Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Freihammer explained that the corridor includes hotels and pedestrian <br />activity, including people walking to nearby destinations such as Walmart. He <br />noted that the segment from County Road C to County Road C2 is primarily <br />commercial, while areas north of Langton Park include residential properties, <br />particularly on the east side. <br />Mr. Freihammer added that there is an existing pathway connection between <br />residential lots that provides direct access to Langton Lake, allowing <br />neighborhood residents to reach the park without traveling along Cleveland <br />Avenue, except for those directly adjacent to the corridor. <br />Chair Ficek summarized the discussion and indicated support for including a <br />segment on the east side from County Road C2 to County Road D. He then <br />raised the question of whetherto include a west side segmentfrom County Road <br />C to County Road C2, or remove it if it is not necessary. He also asked whether <br />that segment should be identified specifically as a sidewalk or more generally <br />as a pathway, noting that no facility currently exists there. <br />Member Fergus confirmed that there is currently no facility in that area and <br />asked whether County Road C2 is where the hotels are located. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that County Road C2, or Center Point, is where the <br />hotels are located. He clarified that a portion of the pathway on the west side <br />has already been constructed as part of the Center Point development. <br />Mr. Freihammer explained that the remaining gap is relatively short, beginning <br />around Iona and extending approximately 400 feet north. He indicated that <br />completing a pathway in that section would fill the remaining connection <br />between County Road C and the existing infrastructure. <br />Chair Ficek noted that there is currently no pathway on the west side, but <br />explained that adding one would provide additional connectivity options. He <br />indicated that a west -side pathway could allow users to travel south to the <br />signalized crossing at the ramp or continue north without unnecessarily crossing <br />the road. He emphasized that while access is limited today, adding a pathway <br />would improve overall flexibility and connectivity for users along the corridor. <br />Member Brokaw Palalay expressed support for adding the west side segment <br />and noted that its priority could be evaluated during the future prioritization <br />process. <br />Chair Ficek agreed that the west side segment would likely rank low in priority, <br />noting that the area is primarily stormwater ponds. <br />Mr. Freihammer noted that the area includes a stormwater pond on the north <br />side, with the remainder consisting of wetlands owned by MnDOT. <br />Page 14 of 28 <br />