Laserfiche WebLink
i MINUTES OF THE REGULAR <br />EDINA CITY COUNCIL HELD AT <br />MEETING OF THE <br />CITY HALL ON MONDAY, <br />SEPTEtIBER 18, 1974 <br />Answering rollcall were members Courtney, Johnson, Schmidt, Shaw and Nayor <br />Van Vallrenburg . <br />TRACY AVENUE SIDEWALK APPROVED. Mr. Dunn recalled that on August 5, 1974, a <br />hearing had been conducted on construction of a sidewalk on the East side of <br />Tracy Avenue from Hillside Road to Benton Avenue. At that meeting, the'matter <br />was continued so that it could be considered by the Countryside P.T.A. and the <br />School Board fpr their consideration and input as to whether 1) sidewalks are <br />wanted on Tracy Avenue; 2) on which side they should be constructed; and 3) if <br />they should be continued all the way to Vernon Ave. Mr. Dunn said that, while <br />the School Board had been somewhat noncommital, the Count-ryside P.T.A. had <br />reaffirmed that the sidewalk should be constructed on the East side of the <br />street and recommended that it be extended all the way to Vernon Avenue. <br />Dunn recalled that no -assessment for the project would be made against adjacent <br />properties, with the entire cost to be paid from State Aid funds and maintenance <br />to be done by City forces using State Aid maintenance funds, in conformance with <br />present policy. Mr. P. F. Kane, 6109 Tracy Avenue, contended that the proposed <br />sidewalk will not necessarily provide additional safety' for children Because child- <br />ren will still use the shortest route. <br />declining, Countryside School might even be closed. <br />made to find out hou many children will be using the sidewalk. <br />Bains, 6101 Tracy Ave., said that if the sidewalk is really needed, it should be <br />built on the IJest side of the street. <br />and concurring generally with Mr. Kane, were Mr. Clayton DeJongh, 5621 Tracy Ave., <br />and the resident at 5805 Tracy Ave. <br />Bftending Countryside School live East of Tracy Ave. and it would be better to <br />have the sidewalk on the East side than- to'.have- them-cross at-varj.&sLp~in& .-..-ne. added <br />that, if any of the schools should be closed out, Countryside School, being one of <br />the newest schools, would in all probability, remain open. <br />ahat with proper parental and school guidance the children should learn to use the <br />sidewalk properly. Mr. Gerald Eisele, 5517 Countryside Road, read from the minutes <br />of the Eountryside P.T.A. whlch indicated that a quarter of the school population <br />would have better access to a sidewalk on the east side and that a walk on the West <br />side would force children to cross Tracy before they reach a guarded intersection. <br />Concurring with Mr. Eisele was Mr. M. Don Bolke, 5521 Countryside.Road, an uniden- <br />tified lady who said that children now have to walk in the street, and another <br />unidentified lady in the audience who said that these children used to be bussed <br />to school and that there are now more walking in the street. In response to a <br />question of Mrs. Rosemary Long, 5817 Tracy, Mr. Dunn said that no accidents have <br />been reported so far on Tracy Avenue. <br />man in the audience who said that his daughter had been struck by a car three or <br />four years ago. . Mr. Earl A. Schoenecker, 6301 Tracy, requested that the sidewalk <br />b& extended farther South. Councilman Johnson then recalled that this request of <br />the Countryside P.T.A. and the recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee had <br />been a concern for some time and he believed that Council should respond to a <br />legitimate concern for pedestrian safety. Heithen moved that the sidewalk be <br />constructed on the East side of Tracy Avenue between -Vernon Avenue and the Frontage <br />Road 015 the North side-ofCSZU;I 62. '3Iot5on seconded by Councilman Courtney and on <br />rollcall there were five ayes and no nays with all Council members stating thei? <br />concern for the safety 05 the children and the motion carried unanimously. <br />- <br />Mr. <br />He said that, with the school population <br />He suggested that a survey be <br />Mr. Herman H. <br />Also speaking in objection to the proposal <br />Mr. Hyde explained that most of the children <br />Councilman Shaw said <br />He was corrected by an unidentified gentle- <br />ORDINANCE NO. 811-A54 SECOND READING CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 7, 1974. Mr. Luce pre- <br />sented Ordinance No. 811-A54 and Final Development Elan of Metram Properties <br />Company for property at 5105 N. 70th Street aid recalled that when FiEst Reading <br />was granted on May 20, 1974, questions had been raised about the alignment ofl?. <br />70th Street. <br />and said that the construction of the proposed sixty unit apartment building <br />would be in conformity with the plan. Mr. Luce said that the site is 5.45 acres <br />after the fifty foot parkland dedication and 50 foot easement from the creek, <br />making a total 100 foot setback from the creek. Mr. Luce said that the Planning <br />Commission has recommended approval for the following reasons: <br />With the aid of the view-graph, Mr. Luce showed the South Edina Plan <br />- <br />1. <br />2. It conforms with the Concept Plan approval . <br />3. It represents a logicalrtransition of land use <br />4. <br />The proposal conforms with the South Edina Plan <br />All final development plans have been submitted and found to be <br />adequate <br />. <br />In response to a question of Councilwoman Schmidt, Mr. Luce e$lained traffic <br />movements in the area and said that the best egress from the site is to the West <br />Frontage Road and then to the proposed interchange. Councilwoman Schmidt said <br />that in talking with a Highway Department official, she had been told that con-