11-18-1996 Planning PacketC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #2197 November 14, 1996 Page 3 consider the pedestriaa^ikeway needs for this part of Navarre, and to consider whether the t^)plicant's proposed route at the north end of the church property was an adequate substitute for a potential path on the existing Navarre Lane right-of-way. Park Commission came to the following general conclusions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. There is an (albeit undefined) need for pedestrian and bike access from Navarre to the neighborhoods in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19. The number of potential users is unknown, but the potential users might extend as far east as the western end of Minnetonka Beach. The majority of the potential users would be traveling westward towards Navarre on Na\arre Lane. In order to make use of the applicant's proposed trail route, users would have to detour uphill on Olive Avenue, then west across the north end of applicants site, then south again to the controlled intersection. Such a routing would not necessarily enhance pedestrian or biking access other than for Olive Avenue residents. Applicant's proposed trail location would outlet pedestrians and bikers at a location approximately one-half block north of the controlled intersection, and might tend to encourage crossing County Road 19 at an unsafe location. A bike/pedestrian path using the right-of-way of Navarre Lane would bring useis directly to the controlled intersection of County Roads 15 and 19, and would similarly bring them to the edge of the Culver's/convenience store site which is a potential destination for those users. Such a trail should be 8' in width and be bicycle-friendly; i.e., avoid the use of a stairway system. Such a trail could be accomplished by creating a ramp or berm in the 33' of right-of-way north of the Culver's site, and continuing between the two parking lots serving the Culver's site and the proposed Phase 2 bank building. This would result in only one crossing vif a driveway, i.e. the proposed connection between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 parking lots. Park Commissioi. suggested this is better than having to cross two driveway accesses if applicant’s northerly proposal was used. Park Commission did not take formal action, but indicated to the applicant (who was present) i