Laserfiche WebLink
10/2/61 <br />All work performed by other than heads of departments in excess of 40 hours <br />per week constitutes over-time and shall be compensated by compensatory time <br />off or cash payment on the basis of time and one half in either instance. <br />Compensatory time shall be taken within 90 days of time earned. Compensatory <br />time in any one calendar month shall be limited to 16 hours worked (for which <br />the employee receives 24 hours off) and aiy over-time in excess thereof shall <br />be paid in cash payments. The Village Manage; shall designate those classes <br />of work which shali be compensated by compensatory time off, or cash paGent <br />for over-time. <br />* <br />Motion for adoption of Resolution was seconde a, and on Rollcall there <br />The meeting's agenda's having been covered, VanValkenburg moved for adjournment. <br />Motion seconded by Dickson and carried. <br />Village Clerk <br />LJ 59 MINUTES OF THE REGULARMEETING OF THE EDINA <br />VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY, QCTOBER 9, 1961, AT <br />THE EDINA VILLAGE .HALL <br />.- . __ <br />Meeting convened at 7:OO P.M., with Beim, Dickson, Tupa, VanValkenburg and <br />Bredesen answering Rollcall. <br />MINUTES of Meetings of September 25 and October 2, 1961, were approved as <br />submitted, by motion Tupa, seconded by Dickson and carried. <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED REZONING. <br />of <br />District' to 'Multiple Residence District', 'Community Store District', and <br />'Commercial-Bistrict'," in Edina-Morningside Courier September 28 and October 5, <br />1961, and of Posting of said notice on Village Bulletfn Boards; and Planning <br />Director reported the mailing of notice to affected property owners. <br />to this notice, Public Hearings were conducted, and action was taken as <br />follows : <br />TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT OF "THE WESTERLY 200 FT. OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, PEACE- <br />DALE ACRES, (4240 VALLEY VIEW ROAD). Mr. Hite presented a site sketch, showing <br />present multiple dwelling and double bungalow locations in relation to this <br />Clerk presented Affidavit of Publication <br />"Notice of Public Hearings on Proposed Rezoning from 'Open Development <br />Pursuant <br />I <br />1. PETITION OF MR. R. A. HIPPE FOR REZONING FROM OPEN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT <br />. <br />proposed 4-plex planned by petitioner, also showing sketch of the building and <br />its elevation. It is plapned to have four two-bedroom units, each containing <br />about 1,000 square feet of floor area, with provision for a single car garage <br />for each unit. Mr. L. M. Vogt, 4238 Valley View Road, owner of the double <br />bungalow directly to the south of the proposed 4-plex, objected, on the grounds <br />that this large building will devaluate his property. <br />neighbor directly to the south also objects. <br />of September 13th was reviewed by Council. <br />large lot is excessively large for either a single or two-family building site, <br />and is not sufficiently large for two duplexes'. <br />feels that because of the size of the lot and the character of the building planned <br />the 4-plex will improve the area rather than detract from it, moved that petition <br />be granted. <br />Planning Commission's recommendation. (See Ordinance No. 261-62 of later in <br />meeting). Motion unanimously carried. <br />2. PROPOSED REZONING FROM OPEN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO COMMUNITY STORE <br />DISTRICT OF LOTS 3, 19, 20, 21, 22 AND 23, BLOCK 3, GRANDVIElrJ HEIGHTS ADDITION <br />(5004 BROOKSIDE AVE. AND 5105-5121,INCL,, SUMMIT AVE.) Mr. Hite presented a <br />sketch of the triangle bounded by Eden Avenue, Highway #169, and Brookside Avenue, <br />showing present zoning and zoning proposed; and Planning Commission's favorable <br />recommendation of September 13th was reviewed. Mr. W. I?. Olson, 5129 Summit Ave., <br />told Council that he has no real objection to this plan, but feels there should <br />be some stipulations imposed; that, because No. 5105 will be either tom down or <br />removed, the Olsons should have a wall to their North, to contain the fill, with <br />a privacy fence above that; that drainage should go onto Brookside Avenue and <br />not into the Olsons' driveway; and that some correction should be made on the <br />Olsons' access to the Highway. Mr. Hyde told Council he feels that the request <br />for a fence cannot be attached to the request for zoning; that this latter is <br />independent, and the fence request should be attached to building permit require- <br />ments. Mr. Hite added that drainage will be a part Of site development requirements* <br />He told Council his <br />Planning Commission recommendation <br />Petitioner Hippe told Council this <br />Truetee Beim, stating that he <br />Dickson seconded the motion, stating that he did so in view of the