Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence qf'-O{ March II, 1999 Mr. Brad Larson, P.E. Scott County Highway Department 600 Country Trail East Jordan, MN 55352 Subj: CSAH 21/MAIN AVENUE INTERSECTION Dear Brad: Last September I wrote to you regarding the subject intersection, requesting an outline of your schedule for re-evaluating the signal installation. I would appreciate an update on the status of this project so I can share it with the City Council. If you have a consultant performing this evaluation we would appreciate being involved in the process. If you have any questions please call me at 447-9831. Sincerely, Greg Publ. orks Director/City Engineer CIT OF PRIOR LAKE cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager 162~.W€ek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORlUNITY EMPLOYER 91-01 September 15, 19~t3 Mr. Brad Larson, P .E. Scott County Highway Department 600 Country Trail East Jordan, MN 55352-9339 Subj: CSAH 21/MAIN AVENUE INTERSECTION Dear Brad: I am enclosing a copy of a letter we received from Bernie Carlson, owner of Carlson Hardware in the vicinity of the subject intersection. The letter expresses Bernie's concerns about the intersection and the traffic speeds on CSAH 21. As you recall, the City has approved a cooperative agreement with Scott County for the installation of a traffic signal system at this intersection. My discussion with members of your staff indicate your department is re-evaluating this signal installation. I would request, because we have already approved the agreement and for the benefit of the City Council, that you please outline. your schedule for this re-evaluation and your plan to involve the City in this re- evaluation. I would like to share this information with the City Council as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions of me please call me at 447- 9831. Sincerely, ~~ Public Works Director/City Engineer CITY OF PRIOR LAKE cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager 16260\~~~OA.WCs.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ...................,""".,' rJ/I"" ~1-01 SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORD~,MN 55352-9339 (612) 496-8346 BRADLEY J. LARSON ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR September 14, 1998 Fax: (612) 496-8365 Greg IIkka Prior Lake City Engineer Prior Lake City Hall 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue Prior Lake, MN 55372 REosn'V': SEP 1 6 1998 Subject: SAP 70-621-16 Proposed Traffic Signal System at CSAH 21 & Main Avenue Dear Greg: This letter is an overview of our September 11, 1998, phone conversation regarding the status of the proposed traffic signal system at CSAH 21 & Main Avenue in the City of Prior Lake. At the time Scott County was ready to proceed with the proposed signal we received the traffic analysis for CSAH 42 & Timothy Avenue identifying the problems that would occur at that location if a signal was installed resulting from the minimal distance between traffic signals. Considering the distance between the TH 13 & Main Avenue is less than between TH 13 & Timothy Avenue, we decided it would be prudent to re-evaluate the proposed CSAH 21 & Main Avenue traffic signal. It was our opinion, to receive a realistic evaluation of the traffic operations at the CSAH 21 & Main Avenue intersection, we needed to wait until CSAH 21 was opened east of Prior Lake, as well as waiting for the CSAH 21 and CSAH 42 area construction to be completed. The timing for the completion of this evaluation is estimated to be in January 1999. This should allow sufficient time for a spring 1999 project bid letting, assuming the evaluation indicates that the signal is the proper traffic control solution. We will keep you informed during the evaluation process. Please call us if you need additional information. Sincerely, d~ Scott M. Merkley Transportation Planning Manager SMMljkf C: Barbara Marschall, County Commissioner (e) Dave Unmacht, County Administrator (e) Brad Larson, County Higlmf*rt:1P}8hunityISajety Aware Employer w:\word\project\621-16\letters\sigeval.doc CARLSON HARDWARE COMPANY 16281 MAIN AVENUE S.E. PRIOR LAKE, MN 55372 September 9, 1998 To: Frank Boyles, City Manager 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372 From: Bernie Carlson, Owner Carlson Hardware Company ~... Subject: Great Access to 35W. The access is great to 35W and in the ~uture it probably will get to be too good. How is that possible? 1. Tra~~ic on 21 ~rom 35W to prior Lake has increased dramatically in the ~ew months it has been opened. From a drivers viewpoint, 1 would ~ay the general level o~ tra~fic is reaching the levels o~ Hwy 42 although it does not have the concentration o~street lights yet. 2. Scott County has plans to link 21 to Hwy 494. When this happens the level o~ traf~ic w,ill increase tremendously. _ As that happens the County will do their traf~ic counts: a~d based on public sa~ety concerns they will begin to limit access just as access has been limited on Hyw 13. Consider Main Street with only a walking bridge connecting the parts on either side o~ 21. 3. The City wants to develop Downtown with improvements that would be in part assessed to the downtown property owners. Progress in important and Prior Lake should have a downtown. However it does not make sense to invest penny one until the tra~ficflow and access problems have been solved. 4. The Counf~promised to install a ~treet ligfi~ at Mai~ and 21. -~he~~is it. Posted speed limits of 40 mph on 21 through downtown are excessive. The question I ask is Main Aventie just another street or is it Main Street in Downtown Prior Lake. The streetlight needs to go in now. Speed l~mits ~or at least one mile in each direc~ion o~ the intersection o~ 21 and 13 should be no higher than 30 mph. 5. The City must take a stand that we are not simply the intersection of Hwy 13 & 21 but that we are a City with a Downtown that you have to slow down eno~gh ~hen going through to protect our safety. b. The County views traffic flow and control from a different viewpoint than the City. Traf~ic going from southern Minnesota and points south to northern Minnesota does not belong in the middle o~Prior Lake. Has anyone considered the impact on the lake and the quality o~ life there when a major highway goes through it. 7. I could go on but this is lon9 enough already. Call or stop in if you have any questions. Share th1s with anyone you like. q 'i-() I November 14, 1997 Brad Larson Associate Administrator Public Works and Lands Scott County Highway Department 600 Country Trail East Jordan, MN 55352-9339 SUBJECT: S.A.P. 70-621-16, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT CSAH21 AND MAIN AVENUE Dear Brad: Enclosed please fmd two (2) copies of the subject agreement approved by the Prior Lake City Council at their October 20, 1997 meeting and signed by the appropriate City officials. Also enclosed, please find Resolution 97-95 authorizing those City officials to execute the subject agreement. Please call if you need additional information. Sincerely, ~~ Greg Ilkka, P .E. Public Works Director/City Engineer CITY OF PRIOR LAKE GI/acj Enclosure G:PROJECTS\LITECR21 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORlUNITY EMPLOYER RESOLUTION 97.95 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH SCOTT COUNTY FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 21 AND MAIN AVENUE MOTION BY: Kedrowski SECOND BY: Schenck WHEREAS, . the City Council of Prior Lake requested that Scott County perform a traffic signal warrant study for the intersection of County State Aid Highway 21 and Main Avenue; and WHEREAS, the warrant study has been completed and a traffic signal is warranted at this intersection; and WHEREAS, the attached Cooperative agreement No. TS 96-21/Main outlining the City's participation in the construction and operation of this traffic signal has been reviewed and approved by the City Council. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA, that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the attached agreement and forward it back to Scott County for their execution; and. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City's portion of said project is to be drawn from the Construction Fund. Passed and adopted this 20th day of October, 1997. Andren Kedrowski Mader Robbins Schenck YES _x_ _x_ NO -X_ _x_ {Seal} 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORlUNITY EMPLOYER '1-=1-- - 0 J MEMORANDUM To: Frank Boyles, City Manager From: Greg IIkka, City Engineer 61~ Subj: CSAH 21 - MAIN STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL September 3, 1997 The installation of the subject signal was scheduled for this year in the C.I.P. It was programmed to be funded from the Street Collector fund. The estimated City share of the cost is $50,000. As you know, the City has frozen expenditures from this fund. Two possibilities for funding come to mind, appropriate from the construction fund balance or include $50K additional in bonding (may not be legal because it was not included in process). The County indicates that the project could be let this year with completion in 1998 but, we can influence the timing, depending on how urgent this signal is. From a funding perspective, the construction fund balance would be the fastest route, unless you have money in a contingency account you want to spend. I'll need some direction on this project. O("\~NEaSO>~ ". ; ~ ~ ~ ;-"" ....,.! Of: iR'" Minnesota u~ ,Jartment of Transportation 9"1- - 0 "' Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville, MN 55113 ~~ ~\ ~. ~. :::;.\ August 20, 1997 Mr. Daniel Jobe Scott County Highway Department 600 Country Trail East Jordan, Minnesota 55352-9339 In Reply Refer to: S.A.P.70-621-16 Construction Plans for Signal System installation on C.S.A.H. 21 @ Main Avenue S.E. Dakota County, City of Prior Lake Dear Mr. lobe: As requested, our office has reviewed the above referenced plan and offer the following comments regarding plan modifications: SHEET 1 1) Please effect the signatures of the City and County Engineers. 2) Please change the signature block, for District State Aid Engineer, to: Date: Metro-Assistant Division Engineer-State Aid: Reviewed for Compliance with State-Aid RuleslPolicy 3) Please delete the signature block for State Aid Plans & Specs Engineer. 4) Please change the signature block, for State Aid Engineer, as follows: " Date: Approved for State Aid Funding: State Aid Engineer 5) Please delete the signature block for Metro Division. 6) Please delete the signature block for Metro Division Traffic Engineer. 7) In the design designation block, please change the Present ADT year to 1997. (Year project is let) 8) In the design designation block, please change the Future ADT year to 2017. 9) Please add a length block for S.A.P. 70-621-16. 10) The City participation for the signal system and interconnect would be eligible for State Aid Funds under a County off-system number, 201-020-XX. SHEET 2 I) The correct letter designation for Standard Plate 8110 is 8110D. 2) The correct letter designation for Standard Plate 8111 is 8111 C. 3) The correct letter designation for Standard Plate 8115 is 81150. 4) The correct letter designation for Standard Plate 8124 is 8124E. An equal opportunity employer ..01 Mr. lobe S.A.P. 70-621-16 August 20, 1997 . Page 2 TRUNK HIGHWAY REVIEW A copy of this plan has been routed for review by various functional groups in MnDOT. This is a part of the review process anytime there is interaction with the Trunk Highway R/W. Comments requesting plan modifications may result. Please call me to check on the status of the routed review before resubmittal of the plan. If any revisions or changes are made to the plan, other than those mentioned in my letter, please let me know either before your final submittal (if major) or with your fmal submittal (if minor) so that we can perform an accurate final review of the plan. If you have any questions about the above comments, please call me at 582-1371 or Greg Coughlin at 582- 1373. When the plan is ready to be re-submitted, please provide: 1) The full set of Signature originals (not to exceed 22"x34"). 2) Engineers Estimate. 3) Laboratory Testing Services Form. 4) Signal Justification Report. Sincerely, ~~ Bernie Larson State Aid Assistant cc: Greg Ilkka - City of Prior Lake Brad Larson - Scott County Greg Coughlin - Metro State Aid File SCOTT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS AND LANDS DIVISION HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 600 COUNTRY TRAIL EAST JORDAN, MN 55352-9339 GARY L. CUNNINGHAM (612) 496-8346 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRAD LARSON ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR ~~ "'V4' O~hA.. <' ~ "'.,..~ (9Jt Fax: (612) 496-8365 June 20, 1996 P('o~ ql- 0 John M. Gray, P.E. Project Engineer Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. 3535 Vadnais Center Drive 200 SEH Center St. Paul, MN 55110 Re: Proposed Traffic Signal System at CSAH 21 and Main Avenue in Prior lake Dear John: We have reviewed the preliminary plans you sent for the proposed traffic signal system at CSAH 21 (Eagle Creek Avenue) and Main Avenue in the City of Prior Lake. Our response to the questions / comments you included with the plan copies in your April 24 cover letter are as follows: 1. Use symbols for pedestrian indications. 2. At this time, install the cables for future EVP installation. This will allow the City the flexibility to install EVP in the future. 3. Install LED red signal indications at this intersection. 4. We will install saw-cut loop detectors on this project. Non-metallic conduit loop detectors is something we are researching for future projects. 5. Do not include the painting of crosswalks as part of this project. 6. Scott County will obtain a meter address from the City of Prior Lake. 7. The street name signs are as follows: Main Ave. and Eagle Creek Ave. along with a County Route Marker 21, similar to what has been provided on previous projects. 8. Scott County will be funding our portion using state aid under SAP 70-621-16. We will contact the City of Prior Lake to inquire if a MSAP number is needed. An Equal OpportunityjSafety Aware Employer John M. Gray Traffic Signal System Page 2 9. Scott county has purchased an Econolite controller with a telemetry panel for interconnect. The location of the master controller will be discussed with Mn/DOT at a future meeting. 10. If possible, Scott County prefers to keep streetlight and signal cables in separate conduit. If there are no other: practicable alternatives for existing street light cable, the two may share conduit and handholes. 11. The overhead signal placement on poles 2 and 4 is acceptable as shown. 12. The installation of spare cables for future left-turn loop detectors at this time seems appropriate unless you feel there are reasons for not doing this. 13. Installation of PVC hand holes with metal covers is acceptable. 14. The placement location of pole 3 as shown in the preliminary plan is acceptable. 15. The placement location of poles 4 & 5 as shown in the preliminary plan IS acceptable. 16. The existing lighting should be left inplace unless it causes conflicts or if the City desires it's removal. Luminaries should be added to pole 2 and pole 4. Scott County will be setting up a meeting with Mn/DOT, the City of Prior Lake, and SEH in the near future to discuss the issues related to this project. Therefore, plan revisions should not be made until after this meeting takes place. Please contact Dan Jobe or me at 496-8346 if you have any other concerns. Sincerely, dC6:IL Scott Merkley Engineering Coordinator SMMlj kf c: Dan Jobe, Scott County Design Engineer John Wingal'd, Prior Lake Acting Engineer ~ 70-~2/-/~ ~SaJ 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE. 200 SEH CENTER. SI PAUL. MN 55110 612490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL TRANSPORTATION April 24, 1996 RE: Scott County, Minnesota . Traffic Signal System CSAH 21 at Main A venue S.A.P: 7Ck.621,.16 SEH No. A-SCOTI9604.00 Mr. Daniel M. Jobe, P.E. Design Engineer Scott County Highway Department 600 Country Trail East Jordan, MN 55352-9339 OE"'r.\"--' 1"\ v '- - .~ .\ ~. i". ~ ~~:"';'a ~r ,1, ...., -j ....J'-I ~--:..- Dear Dan: Enclosed are preliminary copies of the intersection layout and interconnect sheets for the proposed traffic signal system at CSAH 21 (Eagle Creek Avenue) and Main Avenue, in Prior Lake. Please review these sheets and respond to the following questions/ comments at your earliest convenience. 1. Does the County wish to use symbols or words for the pedestrian indications? 2. Is full EVP desired at this intersection, or are cables for a future EVP installation sufficient at this time? 3. Are L.E.D. red signal indications desired at this intersection? 4. Mn/DOT is beginning to use non-metallic conduit loop detectors more often in many of their new designs. Has the County looked into this, or are saw-cut loop detectors the preferred choice? 5. Do you want painting of crosswalks to be included in this installation by the Contractor? 6. A meter address needs to be obtained from the City of Prior Lake for the service installation. Can you check into this? 7. What is the desired wording of the street name signs, and is a County route marker sign desired for overhead delineation? 8. Will this project be funded 100% under S.A.P. 70-621-16, or will other City or County funds be used? Are there any other project numbers to include on the plan sheets? SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC MINNEAPOLIS. MN sr CLOUD. MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI MADISON. WI LAKE COUNTY. IN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -' Mr. Daniel Jobe April 24, 1996 Page 2 9. Will the County also be purchasing a master controller to be used for the interconnect? At which intersection will the master be installed? 10. Inplace handholes and conduit currently exist at the intersection. In some of the handholes, street lighting cables are inplace. Is it okay to use these items in the signal design? 11. Overhead signals on Poles 2 and 4 were placed over the center of the inside through lanes to allow for more flexibility in the future (to allow for minimal signal down time to change to protected/permissive or split phasing if traffic volumes/movements warrant the change). 12. The layout also includes spare cables for potential future loop detectors for CSAH 21 left turn movements. Are these cables desired to be installed at this time? 13. Are PVC handholes with metal covers desired for all new handhole installations? 14. Pole 3 was placed in the sidewalk area to avoid conflict with the inplace street light pole nearby, and to provide better visibility to southbound traffic (concerns that trees on the northwest corner may block the view of pole mounted signal). However,a second option for placement of this pole is to locate it on the grassy area adjacent and to the west of the sidewalk, remove the inplace street light pole and extend the mast arm length from 20 feet to 30 feet. What are your thoughts on this placement? 15. Pole 4 was placed adjacent to the curb to provide some separation from the nearby library building and to allow for full sidewalk width between the building and the pole (sidewalk would need to be extended as shown). Placement of this pole would need to be far enough west so that pole mounted signal heads would not extend out over the roadway and become a target for tight turning vehicles. The Pole 5 installation would also be recommended, to allow for better visibility of signal face 8-3 and pedestrian indication P4-1, and for optimal location of the push buttons. What are your thoughts on these items? 16. Is the inplace street lighting system (pole locations are shown on the plans) desired to be maintained as is, or should some of the lights be removed and/ or relocated onto the signal system? It may be desirable to locate street lights on the signals on the northwest and southeast corners, and remove inplace light poles on all four corners so that less poles are filling the intersection. If changes to the lighting system are desired, we will need the inplace street lighting plans and style of luminaire (cobra, shoebox or ?) to be installed on the signal system. Mr. Daniel Jobe April 24, 1996 Page 3 Feel free to contact me at 490-2073 with any comments or questions you may have related to this design, or regarding the above-mentioned comments and questions. Upon receipt of your comments, we can begin to finalize the plans and specifications for your review and approval, and for submittal to Mn/DOT. For your information, I have enclosed some literature and NSP information regarding L.E.D. indications. Included are excerpts from a letter we sent to the City of Minnetonka regarding the current use of L.E.D. indications and the specification Mn/DOT uses for L.E.D. red indications. Please call me if you wish to discuss these further. Sincerely, Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc. tlo Enclosures c: Scott Merkley, Scott County Highway Department '. In regards to the use of L.E.D. signal indications, we contacted Mn/DOT and the City of St. Paul about their knowledge and policies related to these indications. Lynnette Roshell (Mn/OOT Metro Division Signal Design Engineer) mentioned that the red (circular and arrow) indications are the only indications that Mn/DOT has approved for use at this time; Mn/DOT has compiled a detailed specification for these indications (a copy of which is enclosed with this letter) that is often included in their traffic signal specifications. Lynnette also mentioned that Mn/OOT is not likely to retrofit their yellow indications when the technology becomes available, since these indications are only on for two to four seconds at a time. The green indications they are currently testing will not likely be approved for use for at least another year, because the color is not acceptable yet (looks more blue than green). No mention was made of use of L.E.D. for pedestrian indications. Bob Tingerthal of the City of St. Paul mentioned that the City is currently using red (circular and arrow) and don't walk L.E.D. indications at a few intersections. They appear to be satisfied with the red indications, but feel that the don't walk indications are more red in color now instead of the standard Portland Orange color that is desired. Bob also mentioned that green L.E.D. indications have been approved by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) for use, but that the City does not use them yet because of their~cost (three to four times more expensive to purchase than red). Yellow L.E.D. indications are not being used by the City because their intensity is not as strong as ITE is recommending for all yellow indications. No mention was made regarding use or availability of walk L.E.D. indications. As you may be aware already, NSP is currently offering a special incentive and financing program for retrofitting L.E.D. red indications into existing signal systems. The benefits of using L.E.D. red indications in place of incandescent red indications are shown on the enclosed NSP memorandum. In addition, NSP is offering incentives to local agencies to install the L.E.D. red indications in place of the incandescent indications, including rebates on kilowatts saved and zero percent financing on equipment purchases. *. All new "RED" signal ind. .ions shall utilize a light-emitting diode (L unit in accordance with the latest issue of the I.T.E. Standards for'color and intensity, and as follows: 1. Each unit shall use 630 nm "RED" TS A1InGaP or 622 nm "REO- ORANGE" AS A1InGAP LED's or approved equal. 2. If any individual LED fails, no more than 10% of total light output will be lost. 3. The unit shall have an automatic voltage input compensating circuit. 4. The drive current for each individual LED shall not exceed 25 mADC. 5. Each unit shall have wave length matched polycarbonate "RED" lens. 6. Each unit shall have circuit boards conformal coated. 7. Each unit shall not use insulation displacement connectors. 8. After a 30 minute warm-up period, all sigrulI indications shall meet or exceed the requirements for I.T.B. intensity. 9. Power consumption shall be as follows: Operations voltage shall be 95 V AC to 135 V AC, 60 Hz. 12 inch "RED" circular ball: 33 watts or less. 12 inch "RED" arrow: 12 watts or less. 10. The LED unit shall be sealed with a one-piece neoprene or EPOM (Ethylene, Propylene, Diene Monomers) gasket and shall be watertight. 11. The manufacturer shall provide the following warranty provisions: a. Replacement or repair of an LED signal module that exhibits a failure due to workmanship or material defects within the first 60 months of field operation. b. Replacement or repair of LED signal modules that fall below the minimum intensity levels within the first 60 months of field operation. The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer, for approval, three copies of all warranty information, shop drawings, a Manufacturers Certificate of Conformance to this specification, and all other pertinent manufacturer data. As part of the pertinent manufacturer data, the Contractor shall include the product invoice. The three copies shall be distributed by the Engineer as follows: 1. Mn/OOT Electrical Services Section 2. Mn/OOT State Signal Engineer 3. Mn/OOT District or Division Traffic Engineer All vehicle signal faces with LED indications shall be approved prior to procurement. The Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the Engineer, affix to the back of each "RED" signal indication a permanent label indicating the date of installation. "~A .~ .. i JlITill ~oca.. Government ::?rogram NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY L.E.D. TRAFFIC SIGNAL: LAMP REPLACEMENT SPECIAL OFFER _. NSP is offering a special incentive and financing for lamp replacement for traffic signals as an outdoor lighting exception to the Local Government Program. * Bounty of $.15 per kilowatt saved .. No auditing/engineering reimbursement · Zero..per~ent financing for the equipment cost only . . L.E.D. technology for the red indications in traffic signals has improved and is recommended by the MN Department of Transportation for energy efficiency. * Save up to 750/0 of the electric charges per year per lamp. * Expect lamp life of up to ten years. * Expect 1/3 of total cost over the lamp life, when combining the initial cost, installation labor and energy savings compared to incandescent. * Expect a simple payback of 3-5 years.. For more information call NSP 1-800-481-4700 for your NSP rep for the NSP Local Government Program details, or MN DOT, Peter Skweres at 725-2300 TO: SHORT · ELLlOn · HEN~CKSON, INC. 3535 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE ST. PAUL, MN 55110 DATe. April J8,mb SUBJECT: U~idy Lo('~- C SA ~ 2 J /M~)') Ae/1V.JQ. (Pdar- Let ~j Fl.ENO. A- &'CJ1Tq~04-. 00 William Lu€ck City M Pr,'O\ LQI<Q I ((, LOa EoS/-e- Cree.t- Ave Sf PI'I'or LQke ,IVI f\J .~.S.3 72-/7/4- . Pmr ~.~ I iLl n.' t crv ?o +J~ I n ~{'.-tLb10 I Ct ymd 0-0 CSAJ-I 21 (E?~ C~ek. ~QlMC.).J M~rl. CL'\.J€/)u~. In Pncr Lah2, ) 0..* luh, ctu Q . s /8 nuQ. S y s..-'b.JJI\J LU II I b,Q,. I ns h:J2Qod I a..-tQfL) >J-1\..LD y -eOJU. f1 f ~j) h mo. , U){>. r DOU Id fe'0vL~. fhcl. you I()('~ nroy h:t ci I, h'es (a bave clJnd bplrru) grnLund)U'\f-hnJ ycru mny h(vve in ~. OJ)QQ on ~ J2Jr!c(4)Qd ~f'J\A~,. D)n('~ re::b..uuu ~ 10 tOLd to l~ 0:1 Y(J/)..0 ~~ (' ~""L()f'f>,M~ .. I'hr:l/f) t you {Yo )lCIlLlD in PLA..,t GJ)Jr1 Ydll~ a.l-t<LJ)') IJ (1}.j rhJ J-/UA. . PQoo.1lP co..QQ ('NL C1.:t. Lf-llO-2073~..J).. \}CT\.{ ha~ OJf)Y carn~h:J r;r- ~.l abl...L~j) reI 0. f:ad <ib ~ pro j e ct.. '-" ~ .vllU do ntY--t s.<2J\.\\rLCQ -J-lU.1) O.../\.1.Q ) ~ f2.tzl. (/\Q k.m6LLJ W hD .,w ~ 8 CflreJL,lflin 9 u k Ii '1-y Q~Yl c Y . .. (\ j REPLY TO: Gi /11._ 'j;!--z-6--? p ,/ o URGENT ~ AS SOON AS POSSIBLE o NO REPLY NECESSARY RFCr-:n~~ APR 1 9 1996 SIGNED: DATE: RECIPIENT - REPLY AND RETAIN THIS COPY. DETACH AND RETURN PINK COPY TO SENDER.