie plans presented; 2. A landscaping plan for the berm is approved by the Planning staff prior to the issuance of a building permit; 3. The developer provides documentation of the required utility easement to allow connection to sewer and water in Dundee Road; 4. The sewer and water connection charges are paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Motion was seconded by Councilman Courtney. Rollcall: Ayes: Bredesen, Courtney, Richards, Van -Valkenburg Nays: None Motion carried. �r- CITY OF EDINA In the Matter of an Appeal from a Decision by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments Concerning the Petition for Variance by S & B Partnership, 5908 Vernon Avenue, for Part of Lot 7, Block 2, Mirror Lakes Meadow Wood Second Addition to Edina Highlands (B- 80 -23) FINDINGS, DECISIONS, AND REASONS The above entitled matter was heard before the City Council of the City of Edina on July.21, 1980 and August 4, 1980. Mr. Timothy Whitten representing S & B Partnership ( "Proponent ") was present. Ms. Dorothy McIntyre, 5540 Dundee Road ( "Appellant ") was present. Mr. Norman Stewart, 5607 Heather Lane and Ms. Sylvia Logerquist, 5540 Dundee Road were also present. The Edina City Council having heard and reviewed all of the facts, evidence and arguments presented by the Appellant, the Proponent, the proximate property owners and City staff and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by the Appellant, the Proponent, the proximate property owners, and City staff and being fully advise, after due consideration, hereby makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Proponent, on May 30, 1980, submitted a Petition for Variance (Case No. B- 80 -23) for a proposed single family dwelling to be located on.the following described parcel (the "Subject Property ") All that part of Lot 7, Block 2, MIRROR LAKES MEADOW -WOOD SECOND ADDITION TO EDINA HIGHLANDS, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the North- east corner of said Lot 7; thence Southerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 156.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the'line to be described; thence Westerly,at right angle to the said Easterly line to an intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 7 and.there terminating. The Petition for Variance (the "Petition ") requested a 31 foot lot depth variance and a 28 foot front yard setback variance. A pre- liminary site plan, boundary survey, and elevation drawings were submitted by the Proponent in support of the Petition. 2. According to Edina Ordinance No. 811, the Zoning Ordinance, single family dwelling lots must have a minimum mean lot depth of 120 feet. The mean lot depth of the Subject Property was computed by City staff to be 89 feet. Therefore, a 31 foot lot depth variance was requested by the Petition. According to the Zoning Ordinance, new single family dwellings must maintain a front yard setback of at least 30 feet. However, the front yard setback must be increased to the average front yard setback maintained by existing single family dwellings fronting on the same street as the proposed dwelling and located between intersecting streets. The average setback of such existing dwellings was computed to be 58 feet. Therefore, a 28 foot front yard setback variance was requested by the Petition. 3. The Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments (the. "Board ") considered the Petition at a public hearing held on June 19, 1980. The Board heard testimony from the Proponent and prop- erty owners residing in the vicinity of the Subject Property. The Board thereupon granted the variances requested by the Petition based on the following reasons: a) The development plans are desireable and appropriate for the site and should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. b) The proposed variance will preserve a substantial property right to permit a reasonable use of the land. c) The proposed variance will correct extraordinary circumstances that apply to the property. -2- The Petition was approved with the following conditions: a) The variance is limited to the plans presented. b) A landscaping plan for the berm is approved by the planning staff prior to the issuance of a building perm_ c) The developer provides documentation of the reauirec utility easement to allow connection to sewer and water in Dundee Road. d) The sewer and water-connection charges are paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. On June 24, 1980, The Edina City Clerk received a letter from Mr. Norman E. Stewart, 5607 Heather Lane, Edina, which letter constituted an appeal to the Edina.City Council from the decision of the Board granting the variances recuested by the Petition. On June 27, 1980, the Edina City Clerk also received a letter consitiuting an identical appeal as above noted from Ms. Dorothy E. McIntyre, 5540 Dundee Road, Edina. Both appeals were duly and properly filed in accordance with the Edina Zoning Ordinanc 5,. On July 7, 1980, the Edina City Council set a hearing date to consider the above appeals for July 21, 1980. 6. On July 11, 1980, the Edina City Clerk received a letter from Mr. Norman E. Stewart which letter constituted an abandonment and withdrawal of his appeal which was filed on June 24, 1980. 7. On July 21, 1980, the Edina City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the appeal from the Board's decision relative to the Petition. The City Council received testimony from the Proponent, reviewed plans presented by the Proponent, received testimony from the Appellant and also received testimonv from "ir. Norr^an E. Stewart even thouch -3- he had withdrawn his appeal. The Appellant testified that she objected to the Board's decision because the variance as granted were excessive and severe, the proposed dwelling which would be constructed pursuant to the variances would be too large for the Subject Property, and due to the elevation of the Subject Property, the proposed dwelling would be located at a higher relative elevatic as compared to her property thereby reducing privacy and increasing undesirable impacts. Mr. Norman E. Stewart testified that he would attempt to purchase the Subject Property and construct a dwelling which would not only respond to his personal health needs, but which would also provide a dwelling more compatible with sur- rounding properties. The Council thereupon continued the hearing to August 4, 1980, and ordered the preparation of Findings of Fact. 8. The Subject Property measures 10,856 square feet in area.. The Subject Property fronts on Vernon Avenue. The south property line measures approximately 140 feet, the east property line measures approximately 50 feet, the north property line mea- sures approximately 122 feet, and the west property line measures approximately 120 feet. The mean lot depth of the Subject Property is computed to be 89 feet. 9. The Subject Property was established as a separate parcel of property in 1971 by way of a subdivision of Lot 7, Block2, Mirror Lakes Meadow Wood Second Addition. The record of this sub- division indicates that the Planning Commissison and City Council may have believed in 1971 that the Subject Property which was created by the subdivision complied with the standards of the Edina .Zoning Ordinance. The Subject Property in fact did not comply with -4- the Edina Zoning Ordinance relative to lot depth. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission and City Council did approve the subdivision thereby creating the Subject Property with the understanding that the Subject Property did ccmply with the Zoning Ordinance. 10. The Edina Zoning Ordinance specified a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet. However, in this case, a dwelling located on the Subject Property would have to maintain at least the same front yard setback as the existing dwelling fronting on Vernon Avenue and located directly to the west of Subject Property. Due to this requirement, a front yard setback of at least 58 feet is required. 11. The Proponent's site plan illustrated a two story single family dwelling for the Subject Property. A 30 foot front yard setback for the dwelling is proposed. Side yard, rear yard lot coverage, building height and all other standards imposed by the Edina Zoning Ordinance are met by the proposed dwelling. The site plan for the proposed dwelling also illustrates a land- scape berm for the dwelling along Vernon Avenue and a driveway turn around to avoid automobiles backing onto Vernon Avenue. Therefore, based upon the foregoing Findings, the City Council does hereby make the following DECISION: The appeal of Dorothy E. McIntyre from the decision of the Edina Board of Appeals and Adjustments relative to the Petits . -5- for Variance by S & B Partnership is hereby denied and said decision by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments is hereby affirmed. The above decision is made for the following JREASONS: A. The variances.as granted by the Board will relieve an undue hardship which was not self- imposed and is not a mere convenience relative to the development of the Subject Property. With respect to the lot depth variance, the Subject Property was duly created by a subdivision approved by the City of Edina in 1971. The lot depth deficiency was affirmed by the City of Edina and not imposed or created by the Proponent. Likewise, the front yard setback variance is necessitated by the setback maintained by the dwelling to the west. The Proponent has no control over this setback requirement. No facts have been submitted and none are known which show that the Proponent can comply with setback and lot depth requirements and the variances granted are merely a convenience. B. The variances as granted by the Board will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to the Subject Property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The lot depth deficiency is indeed a unique and extra- ordinary circumstance that can only be reasonably corrected by a variance. The front yard setback requirement is extraordinary in that it is dictated by the dwelling to its west which maintains a setback of, nearly twice that required by the Edina Zoning Ordinance . Other properties in the vicinity or zoning district are not so encumbered. C. The variances as granted by the Board will preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. The property right to be preserved is the Proponent's right to make a reasonable use of the Subject Property. A reasonable use of the Subject Property is for the construction of one single family dwelling thereon. The variances as granted allow for such a reasonable use. 1) The requested variances will be necessary for any single family dwelling erected on the Subject Property. Without the variances, the site could not be developed for the purpose allowed in the zone in which the Subject Property is located. D. The variances as granted by the Board would not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. The variances would allow the construction of a single family dwelling in a neighbor- hood dominated by single family dwellings. The proposed use would thus be compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed dwelling wou maintain a front yard setback which complies with the minimum and normal setback for single family dwellings in the vicinity and zoning district. Therefore, the proposed dwelling would not appear unusual or out of character relative to the front yard setback. The proposed dwelling would maintain a proper and desireable spacing between other dwellings in the vicinity. The front yard setback will not adversely affect the property to the west. Also, the height of the proposed structure is not unusual and is common in the vicinit, of the Subject Property. -7- .;b- ? 4 1 � r ..': .7i �'•- •�.+.4, s-� T -^Ki.' t`�,. t. _ I.: 1. � .r - �� �`z� � r." �, a a� �a ,\^.wy, 'r�F;a�la �v:•V -'s~ t`' �-+b�'�•"'i { ��iS•i•�y_'i,#' a• '�, 1:. � t t.:` - °4F �,f s 4 r 4 r, � ' t -t S: •: ,, { �,;,�, r ,Y } s� y � ""R'7S�'. *�RT�..c 1'.3 Pf i. -N`. ti+Ya � - r ' °�•• i+'t �•'� t �' , h t Gr' �- •�•r•,.- "�y{".r � t +ail. u°. �-t-'r'St+� r't�r^�f.' �r��- �r.y6..i+--- r••-iT "I.'" 5 { � J} ,� `^• 7 „ `j r2 .� .. t ! t--, r 2 1 a .. � ti }.t 'T r-"Lw '-l'' Jrr•w..Ar "�r \ia JJ �1 �.. J'. .F` I <. :.i7 ``SY i-c �. - f ^ t- ; U K - - a{ Kr ' r ;,� -1.,• � >a� - ' _ � ` e ., a �1 ~. � .,w ..� l • r., �'_. .y .�i'!•�:....•.{� r"'!�"1 P- ��ew°�ti r.•R- •+�►•• r �. c�i :a' r ti�4-. �. �� �� t t :'ti. � kr ♦ h - � .,.� :� rt L > l�'a.- ..,, -�..,' a;= 1- �'�.'�S_ �•F -.-r �M �.s,� V - a,.,r� i�r ^P- 1�,,.- Y,�+ .n�a) j , eti �. '.�-1�`'• � '�•-- ^--- -• �o'4r'ill.:iS^ -'. +-+F•� ---- -c --•.'• •...•- ,.:^r.- �wax•f.•.�+? .++a'r0"s+,..Ntfs �r rs+iY S��n ` �-` �.a � . ��•- S y�e` �f °L '.7 '"t [.:. 'tV .�� T ;r..i f,,_. i rx��S �f y� cY o- t` �j 4,,. r-iF y-� - __ __'_ Y7 ,,r �' � t ' .-�c _� t �+ � +•• � '►•s�!,h� sF`'h .�.'Fi,� � ;�'+`^., � r � .�a ^ Ta� r l w r .l � ° r .. •'3J� L�� i ' }� R • a_ .. ,"C'a",�.'°'"'tr�'�^"'�� i '' Y� �'s. �- `�.,�- ��zr ldf 1 .. _ \ • s. }••1 . �yY �' c4 r t _.: � ;; w _ •��,, �_ ,f� �i_ -d? - ''�•�• :�`.l�t`""a`.�� �•�zr uv "..`.'.iti. .. , «i � r T.i•- �:•u•�- ri•_c• .r _ ,�1 � - rLJ'Y . 4 i.-a 7 �• �. : r+•.i ? : �C � _ � ��•� v aN r=>.Lt .. r) , t�..►\„y �} �` , IT our Ik ~✓b- .,r +' .Y �. t .r -t'w"4 y,.r - +•r�tY S ttit St ±.f y _ 71 3 7 ;"•� i�4 °,ter, {: O:L..,,1 '!' .f'R�'�'. �. ..•a r.n -�:. "��'r � �y,,,,� ,y,• - � >► �`t � `� �+_ ''� r a1 M•ra�..s��,...:��� � .t:•. r.�'J� 4 t.-r ;+Fr�33 rr.a- .�t•a' � . - �.,�F.a�Y.�cw �`N dal:• y r s 'y +Hl.1 } `� 1 i. aS, .' 1 1 t iiyf(4 t 1 7 rf ;•' t: r r _ .,>.`rrRa.� +4•f4. -.';� � "e g'' � �: t, ;fir•,' • ' a�•� r .��t.d - R / +, j �' y� i w .,1r� � - ?lt{',f a �. i A �. •r . �..� , �-di� "'S� +•!V1� ' 1+� �Y.?;�.Rif.Yi 1 '�.'ti i.# �;-:.a.aww � -. lr .# -, � �'tY � i� "l :aJ CS :�' r'y\ l_� ,n ,t�-`- I 4tS ,'tr •, •,+ ._.1, -'r`r � .� 1� 'V' yi.V r. .tea _ > - t .- ..:.cam r ! r•t .+.�� .'. .�.: E � v T - 11:','r , r � .1. s rY. ��Yi: � '' - - '4 S L ti s. '�`y S,tirj_'.'W -W F W.. -�.i.- �•N . u`-�.. �r,,,vVh.w°.+�tt: i r �.. - 4.4 .+ �.�r vJ t S it �' y _ � � r- ' S ••� w G - i� ' - atr ,� �i,�3.. .�-.! } °'$ - y:• =�:.;} ..a .c- '4rar,�1.,. -,,u _:,•[ 1;�'� Y� ••y[i+�Mw.. St' .,'; ,�.! � - ;T i - w�•.: r. •; '; ,.�.y: ' .' j A �a�'p�y�.r�•'j���aTT Tb�{,�°4T'L11^r'�, "i`7Il7 * I'1 _.i� %T. `-ir -? �`�•• - J"D ;ir f� f -, r !. 4 rl•' � ..'t "et - f Y� �1'7ca"' ,i� r i�,,`� -r �:>- > y+l'btc•n.r;•� _F- ,�- cr!..j r,F � S �G S - ,V..�.,t y -- i nc `t � i.. r �n �., a I ��4 ; aJ 1 .. i.r�Y•T' '_ -_ - t�l •� y _,, .L+ •rr .�,Y ` .i'- � .> ' y..1 rS,Y •i.j tti r,5 1�µ;= �,i -'y ... y �' i I P �1••'L ti e".t w+ �. u I.t� + :.w �., �i�rr ,T r 7 t - � • �� ,.�' ` ''. .'F' } c. r 'r 1`z.� ,t ,..:: i _ ti, !�.:`Y_.r.r S' � i.' i .: 1�z :� •i. � t: r •� � -�'Y _"S �:"'#� ,��'�.aw'W� ..It- iw'!�?6• �Mtiy. --r .' !.'1.iil. t.yt. }'....iii; 4�. p,r �'ir -R �"�,f. 1+` .y )� .n> � i �.. `.'1 ^s�.�i r.3 .: r. _ +.... ` .�. �. � f. � �'�`�SR+�y.�•�r. ` ;��y-. J 1 t� t � • i� .rat I � ',7, ,� p - t - k a Y _ r � y�_ � ` r i - �Y �•r +- 'fir - -. -t� C ' VIZ I'^I�.'S"" •ifa �k ;` �`1 - . ...s .j- t. 5�t' �, y�..t�ri T> �OV ?S 3;,� - � `• •v fW f~ t'1 ,-R- 4. c - -• ',^`�• ♦ a— `+r [ J. 7 ,t � ,� � ��,-_` . -+�7� -� _ i4 �G• -a _ � '3 °'v: •}s....v � �-'. -. ti •Nr:;� � t• Iy 'i.t.i�]'1 r; � t i ; • .: �;_�" o: �r..� .. ti.at, � � •+'15�t �.Y -r? �i �� 'Z�4.'y e t �{o�tc F J`��r ,•� S 'i r :--.r a _y J - ... '�'E -"' 7' �`' ..t1 ��,; wa.. e� f - _ $�ie�`�4►.y..w�. �r'�`4f`YXa`.w [� `. a.� -�- t m."� St4 � �, 4,�_'uyf l WF • ?1 '� �.- .'1..%' -j..:i .'C" YV- >J - +`i;s J-,� t'l -f`� )tfi.Y r •+ > ,e. � �r,..t,� y �, ..: `t, � . � '` - •. - -- �7 ri',n �i�1 Ca17, t .+.� r-,• . i y ?- -r�-J' ` • y tz ,..` = " "ter, -" �. r �r �A. •°`'k', i, 1't Te- s..� . �• t �t• ��..��'iI ""` f.+r+°a.,�. r- 'y •.44_ �." ES" ♦Yk J 1 `c• '.y�f � �- rSy �, ;rr�.l-�r, 41. f .. -r.. y \ l'- ►jjrr•• 4 ;► �°1f ��� a �:«A Y ��,,, "✓Zrr' '�1.�".� 'ti s..•,;.;`iV s�= �fr1ri1 ��:;t...;.�^- . k I,^ � -. _ter " 5. 'T�G?�e"5_ ?�,I�;•r i` -._'vJ t •.. 1 , t. y`•- rY '7- >v�b �'. � Y'fi� i.°��'.¢. �-5k � `A'.'y� � -z1.. r. G_ rvr.,, ^`�.1: :,�.;�w. w T r ti v �.,. i' »�- �,,..,Yf _ra-"'�:�'.s.x- _a�-i : , � . � 'tiff^ JLC�1,cT _+/c - 2'+'- 7•- -, •, ; • + .. _r ;� f :'3 _„r.,F•Y r � C. �1'ta- � i � � LI•S i �_„ `yi•4 c t- 'T••I � N�- 7•? =;tit. and .1d j us tmcnts 19£0 Mr. Sand explained that the subject property in lot depth. The ordinance requires a minimum 120 foot depth straight line connecting the midpoint of the front and rear lot The subject lot has a depth of 89 feet, therefore a 31 foot lot is requested. Mr. Sand stated that the lot has a width of 123 exceeds the required 75 foot minimum width, and the lot has an 10,856 square feet which exceeds the required minimum lot area feet. is deficient as measured by a lines. depth variance feet which area of Of 9000 square Mr. Sand said that the lot division file indicates-that there may have been a misunderstanding about the size of the lot that was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The graphics of record indicate a conforming lot depth was illustrated and the minutes refer to a buildable lot and a lot that conforms to the required lot dim- ensions. There was no record of any variances for the lot. Mr. Sand stated however, that the legal description that was ultimately approved by the Council has a substandard lot depth. The actual survey of the lot was dated after the Council's approval of the division. Mr. Sand said that the two lots created by the division remained under the ownership of Mrs. Willes until approximately one year ago. At'that time, the northerly lot with the dwelling at 5540 Dundee Rd, was sold and the vacant southerly lot was retained by Mrs. Willes. Mr. Sand said that the Staff finds the proposed development plans very well conceived and the proposed structure is handsome and well suited to the site. The developer has taken care to prepare plans that fit within the topography and limitations of the site. He said that the front yard setback variance is appropriate because the setback meets the nominal requirement and the only other house involved has a very large setback, it is a very old house and there is no visual relationship between the dwel- lings. The staff felt that the lot depth variance is an isolated situation that does not promote crowding of dwellings because the variance will not permit an excess number of lots in the area. The lot has been approved by the Council and is a separate parcel which implies the right to use the lot in a reasonable fashion. The Staff is not aware of another reasonable use for the property. The proposed plans seem to be a desirable development of the property:, Mr. Sand indicated that the Staff recommended approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1) The -variance is limited to the plans presented. 2) A landscaping plan for the berm is approved by the Planning Staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3) The developer provides documeiitatioii of the required utility casement to allow connection to sewer and water in Dundee Rd. 4) The sewer and water connection charges are paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. •Board of Appeals and Adjustments June 19, 1980 Page 4 Mr. Gordon Johnson said that he would maintain the chair, but abstain from voting on this variance request because he moved approval of the division in 1971. - Mr. Miller asked for a clarification of the actual division that was approved in 1971. Mr. Sand explained that the graphics that were , reviewed illustrated a conforming lot, however the legal description approved by the City Council resolution defines the smaller lot illustrated in the survey.- Mr. Bentley asked for a clarification of the front yard setback requirements. Mr. Sand explained that the proposed 30 foot setback would be acceptable in an undeveloped area, however, more than 25 percent of the frontage on Vernon Avenue has a setback larger than 30 feet which changes the requirement to the average setback or the setback of adjacent structures. Mr. Timothy Uhitten, 6509 Sherwood Avenue, representing S and B Partnership, presented his plans for the house. He explained that he worked with the City Staff to develop plans that responded to the limit- ations of the site. Mr. Whitten reviewed the Staff recommendation and said that they would not have any difficulties satisfying the conditions. Mr. Jim Nunn, realtor, representing Mrs. Willes stated that when the dwelling at 5540 Dundee Rd. was sold, the purchase agreement contained a clause that requires tha grant of a utility easement for the lot at 5908 Vernon Ave. The easement has been prepared but has not yet been executed. Ms. Dorothy McIntyre said that she and Ms. Sylvia Logerquist were owners of the house at 5540 Dundee Rd. which they purchased from Mrs. Willes in 1979. She acknowledged that they were aware of the clause for the utility easement and they thought it would be possible the lot would be sold and developed.. She disapproved of the variances based upon their severity. She felt the proposed two story house plans were too large for this small lot and she was concerned because the proposed dwelling would sit higher than the other houses in the neighborhood, possibly reducing privacy. Pis. Carolyn Long, 5600 Dundee Rd. said that she agreed with Pis. McIntyre's statements. buildable lot in issue before the of the variances the possible opt dwelling. Clark Miller clarified that the lot was approved as a 1971 by the City Council and therefore this was not the Board. The question is the kind of structure and the sire that are appropriate. A general discussion followed concerning ions changing the design and configuration of the proposed F - ,� e ` 4a►•,�,�� � h � �`r�`- "�1r�>... �•'��F� -rh •Ki}`�,••4: `�'..C!� s.. • �.: L��- ,�ii�ya��`��- � 4,,ytt ^��.y�., +.1 }.� +:•a C� u.� ry+ •..:�^•F c �' aH�-•� � � �+' .c,a \, a ► � �� l aF'� �r- r it - � Z � y ,� ry- �+ T� ���- ti 7 ? w �:. � �� r�. *�`� +.�,' t��p t _ y r,^'•�, _t ✓+ '� � L � 2 t j �.t , +�'� � �'S � � �,,:..•��^t:� c' 1 •-, .s.- ivJ�K����~ � x'��,i -y.• \ rL�rr�i.� J t. '( ^� �' �. ��' .'j .! � ^ .` ��'�r�K�� �v a"C'6�� �s��ja tir}''��:�i`P_> +4v��Vi4 f►►tt� �� {i� � .. "� �' ;• f .�- �5"�.'� T"r��� i '??+.�, yJ �`- �^`'I- a,. �. r;'rt4�' �.a.+3'�'.- �_„'o'� �' �= r� ' :`"`�fi4 J � : � C,�_ �• S.F _ h_ �.-•..� =� '� � .�`t �rt,•a+'�ry' la —a..s� �' '3�' tti r= ; k r' t _ .. � T r� .a.�. ' •_. ' •_ y�3r`!f7lx n'}�'•..,;Np�.7tijy"'..rrl�oiE� "•5�., �.7"•�• 9r -'YJ'f i;�'L...a a. h.� •' 'Yrtr ► .;,�,1 >K !�,'v ,'' : 1,•v.^�. ,n ....rc.� �� + •:1.� l rg 7'. �'. - S '.l)T .i W-V y ., .N� � ar. hg r � � '+!. 7 - �(,_ � �I Y._�,.��.�ti . �;'.f ;. � � J � T � �• �1 ` al. C� •�,Zf � + ;'r yl�•,•' fo ri. - � -':1 v. r � _ 1 � .:, -� 'i ,1 � • i � •' i.�_. ' R nt �[ .i�r _ (�11r E• 4'x'� �� 1 ` �� ��� V Y 4•' 1 � r� ;S. � �;. S� y- 'G.`r�1. 1`Y _� `t r ``aft l +r. :. F � ,; t• * i'a , ,R 4w •r� .-:. ♦ � s � �, 7 u'_`4 _ y ;�� tkc:����� 2 '•• yr` ��r1 7�F� r .� •i i d i -,. , f,,, � �.'. h.: r :. r. t*` V '� < 1V M� �Y y � r �r:��. �� � �� � . >w Y. •�?r«f ry � fir. ��. r � •!�`r1�•.c �Y T � a„ -.-•*% _ . �,r� s � -c ,ref'' ' �- •e"''a Y � i� 4 �r- �+.., � - t'-; y,� , .� � t?' F' �., Ts l k y, ""n'(- �'�.i.•.R.�ts•.�. r.� 1 � s'�-�s -_..+� . � -1 \ . tf �"ti?(� ` __�:...1 Y•r :.jl t`�'M1."'tiF. • /..R�ti� (�K � �� 1}�1! .A �1 L -� � i .n!1';t `Y �� �`�ti,.'y -� 1 rtt i1`t��-' --may � e = Y ti � .. 4 - i ..,,� c r r rt ��� � �` �; r+r � �''�>~�` .+ _t�' rtYr ���4F4 >'�' f�y,:���r-��.•- i�.� 1�-r+ � y?�� �' r.ii' <- ` k�?�.t� ��1��•':�`�tc�`z- ,•iT`�t�+_� r,- �sit.��R� :�C��,M��`,� r�.�..c, �C ���'a" �'�;,"i�++ �•�.�:•a.. �...+• ° '_ ti.. � rV A .c r•,��,��" ',tL a��ik � "' {�lx- �c�'�i� +s -r�^� {a'� i * ; •r=� � rlr � �•''rS�. .byK �1c'�t.. ;��.. ��` �y�,*�-"�q���+;�""'a �"� \�5'Y.�y� � 't ''�y � _ +'. h- 1 „' ,`t 't' � S� r �l�•� -� i•, aL{' Y�i�: i�. :.;i�c��u'.����`'�te�•- r�_2i:�. �fuiaA�..- '�ia.�.:,t'-..aw.. � -� ._�..:�.,h .'_ -. .. - .i.�:J',rr_-,_ 1-•. _�r._ .- -_ _ r...r_ •e _ :±.Y4r: Willage of C E din a 4301 WEST FIFTIETH STREET EDINA. MINNESOTA 33624 927 -8861 RESOLUTION APPROVING DIVISION OF LOT 7, BLOCK 2, MIRROR LAKES MEADOW -WOOD 2ND ADDITION TO EDINA HIGHLANDS WHEREAS, Lot 7, Block 2, Mirror Lakes Meadow -Wood 2nd Addition to Edina Highlands is at present a single tract of land; and WHEREAS, the owner has requested the subdivision of said tract into separate parcels (herein called "Parcels ") described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence Southerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 156.00 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; L•hence Westerly at right angle to the said Easterly line to an intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 7 and there terminating; and Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 7, thence Southerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 156.00 feet to the actual point u; beginning cf the line to be described; thence Westerly at right angle to the said Easterly line to an intersection with the: Westerly line of said Lot 7 and there terminating; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that compliance with the subdivision and "Zoning Regulations of the Village of Edina will cMate an unnecessary hardship and said Parcels as separate tracts of land do not interfere with the purposes cf the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations as contained in the Village of Edina Ordi- nance Nos. Eli and S01; NW9 THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved by the Village Council cf the Village of Edina that the conveyance and ownership of said Parcels as separate tracts of land is hereby approved and the requirements and provisions of Ordinance No. 811 and Ordinance No. 801 are hereby waived to allow said division and convey- ance thereof as separate tracts of land but are not waived for any other purpose or as to any other provision thereof, and subject, however, t3 the �!rovision that no further subdivision be made of said Parcels unless made in compliance with the pertinent ordinances of the Village of Edina or with the prior approval of this Council as may be provided for by those ordinances. DATED this 6th day of December, 1971. STATE OF MINNES= ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN j SS '711.1. E OF EDINA ) CERTIFICATE OF VILLAGE CLERK I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Village Clerk for the Village of Edina, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Edina Village Council at its Regular Meeting of December 6, 1971, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said Village this 7th day of December, 1971. Fo V'-) 0 � u TH t- '�f'►)C.t.',ry��,i' k _. "":, n 1���T �� - ts�e,r e.tir �01 {SST Co¢iQ i \ �c_Fi),= `�Z9.4t7 Z 1 •r7 P� 8°i ° 34, VII o 1g u� <v V(p 1tUli�, r: 1-fA -: 9 3D F 00 w - - - -- a- �,�3z.t�1 � 1 X 'P 2(o•O h1JU r Vp �aQ (*�5 CA,cy gA�►j Proposed garage floor / elevation Proposed top of block elevation \Z kD Lrz rJ V,10 r I~ L .... Toe 1?bO rI,=912.z1 Top few o . =9129 tio� Fes a� °•0 1i Top Ieo•J 0 190 0 X2 Z90 in 0 Bearings are assumed Subject to easements of record if any 0 Denotes set or found iron pipe monument Denotes set wood hub and tack 931.1 Denotes existing elevation 931. Denotes proposed finish grade elevation / Proposed lowest floor Denotes direction of surface drainage et¢ta+�co4i , I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of all that part of Lot 7, Block 2, BdIRROR LAKES MEADOW -WOOD SECOND ADDITION TO EDINA HIGHLANDS, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said Lot 7; thence Southerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 156,00 feet to the actual point of begiiiking of the line to be described; thence Westerly at right angle to said Easterly line to an intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 7 and there terminating, i;tAlso showing the proposed location of a house as staked thereon with elevation, That I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State o Minnesota. f Dated: Junee,20, 1994 �1FU tSF.J) -_� ��1 `( 1$� l��q Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Registration No. 17009 121 Lewis Street S. Suite No. 102 Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 Phone 612 445 -4027 Al Y'r. rlr'.\' fr•,.T.r t.�•(, �1�)r � \•�••::D� \rs�� �1(�f'TT {F1� °ST �(1R�JfiP'1��(iT 7• � (j ! J, Coo t, Ocyvy -11FC_ L+Rr, \F- LlF is (1►.� f\.)r 17..��. 1 l_ i r I �. � cal • , ��� j � .. . l 1 1 _..I.'` L- ..1 f i �.,),.`a t .t 1 • ( I It T a CDs 26. ry ;� co c.rnl t v _ o _ C(Ol N l .t �., top t P.O0 d Ilk NO VNI� >> �r7b in _ ct Bearings are assumed . - / A N - ��0 o�� �� Subject to easements of record' if any t i'''`+`• �� �" /`� Denotes set or found iron pipe monument. Denotes set wood hub and tack Proposed garage floor P, elevation `-13\.1 Denotes existing elevat.lon Proposed top of block -.._ elevation (J31.Tj Denotes proposed finish grade olevat.Ion 1 Pro �osed lowest floor Denotes direction of surface drathage I eta +rr�o.a �^ .t I hnrohy certify that this is a true and co�ledt representation of a surv4, of the boundaries of i all that, part of. Lot: 7, Block 2) MIRROR LAKES MEADOW -WOOD SECOND ADDITI N TO EDINA FFIGFtLAN17S, TTonnopi n County, Minnesota) lying Sdutherly'of the following described line: Commencing at the Northnnst. corner of said Lot 7; thence Southerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 156.00 feot to the actual point of Wiinning of the line to be described; thence Westerly at right angle to said Easterly line to an intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 7 and there terminating, ;-Also showing the proposed location of a house as staked thereon with elevat.ion� 'chat I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. ( & �R 1 Dated: June. 1994 J tw ,FU4`FU; Okluy 1p,l1`YXl Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Registration No. 17009 121 Lewis Street S. Suite No. 102 Shakopeel Minnesota 55379 _ Phone 612 445 -4027 r f i �.,),.`a t .t 1 • ( I It T a CDs 26. ry ;� co c.rnl t v _ o _ C(Ol N l .t �., top t P.O0 d Ilk NO VNI� >> �r7b in _ ct Bearings are assumed . - / A N - ��0 o�� �� Subject to easements of record' if any t i'''`+`• �� �" /`� Denotes set or found iron pipe monument. Denotes set wood hub and tack Proposed garage floor P, elevation `-13\.1 Denotes existing elevat.lon Proposed top of block -.._ elevation (J31.Tj Denotes proposed finish grade olevat.Ion 1 Pro �osed lowest floor Denotes direction of surface drathage I eta +rr�o.a �^ .t I hnrohy certify that this is a true and co�ledt representation of a surv4, of the boundaries of i all that, part of. Lot: 7, Block 2) MIRROR LAKES MEADOW -WOOD SECOND ADDITI N TO EDINA FFIGFtLAN17S, TTonnopi n County, Minnesota) lying Sdutherly'of the following described line: Commencing at the Northnnst. corner of said Lot 7; thence Southerly along the Easterly line thereof a distance of 156.00 feot to the actual point of Wiinning of the line to be described; thence Westerly at right angle to said Easterly line to an intersection with the Westerly line of said Lot 7 and there terminating, ;-Also showing the proposed location of a house as staked thereon with elevat.ion� 'chat I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. ( & �R 1 Dated: June. 1994 J tw ,FU4`FU; Okluy 1p,l1`YXl Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Registration No. 17009 121 Lewis Street S. Suite No. 102 Shakopeel Minnesota 55379 _ Phone 612 445 -4027 Nom. REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO. Mayor Richards and City Council Members FROM: John Keprios, Director, Park and Recreation Department VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5,000 DATE: July 15, 1994 AGENDA ITEM zv • A. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Edina Aquatic Center Public Address /Sound System Company Amount of Quote or Bid 1. MTS Northwest Sound, INC. 1. $6,598.00 2. AEI Audio Electronics, INC. 2, $6,928.00 3. MID -CO T.V. Systems, INC. 3, $7606.12 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: MTS Northwest Sound, INC. $6,598.00 GENERAL INFORMATION: This purchase is to replace the existing system. Park Department ignature Department The Recommended bid is within budget not witFjan t get _,Jelin Wallin, F ance Director Kenneth Rosland City y1eir Y-,6;,) REQUEST FOR PURCHASE. TO: MAYOR RICHARDS AND EDINA CITY COUNCIL FROM: WILLIAM BERNHJELM, CHIEF OF POLICE VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.000 DATE: JULY 28, 1994 AGENDA NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Company 1. STREICHER'S 2. RIGS & SQUADS $. RESCUE ONE 4. 5. POLICE SQUAD CAR EQUIPMENT IV. B. Amount of Quote or Bid 1• $ 14,846.31 2. (Incomplete /No Bid) $. (Incomplete /No Bid) 4. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: STREICHER'S GENERAL INFORMATION: THE ADDITION OF A PASSENGER SIDE AIR BAG ON ALL 1994 MODEL POLICE CARS NECESSITATES REPLACEMENT OF INTERIOR SIREN AND EMERGENCY LIGHT CONTROLS. EMERGENCY LIGHT BARS ARE AT THE END OF THEIR EXPECTED LIFE AND NEWER MODELS PROVIDE BETTER LIGHTING AND PROTECTION. THE QUOTE IS FOR PURCHASE OF REQUIRED EQUIPMENT AND ITS INSTALLATION ON SIX (6) MARKED POLICE CARS. The Recommended bid is POLICE within budget not Kenneth Rosland; City o REQUEST FOR PURCHASE TO: Mayor Richards and Council Members FROM: John Keprios, Director, Park and Recreation Department VIA: Kenneth Rosland City Manager SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PURCHASE IN EXCESS OF $5.00 DATE: July 28, 1994 AGENDA ITEM IV • C . ITEM DESCRIPTION: - Change order for existing contract with Perkins Company Landscape Contractors Amount of Quote or Bid 1. Original Perkins Contract 1•$13,985 2. Change Order 2.$ 2,044 3. TOTAL 3-$16,029 4. 4. 5. 5. RECOMMENDED QUOTE OR BID: Perkins Landscape Contractors $16,029 GENERAL INFORMATION: Original contract,was for construction of keystone retaining wall along tee oasis on holes #13, 17, 18, 9, 19, and 8 at Braemar Golf Course. Change order is for keystone wall at the 13th tee oasis. The Recommended bid is .:: 41 within budget not PARK AND RECREATION Department Rosland City Manager Director AGENDA ITEM V.A. CITY OF EDINA PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 26, 1994 TO: Mayor Frederick Richards and City Council members. FROM: John Keprios, Director SUBJECT: Herbicide moratorium an recommended plan of action. At the July 18, 1994, Edina City Council meeting, staff was directed to establish a plan and a process to address the recommendations of Mr. Matt Peterson and the Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee ( ECHSAC). The recommendations presented to the City Council by the ECHSAC were as follows: 1. Establish a temporary moratorium on the Edina Park and Recreation Department's use of herbicides, with the exception of revenue facilities in the City parks system including the Braemar Golf Course,.Normandale Golf Course, Braemar Arena, Edinborough Park, Arneson Gardens, Courtney ball fields and Van Valkenburg Park. It was suggested that the temporary moratorium remain in effect until March 31, 1995. 2. That the Parks Department and associated City offices research and propose an implementation plan intended to achieve the following: a. The discontinuance of the spraying or application of pesticides by the City or its contractors in as many locations and situations as possible. b. Management of playing fields and open grassy areas of city parks and other public properties for weed, insect and disease control by alternative means involving no or significantly less use of potentially hazardous chemicals. c. In general use park areas, spraying shall not be conducted for the primary purpose of improving the aesthetic appearance of grassy areas. Only more critical issues of turf management such as surface safety, wind and water erosion control, serious insect infestation, control of water runoff, and the health of trees and related vegetation shall be justification for targeted pesticide application. d. Inform the residents of the city regarding lower cost reduced hazard approaches to park and grounds management. Helping citizens to accept a higher "weed tolerance ", and slower acting methods of problem control. I fully concur with these recommendations and ask that the City Council adopt a temporary moratorium as recommended by the ECHSAC. For the City Council to adopt a temporary moratorium at this time, please know that a change in ordinance would not be necessary. The adoption of a resolution is all that would be necessary because the only properties affected by this temporary moratorium would be owned by the City of Edina. (over) It is also important to note by State law to eradicate any throughout the City, whether property. -2- that the City of Edina is mandated of twelve (12) noxious weeds found it be found on public or private In answer to the question regarding current park and other public property turf care contractual obligations, the City of Edina (Park and Recreation Department) has a contract with the TruGreen- ChemLawn Company. There are no more herbicide applications to be applied under this contract. However, there is one more application of fertilizer only (no herbicides) that will be applied by contract to the following eight (8) areas in early fall, 1994: 1. Arneson Acres Park 2. Edina City Hall 3. Edina Fire Department 4. Frank Tupa Park 5. York and 72nd - Center 6. Edina Public Works 7. Edina Court & 50th St. 8. Browndale Park Island (2 elevated islands) As Mr. Peterson pointed out, fertilizers are not a concern in this issue. I apologize for not having this information available to you on July 18 and I certainly did not mean to mislead, embarrass, or misinform the City Council. Sorry! As for a plan, the Edina Park and Recreation Department staff proposes to establish and complete a park use classification matrix by October 1, 1994. This matrix will group specific areas according to usage and grouped by age of users. Further, staff proposes that we begin our research by gathering turf management information from (at the very least) the following organizations: 1. University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service. 2. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture. 3. The Minneapolis Park Board staff. 4. The Minnesota Park Supervisors Association. 5. The Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. The intent of the research is to: 1. Gather unbiased scientific data on turf management that requires less or no use of herbicides. 2. Understand the results of the Minneapolis Park Board's policy. 3. Determine realistic costs (labor and materials) associated with alternate forms of turf management. It is staff's goal to have the research and staff recommendations completed and prepared by December 1, 1994. It is staff's recommendation that the Edina Community Health Services Advisory Committee review staff's research and recommendations for alternatives for turf management during the month of December, 1994. It is also staff's recommendation to have the Edina Park Board review the matter, including the ECHSAC's recommendation, at their January, 1995 meeting. The plan is to then have the matter before the Edina City Council on Monday, February 6, 1995. /` REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: GORDON L. HUGHES Agenda Item # V. B. Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ DATE: AUGUST 1, 1994 I Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA SUBJECT: PROPOSED CELLULAR ANTENNA INSTALLATION - EDINA FIRE DEPARTMENT Recommendation: ® To Council Action ❑ Motion Authorize execution of Option and Lease Agreement. Info/Background: © Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion City staff has been approached by representatives of USWest/New Vector Group, Inc. for the purpose of discussing the erection of a single monopole tower on the grounds of the Edina Fire Department. The proposed monopole tower would replace the existing public safety tower which is located on the fire station itself. The public safety antennas would be transferred from the existing tower to the new monopole. In addition, USWest would install a cellular telephone antenna on the monopole. The attached letter from Jaymes B. Littlejohn, attorney for USWest, outlines the terms of a proposed agreement with respect to the erection and operation of the tower. As explained in Mr. Littlejohn's letter, USWest would pay all costs associated with the erection of the monopole and the relocation of the City's public safety antennas. In addition, USWest proposes to pay a rental of $1,000 per month for their right to attach their antennas to the tower. The term of the lease is five years which may be renewed for four subsequent five year periods. An increase in the rent is provided if USWest elects to renew the lease for subsequent five year periods. REPORT/RECOMMENDATION - PROPOSED CELLULAR ANTENNA INSTALLATION/EDINA FIRE DEPARTMENT August 1, 1994 Page two USWest has submitted the attached project booklet which illustrates the height and location of the proposed monopole and antennas, as well as the existing public safety antenna. Public safety antennas and towers are exempt from the requirements of the Antenna Ordinance. However, private antennas, such as that proposed by USWest are subject to the Ordinance. Due to the height of the USWest antenna, a variance from the Antenna Ordinance is required. This variance was considered by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments at its July 21, 1994, meeting. After considering the_request, the Board granted the variance. The attached Board of Appeals staff report and minutes of the July 21, 1994, meeting, summarize the variance issues. This variance, of course, is of no affect unless the Council agrees to proceed with the lease agreement. Chief Paulfranz will be prepared to speak to public safety issues with respect to this matter at the August 1, 1994, meeting. In addition, representatives of USWest will be present to answer any questions. LAW OFFICES HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG PROMSSIONAL ASSOCIATION Minneapolis • Saint Paul - Washington. D.C. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis. Minnesota 55402 -2228 (612) 330 -3000 Facsimile 371 -0653 laymes D. Littlejohn (612) 330 -3003 July 21, 1994 -Mr: Gordon Hughes Assistant City Manager City of Edina 4801 West 50th Street Edina. MN 55424 -1394 Re: Proposed Lease For Cellular Antenna Site Tracy Avenue Fire Station Dear Mr. Hughes: This letter contains a brief explanation of the proposed lease between my client, US West NewVector Group, Inc. (US West Cellular), and the City of Edina. The lease contemplates the construction of a small addition to the fire station at 6250 Tracy Avenue and the erection of a single monopole antenna tower near the addition. Part of the addition and the tower will be used by the fire department as it sees fit. Part of the addition and the tower will be used for the location of a cellular telephone antenna site by US West Cellular. If you have not yet received a copy of the lease at the time you receive this letter, you should expect to receive a copy of it shortly. This letter is being prepared based upon my review of a draft of the agreement and our discussions concerning the lease, but you should refer to the lease itself to be certain of its terms since the lease, and not this letter, is the proposed contract between the City and US West Cellular.. If you, the city attorney, or any other person have questions concerning the lease or the proposed construction, please feel free to call Bernie Wong, at 720 -0079, or me, at the above telephone number. Rent is proposed to be paid monthly at the rate of $1,000 per month or $12,000 per year for the first five year term of the lease. 'fie lease provides for the possibility of four extensions of the lease, each of which would be for an additional five year term. The proposed annual rent for each of the terms is as follows: first renewal - $14,400; second renewal - $17,280; third renewal - $20,736; and fourth renewal - $24,883.20. All tolled, if the cell site remains for the entire 25 years possible under the lease, the City would receive a total of $446,496. Mr. Gordon Hughes Proposed Lease For Cellular Antenna Site Tracy Avenue Fire Station Page 2 US West Cellular will provide all construction work to build the addition and erect the monopole, of course. In addition, we will relocate the City's existing communications antennas on the new monopole and take down the two existing towers at the site. The City's only responsibility would be to sell the old towers once they are taken down. Although this is not set forth in the lease, since the towers are the property of the City, proceeds of the sale of the used towers would belong entirely to the City, of course. All improvements to the fire station site, including the building and the monopole, will become the property. of the City as soon as construction is complete. As a result, the City will retain the monopole and the building addition, regardless of whether US West Cellular stays at the site for five years or 25 years. The lease does provide for termination if the site is no longer useful as a communications facility for US West Cellular, or if we should be unable to obtain or maintain any license, permit or other government approval necessary to construct or operate the site. In any event, when the lease ends, the fire department and the City will retain the new building addition and monopole that we propose. US West Cellular is compelled by the FCC and the lease to operate the site in a manner that will not cause radio interference with the fire station's radio equipment at the site. To be certain that no future tenant of the City at this site causes interference with the cellular system. the lease provides that no antennas, other than the City's, will be erected within 20 feet, vertically and horizontally, of our cellular antennas. The lease provides that future tenants will not otherwise cause interference with our cell site operation. As you may have expected, the lease requires that both the City and US West Cellular carry insurance at the site. With respect to damage to property of either the City or US West Cellular, each parry must look solely to its own insurance for damage, no matter what the cause. With respect to damage or injury to others, each party agrees to indemnify the other for that party's own acts. The intent of this is that the insurance of the City and of US West Cellular will cover the parties if necessary. The City will need to advise its insurer of these provisions to be sure that it is properly covered, and we will do likewise, of course. While there are a number of other, more detailed terms contained in the lease, I hope that this letter will provide the brief explanation that you requested. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Bernie or me. Sincerely, HESSIAN, McKASY & SODERBERG, P.A. All Jaymes D. Littlejohn JDL/ 61141 -1 053020040240D LOCATION MAP X: S1 J u 7 n� .•111 \ \ • ,W\ � 11 t _ �_ ..., f - PLAC i . T y ` 1 . CO •NIAL �+�+o CHURCH :..JVO 62 EDWA f•i' .:c':.. •' is �i�sti"\•���� � „��� y!�!.• ,��r -r �.7r�' � q�:: (j :1 `� =t• •I VARIANCE NUMBER B -94 -34 L O C A TI O N 6250 Tracy Ave. REQUEST A 350 foot setback variance for a 75 foot tall antenna tower EDINA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 1 0, � EDINA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS STAFF REPORT JULY 21, 1994 B -94 -34 U.S. West New Vector Group Inc /James D. Littlejohn 6250 Tracy Avenue East 223 feet of that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 line South of the North 693 feet thereof and North of County Highway 62, except roads Zoning: R -1 Request: A 350 foot setback variance for a 75 foot antenna tower Background The U.S. West New Vector Group has submitted an application to construct an antenna tower on the City of Edina's fire station site located north of highway 62 and west of Tracy Avenue. The purpose of the tower is to consolidate the existing antennae and communications equipment of the fire station and add a cellular telephone antenna for U.S. West New Vector.There are currently two radio towers located on the fire station site used for public safety, a 66 foot tall ground mounted tower and a 95 foot roof mounted tower with supports. U.S. West is proposing to erect a 94' -9" monopole fire station antenna with cellular antenna functions. The cellular function of the tower would not exceed the 75 foot maximum height requirement per the ordinance and would meet the minimum 5G'foot setback standards prescribed by the ordinance. The cellular portion of the tower does not however conform to the provision of the ordinance which requires additional setback requirements from R =1 and R -2 zoned residentially used properties for towers in excess of 65 feet in height. The minimum setback requirement calculation is as follows for towers in excess of 65 feet: Min. distance in feet = 20 (h + 50) + 50 The proposed 75 foot U.S. West New Vector Group portion of the tower requires a 550 foot setback from R -1 and R -2 residential uses. The tower will provide a 200 foot setback therefore a 350 foot setback variance is required. The proposal also includes an equipment building addition that will be constructed behind (to the west of) the fire station. The equipment building will allow for separate compartments to house the cellular radio and computer equipment needed for the cellular phone operation and to allow storage space for fire department maintenance equipment. The equipment addition will conform to all ordinance requirements. The U.S. West New Vector Group is in need of a new "cell ", which is achieved with a new antenna,(75 feet in height or greater), that will become part of the grid system that handles cellular telephone calls. The grid must be changed and more antennas must be installed as the number of calls increase. Calls are dropped from the system if not enough cells are available. Location of the cell is limited to a particular geographical area. The purpose of the antenna tower is two fold: to accommodate the U.S. West New Vector group's cell site and to consolidated the fire departments' public service antennae. The combining of the antenna towers results in a reduction in visual impact of the existing multiple towers on the neighboring properties. Photos submitted by the applicant with the new and old antennae demonstrate that the new tower (from some vantage points) would appear lower and closer to tree level than the existing towers. site: Surrounding land uses include the following and are proximate to the subject North Countryside Park South Crosstown Highway 62 East Johovahs Witnesses Church and R -1 Single Dwelling Homes West Colonial Church of Edina It is apparent that the affected property owners according to the ordinance are the homes located to the east. The new antenna will be farther physically from those properties east of the fire department site than the existing towers and combining the antennae should reduce existing visual clutter. Conclusion The purpose and intent of the ordinance is to minimize impact of antenna structures from neighboring homes. The proposal meets the spirit of the ordinance by improving on existing conditions. CITY OF EDINA Application [ ] LOT DIVISION [ ] REZONING [� ] VARIANCE [ ] PLAT Proposed Name PLANNING DEPARTMENT Case Number Date Fee Paid 4801 WEST FIFTIETH STREET . EDINA. MINNESOTA 55424 for. 61 2) 9278861 [ ] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [ ] FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN [ ] PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICANT: Name U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc., c/o Javmes D. Little john, Zsq. Address H essian, :4cKasv &Soderberg, 4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street :iinneapolis, D- V 55402 Phone ( 612 ) 330 -3000 PROPERTY Name Edina Fire Department (City of Ed OWNER: Address 6250 Tracy Avenue, Edina, ninnesota (if Different from Above) Phone ( ) Legal Description of Property To be entered by the city. Property Address See Above Present Zoning R -1 P.1.0. # Explanation of Request: Variance to replace two existim antenna towers with a Dingle monopole to support existing antennas and cellular telephone antennas. (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: Name Robert J. Davis' Phone ( 6l2) 925 —ss2q SURVEYOR: Name Phone ( ) Property Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date 1/85 Application .... page 2 Minnesota statutes and Edina ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: (If yes, please explain. Use additional sheets if necessary.) YES No a) Relieve an undue hardship which was not self-imposed or a mere inconvenience. X See attached letter. b) correct extraordinary circumstances X applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning-district. See attached letter. C) Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. See attached letter d) Not be materially detrimental to the public X welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. See attached letter DRAFT MINUTES ZONING BOARD MEETING JULY 21, 1994 B -94 -34 U.S. West New Vector Group Inc /James D. Littlejohn 6250 Tracy Avenue East 223 feet of that part of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 line South of the North 693 feet thereof and North of County Highway 62, except roads Request: A 350 foot setback variance for a 75 foot antenna tower Ms. Aaker informed the board the U.S. West New Vector Group has submitted an application to construct an antenna tower on the City of Edina's fire station site located north of highway 62 and west of Tracy Avenue. The purpose of the tower is to consolidate the existing antennae and communications equipment of the fire station and add a cellular telephone antenna for U.S. West New Vector. There are currently two radio towers located on the fire station site used for public safety, a 66 foot tall ground mounted tower and a 95 foot roof mounted tower with supports. Ms. Aaker explained U.S. West is proposing to erect a 94' -9" monopole fire station antenna with cellular antenna functions. The cellular function of the tower would not exceed the 75 foot maximum height requirement per the ordinance and would meet the minimum 50 foot setback standards prescribed by the ordinance. The cellular portion of the tower does not however conform to the provision of the ordinance which requires additional setback requirements from R -1 and R -2 zoned residentially used properties for towers in excess of 65 feet in height. Ms. Aaker pointed out the proposed 75 foot U.S. West New Vector Group portion of the tower requires a 550 foot setback from R -1 and R -2 residential uses. The tower will provide a 200 foot setback therefore a 350 foot setback variance is required. Continuing, Mr. Aaker added the proposal also includes an equipment building addition that will be constructed behind the fire station. The equipment building will allow for separate compartments to house the cellular radio and computer equipment needed for the cellular phone operation and to allow storage space for fire department maintenance equipment. The equipment addition will conform to all ordinance requirements. Ms. Aaker concluded the purpose and intent of the ordinance is to minimize impact of antenna structures from neighboring homes. The proposal meets the spirit of the ordinance by improving on existing conditions. Mr. Littlejohn and Mr. Wong were present representing U.S. West NewVector Group. Chairman johnson questioned if the Fire Department needs to upgrade its communications equipment. Ms. Aaker responded that is correct. There is a need by the Fire Department to upgrade communication standards. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Paulfranz if he envisions a heliport on the Fire Department site. Mr. Paulfranz said a heliport will be constructed on the Fairview Southdale Hospital campus. Ms. McClelland asked Mr. Littlejohn if he knows the exact dimensions of the "fins" that will be located on the monopole. Mr. Littlejohn said the "fins" or "plates" Ms. Mcclelland is referring to are 8 feet in length. They are slender panels with five panels on each of three sides. Mr. Lewis asked Mr. Littlejohn if the phone company will pay rent to the Fire Department /City. Mr. Littlejohn explained U.S. West NewVector will construct the new tower, remove the old towers, and construct the utility buildings. They will also pay rent to the city. Mr. Patton asked if the monopole is constructed of bent metal. Mr. Littlejohn stated that is correct, adding it will be painted a sky gray color (or what ever color is preferred by the city). Mr. Lewis asked if there will be a strobe on top of the antenna tower. Mr. Paulfranz said the tower will not have lights. He explained no protection is required because the highest point in the vicinity is the water tower, and that is lighted. Ms. McClelland asked if future technology will create smaller antennas. Mr. Littlejohn responded he is unsure. A discussion ensued regarding antenna technology, and the location of existing cells within the city. Ms. McClelland stated she does not have a problem with the proposal as submitted. She pointed out the plates are thin and impact is minimal because the fire station is surrounded on three sides by highway, park property, and church parking lots. Residential property is located a distance away from the tower, and with the removal of the existing two towers, one tower is preferable. Ms. McClelland moved variance approval subject to staff conditions. Mr. Lewis seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. AGENDA ITEM V.b LAW OFFICES HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG PROFESSIONAL ASSOcunoN Minneapolis • Saint Paul • Washington, D.C. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -2228 (612) 330 -3000 Facsimile 371 -0653 Jaymes D. Littlejohn (612) 330 -3003 July 27, 1994 Hon. Frederick Richards and Edina City Council Members City Planner 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55242 Re: Proposed Cellular Telephone Antenna Site Edina Fire Department 6250 Tracy Avenue Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council: This letter is intended to explain our proposal to lease a cellular antenna site on property owned by the City of Edina. Our firm represents US West NewVector Group, Inc., which is part of US West, Inc. and which does business as US West Cellular. US West Cellular is one of two companies licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide cellular telephone service to the City of Edina and to the rest of the Twin Cities Metro area. The Proposed Lease. We propose to install a cellular telephone antenna site on land owned by the City of Edina on which the fire station at 6250 Tracy Avenue is presently located. The proposal includes do- locating the cellular antenna tower with the communications equipment that is currently employed at the fire station. This proposed construction consists of erecting a single monopole antenna tower at the rear or southwest corner of the building. This single antenna tower would accommodate the cellular equipment as well as all of the radio equipment that is presently located on two separate towers at the site. As a result, both the 66 foot tower and the guy - supported, 95 foot tower would be replaced by the proposed 95 foot monopole tower, thus reducing the total visual impact of the radio towers on the site. The required variance for the monopole tower was granted by July 27, 1994 Page 2 the Edina Zoning Board of Appeals on July 21, 1994. We have included a copy of the order granting the variance for your reference. A small addition is proposed to accommodate our cellular radio and switching equipment as well as the fire department's storage needs. - We propose to donate all improvements to the property, including the monopole and the equipment /storage addition to the City of Edina and to make further lease payments to the City during the time that part of the tower and the addition are used to provide cellular telephone service. The site will be accessed by the existing drive that connects the City's property to Tracy Avenue. A site plan and elevations depicting the proposed use accompanies this application. Equipment Addition. The equipment addition that is proposed will house radio, computer and climate control equipment for this site. The site will be connected to our central switching office via traditional telephone lines. The portion of the addition that will be devoted to housing our equipment will have a separate access door, thus avoiding any need for access to the city's property. In our discussions with representatives of the fire department, we learned that the department is in need of storage space to accommodate maintenance equipment which is currently stored inside the station itself. Our proposal fulfills that need. Naturally, the addition and its exterior have been designed to match the appearance of the City's buildings on this site. Antennas. As noted above, the proposed monopole will accommodate all of the existing antennas on the two towers at the fire station. The cellular antennas will be the only additional antennas for the site. The area in which cellular coverage is needed largely defines the required antenna height. Naturally, topography also plays a role in arriving at the appropriate height. The engineering constraints of our cellular system dictate that our antennas must be located 75 feet above ground level to meet the cellular coverage needs in this area of Edina, and we have obtained the required variance to accommodate this requirement. We propose to mount the directional antennas approximately 20 feet below the height which is required for the fire station's antennas. "Sky grey" is usually used to minimize visual impact, but the monopole and antennas can be painted any color that the city chooses. Because the antennas and equipment facility are operated remotely, there will be no measurable impact on traffic or other conditions. The site is electrically powered and produces no noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odor. We have compared the off -site views of the existing antenna towers with the proposed monopole and have enclosed photographs for your reference. To be certain that these representations were accurate, we suspended helium balloons at the location and elevation of the July 27, 1994 Page 3 proposed monopole and photographed the site. The proposed tower was then drawn, using the balloons as a guide. As you can see, the proposed tower, although it required a variance from the height limitation and from the visual buffer requirements of your Zoning Ordinance, actually lessens the visual impact of this site. This is due to the complete removal of the guyed tower and a second tower, confined with the erection of a single monopole that is farther away from the residential property owners in the neighborhood. Using Public Property to Accommodate Cellular Telephone Service. We have asked the City to allow US West NewVector to locate this cell site on City property for two reasons. First, as mentioned above, our antennas must be located in this area at 75 feet above ground level, and the proposed location of the antennas fulfills that requirement. Second, and more importantly, the nature of cellular communications lends itself to a partnership between local governments and cellular communications. As long as public property is located within the area where a cell site must be located, working closely with governments seems most appropriate in view of the public use nature of the cellular telephone system. Many public bodies have taken advantage of the benefits of leasing space to cellular telephone service, including the following: City of Eagan; City of Hastings; City of Long Lake; City of Minnetonka; City of Maple Grove; Minnetonka School District # 270; County of Carver; and Minnesota Department of Transportation. While each city's circumstances are different, we believe that, in an appropriate case, the use of city property for cellular telephone sites is a good use of public property which can bring both non -tax revenue to the city as well as capital improvements for use by cities with no budgetary impact. Furthermore, the City need not worry about setting a precedent for leasing to all private entities who wish to lease City property, if that is the desire of the city. In fact, the City of Minnetonka adopted a formal policy for the location of antennas on city property. We have enclosed a copy of that policy for your review. As you can see, that particular city set priorities for the antennas that were to be located on city property — in Minnetonka's case, on its water towers. As you can see, only government regulated entities whose antennae offer a service to July 27, 1994 Page 4 the general public, such as long distance carriers or cellular telephone companies are given the opportunity to locate on Minnetonka property. The City, public safety agencies, and other governmental agencies all enjoy a higher priority. While the City of Edina may not wish, to adopt the precise policy that the City of Minnetonka has relied upon since 1988, you may wish to consider it when determining whether the proposed site is in the city's best interest. To further aid you in your decision, we have described the reasons for our selection of this site below. The Cellular Phone System. The primary users of cellular telephone service are members of the business community as well as the public sector. Doctors, builders, salespersons, business owners, and executives all benefit by using cellular phones. Additionally, cellular is extensively used by fire and police departments. Indeed, the City of Edina currently employs cellular telephones in both of these public safety departments. The system allows police and others to conduct discreet communication in the field without the radio interference that is typical in metro area communication systems. Cellular phone users can contact "911" to report accidents, fires, or other emergencies without first having to search for a telephone. Mr. James R. Beutelspacher, 9 -1 -1 Project Manager for Minnesota, has written that "the unimpeded growth of cellular service is an important adjunct to 9 -1 -1 emergency reporting." His letter is attached for your information. The cellular telephone equipment which is located at our cell sites is powered with 200 amp, typical household power. The cell site is operated and monitored remotely. Our personnel in Minneapolis and in Bellevue, monitor the site around the clock and are alerted by silent smoke, fire and forced entry alarms. Periodic maintenance is normally required about once a month. As a result, the proposed use will not materially change the need for public services at this site. Cellular is a low -power system. The amount of energy generated from a single cellular phone channel is typically about the same as a 100 watt light bulb. This is less energy than is generated by the typical cordless telephone which is in use in many homes today. The Cellular Grid. Cellular service provides subscribers with office - quality phone service by developing a grid of antennas arranged in a geographically hexagonal pattern. Each hexagon is a "cell" created by an antenna which serves as the link between the customer and the system while the customer is within that particular cell. July 27, 1994 Page 5 Each cell can only handle a finite number of calls at any one time. As the number of customers increases, the grid must be changed to handle the increasing number of calls. This usually means that more cells need to be created within the same geographical area, resulting in a new grid pattern of smaller cells. The cellular mobile phone system operates on a specific set of channels set aside by the FCC. The filtering of spurious signals is very tightly controlled. Cellular telephones operate within a strictly regulated set of allotted frequencies between 835 and 897 megahertz. US West is currently operating over 700 cellular antennas around the country with no case of television or radio interference reported. Naturally, the proposed site would be built in accordance with our FCC license to provide cellular service in this area. Mr. Albert S. Jarratt, Jr., Engineer in Charge of the St. Paul Field Office, Field Operations Bureau of the FCC recently confirmed that the FCC has received no complaints of interference by cellular phone transmissions with home electronic entertainment equipment in the Twin Cites or in any of the five states in which Mr. Jarratt's office has jurisdiction. His letter is attached for your information. The Search Area Criteria. We have been working for several months to locate an antenna site in this area to solve cellular phone service coverage needs. At the present time, owners of hand -held portable phones are unable to use those phones in some areas of Edina. Lost connections, or "dropped calls," are also a problem for subscribers in this area as demand for cellular telephone service continues to increase. Many factors go into choosing a location for a cell site. These include market factors, technical considerations, cellular grid, zoning and land use compatibility, land owner willingness to sell or lease, topography of the surrounding area, and accessibility to roads. Taken together, all of these factors create a narrow search area for location of the cell site. Indeed, these factors combined make the proposed site ideal. As part of the fire department there currently exists a 94 -foot, 9 -inch, communications tower on the site. This tower will be replaced with a monopole tower that is of the same height. Furthermore, the second, somewhat shorter tower, will be removed altogether. As a result of the proposed construction, the existing use of the property for antenna towers will not be added to or enlarged in any manner. July 27, 1994 Page 6 Conclusion. I hope this letter will serve to better explain our Application and to answer some of your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me at 333 -1727. We will be in attendance at your meeting on July 21, 1994, to make a full presentation and to address any questions that you may have. We appreciate the assistance that we have already received from the City staff, and we look forward to working with you to provide better cellular phone service to the Edina area. Sincerely, Jaymes D. Littlejohn JDL/ Enclosures 61436 -1 0530200- 002400 EXHIBITS Proposed Cellular Telephone Antenna Site US West NewVector Group, Inc. Edina Fire Department 6250 Tracy Avenue Edina, Minnesota CONTENTS Order Granting Variance Vicinity Map Site Plan East Elevation Plat Plan Area Map (showing locations of photographs of site) Comparative Photographs: Existing View "A" Proposed View "A" Existing View "B" Proposed View "B" Existing View "C ". Proposed View "C" Existing View "D" Proposed View "D" Direct Inquiries To: Jaymes D. Littlejohn, Esq. HESSIAN, McKASY & SODERBERG, P.A. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 -2228 (612) 330 -3000 59251 -1 0530200- 002400 i CITY OF EDINA PLANNING # B�94 -34 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN RE PETITION OF: U.S. West NewVector Group 6250 Tracy Avenue For a variance under Ordinance No.'s 850 *x8X5*xaxdxX$i0 The above entitled Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Edina at a regular (special) meeting thereof has duly considered the above Petition and after hearing, and examining all of the evidence and the file herein does hereby: FIND AS FACT: 1. Petition filed July 1, 1994 2. Fee paid $200.00 on July 1, 1994 3. Notice Mailed July 11, 1994 4. The proposed variance would: A. Relieve an undue hardship YES NO X B. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to the other property in the vicinity of zoning district. X C. Preserve a substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. X D. Not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. X CONCLUSIONS: 1. The procedural requirements of the Ordinance have been met. 2. The variance should (nal) be granted as requested. PLANNING # B -94 -34 3. Conditions to the granting of said variance Subject to plans submitted 4. This Order shall be effective July 21, 1994 , however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alterations permitted shall have commenced within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. ZONING BO OF APPE By: J Chair U DATED: zI 1 Order Maile o Petitioner July 22 , 19 94 . Time to appeal expires July 31 , 19 94 . (Notice of Appeal shall prevent the issuance of a building permit until said Appeal has been determined.) a 0 0 1/ SITE PLAN te�et.�.rErue MINHAMCLUB SITE PLAN s J t i ° u 1� Qi cis. a MA m J¢ 5 1 L L �? f CrliL 9 r lid �. � • EAST ELEVATION 0." W~ MINHAMCLUB EAST ELEVATION w i oil . m J oil, S GOVRT ,jut. \ I � 1 \ 1 , i I w n Y 14 I IN e a � I I I se . - - — O= !T N O N�O' AZ t �p.I1 1 � 1 ` OLINblR DLVD. I I I I r � �• i Y44A DESIGN 1 neer�oww. * MINHAMCLUB J'NEWVECTOR ORMP, INC. .Mmm . w&- -. lot" Rau enurwmrr d.r.e.,... ww fluor Amw Mr.rr �a tar►r ww r r.r W D JZ L)ga za is COUNCIL POLICY 1 - 35 POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF CITY WATER TOWERS FOR THE LOCATION OF ANTENNAE Effective Date: November 7, 1988 The City, has received requests for the location of various antennae on its water towers. The Council has determined that a uniform policy for reviewing these requests is desirable. STATEMENT OF POLICY 1. Permitted Locations. Antennae not owned by the City of Minnetonka shall be permitted only On water towers that have been sufficiently modified, in the opinion of the Director of operations and Maintenance, to adequately accommodate those antennae. The modification shall be done by the City, with the cost to be. recovered from the users. 2. Permitted Users. Only the following entities may place antennae on City water towers, in order of descending priority: as City of Minnetonka b. Public safety agencies, including law enforcement, fire, and ambulance services, which are not part of the City of Minnetonka. C . Other governmental agencies, for uses which are not related to public safety. d. Government - regulated entities whose antennae offer a service to the general public for a fee, in a manner similar to a public utility, such as long distance and cellular telephone. This does not include radio or television broadcasters. If there is a conflict in use between potential and existing users, permission for use shall be granted in order of priority listed above. COUNCIL POLICY 1 - 35 POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF CITY WATER TOWERS FOR THE LOCATION OF ANTENNAE PAGE 2 3. Application Process. All applicants who wish to locate antennae on City water towers must submit to the Director of Operations and Maintenance, a completed application form and a detailed plan of the proposed installation. The application must be accompanied by a non - refundable application fee which will be used to pay for a technical analysis of potential interference with other users conducted by a professional communications engineer. The application fee shall be established from time to time by the City Council. The technical analysis and other relevant data will be submitted to the City Council for its review. Upon approval by the City Council, the successful applicant roust sign an agreement with the City, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, which requires the applicant to pay a periodic fee,' to obtain adequate liability insurance, and to comply with other appropriate requirements. The fees shall be established by the City Council after considering comparable rates in other cities, potential expenses and risks to the city, and other appropriate factors. 4. Standards. No application will be granted unless the following standards are met: a. The potential use must not interfere with other users who have a higher priority. b. The user must comply with minimum equipment and site standards prepared by the City. c. The user must locate its ground equipment in a structure which is separate from the tower and provided by the City. The structure shall have its own sources of electrical power and telephone service. The cost of the structure and utility service shall be recovered through the user fees.. d. The user's equipment and personnel must not interfere with normal operation of the water tower. e. The user must reimburse the City for any costs which it incurs because of the user's existence on City property. f. The user must agree to pay a fee for each time it wants admittance into the tower structure. g. The user must be responsible for the security of its own equipment. h. The user must have obtained all necessary land use approvals. COUNCIL POLICY 1 - 35 POLICY REGARDING THE USE OF CITY WATER TOWERS FOR THE LOCATION OF ANTENNAE 5. Revocation. PAGE 3 The City Council may revoke permission to use a City water tower if it determines that any one of the following situations exist: a. A potential user with a higher priority cannot find another adequate location and the potential use would be incompatible with an existing uses b. A user's antennae unreasonably interfere with other users with higher priority, regardless of whether or not this was adequately predicted in the technical analysis, or C. A user violates any of the standards in this policy or the conditions attached to the City's permission. Before taking action, the City will provide notice to the user of the intended revocation and the reasons for it, and provide an opportunity for the user to address the City Council regarding the proposed action. This procedure need not be followed in emergency situations. 6. Reservation of Right. Nothwithstanding the above, the City Council reserves the right to deny, for any reason, the use of any or all City water towers by any one or all applicants. Adopted by Resolution No. 888767__ _ Council Meeting of „,agygmber 7. 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88 -8767 RESOLUTION ADOPTING COUNCIL POLICY REGARDING USE OF WATER TOWERS FOR THE LOCATION OF ANTENNAE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. BackgXp_Und. 1.01. Minnetonka owns and maintains water towers within the Minnetonka City limits. 1.02. Other organizations have asked for permission to placed antennae on the City's water towers because they provide a desirable environment for antennae. 1.03. The City Council finds it to be proper and in the public interest to allow limited placement of antennae in accordance with an established policy regarding use of City water towers for the location of antennae. Section 2. Approval and &Uthorization 2.01. City Council Policy 1 -35 on Use of City Water Towers for the Location of Antennae is hereby adopted. 2.02. Such policy shall be attached to the original copy of this resolution and become a permanent part of the file of City Council Policy Statements. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Minnetonka on this 7th day of November, 1988. LARRY A. DONLIN MAYOR ATTEST: D. L. EGGENBERGER, CITY CLERK ITEMS TO INCLUDE IN ANTENNAE AGREEMENT 1. Compliance with Council Policy requirements. 2. Maintenance and security of equipment. 3. Access to site and water tower. Restrictions on personnel who have access to the site. 4. Term. 5. Termination /revocation procedures. A deposit to assure that entire installation is removed. 6. Fee. Either per antennae or lump sum. 7. Indemnification /release of claims. Includes interrupted service, theft, equipment damage, personal injury. 8. Location of ground equipment. 9. Requirement of no..interference and ability to temporarily discontinue service to resolve disputes regarding interference. 10. Requirement of no interference with water tower use. 11. Compliance with all laws and regulations. 12. Insurance. 13. Equipment remains personal property of user. Becomes City's if left over 30 days after termination. 14. Events of default and attorney's fees for enforcing agreement. 15. Prohibition on assignment of agreement. 16. Addresses for notices. RESOLUTION NO. 88-8767 PAGE 2 ACTION ON THE ABOVE RESOLUTION: Motion for adoption: Seconded by: Voted in favor of: Voted against: Absent; Abstained: Resolution adopted. ANTENNA SITS APPLICATION FORM CITY OF MINNETONKA Applicant name: Appliz ant address: Applicant's Contact Person: Contact Person's Phone No_: Proposed Location: Proposed Radio Band (if known): Technical Advisor: Technical Advisor's address and phone: Radio manufacturer name: Radio Model No: Size of Cabinet: FCC type acceptance number for transmitter: Transmit and Receive frequencies: Antenna manufacturer: Antenna model number: Antenna placement on tower: Coaxial cable trade name & size or model #: Proposed coaxial cable route between radio and antenna: Manufacturer and model number of Cavities: Manufacturer and model number of Duplexers: Manufacturer and model number of Isolators: Manufacturer and model number of Filters: Describe how these items are to be fitted to the radio? including pass and reject frequencies where appropriate. Attached a block diagram to illustrate application of these devices. Proposed operation date: Space and AC power requirements: Signature: Date: .I 1 DePartrnent of Administration IntcrTechnologies Group bW Cv-W .e J Offs, b..11di.-a c a f..l., Ru.« Novarnbor 1, 1939 Mr. Ron Sanders Regional General Manager U.S. West Cellular Opus Gateway, Sulte 410 9800 Brenn Road East Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Dear Mr. Sanders: I am writing to thank you for your continued cooperation In providing the best possible 9 -1 -1 servic3 to your subscribers and to express my support for further cellular growth. As you know, the public safety commucity began receiving 9 -1 -1 emergency calls from cellular users from the start of cellular service. The 9 -1 -1 system Improves the level of public safety service to the community by allowing faster and easier emergency reporting. Cellular service enhances that capability by allowing 9 -1 -1 calls from the scene, regardless of landline telephone availability. It provides the opportunity for on -the -spot emergency reporting. Your effort to help route cellular 9 -1 -1 calls to the proper public safety answering point and advise your subscribers about 9 -1 -1 avallability has been a significant help to public safety. In 1986, the Golden Valley State Patrol dispatch center answered about 300 cellular 9 -1.1 calls per month. This year, well over 2,000 calls a month are responded to. That increase Indicates both your success in selling cefiular telephones, and your help in educating your subscribers about 9 -1 -1. Many of those 9 -1 -1 calls reported emergencies located away from conventional telephones, so cellular saved precious time. The mobility of cellular service complements the universality of the 9 -1 -1 system to provide a real benefit to the community. It has been a pleasure working Mth you to bring the benefits of 9 -1 -1 and cellular service to the communities of Minnesota. Minnesota Is proud of our accomplishment of statewide 9 -1 -1. Your efforts at eventual statewide cellular service Is appreciated and encouraged. The unimpeded growth of cellular service Is an Important ad unct to 9 -1 -1 emergency reporting. We look forward to further Joint efforts to provide this service to more Minnesotans. James R. Beutelspacher State 9 -1 -1 Project Manager Buslnass Tochnolog!os Division mf cc: John Shardlow DSU Incorporated FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FIELD OPERATIONS BUREAU October 29, 1990 Timothy G. Malloy Dahlgreen Shardlow and Uban Inc. 300 First Avenue North Suite 210 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Dear Mr. Malloy: I am writing in response to your inquiry regarding lar phone operations and the incidence of reports Terence with home electronic entertainment equipment. NOV l - 1990 ^00Ress R<R.r TOv 693 Federal Building 316 N. Robert Street St. Paul, MN 55101 WL FCC monitoring of cellu- or complaints of inter- The St. Paul Field Office, Field Operations Bureau (FOB) is the Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission which is responsible for insuring compliance with most of the techinal rules that the Commission administers. We also provide a variety of services and special assistance to FCC licensees and to the public. Generally, if there is a complaint regarding a television, radio or other FCC licensed broadcasting entity in this region, it would be registered with our office. The jurisdiction of the St. Paul Field Office covers all of Minnesota and North Dakota and portions of South Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Complaints can be registered with us either by telephone or by writing our office at the above address. We have received no complaints of interference with home electronic enter- tainment equipment in the Twin City area or anywhere within the jurisdiction of our office as a result of cellular phone transmissions. This is not surprising since the frequencies on which the cellular system is licensed to operate are located in the ultra high frequency (UHF) band which is signi- ficantly higher than radio and television frequencies. There are relatively few other channels in this frequency range which broadcast programming intended for the general public. I hope this anwers your questions. contact me at (612) 290 -3819. S inc erely, Albert Jarratt, Jr. Engineer In Charge PRU /c j If you need any further information ' I i 6 t I I i 2 t � � IO t e I ♦ I w O u Rp, ~ \ I • - �� p O lot � r PLAT PLAN] TNAG'I AVlNY! -� T rr ' MINHAMULUB AREA MAP vei� uj I All, Y •, . fir•:`• �� J yY, 4 WAY T ........... y r � I }w M• M v •'�� ' ._ - . � -►mss _ 'w ' -� MINHAMCLUB PFKOPOSFD MEW "A" t4� 6' s •.rf� , �. �f 4 1 EDINA IRE DEPARTMENT r MINHAMCLUB PROPOSED VIEW "B" • � y,� , L i� k f •s , � I� : sr _ • pr e ' f MINHAMCLUB • •,• `3 9-p—d Gllular T er 5,.' % U.S. WEST NEW VECTOR GROUP, INC. MINHAMCLUB +_ 'Edina Fin 6Lps.srn.ni 6250 Tm y ,W.nue Ed nr. !.1': F5 3rl MOOMMIM, tam Mom MINHAMCLUB PROPOSED VIEW °D" 07/29/94 11:06 FAX 612 340 2644 DORSEY WHITNEY 10002 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and Members of the City Council Kenneth E. Rosland, City Manager Jerry Gilligan July 29, 1994 1994 Ethics Legislation AGENDA NO. V.D. Chapter 377, Laws of Minnesota 1994 (the "Ethics Legislation"), becomes effective on August 1, 1994. This legislation contains two separate prohibitions on gifts to public officials. The first prohibition on gifts is an amendment to Minnesota Laws, Chapter 10A and relates to gifts by a lobbyist or a principal (someone who engages a lobbyist or spends money on efforts to influence actions of a public official). This prohibition on gifts by lobbyists or principals applies to legislators, constitutional officers, certain other high state governmental officials, employees of the legislature and local officials of metropolitan government units such as metro counties, metro cities with a population over 50,000, the Metropolitan Council and certain other agencies. Since Edina's population is less than 50,000 the prohibition on gifts by lobbyists and principals contained in Chapter 10A does not apply to Edina. The second prohibition of gifts contained in the Ethics Legislation is applicable to Edina. This prohibition is codified as Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.895, and prohibits gifts from an "interested person" to a "local official." A 'local official' is defined as any elected or appointed official of a county or city or of an agency, authority or instrumentality of a county or city. An "interested person" is defined as a person or association that has a direct financial interest in a decision that a local official is authorized to make. The definition of what constitutes a gift is broad and includes the following if given without receiving something of equal or greater value in return: 1. money; 2. real or personal property; 3. a service; 4. a loan; 5. forbearance or forgiveness of debt; or 6. promise of future employment. DORSEY & WHITNEY AP^WrWAsw h*mvnsPcPuomttbwu Coa ,0*^?jWws 07/29/94 11:07 FAA 612 340 2644 DORSEY. WHITNEY follows: There are certain limited exceptions to the prohibition on gifts as L a political contribution to a candidate; 2. services to assist an official in the performance of official duties; I services of insignificant monetar3 value; 4. a plaque or similar memento recognizing individual services in a field of specialty or to a charitable cause; 5. a trinket or memento of insignificant value; 6. informational material of unexceptional value; 7. food or beverage given at a reception, meal or meeting away from the recipients place of work by an organization before whom the recipient appears to make a speech or answer questions as a part of the program; B. gifts given because of a recipient's membership in a group, a majority of whose members are not local officials, and an equivalent gift is given to all members of the group; 9. gifts given by a member of the family of the recipient, unless given on behalf 'of someone who is not a member of the family. The Ethics Legislation is poorly drafted and difficult to interpret. Violation of the Ethics Legislation is a misdemeanor for both the giver and recipient of the gift. What constitutes a gift is defined very broadly and the exceptions are so limited that an interested person could not even buy a cup of coffee for a local official without violating wi e Ethics Legislation is that it is not clear at what point a person has a "direct financial interest" in a decision of a local official and becomes an "interested person." Obviously, there are clearly certain persons who will constitute an interested person; i.e. a vendor or a developer requesting a subdivision or rezoning. On the other hand just because someone is a resident and taxpayer in Edina should not in and by itself cause such person to have a direct financial interest in decisions of Edina officials and therefor constitute an interested person. However, if the resident is a business owner who requires a license from the City to operate his or her business such person may constitute an interested person. -2- IDORSEY & WHITNEY A P.KHVr m nP INtt.uDvtn PROr=KwsA , C.Zpcx kA?Wm 07/2994 11:07 FAX 612 340 2644 DORSEY WHITNEY There is no question that all members of the City Council and City advisory boards and commissions and the City Manager are subject to the gift prohibition. However, because the definition of local officials uses the phrase "appointed officials" it is not clear how many City employees are subject to the gift prohibition. Until further clarification of this issue the safest policy for the City would be to follow the definition of local officials used in Chapter 10A in determining which employees are subject to the gift prohibition. This definition provides that the local officials subject to the prohibition on gifts by lobbyists and Principals include all officials and employees who are in a public position to make money. or recommend major decisions regarding the expenditure or investment of public Given the uncertainties of the Ethics Legislation it is best for the City officials and employees to proceed cautiously. If there is any questions as to whether a giver of a gift is an 'interested person" the gift should be returned or if possible under the circumstances (such as may be the case for a meal or a beverage) the recipient should reimburse the giver. Unfortunately, while lobbyists and principals covered under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 10A can seek advisory opinions from the Ethical Practices Board as to specific questions concerning portions of the Ethics Legislation relating to Chapter 10A, the Ethical Practices Board does not have jurisdiction with respect to questions concerning the gift prohibition under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.895 which is the provision to which the City is subject. However, some of the issues addressed under Chapter 10A by the Ethical Practices Board could provide some useful guidance in interpreting Section 471.895. JPG:cmn -3- DORSEY & WI-II, NEY AP :MCT 0_pK0_M0 wLCQXMMr30N% 16004 v r. r yN J City of Edina July 18, 1994 Dear Vendor: On August 1, 1994, Chapter 377 of the 1994 Session Laws becomes effective. This law prohibits gifts to public officials. As with many laws, Chapter 377 is difficult to read and interpret. Many questions remain with respect to who the law affects and what gifts or activities are prohibited. Unfortunately, these uncertainties may result in honest and hardworking public officials as well as vendors unintentionally placing themselves in a compromising position. Notwithstanding the complexities of the new law, the City of Edina is committed to its spirit and intent. We, therefore, ask that you refrain from offering any gift or other consideration such as meals or beverages to our elected or appointed officials. For purposes of this policy, "elected or appointed officials" means members of the City Council, members of our advisory boards and commissions, and all full -time employees. The City of Edina enjoys a trusting relationship with its vendors _and consultants. Activities which are contrary to this policy may jeopardize our ongoing relationship with your organization. Please feel free to direct any questions concerning this policy to our City Manager, Kenneth Rosland. Thank you for your immediate attention to our request. Sincerely, Frederick S. Richards Mayor City Hall 4801 WEST 50TH STREET EDINA, MINNESOTA 5 5424 -1 394 Kenneth E. Rosland City Manager (612) 927 -8861 FAX (612) 927 -7645 TDD (612) 927 -5461 r, REPORWRECOMMENDATION TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK DATE: AUGUST 1, 1994 SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF PRIMARY ELECTION JUDGES Recommendation: Adoption of the following resolution: Agenda Item # V • E Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Action ❑ Motion ® Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina City Council that the individuals named on the attached list be appointed as election judges for the Primary Election to be conducted on September 13, 1994; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk be and is hereby authorized to make any substitutions or additions as may be deemed necessary: (See attached list) Info/Background: Pursuant to Minnesota Election Law 204B.21, election judges shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality. I would recommend appointment of the individuals as listed. J PROPOSED PRIMARY ELECTION JUDGES September 13, 1994 PRECINCT lA - Shepherd of Hills Church 500 S. Blake Rd 1. Eugenia Williams - Chair 5176 Lincoln Dr (36) 2. Lois Hallquist 305 Grove P1 (343) 3. Dorothy Capetz 6304 Waterman Av (343) 4. Arlene Friday 6525 Belmore Ln (343) 5. Virginia Vonhoff 414 Harrison Av S (343) Alternate: Shirley DeLeo 609 Waterman Av (343) PRECINCT 1B - Chapel Hills Church 6512 Vernon Av 1. Jean Luidahl - Chair 6075 Lincoln dr (36) 2. Marilou Birkeland 6709 Parkwood Ln (36) 3. Sue Corson 5408 Stauder Cir_(36) 4. Marie Goblirsch 6200 Idylwood La (36) 5. Nancy Stair 6075 Lincoln Dr (36) Alternate: Eileen Schaefer 6533 Arctic Way (36) PRECINCT 2 - Edina City Hall 4801 West 50th St 1. Marjorie Ruedy - Chair 5048 Edinbrook Av (36) 2. Joan Flumerfelt 5225 Division St (36) 3. Suzanne Hirsch 5345 Division St (36) 4. Pauline Carroll 4836 Rutledge Av (36) 5. Kay Tierney 5016 Oxford Av (36) Alternate: Maryann Haemig 5032 Bedford Av (36) PRECINCT 3 - Edina Covenant Church 4201 West 50th St 1. Linda Smith - Chair 4519 Bruce Av (24) 2. Patricia Dill 4610 Edina Blvd (24) 3. Sherrill Estensen 4528 Arden Av (24) 4. Deidre Hedrick 4521 Wooddale Av (24) 5. Cynthia Farmer 4612 Casco Av (24) Alternate: Mary Webber 5201 Kellogg Av (24) PRECINCT 4 - Morningside Building 4114 Grimes Av 1. Rachel Schoening - Chair 4014 Monterey Av (16) 2. Marian Cracraft 4227 Alden Dr (16) 3. Lois Loomis 4500 West 42nd St (16) 4. Marianne Schoenecker 4218 Scott Terr (16) 5. Shirley Renslow 4232 France Av S (16) Alternate: Jean White 4014 Kipling Av (16) PRECINCT 5 -- Highlands School 5005 Doncaster Way 1. Rosemary McGlynn - Chair 4909 Rolling Green Pkwy (36) 2. Barbara Martin 5205 Mirror Lakes Dr (36) 3. Carol Ledder 5409 Chantrey Rd (36) 4. Sally Olson 5528 Glengarry Pkwy (36) 5. Mary E. Ryan 5508 Goya La (36) Alternate: Margaret Williams 5213 Doncaster Way (36) V PRECINCT 6 - Countryside School 5701 Benton Av 1. Jane Bains - Chair 6101 Tracy Av (36) 2. Mary Cleaveland 6204 Crest La (36) 3. Barbara Herbers 5801 Stuart Av (36) 4. Susan Zwakman 6109 Ridgeway Rd (36) 5. Catherine Swanson 5804 Merold Dr (36) Alternate: Donna White 6016 Tracy Av (36) PRECNCT 7 - Normandale Church 6100 Normandale Rd 1. Kathleen Engquist - Chair 6212 Wyman Av (36) 2. Janet Kanofsky 5120 Windsor Av (36) 3. Eunice Overby 5004 Kent Av (36) 4. Lois Strupp 5113 Richmond Dr (36) 5. Mary Ellen Pratt 5241 Richwood Dr (36) Alternate: Mary Rogers 5608 Dale Av (36) PRECINCT 8 - South View Middle School 4725 South View La 1. Jane Moran - Chair 5429 Wooddale Av (24) 2. Myra Hykes 4516 Woodland Rd (24) 3. Catherine Tobin 5501 Brookview Av (24) 4. Ordell O'Neill 5656 Wooddale Av (24) 5. Jeanne Sedoff 4601 Concrod Terr (24) Alternate: Lee Strang 16 Woodland Rd (24) PRECINCT 9 - Concord School 5900 Concord Av 1. Coleen Crew - Chair 6215 Halifax Av (24) 2. Florence Boughton 5921 Fairfax Av (24) 3. Annette Horton 6309 St. Johns Av (24) 4. Jacqueline Lindskoog 6112 Kellogg Av (24) 5. Coleen Cavell 6009 Wooddale Av (24) Alternate: Marilyn Halker 6140 Concord Av (24) PRECINCT 10 - Creek Valley School 6401 Gleason Rd 1. Mary Shoquist - Chair 6713 Cheyenne Tr (39) 2. Sharon Hed 6624 Iroquois Tr (39) 3. Jeanine Westling 6620 Pawnee Rd (39) 4. Betty Goughner 4828 Townes Rd (24) 5. Connie Nelson 6215 St. Albins Cir (39) Alternate: Marilyn Devereaux 6704 West Trail (39) PRECINCT 11- Creek Valley Church 6901 Tracy Av 1. Betty Pollitt - Chair 6412 Limerick Ln (39) 2. Rita Acker 6401 Wilryan Av (39) 3. Muza Habeck 5100 Dungan Plaza (39) 4. Mariane Kubin 5600 West 66th St (39) 5. Carol Melichar 6417 Wilryan Av (39) Alternate: Mary A. Ryan 6824 Brook Dr (39) PRECINCT 12 - Christ Church 1. Ardis Wexler - Chair 2. Shirley Bjerken 3. Doris Barry 4. Marlys Hittner 5. Sue Kracum Alternate: Mary Scholz 6901 Normandale Rd 4912 Larkspur Ln (35) 4405 Ellsworth Dr (35) 7208 Oaklawn Av (35) 4405 Dunberry Ln (35) 4900 Payton Ct (35) 4512 Gilford Dr (35) PRECINCT 13 - Centennial Lakes Centrum 7499 France Av Carol Hanson 1. Doris Peterson - Chair 4120 Parklawn Av (35) 2. Annadell Quantrell 4101 Parklawn Av (35) 3. Kathleen Hansing 4741 Hibiscus Av (35) 4. Audrey Sherman 4120 Parklawn Av #130 (35) 5. Joan Carr 4380 Parklawn Av (35) Alternate: Patricia Marr 7304 Wooddale Av (35) PRECINCT 14 - St. Peters Church 5421 France Av 1. Mary Jane Platt - Chair 5504 Beard Av S (10) 2. Joyce Hanson 5829 Drew Av S (10) 3. Esther Olson 5441 York Av S (10) 4. Louise Carlson 3700 Chowen Curve (10) 5. Patricia Bartlett 6012 Zenith Av S (10) Alternate: Marcia Willett 5809 Beard Av S (10) PRECINCT 15 - Valley View Middle 3cnoo 1. Kaye Luikens - Chair 2. Carol Hanson 3. Roe Ann Forbes 4. Maxine Wallin 5. Nancy Meyer Alternate: Mildred Karr PRECINCT 16 - Cornelia School 1. Donna Montgomery - Chair 2. Mary McDonald 3. Marlys Chase 4. Patricia Halvorsen 5. Mary Ann Hans Alternate: Phyllis Woodley PRECINCT 17 - Southdale Librar 1. Lorna Livingston - Chair 2. Jean McDermid 3. Louise Jackson 4. Marilyn Wickersham 5. Marjorie Jamieson Alternate: Mae Warner 6750 Valley View Rd 7310 Claredon Dr (39) 5908 Chapel Dr (39) 5501 Dewey Hill Rd (39) 7022 Tupa Cir (39) 6001 Dublin Cir (39) 7204 Schey Dr (39) 7000 Cornelia Dr 6824 Oaklawn Av (35) 6929 Southdale Rd (35) 6933 Southdale Rd (35) 6700 Xerxes Av (23) 6913 Southdale Rd (35) 6845 Oaklawn Av (35) 7001 York Av 5920 Wooddale Av (24) 5116 Mirrow Lakes Dr (36) 6016 Zenith Av (10) 7510 Cahill Rd (39) 4133 West 45th St (24) 6136 Sherman Cir (36) PRECINCT 18 - EdinborouQh Park 1. Jean Erdall - Chair 2. Betty Lou Petersen 3. JoAnne Streed 4. Myrtle Grette 5. Selma Shelton . Alternate: Virginia Stemm PRECINCT 19 - Calvary Lutheran Church 1. Patricia Olander - Chair 2. Anita Delegard 3. Lynne Westphal 4. Harriet Koch 5. Zelma Gray Alternte: Harriet Walsh 7700 York Av 6101 Abbott Av (10) 4314 Cornelia Cir (35) 7350 York Av (35) 5709 York Av (10) 7200 York Av (35) 7607 York Av (35) 6817 Antrim Rd 7001 Lee Valey Cir (39) 7209 Lanham La (39) 5704 Kemrich Dr (39) 5501 Dewey Hill Rd (39) 5530 Village Dr (39) 5221 Wooddale Av (24) REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO: MANAGER ROSLAND FROM: MARCELLA DAEHN, CLERK DATE: AUGUST 1, 1994 SUBJECT: SIDEWALK - SOUTH SIDE PARKL.AWN AVENUE Recommendation: Agenda Item # VI - A . Consent ❑ Information Only ❑ Mgr. Recommends ❑ To HRA ® To Council Action © Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion To refer the petition for sidewalk on the south side of Parklawn Avenue to the Engineering Department for processing. Info/Background: The attached petition requesting a sidewalk on the south side of Parklawn Avenue was received from residents at 4101 Parklawn Avenue between 4101 Parklawn Avenue and France Avenue. Our normal procedure is to refer the petition to the Engineering Department for processing as to feasibility. To the Mayor and City Council: The persons who have signed this petition ask the City Council to consider the improvements listed above to the locations listed below. 0 U Si D r' PPf?C4',V1 4-/O/ P1qR1C1 NCG )4-V lE between r LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS between and LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS between and LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS between LOCATION OF IMPROVEMENT BY STREET NAME ADDRESS and ADDRESS IMPORTANT NOTE: THE PERSONS WHO HAVE SIGNED THIS PETITION UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ASSESS THE COSTS OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTIES BENEFITING FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS IN AMOUNTS DETERMINED BY THE COUNCIL AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 429, MINNESOTA STATUTES. PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE OWNER'S NAME PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER'S (PRINTED) PHONE iL d"3 ( —335 This petition was circulated by: J NAME ADDRESS PHONE There is space for more signatures on the back or you may attach extra pages. ISEPTEMBER 1990 CO V �J PROPERTY OWNER'S '0�SIGNATURE�f - OWNER'S NAME (PRINTEDI PROPERTY ADDRESS OWNER'S PHONE �/�,y �� o 5CJ/ia:� �lq m Sri c -C7�nY ee�Z/ l:j)t !ai fe.(- r, �o "n y1 of �►L,6u 3r 1 /.. - Yl o n CIl rS oY1 %/iqA j %110 /1 1 L u go&gr i P =c GE- yloi PAt -KLawn �r 14) / �'C1i�l2L gam- JJJ S �yq-U90Z =]Zf -72 1 f3s- 76a,? 732--0 y7 Yg/ - 41.3 3 0 Lllr �U �'�/ra•K� !V�L�'1 KI.h -�-�'� � �0 Yb�e� �O w � �Y N��1 �I l �'�JCa.��. 4 3a 2- 3c> —d -7 3 <f ow e H ."' ` , TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: REPORT/RECOMMENDATION MAYOR RICHARDS Agenda Item # X. A. EDINA CITY COUNCIL Consent ❑ WILLIAM BERNHJELM Resolution CHIEF OF POLICE Information Only ❑ ❑ Discussion JULY 28, 1994 Mgr. Recommends ❑ To 11RA POLICE SCHOOL LIAISON ® To Council OFFICER (PSLO) PLEASE SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM REGARDING POLICE SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICER (PSLO) Action ® Motion ❑ Resolution ❑ Ordinance ❑ Discussion PLEASE SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM REGARDING POLICE SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICER (PSLO) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Richards and Edina City Council FROM: Chief William Bernhjelm DATE: July 13, 1994 SUBJECT: POLICE SCHOOL LIAISON OFFICER The Edina School District has proposed contracting with the Police Department for the services of a Police School Liaison Officer (PSLO) beginning September 1, 1994. The PSLO program was begun in Edina in 1965. The program's intent is to improve communications between the schools and the Police Department, provide opportunities to build positive relationships between youth and police, coordinate services to youth in need, and to help provide for law enforcement needs in the district. The primary focus is on the middle schools and high school. Over the years, the program has varied from one officer part time, as is currently done, to three full time officers. Funding has also varied from 50% schools /50% City to 100% City at present. Our participation involves approximately 25 -30% of the Juvenile Officer's time. The school district has proposed having an officer in the schools each day during the school year. This would mean a commitment of 172 days of a 260 -day work year or 66% of a full time officer. The district will pay the actual costs of the officer's salary and benefits for that time. The district has currently levied approximately $39,500 for this purpose. The advantages for the City are many, including: * The schools fund the PSLO Program that the City now funds. * The opportunity to continue the positive relationships created in the 5th grade D.A.R.E. Program when the students begin 6th grade at the middle schools. * An additional career development opportunity is created for police officers. * The City gains the services of an additional officer during the busiest summer months. Mayor Richards and Edina City Council Page 2 (Continued) * The services of another officer would be available for emergencies or overtime needs. * It represents a proactive approach to reducing juvenile crime and drug and alcohol use. Council Members have inquired about using a non -sworn person in this position. I would recommend against that approach for the following reasons: * In order to establish the youth /police relationship the person must have the experience and perspective of a police officer. * Under the pay equity program, any pay savings would be negligible. * The position would offer a career enhancement opportunity for an experienced officer. * Using a sworn officer would allow us to select from a known pool for replacements, rather than searching for outside candidates. * No additional officer services would be available. No additional appropriation for 1994 would be necessary due to unanticipated vacancies in the Police Department. Hiring will occur when the candidate selection process is completed, estimated at this time as late November. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Authorize the contract for PSLO with the Edina School District for the 1994 -95 school year. 2. Authorize the addition of one (1) police, officer position to the Police Department. COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 1 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM --- OBJECT PO NUM. ----------------- - - - --- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $190.72 A.M. LEONARD TOOLS 10619510 PUMP & LIFT ST TOOLS 147689 $190.72* 08/01/94 $335.48 ACME WINDOW CLEAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 9371 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 147690 $335.48* 08/01/94 $516.92 ACTION MAILING SERVICE MAIL SERVICE 7147 COMMUNICATIONS MAG /NEWSLET EX 147691 $516.92* 08/01/94 $10.00 ACTION MESSENGER MESSENGER SERVICE 00140611 CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 147692 $10.00* 08/01/94 $217.83 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS ALARM SERVICE 12858514 ED BUILDING & ALARM SERVICE 08/01/94 $98.15 ADT SECURITY SYSTEMS ALARM SERVICE 12858510 CENTENNIAL LAK ALARM SERVICE 147693 $315.98* { 08/01/94 $42.50 ADVANCED STATE SECURIT VCR RESET 13512 YORK OCCUPANCY CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $123.50 ADVANCED STATE SECURIT REPAIR SECURITY MONI 13491 YORK OCCUPANCY CONTR REPAIRS 147694 $166.00* 08/01/94 $50.00 AFFILIATED EMERGENCY V PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 0001337 ANIMAL CONTROL PROF SERVICES 147695 $50.00* 08/01/94 $337.92 AL'S LANDSCAPING & NUR GENERAL SUPPLIES JUNE 199 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 147696 $337.92* 08/01/94 $31.50 ALL FIRE TEST INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 001964 ART CENTER BLD CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $31.50 ALL FIRE TEST INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 001966 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $41.54 ALL FIRE TEST INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 001863 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $31.50 ALL FIRE TEST INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 001965 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $29.50 ALL FIRE TEST INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 001779 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 147697 $165.54* 08/01/94 $228.44 ALL STEEL PRODUCTS CO CASTINGS 1921 GENERAL STORM CASTINGS 147698 $228.44* 08/01/94 $93.72 ALPHAGRAPHICS PRINTING 21789 ED ADMINISTRAT PRINTING 147699 $93.72* 08/01/94 $747.00 ALSTAD, MARIAN AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147700 $747.00* 08/01/94 $200.39 ALTERNATOR REBUILD GENERAL SUPPLIES 10960 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 147701 $200.39* 08/01/94 $160.37 AMERICAN SHARECOM TELEPHONE 071594 CENT SVC GENER TELEPHONE 147702 $160.37* 08/01/94 $151.91 AMERIDATA FIRE SOFTWARE UPGRAD 490488 FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP REPLACEM 147703 $151.91* u COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 2 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $3,034.00 ANDERSON NEW CARPET DE CONTRACTED REPAIRS 071194 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 147704 $3,034.00* 08/01/94 $216.58 ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY TOOLS 8998 EQUIPMENT OPER TOOLS 147705 $216.58* 08/01/94 $16.44 AQUA ENGINEERING GENERAL SUPPLIES 2600 SNOW & ICE REM GENERAL SUPPLI 147706 $16.44* 08/01/94 $18.26 AXT, LYLE COST OF GOODS SOLD F 071294 GUN RANGE CST OF GD FOOD 147707 $18.26* 08/01/94 $332.28 BACHMANS PLANTINGS & TREES 68046 MAINT OF COURS PLANT - &.TREES 08/01/94 $444.69 BACHMANS COURSE BEAUTIFICATIO 68047 MAINT OF COURS COURSE BEAUTIF 08/01/94 $140.37 BACHMANS, COURSE BEAUTIFICATIO 68046 MAINT OF COURS COURSE BEAUTIF 147708 $917.34* 08/01/94 $80.00 BALDINGER, WENDY SERVICES CL /EB 080694 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147709 $80.00* 08/01/94 $2,350.00 BARRY SIEWERT CREATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 8006B CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 147710 $2,350.00* 08/01/94 $29.00 BEARDALL, GREGORY CLASS REFUND 072094 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 147711 $29.00* 08/01/94 $85.00 BELL, BRUCE MENIER SERVICES CL /EB 081894 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 147712 $85.00* 08/01/94 $113.57 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 57949 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $78.00 BELLBOY CORPORATION COST OF GOODS SOLD B 57950 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 147713 $191.57* 08/01/94 $112.50 BENN, BRADLEY AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147714 $112.50* 08/01/94 $22.00 BERG, KARAN CLASS REFUND 071994 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 147715 $22.00* 08/01/94 $542.00 BERGFORD TRUCKING COST OF GOODS SOLD L 071894/Y YORK SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $584.60 BERGFORD TRUCKING COST OF GOODS SOLD L 071894/V VERNON SELLING CST OF GD LIQU 08/01/94 $277.50 BERGFORD TRUCKING COST OF GOODS SOLD L 071894/5 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD LIQU 147716 $1,404.10* 08/01/94 $3.51 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1586210 ADMINISTRATION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $18.91 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1586210 PARK ADMIN. GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $7.41 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1586210 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $74.65 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1586210 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $54.30 BERTELSON BROS. INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES 1562810 POLICE DEPT. G OFFICE SUPPLIE .l L COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 3 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 - $11.41 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES CM12070 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $153.89 BERTELSON BROS. INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 1540430_ CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI 5344 147717 $301.26* 08/01/94 $47.93 BEST LOCKING SYSTEMS 0 GENERAL SUPPLIES 5649 GOLF ADMINISTR GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $167.11 BEST LOCKING SYSTEMS O CONTRACTED REPAIRS 006128 CENTENNIAL LAK CONTR REPAIRS 147718 $215.04* 08/01/94 $88.50 BEST MAID COOKIE COMPA COST OF GOODS SOLD F 0118 POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 147719 $88.50* 08/01/94 $607.08 BIFFS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 3916 SPECIAL ACTIVI PROF SERVICES 08/01/94 $65.26 BIFFS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE BI028744 BUILDING MAINT PROF SERVICES 08/01/94 $65.26 BIFFS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE BI028745 BUILDING MAINT PROF SERVICES 147720 $737.60* 1 08/01/94 $40.00 BORDONARO, JAN REFUND SWIMMING 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147721 $40.00* 08/01/94 $855.44 BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC & MF CONTRACTED REPAIRS 381199 LIFT STATION M CONTR REPAIRS 147722 $855.44* 08/01/94 $994.22 BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS 307077 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 - $332.28 BOYER TRUCKS REPAIR PARTS 307077CM EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 147723 $661.94* 08/01/94 $107.47 BRAEMAR PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES 42625 NORMANDALE GC OFFICE SUPPLIE 147724 $107.47* 08/01/94 $75.00 BROM, BECKY SERVICES CL /EB 081394 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147725 $75.00* 08/01/94 $117.15 BROOKS-ART SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 071994 NORMANDALE GC GENERAL SUPPLI 147726 $117.15* 08/01/94 $40.00 BROWN, ALICE REFUND SWIMMING 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147727 $40.00* 08/01/94 $119.00 BROWN, CHARLES SPLASH 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO SVC OTHER 147728 $119.00* 08/01/94 $34.00 BROWN, KAY CLASS REFUND 071994 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 147729 $34.00* 08/01/94 $120.00 BRUMFIELD, ADRIANE AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147730 $120.00* 08/01/94 $230.18 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS IN INFIELD MIXTURE 210960 FIELD MAINTENA INFIELD MIX 147731 $230.18* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28.1994 00:28:07 Page 4 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION-- - - - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM -- ------ OBJECT - - - - ----------PO-NUM_- ------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $29.69 - - -- -- ------- BUIE, BARBARA - - - - -- POSTAGE 072994 ED ADMINISTRAT POSTAGE 08/01/94 $35.08 BUIE, BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 072994 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $16.80 BUIE, BARBARA GENERAL SUPPLIES 072994 ED ADMINISTRAT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $13.97 BUIE, BARBARA OFFICE SUPPLIES 072994 ED ADMINISTRAT OFFICE SUPPLIE 147732 $95.54* 08/01/94 $27.00 BURNS, KELLY CLASS REFUND 071994 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 147733 $27.00* 08/01/94 $60.00 CAMPBELL, GIA SPLASH 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO SVC OTHER 147734 $60.00* 08/01/94 $110.60 CAMPION CATERING BUDGET HEARING 26792 HUMAN RELATION CONF & SCHOOLS 08/01/94 $169.49 CAMPION CATERING DINNER MEETING 26769 CITY COUNCIL MEETING EXPENS 147735 $280.09* 'JANET 08/01/94 $50.00 CANTON, MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072694 FINANCE MILEAGE 147736 $50.00* 08/01/94 $1,594.30 CARBONIC MACHINES BEER LINE SYSTEM 6393 GC CIP CIP 147737 $1,594.30* 08/01/94 $100.00 CARLSON, CRAIG SERVICES 080694 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147738 $100.00* 08/01/94 $339.36 CATCO COMMODITIES 349685 EQUIPMENT OPER COMMODITIES 147739 $339.36* 08/01/94 $93.37 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072094 INVESTIGATION TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $10.74 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072094 INVESTIGATION TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $55.11 CELLULAR ONE TELEPHONE 072094 /K ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $25.04 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072094 PATROL TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $657.51 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072094 PATROL TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $131.52 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072094 ANIMAL CONTROL GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $10.74 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072094 PATROL TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $10.74 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 072094 PATROL TELEPHONE 08/01/94. $77.09 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 071394/E ENGINEERING GE GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $33.18 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 071294/P PARK ADMIN. PROF SERVICES 08/01/94 $11.06 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 071394/G CLUB HOUSE TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $125.39 CELLULAR ONE CELLULAR PHONE 071294/B INSPECTIONS TELEPHONE 147740 $1,241.49* 08/01/94 $64.00 CITY BEER COST OF GOODS SOLD B 76987 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 147741 $64.00* 08/01/94 $185.00 CITY OF EDINA REFUSE 003154 50TH ST OCCUPA RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $34.79 CITY OF EDINA SEWER & WATER 0708 GENERAL MAINT SEWER & WATER 08/01/94 $99.41 CITY OF EDINA SEWER & WATER 070894 - 50TH ST OCCUPA SEWER & WATER 08/01/94 $34.79 CITY OF EDINA SEWER & WATER 070894 LIQUOR YORK GE SEWER & WATER 08/01/94 $34.79 CITY OF EDINA SEWER & WATER 070894 BUILDING MAINT SEWER & WATER COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 5 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $34.79 CITY OF EDINA SEWER & WATER 070894 VERNON OCCUPAN SEWER & WATER 08/01/94 $843.56 CITY OF EDINA SEWER & WATER 070894 CITY HALL GENE SEWER & WATER 08/01/94 $216.14 CITY OF EDINA SEWER & WATER 070894 PW BUILDING SEWER & WATER 147742 $1,483.27* 08/01/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVI WINDOW CLEANING 58184 YORK OCCUPANCY CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVI WINDOW CLEANING 58185 VERNON OCCUPAN CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $14.38 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVI WINDOW CLEANING 58186 50TH ST OCCUPA CONTR REPAIRS 147743 $43.14* 08/01/94 $765.80 CLEAN -FLO LAB REPAIR WORK 6825 STORM SEWER CIP 08/01/94 $3,245.09 CLEAN -FLO LAB PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 6837 WEED CONTROL PROF SERVICES 147744 $4,010.89* 08/01/94 $75.00 CLELANP, BRUCE SERVICES CL /EB 081194 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147745 $75.00* 08/01/94 $400.00 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD F 063094 VANVALKENBURG CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 $307.75 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01815918 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $64.55 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01767846 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $9.25 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01826972 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 -$5.00 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01488880 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $81.50 COCA COLA BOTTLING COM COST OF GOODS SOLD M 01881480 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 147746 $858.05* 08/01/94 $20.00 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSP FEE /WORK MANUALS 071594 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI 147747 $20.00* 08/01/94 $90.00 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSP MANUAL UPDATES 071494 ENGINEERING GE DUES & SUBSCRI 147748 $90.00* 08/01/94 $42.57 COMPUTER CITY ACCOUNT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 465490 ADMINISTRATION EQUIP REPLACEM 147749 $42.57* 08/01/94 $310.62 CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS SAFETY EQUIPMENT 67495700 PUMP & LIFT ST SAFETY EQUIPME 147750 $310.62* 08/01/94 $30.00 CONNOLLY, BOB VISUAL ARTS CL /EB 081394 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 147751 $30.00* 08/01/94 $30.00 CONNOLLY, BOB VISUAL ARTS CL /EB 080694 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 147752 $30.00* 08/01/94 $1,104.19 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES 16027 BRIDGES GUARD GENERAL SUPPLI 147753 $1,104.19* 08/01/94 $77.98 CONTACT MOBILE COMM RADIO SERVICE 29917 EQUIPMENT OPER RADIO SERVICE 08/01/94 $63.90 CONTACT MOBILE COMM GENERAL SUPPLIES 30028 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 147754 $141.88* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 6 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $51.57 COPY EQUIPMENT INC. BLUELINE PAPER 0385354 ENGINEERING GE GENERAL SUPPLI 147755 $51.57* 08/01/94 $40.00 CORNELL, MARTHA REFUND SWIMMING 071594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147756 $40.00* 08/01/94 $165.85 COUNTRY CLUB TURF SOD & BLACK DIRT 1368 MAINT OF COURS SOD & DIRT 147757 $165.85* 08/01/94 $4,039.55 CREATIVE TOUCH CATERIN FOOD SERVICE 1364 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 147758 $4,039.55* 08/01/94 $213.00 CRITTER CONTROL PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 9289 MAINT OF COURS PROF SERVICES 147759 $213.00* 08/01/94 $39.87 CROWN PLASTIC GENERAL SUPPLIES 109743 GOLF ADMINISTR GENERAL SUPPLI 147760 $39.87* - 08/01/94 $466.89 CURTIN MATHESON SCIENT LAB SUPPLIES 3894859 LABORATORY GENERAL SUPPLI 5114 147761 $466.89* 08/01/94 $54.00 D.C. ANNIS SEWER INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 3673 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 147762 $54.00.* 08/01/94 $173.69 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPM HAZ MAT SUIT 151658 FIRE DEPT. GEN HAZARD. MATERI . 08/01/94 $2,061.34 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPM REFLECTIVE I.D. PANE 158433 FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP REPLACEM 147763 $2,235.03* 08/01/94 $183.18 DE- SIGNER GENERAL SUPPLIES 028111 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 147764 $183.18* 08/01/94 $3,342.40 DELTA DENTAL HOSPITALIZATION 16014 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 147765 $3,342.40* 08/01/94 $8.95 DEPENDABLE COURIER GENERAL SUPPLIES 262822 FINANCE GENERAL SUPPLI 147766 $8.95* 08/01/94 $134.85 DIAMOND ART & CRAFT DI COST OF GOODS SOLD 123056 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 147767 $134.85* 08/01/94 $486.39 DIAMOND VOGEL PAINT 81550670 PAVEMENT MARKI PAINT 147768 $486.39* 08/01/94 $334.90 DIESEL INJECTION SPEC REPAIR PARTS 12414 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 147769 $334.90* 08/01/94 $128.00 DIETRICHSON, BILL ART WORK SOLD 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147770 $128.00* 08/01/94 $256.00 DISCOM RADIO SERVICE 537920 { EQUIPMENT OPER RADIO SERVICE r COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 7 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147771 $256.00* 08/01/94 $88.40 DISPATCH COMM /MN RADIO SERVICE 14672 EQUIPMENT OPER RADIO SERVICE 08/01/94 $68.80 DISPATCH COMM /MN RADIO SERVICE 14834 EQUIPMENT OPER RADIO SERVICE 147772 $157.20* 08/01/94 $103.96 DISTINCTIVE LAUNDRY PR LAUNDRY 051094 ED BUILDING & LAUNDRY 147773 $103.96* 08/01/94 $410.05 DON BETZEN GOLF CO GOLF PENCILS 2151 GOLF ADMINISTR OFFICE SUPPLIE 147774 $410.05* 08/01/94 $102.00 DORN, DOUG SPLASH 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO SVC OTHER 147775 $102.00* 08/01/94 $107.30 DORNSEIF, DAN MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072694 GOLF ADMINISTR MILEAGE 147776 $107.30* 08/01/94 $18.00 DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVI LICENSE PLATES /FIRE 071494 FIRE DEPT. GEN LIC & PERMITS 147777 $18.00* 08/01/94 $30.00 DUNFEE, STAFANIE MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072394 FINANCE MILEAGE 147778 $30.00* 08/01/94 $373.18 EARL F. ANDERSON REPAIR PARTS 134041 PATHS & HARD S'REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $160.39 EARL F. ANDERSON CONTRACTED REPAIRS 134039 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $145.86 EARL F. ANDERSON REPAIR PARTS 00134196 PATHS & HARD S REPAIR PARTS 147779 $679.43* 08/01/94 $366.00 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 388955 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $688.25 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 389849 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $414.55 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 388947 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $1,896.40 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD.B 389007 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $1,498.85 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 392086 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $2,672.75 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 392144 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $3,412.50 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COST OF GOODS SOLD B 392094 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 147780 $10,949.30* 08/01/94 $43.62 ECOWATER SYSTEMS LIGHT & POWER 071594 GUN RANGE LIGHT & POWER 147781 $43.62* 08/01/94 $16.94 ELVIN SAFETY SAFETY EQUIPMENT 94189153 POLICE DEPT. G SAFETY EQUIPME 147782 $16.94* 08/01/94 $300.00 EMPLOYEES CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES AUGUST 1 CONTINGENCIES GENERAL SUPPLI 147783 $300.00* 08/01/94 $70.26 ENGINE PARTS SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 122590 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $104.22 ENGINE PARTS SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 122731 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 147784 $174.48* k COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 8 CHECK NO ----------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR - ---- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION-- - - - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM- -- - OBJECT - - - ------ - - - -PO -NUM_ 08/01/94 $847.61 ERICSSON RADIO MOBILE C4F1896 FIRE DEPT. GEN EQUIP REPLACEM 3660 147785 $847.61* 08/01/94 $140.00 EXPLORERS POST 925 CONT ED /POLICE 072594 RESERVE PROGRA CONF & SCHOOLS 147786 $140.00* 08/01/94 $23.43_ FACILITY SYSTEMS REMODELING 01506 CITY HALL EQUIP REPLACEM 08/01/94 $34.08 FACILITY SYSTEMS REMODELING 99030 GC CIP CIP 147787 $57.51* // $1,199.13 FEED RITE CONTROL WATER TREATMENT SUPP 39298 WATER TREATMEN WATER TRTMT SU 08/01/94 $516 .15 FEED_RITE CONTROL CHEMICALS 40699 POOL OPERATION CHEMICAL 147788 $1,715.28* 08/01/94 $160.00 FINE, AGNES AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES _ 147789 $160.00* 08/01/94 $563.98 FLANAGAN SALES REPAIR PARTS 4040 PATHS & HARD S REPAIR PARTS 147790 $563.98* 08/01/94 $1,121.54 FLOYD LOCK & SAFE CO SAFE 149123 NORMANDALE CLU CIP 147791 $1,121.54* 08/01/94 $384.00 FRAME, SUSAN AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147792 $384.00* 08/01/94 $80.00 FREMOUW, LEE REFUND SWIMMING 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147793 $80.00* 08/01/94 $894.60 FRIDEN NEOPOST METER RENTAL L6837248 CENT SVC GENER POSTAGE 147794 $894.60* 08/01/94 $303.55 FRONT LINE PLUS FIRE & GLOVES 3387 FIRE DEPT. GEN PROTECT CLOTHI 147795 $303.55* 08/01/94 $468.60 G & B PROMOTIONS GENERAL-SUPPLIES 071594 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 147796 $468.60* . 08/01/94 $1,200.00 G.V. LARSEN & ASSOC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 147797 $1,200.00* 08/01/94 $240.00 GADEN, MELANIE PT ART CENTER OFFICE 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147798 $240.00* 08/01/94 $116.91 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 FIRE DEPT. GEN RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $153.86 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 CITY HALL GENE RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $317.92 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 PW BUILDING RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $116.23 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 LITTER REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $307.75 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 LITTER REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVA F COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 9 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $317.92 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 GENERAL MAINT RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $153.08 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 PATHS & HARD S RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $79.70 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 ART CENTER BLD RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $148.50 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 LITTER REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $436.04 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 POOL OPERATION RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $721.79 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 CLUB HOUSE RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $115.65 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 MAINT OF COURS RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $297.24 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 ARENA BLDG /GRO RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $990.80 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 ED BUILDING & RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $56.78 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 YORK OCCUPANCY RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $57.42 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 VERNON OCCUPAN RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $82.72 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 GUN RANGE RUBBISH REMOVA 08/01/94 $317.92 GALLAGHER'S SERVICES I RUBBISH REMOVAL 072494 LITTER REMOVAL RUBBISH REMOVA 147800 $4,788.23* 08/01/94 $168.45 GANZER'DIST INC COST OF GOODS SOLD B 181706 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 147801 $168.45* 08/01/94 $112.50 GARDER, DOUG AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147802 $112.50* 08/01/94 $434.43 GARTNER REFRIGERATION CONTRACTED REPAIRS 114323 ARENA BLDG /GRO CONTR REPAIRS 147803 $434.43* 08/01/94 $76.87 GENERAL PARTS & SUPPLY CONTRACTED REPAIRS 481937 GRILL CONTR REPAIRS 147804 $76.87* 08/01/94 $30.00 GENERAL SPORTS UNIFORMS 038703 VANVALKENBURG CST OF GD FOOD 147805 $30.00* 08/01/94 $52.00 GIBBOBNS - KEARNS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 3215 NORMANDALE GC GENERAL SUPPLI 147806 $52.00* 08/01/94 $50.00 GLEN SIPE PIANO SERVIC SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 940719 ED BUILDING & SVC CONTR EQUI 147807 $50.00* 08/01/94 $168.00 GLEWWE, LINDA AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147808 $168.00* 08/01/94 $164.73 GOLF CAR MIDWEST REPAIR PARTS 941712 GOLF CARS REPAIR PARTS 147809 $164.73* 08/01/94 $70.00 GOPHER CASH REGISTER REPAIR CASH REGISTER 14830 GRILL CONTR SERVICES 147810 $70.00* 08/01/94 $574.00 GOPHER STATE 1 CALL HAZ. WASTE DISPOSAL 4060228 SUPERV. & OVRH HAZ. WASTE DIS 147811 $574.00* 08/01/94 $1,602.83 GRAFIX SHOPPE ACCESSORIES 9981 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 147812 $1,602.83* t COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 10 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $94.00 GRAINGER GENERAL SUPPLIES 49863390 GENERAL TURF C GENERAL SUPPLI 147813 $94.00* 08/01/94 $384.00 GRAPP, JEAN AC INSTRUCTOR 072694 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147814 $384.00* 08/01/94 $99.80 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10492436 GENERAL STORM GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $89.46 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10493185 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 - $10.78 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10493957 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $25.45 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 10493389 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 147815 $203.93* 08/01/94 $95.00 GREER, PAT SERVICES CL /EB 0725 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147816 $95.00* 08/01/94 $813.28 GREER, PAT SERVICES CL /EB 072594 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147817 $813.28* 08/01/94 $22.50 GREGORY, BETSY REFUND TENNIS 071394 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147818 $22.50* 08/01/94 $107.74 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMEN REPAIR PARTS 20041 MOWING REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $131.74 GRUBERS POWER EQUIPMEN REPAIR PARTS 19837 MOWING REPAIR PARTS 147819 $239.48* 08/01/94 $6.66 GUARI, BONNIE REFUND SWIMMING 071394 SWIM FROG REGISTRATION F 147820 $6.66* 08/01/94 $600.00 GUSTAFSON, KATHY AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147821 $600.00* 08/01/94 $79.24 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY LUBRICANTS 267492 EQUIPMENT OPER LUBRICANTS 08/01/94 $1,022.40 HALLMAN OIL COMPANY LUBRICANTS 267871 EQUIPMENT OPER LUBRICANTS 147822 $1,101.64* 08/01/94 $30.00 HAPPY FACES SERVICES CL /EB 072594 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 147823 $30.00* 08/01/94 $132.66 HARMON GLASS & GLAZE CONTRACTED REPAIRS 24004653 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 147824 $132.66* 08/01/94 $409.69 HARMON GLASS CONTRACTED REPAIRS 72002296 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 147825 $409.69* 08/01/94 $288.00 HAYWA, PHYLLIS AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147826 $288.00* 08/01/94 $128.12 HEDGES, DIANA CRAFT SUPPLIES 072594 ART CENTER ADM CRAFT SUPPLIES 147827 $128.12* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 11 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $290.55 HEIMARK FOODS COST OF GOODS SOLD F 071594 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 147828 $290.55* 08/01/94 $40.00 HEINRICH, ANNA REFUND SWIMMING 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147829 $40.00* 08/01/94 $50.00 HELGESON, GLEN SERVICES CL /EB 081594 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 147830 $50.00* 08/01/94 $1,257.19 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICA FIRST AID SUPPLIES 3402 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 147831 $1,257.19* 08/01/94 $39.79 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIF EQUIPMENT MAINTENANC 070894 POLICE DEPT. G EQUIP MAINT 08/01/94 $625.87 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIF WORKHOUSE /JAIL 072194 LEGAL SERVICES BRD & RM PRISO 147832 $665.66* 08/01/94 $609.93 HERMAN MILLER INC. OFFICE FURNITURE NOR 168763 GC CIP CIP 08/01/94 $164.66 HERMAN MILLER INC. REMODELING 179718 CITY HALL EQUIP REPLACEM 147833 $774.59* 08/01/94 $372.75 HIRSHFIELD'S PAINT MFG LINE MARKING POWDER 030119 FIELD MAINTENA LINE MARK POWD 147834 $372.75* 08/01/94 $229.77 HOLIDAY INN CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 2831 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONF & SCHOOLS 147835 $229.77* 08/01/94 $34.80 HOME JUICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 25728 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 147836 $34.80* 08/01/94 $584.26 HONEYWELL INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 375PT074 POOL TRACK GRE CONTR REPAIRS 147837 $584.26* 08/01/94 $121.30 HORIZON CHEMICAL CO IN GENERAL SUPPLIES 148 POOL TRACK GRE GENERAL SUPPLI 147838 $121.30* 08/01/94 $130.21 HORWATH, TOM MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072694 TREES & MAINTE MILEAGE 147839 $130.21* 08/01/94 $4,716.89 HOSPITALITY SUPPLY WALK IN COOLER 1758611 GC CIP CIP 147840 $4,716.89* 08/01/94 $97.50 HOYT, TRISHA AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147841 $97.50* 08/01/94 $140.00 HUMPHREY RADIATOR CONTRACTED REPAIRS 070694 EQUIPMENT OPER CONTR REPAIRS 147842 $140.00* 08/01/94 $69,578.00 HUNERBERG CONSTRUCTION NORMANDALE CLUBHOUSE 8 NORMANDALE CLU CIP 147843 $69,578.00* c COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 12 CHECK NO --------- -DATE -- - CHECK - AMOUNT--- - - - - -- VENDOR -- - - - - -- - - - - -- DESCRIPTION-- - - - - -- INVOICE - - - - -- PROGRAM --- - OBJECT - - - ----------PO-NUM_- 08/01/94 $312.00 HUNTER, AMANDA AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147844 $312.00* 08/01/94 $4,965.60 HYDRO SUPPLY CO WATER METERS 7217 UTILITY FROG INVENTORY WATE 147845 $4,965.60* 08/01/94 $57.50 INTERIM PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 21701806 CENTENNIAL LAK PROF SERVICES 147846 $57.50* 08/01/94 $162.43 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIE REPAIR PARTS 169052 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 147847 $162.43* 08/01/94 $98.00 JACOBSON, GAIL AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147848 $98.00* 08/01/94 $40.00 JELTMA, ROXANNE REFUND SWIMMING 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147849 $40.00* 08/01/94 $112.03 JERRYS PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES D6714 D6714 50TH ST SELLIN VERNON SELLING GENERAL SUPPLI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 08/01/94 $112.04 $112.03 JERRYS PRINTING JERRYS PRINTING GENERAL SUPPLIES D6714 YORK SELLING GENERAL SUPPLI 147850 $336.10* 08/01/94 $118.66 JOHNSON, NAOMI CRAFT SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 072594 072594 ART CENTER ADM ART CENTER BLD CRAFT SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 08/01/94 $38.80 $11.70 JOHNSON, NAOMI JOHNSON, NAOMI SALES OTHER 072594 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 147851 $169.16* 08/01/94 $1.49 JULIEN, DIANE GENERAL SUPPLIES 072294 PW BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLI & SCHOOLS 08/01/94 08/01/94 $2.50 $9.00 JULIEN, DIANE JULIEN, DIANE CONFERENCES & SCHOOL GENERAL SUPPLIES 072294 072294 TRAINING TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONF GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $8.00 JULIEN, DIANE CONFERENCES & SCHOOL GENERAL SUPPLIES 072294 072294 TRAINING PW.BUILDING CONF & SCHOOLS GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 08/01/94 $12.77 $7.50 JULIEN, DIANE JULIEN, DIANE LICENSES & PERMITS 072294 EQUIPMENT OPER LIC & PERMITS 147852 $41.26* 08/01/94 $257.90 JUSTUS LUMBER GENERAL SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 81429 78516 TODD PARK STREET RENOVAT GENERAL SUPPLI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 08/01/94 $30.44 $472.54 JUSTUS LUMBER JUSTUS LUMBER PAINT 78499 CENTENNIAL LAK PAINT 08/01/94 $464.40 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 76231 CENTENNIAL LAK LUMBER 08/01/94 $452.76 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 81928 CENTENNIAL LAK LUMBER- - 08/01/94 $225.52 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 71689 CENTENNIAL LAK LUMBER 08/01/94 $32.72 JUSTUS LUMBER LUMBER 79378 CENTENNIAL LAK LUMBER 147853 $1,936.28* 08/01/94 $202.50 K & K SALES CONTRACTED REPAIRS 80476 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 147854 $202.50* 08/01/94 $21.30 KANE, KENNETH CONT ED /POLICE 072594 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 13 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147855 $21.30* 08/01/94 $125.83 KAPAK CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 72269 POLICE DEPT. G GENERAL SUPPLI 147856 $125.83* 08/01/94 $177.56 KAR PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 672696 MAINT OF COURS GENERAL SUPPLI 147857 $177.56* 08/01/94 $62.11 KATTREH, ANN GENERAL SUPPLIES 072694 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 147858 $62.11* 08/01/94 $64.00 KAUFMAN, RENANAN CLASS REFUND 071994 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 147859 $64.00* 08/01/94 $29.79 KEHOE,,TERRENCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 072094 INSPECTIONS GENERAL SUPPLI 147860 $29.79* 08/01/94 $102.00 KINNEY, BETH SPLASH 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO SVC OTHER 147861 $102.00* 08/01/94 $18.08 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 108514 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $94.56 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 108432 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $153.00 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 107923 BUILDING MAINT LUMBER 08/01/94 $18.38 KNOX COMM CREDIT TOOLS 111780 BUILDING MAINT TOOLS 08/01/94 $57.91 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 109576 BUILDING MAINT LUMBER 08/01/94 $19.17 KNOX COMM CREDIT LUMBER 107994 BUILDING MAINT LUMBER 08/01/94 $43.63 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 109469 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $36.74 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 111507 RANGE GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $18.41 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 111454 NORMANDALE GC GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $18.99 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 111732 NORMANDALE GC GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $18.81 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 111164 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $31.94 KNOX COMM CREDIT GENERAL SUPPLIES 111165 ARENA BLDG /GRO GENERAL SUPPLI 147862 $529.62* 08/01/94 $5,571.59 KOCH MATERIALS CO. ROAD OIL 704431 STREET RENOVAT ROAD OIL 08/01/94 $3,149.00 KOCH MATERIALS CO ROAD OIL 0706093 STREET RENOVAT ROAD OIL 147863 $8,720.59* 08/01/94 $36.00 KOHLER, DEBORAH CLASS REFUND 071994 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 147864 $36.00* 08/01/94 $605.50 KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 110302 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $1,124.00 KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 110205 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $5.00 KUETHER DIST. CO. INVOICE SHORT 107265. 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $789.90 KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 110796 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $1,010.35 KUETHER DIST. CO. COST OF GOODS SOLD B 110662 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 147865 $3,534.75* 08/01/94 $27.00 KURETSKY, CATHY CLASS REFUND 071994 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 147866 $27.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 14 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $30.00 KVASNICK, BARB VISUAL ARTS CL /EB 080694 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 147867 $30.00* 08/01/94 $244.10 L & B CONTRACT INDUSTR CONSTR. IN PROGRESS 621024 GC CIP CIP 147868 $244.10* 08/01/94 $920.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC AQUATIC WEED TREATME 4263 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/01/94 $215.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC AQUATIC WEED TREATME 3079 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/01/94 $340.00 LAKE RESTORATION INC AQUATIC WEED TREATME 2403 PONDS & LAKES PROF SERVICES 08/01/94 $496.25 LAKE RESTORATION INC SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 393/3 CENTENNIAL LAK SVC CONTR EQUI 147869 $1,971.25* 08/01/94 $61.77 LANCRETE, LAURA MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072694 PARK ADMIN. MILEAGE 147870 $61.77* 08/01/94 $453.69 LAND CARg EQUIPMENT CO ACCESSORIES 12748 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 147871 $453.69* 08/01/94 $191.47 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1079496 FIELD MAINTENA GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $315.77 LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1079495 FIELD MAINTENA GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $288.71 LAWSON PRODUCTS ACCESSORIES 1065415 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 08/01/94 $263.43 LAWSON PRODUCTS TOOLS 1000651 PUMP & LIFT ST TOOLS 08/01/94 $236.51 LAWSON PRODUCTS TOOLS 1077065 DISTRIBUTION TOOLS 08/01/94 $134.04 _ LAWSON PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1077066 GENERAL MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $470.80 LAWSON PRODUCTS ACCESSORIES 1073187 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 147872 $1,900.73* 08/01/94 $153.00 LIEN, HEATHER SPLASH 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO SVC OTHER 147873 $153.00* 08/01/94 $30.00 LINDQUIST, BILL ADAPTIVE REC SERVCIE 072694 SPECIAL ACTIVI PROF SERVICES 147874 $30.00* 08/01/94 $1,278.78 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING AR0694 GENERAL(BILLIN DATA PROCESSIN 08/01/94 $31:83 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING AR0694 VERNON LIQUOR DATA PROCESSIN 08/01/94 $31.83 LOGIS DATA,PROCESSING AR0694 LIQUOR YORK GE DATA PROCESSIN 08/01/94 $31.83 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING AR0694 LIQUOR 50TH ST DATA PROCESSIN 08/01/94 $2,131.67 LOGIS DATA "PROCESSING AR0694 ASSESSING DATA PROCESSIN 08/01/94 $5,222.17 LOGIS DATA PROCESSING AR0694 FINANCE DATA PROCESSIN 147875 $8,728.11* 08/01/94 $33.00 LUND, KAREN ART WORK SOLD 072594 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 147876 $33.00* 08/01/94 $22.37 LUTZ, RICHARD M CONT ED /POLICE 072594 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 147877 $22.37* 08/01/94 $76.73 LYNDALE GARDEN CTR GENERAL SUPPLIES 92223 GENERAL TURF C GENERAL SUPPLI 147878 $76.73* COUNCIL CHECK-REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 15 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $284.07 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30446 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $267.36 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30407 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $424.48 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS-SOLD M 30339 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $167.10 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30237 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $133.68 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30166 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $334.20 M AMUNDSON COST OF GOODS SOLD M 30277 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 147879 $1,610.89* 08/01/94 $540.00 MACKERMAN, DANNY AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147880 $540.00* 08/01/94 $57.51 MAGNUSON SOD CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 6291 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 147881 $57.51* 08/01/94 $147.64 MAIER- STEWART & ASSOCI PROF ENG SERVIES 13190 GENERAW BILLIN PROF SERVICES 147882 $147.64* 08/01/94 $112.00 MAKELA, BARB AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147883 $112.00* 08/01/94 $102.00 MALSTROM, COREY SPLASH 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO SVC OTHER 147884 $102.00* 08/01/94 $23.30 MALTBY, JOY CONT ED /POLICE 072594 POLICE DEPT. G CONF & SCHOOLS 147885 $23.30* 08/01/94 $2,255.33 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 276284 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $51.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 275272 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $41.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD "SOLD M 276285 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $18.35 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS M 276283 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $653.50 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 276282 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $53.10 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 276281 50TH ST,SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $1,813.90 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 279012 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $25.50 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 279011 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $12.75 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 273623 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $1,763.70 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 276339 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE $26.50 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 273570 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX .08/01/94 08/01/94 $1,932.24 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 273571 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $162.50 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 275271 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $12.75 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 276338 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $75.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 275270 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $1,945.87 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 273624 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $63.00 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 273572 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $53.10 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD M 273568 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $2,036.65 MARK VII SALES COST OF GOODS SOLD B 273569 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 147887 $12,995.74* 08/01/94 $57.00 MAURI JO HERBES BEER LINES 072594 GRILL CST OF GDS BEE 147888 $57.00* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 16 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $40.00 MAYASICH, MIKE REFUND SWIMMING 072694 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147889 $40.00* 08/01/94 $40.00 MAYO, GAIL REFUND SWIMMING 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147890 $40.00* 08/01/94 $30.00 MCCARTHY, BRIAN SERVICES /ADAPTIVE RE 072694 SPECIAL ACTIVI PROF SERVICES 147891 $30.00* 08/01/94 $140.65 MCCARTHY, LOWELL MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072594 WEED MOWING MILEAGE 147892 $140.65* 08/01/94 $100.00 MCCORMICK, CAROL SERVICES CL /EB 081394 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147893 $100.00* 08/01/94 $88.00 MCGARVEY %SUPERIOR COFF GENERAL SUPPLIES 7582306 CENT SVC GENER GENERAL SUPPLI; 08/01/94 $244.15 MCGARVEY /SUPERIOR COFF COST OF GOODS SOLD F 7582278 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 08/01_/94 $61.05 MCGARVEY /SUPERIOR COFF COST OF GOODS SOLD F 2061266 NORMANDALE GC CST OF GD FOOD 147894 $393.20* 08/01/94 $97.75 MED CENTER HEALTH PLAN HOSPITALIZATION 1224271 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 08/01/94 $25,271.22 MED CENTER HEALTH PLAN HOSPITALIZATION 071894 CENT SVC GENER HOSPITALIZATIO 147895 $25,368.97* 08/01/94 $21.46 MELVIN, PATRICK MILEAGE OR ALLOWANCE 072094 ADMINISTRATION MILEAGE 147896 $21.46* 08/01/94 $106.37 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36540 CLUB HOUSE GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $93.65 MERIT SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 36603 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $494.37 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36475 LITTER REMOVAL GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $860.25 MERIT SUPPLY STONE SEALER 36506 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $44.73 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36474 FIELD MAINTENA GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $188.59 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36324 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $1,800.00 MERIT SUPPLY ACCESSORIES 36324 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 08/01/94 $500.00 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36324 PUMP & LIFT ST GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $200.00 MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES 36324 PW BUILDING CLEANING SUPPL 08/01/94 $302.56 MERIT SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 36602 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $346.12 MERIT SUPPLY CLEANING SUPPLIES 36505 ED BUILDING & CLEANING SUPPL 147897 $4,936.64* 08/01/94 $475.00 METRO AREA PROMOTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 4639 COMMUNICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLI 147898 $475.00* 08/01/94 $66.03 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 2637. PATHS & HARD S REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $16.51 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 2501 PATHS & HARD S REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $394.20 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD F 2698 ARENA CONCESSI CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 $119.42 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 2559 FIELD MAINTENA GENERAL SUPPLI 147899 $596.16* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 17 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $3,960.00 METRO WASTE CONTROL BUILDING PERMITS JUNE 199 GENERAL FD PRO BUILDING PERMI 147900 $3,960.00* 08/01/94 $255,213.00 METRO WASTE CONTROL SEWER SERVICE 070194 SEWER TREATMEN SEWER SVC METR 147901 $255,213.00* 08/01/94 $4,425.00 MIDWEST AQUA CARE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 072094 WEED CONTROL PROF SERVICES 147902 $4,425.00* 08/01/94 $29.97 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. GENERAL SUPPLIES 16229 DISTRIBUTION GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $322.50 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 16229 STREET RENOVAT BLACKTOP 08/01/94 $96.99 MIDWEST ASPHALT COR. BLACKTOP 16229 GENERAL MAINT BLACKTOP 147903 $449.46* 08/01/94 $110.49 MILLERI MERRITT PLAYGROUND ASSISTANT 072694 PARK ADMIN. MILEAGE 147904 $110.49* 08/01/94 $266.52 MILLIPORE LAB SUPPLIES 1114045 LABORATORY GENERAL SUPPLI 147905 $266.52* 08/01/94 $56.49 MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOO GRINDER REPAIR 25841980 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONTR REPAIRS 147906 $56.49* 08/01/94 $12.24 MINN COMM PAGING PAGER RENTAL 5345921 GENERAL MAINT EQUIP RENTAL 08/01/94 $12.24 MINN COMM PAGING CONTRACTED REPAIRS 22509607 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONTR REPAIRS 147907 $24.48* 08/01/94 $60.00 MINNEGASCO CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 071194 SUPERV. & OVRH CONF & SCHOOLS 147908 $60.00* 08/01/94 $19.44 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 NORMANDALE GC HEAT 08/01/94 $17.23 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 50TH ST OCCUPA HEAT 08/01/94 $23.86 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 YORK OCCUPANCY HEAT 08/01/94 $57.00 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 CENTENNIAL LAK HEAT 08/01/94 $10.14 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 VERNON OCCUPAN HEAT 08/01/94 $25.63 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 MAINT OF COURS HEAT 08/01/94 $1,085.67 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 DISTRIBUTION HEAT 08/01/94 $87.50 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 CLUB HOUSE HEAT 08/01/94 $2,373.15 MINNEGASCO HEAT 0801.94 POOL OPERATION HEAT 08/01/94 $66.71 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 ART CENTER BLD HEAT 08/01/94 $239.83 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 BUILDING MAINT HEAT 08/01/94 $32.68 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 PW BUILDING HEAT 08/01/94 $92.37 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 FIRE DEPT. GEN HEAT 08/01/94 $92.35 MINNEGASCO HEAT 080194 PUMP & LIFT ST HEAT 147909 $4,223.56* 08/01/94 $76.90 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200213 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $34.98 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 155240 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 - $25.90 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 155215 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $198.78 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200214 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 18 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $94.00 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 200212 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $133.84 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 155239 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $63.34 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M _ 154738 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $27.30 MINNESOTA BAR SUPPLY COST OF GOODS SOLD M 154686 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 147910 $603.24* 08/01/94 $18,253.00 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT 0 WATER CONNECTION FEE 080194 WATER TREATMEN PRO SVC OTHER 147911 $18,253.00* 08/01/94 $17.38 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT HRG NOTICE S 67 12792 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 08/01/94 $56.58 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT HRG EASEMENT VACATIO 12923 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 08/01/94 $49.20 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICAT AD FOR LOADERS 12922 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 147912 $123.16* 08/01/94 $422.09 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 438912 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $273.93 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 431033 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $26.56 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 431034 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $400.50 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 435912 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $460.19 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 439562 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $13.28 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 435974 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS.- 08/01/94 $380.28 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO IRRIGATION PARTS 435911 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 4959 08/01/94 $47.41 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 438123 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $86.00 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 434731 CENTENNIAL-LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $14.25 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 435405 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $10.38 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 435420. CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $14.96 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 433497 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $481.29 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 442185 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $57.82 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 436731 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $216.00 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 435009 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $126.75 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 431962 CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $192.20 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 440037 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $4.69 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 442186 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $138.70 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 441141 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $189.00 MINNESOTA TORO DIST CO REPAIR PARTS 439991 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 147914 $3,556.28* 08/01/94 $794.17 MINNESOTA WANNER CONTRACTED REPAIRS 0022753 FIELD MAINTENA CONTR REPAIRS 08/01/94 $19.17 MINNESOTA WANNER CONTRACTED REPAIRS 0022558 BUILDING MAINT CONTR REPAIRS 147915 $813.34* 08/01/94 $145.05 MINVALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4061700 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 147916 $145.05* 08/01/94 $14.17 MIRMAN, JULIA REFUND TENNIS 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147917 $14.17* 08/01/94 $2,379.60 MN STATE TREA /BLG IN SURTAX JUNE 199 GENERAL FD PRO SURTAX 147918 $2,379.60* 08/01/94 $2,245.08 MN UC FUND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENS 072094 CENT SVC GENER UNEMP COMP �ti COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 19 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147919 $2,245.08* 08/01/94 $41.00 MOBILE CELLULAR UNLIMI REPAIR PARTS 987621 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 147920 $41.00* 08/01/94 $7,820.80 MPLS FINANCE DEPARTMEN WATER PURCHASED 071494 DISTRIBUTION WATER PURCHASE 147921 $7,820.80* 08/01/94 $190.80 MPLS HEALTH DEPT PRO SERVICES 1830 POLICE DEPT. G PROF SERVICES 147922 $190.80* 08/01/94 $30.00 MUELLER, CYNTHIA CLASS REFUND 071994 ART CNTR PROG REGISTRATION F 147923 $30.00* 08/01/94 $107.00 MUNICILITE CO ACCESSORIES 5612 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 147924 $107.00* 08/01/94 $43.00 MUZAK ADVERTISING OTHER 080194/5 50TH ST SELLIN ADVERT OTHER 08/01/94 $57.48 MUZAK PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 080194/C ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147925 $100.48* 08/01/94 $8,501.38 NATIONAL BUSINESS FINA ABOUT TOWN 10968 COMMUNICATIONS MAG /NEWSLET EX 08/01/94 $13,120.22 NATIONAL BUSINESS FINA ABOUT TOWN 10936 COMMUNICATIONS MAG /NEWSLET EX 08/01/94 $3,132.01 NATIONAL BUSINESS FINA ELECTION GUIDE 10969 COMMUNICATIONS MAG /NEWSLET EX 147926 $24,753.61* 08/01/94 $248.82 NATIONAL GUARDIAN SYST ALARM SERVICE 868737 YORK OCCUPANCY ALARM SERVICE 147927 $248.82* 08/01/94 $50.40 NATIONAL RECREATION AN PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 072694 PARK ADMIN. PROF SERVICES 147928 $50.40* 08/01/94 $117.81 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 280306 CENTENNIAL LAK CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 - $75.58 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 742900 CENTENNIAL LAK CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 - $36.33 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB GENERAL SUPPLIES 743673 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 08/0,1/94 - $18.18 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB GENERAL SUPPLIES 743576 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $108.70 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 295655 POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 $.09 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB GENERAL SUPPLIES 287807 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $33.57 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB COST OF GOODS SOLD F 280313. POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 $.04 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB GENERAL SUPPLIES 280312 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $58.69 NEBCO EVANS DISTRIB GENERAL SUPPLIES 298522 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 147929 $188.81* 08/01/94 $91.28 NELSON RADIO COMMUNICA ACCESSORIES 16821 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 147930 $91.28* 08/01/94 $112.68 NORTH STAR TURF REPAIR PARTS 083677 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $4.97 NORTH STAR TURF REPAIR PARTS 087118 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $208.29 NORTH STAR TURF REPAIR PARTS 086454 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 147931 $325.94* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 20 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $37.43 NORTHERN AIRGAS OXYGEN 65996 FIRE DEPT. GEN FIRST AID SUPP 147932 $37.43* 08/01/94 $38.45 NORTHERN HYDRAULICS ACCESSORIES 42676341 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 147933 $38.45* 08/01/94 $54.00 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 22169 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $125.58 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 23289 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $108.00 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 21045 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $139.50 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 23287 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $106.20 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 21047 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $98.40 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 18377 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $37.20 NORTHSTAR ICE COST OF GOODS SOLD M 19859 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 147934 $668.88* 08/01/94 $295.16 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPP COST OF GOODS SOLD 220814 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 $464.61 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPP COST OF GOODS SOLD 217923 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 $184.35 NORTHWEST GRAPHIC SUPP COST OF GOODS SOLD 217924 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 147935 $944.12* 08/01/94 $245.82 NORTHWESTERN TIRE CO TIRES & TUBES NW119832 EQUIPMENT OPER TIRES & TUBES 147936- $245.82* 08/01/94 $604.57 NOVAK'S GARAGE GENERAL SUPPLIES 00104 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 147937 $604.57* 08/01/94 $709.87 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 VERNON OCCUPAN LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $547.40 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 GOLF DOME LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $38.66 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 TANKS TOWERS & LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $2,455.98 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 DISTRIBUTION LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $277.46 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 PUMP & LIFT ST LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $325.24 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 CENTENNIAL LAK LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $370.77 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 CLUB HOUSE LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $107.00 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $798.18 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 BUILDING MAINT LIGHT & POWER 08/01/94 $14.22 NSP LIGHT & POWER 080194 PONDS & LAKES LIGHT & POWER 147938 $5,644.78* 08/01/94 $46.47 OCHS BRICKS AND TILE C REPAIR PARTS 169863 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 147939 $46.47* 08/01/94 $96.00 ODLAND, DOROTHY AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147940 $96.00* 08/01/94 $2,188.16 OPM INFORMATION SYSTEM SERVICE CONTRACTS EQ 233627 CENT SVC GENER SVC CONTR EQUI 147941 $2,188.16* 08/01/94 $58.66 ORKIN CONTRACTED REPAIRS 2815282 CITY HALL GENE CONTR REPAIRS 147942 $58.66* 1 0 ' COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 21 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $74.00 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 1003271 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 08/01/94 $74.00 OTIS SPUNKMEYER INC COST OF GOODS SOLD F 1003140 GRILL CST OF GD FOOD 147943 $148.00* 08/01/94 $589.84 OWENS SERVICE CO CONTRACTED REPAIRS 84674 ED BUILDING & CONTR REPAIRS 147944 $589.84* 08/01/94 $123.00 PACE INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 10015550 WATER TREATMEN PROF SERVICES 147945 $123.00* 08/01/94 $48.75 PANCAKE, CHAR ART WORK SOLD 072594 ART CNTR PROG SALES OTHER 147946 $48.75* 08/01/94 $648.00 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL PRE - EMPLOYMENT PHYSI 070294 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 147947 $648.00* 08/01/94 $63.90 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42189 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $32.45 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42188 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $73.95 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42185 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $231.60 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42077 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $27.50 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42076 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $126.25 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42190 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $49.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42189 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $74.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 42375 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $22.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD M 42373 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $73.00 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42372 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $56.50 PAUSTIS & SONS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 42374 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 147948 $830.15* 08/01/94 $70.25 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD M 32196304 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $88.15 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD M 32196110 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $57.00 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD M 32296312 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $205.50 PEPSI COLA BOTTLING COST OF GOODS SOLD F 32282516 CENTENNIAL LAK CST OF GD FOOD 147949 $420.90* 08/01/94 $318.20 PERFECT HOST CATERING RECEPTION /SPLASH 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 147950 $318.20* 08/01/94 $20.00 PETERSON, DAVID SERVICES CL /EB 072594 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147951 $20.00* 08/01/94 $50.00 PETERSON, JACKIE REFUND BRAEMAR ROOM 072194 GOLF PROG RENTAL OF PROP 147952 $50.00* 08/01/94 $15.10 PFEIFFER, POLLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 071994 POOL OPERATION GENERAL SUPPLI 147953 $15.10* 08/01/94 $296.07 PINNACLE SIGNS & GRAPH GENERAL SUPPLIES 4372 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 147954 $296.07* t i COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 22 CHECK NO ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $78.49 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL REPAIR PARTS 1507066 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 147955 $78.49* 08/01/94 $430.37 PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPM GENERAL SUPPLIES 7501 METER REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $756.15 PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPM REPAIR PARTS 7532 LIFT STATION M REPAIR PARTS 147956 $1,186.52* 08/01/94 $780.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE ART CENTER 072594 CENT SVC GENER POSTAGE 147957 $780.00* 08/01/94 $190.64 POWER INVESTIGATIONS I BACKGROUND CHECK 03682 LIQUOR 50TH ST PROF SERVICES 147958 $190.64* 08/01/94 $378.08 PRECISION TURF /CHEM PLANTINGS & TREES 004874 MAINT OF COURS PLANT & TREES 08/01/94 $70.29 PRECISION TURF /CHEM CHEMICALS 004870 MAINT OF COURS CHEMICALS 08/01/94 - $348.10 PRECISION TURF /CHEM CHEMICALS 000236 MAINT OF COURS CHEMICALS 08/01/94 $995.00 PRECISION TURF /CHEM EQUIPMENT 4878 GC CIP CIP 08/01/94 $351.45 PRECISION TURF /CHEM FERTILIZER 004941 MAINT OF COURS FERTILIZER 147959 $1,446.72* 08/01/94 $42.00 PRINTERS SERVICE INC SHARPENING 10300 ARENA ICE MAIN EQUIP MAINT 147960 $42.00* 08/01/94 $308.95 PRIOR WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 44948. 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 147961 $308.95* 08/01/94 $1,234.10 PROCARD PRINTERS PRINTING 1021 GOLF ADMINISTR PRINTING 147962 $1,234.10* 08/01/94 $208.01 QUICK SERVICE BATTERY REPAIR PARTS 4398 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 147963 $208.01* 08/01/94 $108.73 QUIK PRINT PRINTING 52427 GOLF ADMINISTR PRINTING 147964 $108.73* 08/01/94 $2,003.30 R &R SPECIALTIES INC CONTRACTED REPAIRS 19479 ARENA ICE MAIN CONTR REPAIRS 147965 $2,003.30* 08/01/94 $13.05 R.C. IDENTIFICATION IN GENERAL SUPPLIES 017809 -CITY HALL GENE GENERAL SUPPLI 147966 $13.05* 08/01/94 $321.40 R.J. BAUMAN ENTERPRISE COST OF GOODS SOLD 071994 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 147967 $321.40* 08/01/9.4 $550.66 RADJENOVICH, JOEL CONFERENCES & SCHOOL 071894 FIRE DEPT. GEN CONF & SCHOOLS 147968 $550.66* 08/01/94 $143,.78 REDWOOD SIGNS BY HORNI GENERAL SUPPLIES 1693 NORMAN. MAINT. GENERAL SUPPLI 147969 Q $143.78* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 23 CHECK NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $120.77 RELAX THE BACK STORE GENERAL SUPPLIES 00010482 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 147970 $120.77* 08/01/94 $142.80 REM SUPPLIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 4208 ED BUILDING & GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $39.52 REM SUPPLIES COST OF GOODS SOLD 4216 VANVALKENBURG CST OF GD FOOD 147971 $182.32* 08/01/94 $1,171.50 RESCUE ONE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMEN 5116 POLICE DEPT. G EQUIP REPLACEM 147972 $1,171.50* 08/01/94 $1,206.55 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 97386 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $2,109.45 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 97269 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $2,486.20 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD M 97270 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 08/01/94 $61.75 REX DISTRIBUTING CO STATEMENT /50TH 063094 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $95.70 REX DISTRIBUTING CO STATEMENT / VERNON 063094 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $1,183.99 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 96410 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $1,429.95 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 96595 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $1,631.20 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 96411 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $271.75 REX DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 95953 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 147973 $10,476.54* 08/01/94 $85.00 RICHARDS, BRIAN SERVICES CL /EB 081394 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147974 $85.00* 08/01/94 $6.54 RITZ CAMERA FILM PROCESSING 3756253 STORM SEWER CIP 147975 $6.54* 08/01/94 $44.27 ROFIDAL, KEVIN CONT ED /POLICE 072594 RESERVE PROGRA CONF & SCHOOLS 147976 $44.27* 08/01/94 $1,114.30 ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 29534 MAINT OF COURS GASOLINE 08/01/94 $7,582.15 ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 29300 EQUIPMENT OPER GASOLINE 08/01/94 $144.08 ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 29295 NORMAN. MAINT. GASOLINE 147977 $8,840.53* 08/01/94 $11,290.00 RONCOR CONSTRUCTION REHAB IMPROVEMENTS 072594 CDBG PROG PROF SERVICES 147978 $11,290.00* 08/01/94 $189.00 RYTER, TZAPORAH AC INSTRUCTOR 072594 ART CENTER ADM PROF SERVICES 147979 $189.00* 08/01/94 $217.37 SA -AG INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 53252 STREET RENOVAT GENERAL SUPPLI 147980 $217.37* 08/01/94 $209.96 SAM'S CLUB DIRECT COMM SAFETY EQUIPMENT 071294 GENERAL MAINT SAFETY EQUIPME 147981 $209.96* 08/01/94 $172.26 SCHMITZ, THOMAS GENERAL SUPPLIES 071394 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 147982 $172.26* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 24 CHECK NO -------------------------------------'-----------,--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE CHECK.AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. 08/01/94 $120.00 SEIDEL, ROXANNE SERVICES CL /EB 072594 ED ADMINISTRAT PROF SERVICES 147983 $120.00* 08/01/94 $7,700.00 SELA ROOFING & REMODEL NEW ROOF & INSTALLAT 072594 CDBG PROG PROF SERVICES 147984 $7,700.00* 08/01/94 $65.00 SHANNON, JIM SERVICES CL /EB 081494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 147985 $65.00* 08/01/94 $69.74 SHERWIN WILLIAMS PAINT 6419 -9 BUILDINGS PAINT 147986 $69.74* 08/01/94 $153.00 SIEWERT, TIFFANY SPLASH 072294 CENTENNIAL LAK PRO SVC OTHER 147987 $153.00* 08/01/94 $118.34 SIITARI,'MICHAEL UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 071994 POLICE DEPT. G UNIF ALLOW 147988 $118.34* 08/01/94 $112.70 SOUTHAM BUSINESS COMMU AD FOR LOADERS CPC03243 ADMINISTRATION ADVERTISING LE 147989 $112.70* 08/01/94 $2,825.65 SO.UTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 39213 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $641.50 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 39214 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $936.10 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 39352 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $3,312.90 SOUTHSIDE DISTRIBUTORS COST OF GOODS SOLD B 393510 YORK SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 147990 $7,716.15* 08/01/94 $383.27 SPS REPAIR PARTS 2220533 'DISTRIBUTION REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $63.88 SPS REPAIR PARTS 2215374 BUILDING MAINT REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 - $68.65 SPS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2222398 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $458.25 SPS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2223463 CENTENNIAL LAK GENERAL SUPPLI 147991 $836.75* 08/01/94 $350.00 STATE OF MINNESOTA CPV MEMBERSHIP 080194 EQUIPMENT OPER LIC & PERMITS 147992 $350.00* 08/01/94 $30.00 STEFENS, BOB ADAPTIVE REC SERVICE 072694 SPECIAL ACTIVI PROF SERVICES 147993 $30.00* 08/01/94 $348.56 STERNER LIGHTING SYSTE REPAIR PARTS 178475CE CENTENNIAL LAK REPAIR PARTS 147994 $348.56* 08/01/94 $130.00 STRGAR - ROSCOE -FAUSH PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 0942076/ ENGINEERING GE PROF SERVICES 147995 $130.00* 08/01/94 $40.00 SULLIVAN, CHERYL REFUND SWIMMING 071994 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 147996 08/01/94 $24.47 SUPERAMERICA GASOLINE. 071794 EQUIPMENT OPER GASOLINE j�. COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 25 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 147997 $24.47* 08/01/94 $550.00 SUPERIOR FORD WINDOWS 6352 EQUIPMENT OPER ACCESSORIES 147998 $550.00* 08/01/94 $15.96 TARGET CABLE 64545 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $68.07 TARGET PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIE 63410 COMMUNICATIONS PHOTO SUPPLIES 08/01/94 $139.58 TARGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 070894 CLUB HOUSE GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $13.83 TARGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 51658 FIRE DEPT. GEN GENERAL SUPPLI 147999 $237.44* 08/01/94 $467.03 TERMINAL SUPPLY CO REPAIR PARTS 52341 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148000 $467.03* 08/01/94 $479.25 TERRY lNN SALES CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 2059 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 148001 $479.25* `` 08/01/94 $300.00 TERRY, PETER A. PICTURES 072094 NORMANDALE GC GENERAL SUPPLI 148002 $300.00* 08/01/94 $191.90 THE CONNECTION ADVERTISING OTHER 00017301 ED ADMINISTRAT ADVERT OTHER 148003 $191.90* 08/01/94 $59.11 THE KANE SERVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 5680621 POOL TRACK GRE PROF SERVICES 148004 $59.11* 08/01/94 $140.68 THE MATHISON CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 794693 ART CENTER ADM OFFICE SUPPLIE 148005 $140.68* 08/01/94 $150.00 THE PREST COMPANY PROGRAM RECORDER 293 DISTRIBUTION CONTR REPAIRS 148006 $150.00* 08/01/94 $48.90 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD B 8990 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $179.75 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 8989 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $146.50 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 8988 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $97.80 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD B 8996 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $371.60 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 8995 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $459.50 THE WINE COMPANY COST OF GOODS SOLD W 8885 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 148007 $1,304.05* 08/01/94 $2,039.45 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 38007 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $438.00 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 38441 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $2,838.20 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD B 37547 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS BEE 08/01/94 $193.45 THORPE DISTRIBUTING CO COST OF GOODS SOLD M 37547 VERNON SELLING CST OF GDS MIX 148008 $5,509.10* 08/01/94 $495.00 TIM MANS EXCAVATING IN BOBCAT WORK 232 GENERAL TURF C CONTR REPAIRS 148009 $495.00* 08/01/94 $137.02 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUP WELDING SUPPLIES 487518 EQUIPMENT OPER WELDING SUPPLI i�1 COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 26 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 148010 $137.02* 08/01/94 $678.24 TOMBSTONE PIZZA CORPAR COST OF GOODS SOLD F 070994 POOL CONCESSIO CST OF GD FOOD 148011 $678.24* 08/01/94 $250.00 TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE I CONTRACTED REPAIRS 3257 FIELD MAINTENA CONTR REPAIRS 148012 $250.00* 08/01/94 $25.00 TRETTEL, KATHY SERVICES CL /EB 080494 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148013 $25.00* 08/01/94 $30.00 TRETTEL, KATHY VISUAL ARTS EB /CL 081394 ED ADMINISTRAT PRO SVC OTHER 148014 $30.00* 08/01/94 $34.76 TRI- COUNTY DISTRIBUTOR COST OF GOODS SOLD 044098 ART SUPPLY GIF CST OF GD FOOD 148015 $34.76* 08/01/94 $69.00 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFT PLAYGROUND CRAFTS 127356 PLAYGROUND & T GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94, $19.01 TRIARCO ARTS & CRAFT PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES 129255 PLAYGROUND & T GENERAL SUPPLI 148016 $88.01* 08/01/94 $1,831.75 TRUGREEN - CHEMLAWN -MTKA CONTRACTED REPAIRS 070194 GENERAL TURF C CONTR REPAIRS 148017 $1,831.75* 08/01/94 $27.00 TWIN CITIES EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING PERSONNE 003288 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 08/01/94 $52.50 TWIN CITIES EMPLOYMENT ADVERTISING PERSONNE 003286 CENT SVC GENER ADVERT PERSONL 148018 $79.50* 08/01/94 $24.30 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORM WOODCOCK 450669 FIRE DEPT. GEN UNIF ALLOW 08/01/94 $211.74 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 063094 RESERVE PROGRA UNIF ALLOW 08/01/94 $802.22 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 063094 POLICE DEPT. G UNIF ALLOW 148019 $1,038.26* 08/01/94 $10.92 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 30603700 BUILDING MAINT GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $376.18 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 30774100 PUMP & LIFT ST REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $22.37 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 30794600 CIVIL DEFENSE REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $141.89 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 30942200 FIRE DEPT. GEN REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $411.42 UNITED ELECTRIC CORP REPAIR PARTS 30794800 PW BUILDING REPAIR PARTS 148020 $962.78* 08/01/94 $338.92 US WEST CELLULAR TELEPHONE 071094 COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 148021 $338.92* 08/01/94 $608.52 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 080194 ED BUILDING & TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $436.42 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 080194 CENT SVC GENER TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $657.00 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE 080194 POOL TRACK GRE PROF SERVICES 08/01/94 $150.45 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 080194 SKATING & HOCK TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $135.23 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 080194 PUMP & LIFT ST TELEPHONE. 08/01/94 $288.66 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 080194 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 08/01/94 $188.10 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 080194 GOLF DOME TELEPHONE l COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 27 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. ----------------------------------------------------------------=---------------------------------------------------------------- 148022 $2,464.38* 08/01/94 $99.84 VAN PAPER CO. GENERAL SUPPLIES 022829 GRILL GENERAL SUPPLI 148023 $99.84* 08/01/94 $59.64 VERSATILE VEHICLE CART PARTS 1240 GOLF CARS REPAIR PARTS 148024 $59.64* 08/01/94 $80.00 VESSEY, JUDITH REFUND SWIMMING 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 148025 $80.00* 08/01/94 $217.26 VIDEO DUPLICATION INC PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIE 009203 COMMUNICATIONS PHOTO SUPPLIES 148026 $217.26* 08/01/94 $495.23 VOSS LIGHTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 242215 STREET REVOLVI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $464.43 VOSS LIGHTING REPAIR PARTS 242324 FIRE DEPT. GEN REPAIR PARTS 148027 $959.66* 08/01/94 $1,358.90 WARNING LITES OF MINNE GUARD RAIL MATERIAL 766 BRIDGES GUARD GUARD RAIL MAT 08/01/94 $331.80 WARNING LITES OF MINNE GENERAL SUPPLIES 858 STREET NAME SI GENERAL SUPPLI 08/01/94 $108.50 WARNING LITES OF MINNE GENERAL SUPPLIES 767 BRIDGES GUARD GENERAL SUPPLI 148028 $1,799.20* 08/01/94 $90.00 WERT, CAPRICE CLEANING 16342 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI 08/01/94 $90.00 WERT, CAPRICE CLEANING 016341 CLUB HOUSE SVC CONTR EQUI 148029 $180.00* 08/01/94 $412.58 WEST PHOTO PHOTOGRAPHIC SUPPLIE 50330 POLICE DEPT. G PHOTO SUPPLIES 148030 $412.58* 08/01/94 $363.08 WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. REPAIR PARTS 13029 DISTRIBUTION REPAIR PARTS 08/01/94 $369.44 WEST WELD SUPPLY CO. REPAIR PARTS 13040 EQUIPMENT OPER REPAIR PARTS 148031 $732.52* 08/01/94 $12.80 WESTLINK PAGING PAGER FOR VINCE 07008282 BUILDING MAINT TELEPHONE 148032 $12.80* 08/01/94 $94.62 WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT CONTRACTED REPAIRS 00043966 CENTENNIAL LAK CONTR REPAIRS 148033 $94.62* 08/01/94 $82.10 WILLIAMS STEEL TOOLS 56132201 PUMP & LIFT ST TOOLS 148034 $82.10* 08/01/94 $6.00 WILSON'S NORTH WEST NU INVOICE SHORT 16290. MAINT OF COURS SHARED MAINT 148035 $6.00* 08/01/94 $59.00 WINE MERCHANTS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 07524 50TH ST SELLIN CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $200.50 WINE MERCHANTS COST OF GOODS SOLD W 07525 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 148036 $259.50* COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Jul 28 1994 00:28:07 Page 28 CHECK NO DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION INVOICE PROGRAM OBJECT PO NUM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/01/94 $186.76 WINEBERG, DON MILEAGE 072194 GOLF ADMINISTR MILEAGE 148037 $186.76* 08/01/94 $326.04 WITTEK GOLF SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 57598 MAINT OF COURS REPAIR PARTS 148038 $326.04* 08/01/94 $40.00 WOOD, DENISE REFUND SWIMMING 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 148039 $40.00* 08/01/94 $258.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 15908 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $218.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 15907 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $48.00 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 15877 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $262.25 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 38685 VERNON SELLING CST OF GD WINE 08/01/94 $146.55 WORLD CLASS WINES INC COST OF GOODS SOLD W 38809 YORK SELLING CST OF GD WINE 148040 $932.80* 08/01/94 $307.87 XEROX COMP TABS 15298594 CONTINGENCIES PRINTING 148041 $307.87* 08/01/94 $40.00 YOUNG, CONNIE REFUND ADAPTIVE REC 072594 GENERAL FD PRO REGISTRATION F 148042 $40.00* $665,659.99 COUNCIL CHECK SUMMARY Thu Jul 28 1994 00:31:22 Page 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FUND # 10 GENERAL FUND $113,534.28 FUND # 11 C.D.B.G. $18,990.00 FUND # 12 COMMUNICATION $26,369.78 FUND # 15 WORKING CAPITAL $9,600.59 FUND # 23 ART CENTER $7,290.25 FUND # 26 SWIMMING POOL $4,256.11 FUND # 27 GOLF COURSE $97,005.89 FUND # 28 ICE ARENA $6,439.10 FUND # 29 GUN RANGE $144.60 FUND # 30 EDINB /CENT LAKES $18,371.39 FUND # 40 UTILITY FUND $298,479.31 FUND # 41 STORM SEWER $1,817.46 FUND # 50 LIQUOR FUND $62,588.89 FUND # 60 CONSTRUCT FUND $772.34 $665,659.99 f