Laserfiche WebLink
12/6/65 <br />MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE <br />EDINA VILLAGE COUNCIL, HELD MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1965 , <br />AT THE EDINA VILLAGE HALL <br />Answering Rollcall were Members MacMillan , Rixe , Tupa, VanValkenburg and Bredesen. <br />MINUTES of the Regular Meetings of November 1 and 15, 1965, were approved as submitted <br />by motion of VanValkenburg, seconded by Tupa and unanimously carried, <br />PUBLIC HEARING ,ON PROPOSED STBEET NAME CHANG <br />Etion, Posting and Mailing, which Affidavits were approved as to form and <br />ordered placed on file. <br />were requested by the Post Office in order to alleviate confusion of addresses, <br />ladies in the audience stated that they lived on West Road and East Road and that they <br />approved the proposed name changes. <br />then offered the following Ordinance and moved its adoption, with waiver of Second <br />Clerk presented Affidavits of <br />Mr. Hyde explained that these proposed Street Name Chages <br />Two <br />No further comments were heard and VanValkenburg <br />,Reading: <br />ORDINANCE NO. 164-33 <br />AN ORDINANCE AMENDING VILLAGE OF EDINA ORDINAiiCE <br />NO. 164 ENTITLED I'AN ORDINANCE NAMING AND FGNAMING <br />CERTAIN ROADS, STREETS AND AVENUES OF THE VILLAGE <br />OF EDINA J '~-- THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF EDINA, MINNESOTA, ORDAIIJS: <br />Sectio- Ordinance No. 164 of the Village, as amended, is hereby further <br />amended by adding after Section 48, the following: <br />-%ection 49. <br />of Deeds of Hennepin County, is hereby renamed Skyline D31iverr1 <br />"Section 50. <br />of Deeds of Hennepin County, is hereby renamed Skyline Drive.'! <br />"Section 51. Limerick Circle West as the same of record in the office <br />of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County is hereby renamed Limerick Drive." <br />"Section 52. Limerick Circle East as the same of record in the office <br />of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County is hereby renamed W. 64th Street," <br />"Section 53. Limerick Drive (East-West Portion) as the same of record <br />in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County is hereby renamed <br />W, 64th Street.I1 <br />record in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County is hereby renamed <br />Limerick Lane. <br />publicat ion . <br />West Road as the same of-record in the office of the Register <br />East Road as the same of record in the office of the Register <br />"Section 54. Limerick Drive (Western North-South Portion) as the same of <br />Section 2., This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after its passage and <br />Motion for adoption ofthe Ordinance was seco <br />five ayes and no nays and the Ordinance was a <br />ATTEST : <br />Rixe and on Rollcall there were <br />LOTS, 2. AJJD 3,. BLOCK..-= CENTER REAR <br />RESERV,ATIONS,., Mr. Fredlund presented request of Inland Builders for Rear Yard <br />Variance for Lots 2 and 3, Block 8, Edina Interchange Center. <br />Planned Industrial Ordinance requires the front or rear yard of a building adjacent <br />to a Planned Industrial District boundary to be 75 feet from the road right-of-way <br />when the opposite side is residential, and for a ten foot grass strip between a <br />property line and a drive. <br />line to the projected right-of-way for State Highway 5. <br />of the highway projects sharply north to the Edina-Bloomington boundary at this <br />point and then continues westward. <br />on Lot 2 was constructed 35 feet fromthe right-of-way line instead of the required <br />75 feet. <br />remove the curb line on the existing building and install a 10 foot driveway which <br />would satisfy ordinance provisions. VanValkenburg then moved that the Variance be <br />allowed providing the existing curb be removed and a ten foot grass strip installed, <br />Motion for approval was seconded by Tupa and carried, <br />CE APPROVED WITH <br />He stated that the <br />The building on Lot 3 is 135 feet from the rear building <br />The north right-of-way line <br />The problem lies in the fact that the building <br />Planning Commission has recommended approval providing Inland Builders <br />LOT 2,,~ ,B.L-OAKS ADDITION VARIANCE CONTINUED, <br />Fequest by the State of Minnesota for a Lot Frontage Variance on Lot 2, Block 1, <br />Broad Oaks Addition, stating that the State has used a triangular corner of the property <br />for the Crosstown Highway-100 right-of-way, thus making the frontage of the lot less <br />than ordinance requirements. Mr, William Thompson, attorney representing Mr, Gerde, <br />owner of the adjoining property, requested that this Hearing be continued in order <br />that he has time to familiarize himself with the matter, <br />representing the Attorney General's Office, stqted that the State has no objections <br />to the continuation. <br />December 20 was seconded by Tupa and carried. <br />Mr. FredLund presented a <br />Mr. Michael Kkefer, <br />VanValkenburg's motion that the Hearing be continued until