Laserfiche WebLink
j{ __ .- _ <br />iL> _. .t_ _ ` ._ . . __ . _ _. _ _-.' . =, .---._ ___.: _-:_ . . ': . . ___ .«..... _-__ . L. -... . .. _"._".. _'___ <br />1 <br />I <br />I. . . . ' . <br />I I <br />fracti a ized rovidin hints of no ma orAnswerstendedtobeon1 , p g ,] <br />Ifocus of concern. <br />Development along Highway 10: <br />The disposition of the lands along the Highway 10 corridor <br />has been an issue facing the community for some time. To measure <br />the extent of consensus among Mounds View residents, interviewees <br />I were asked: <br />Of the follor ing ypes of development, <br />rrhich ONIE r+ould yau nast favor along <br />he 1-ligh r+ay 10 corridor etaeen County <br />Road I and Spring La ce Park? <br />Although retail shopping was the narrow plurality choiee, the <br />almost even distribution of answers suggests no consensus is <br />present: <br />RESIDENTIAL.......e....o ..................19% <br />RETAIL SHDPPING ...........................23% <br />QFFICE BUILDINGS.....e .................... <br />17% <br />i INDUSTRIAL...o .................e........:.lb% <br />ALL EQUALLY (VOL> .........................18% <br />DON'T CARE (VOL) ...........................2% <br />IDON'T KNOW/REFUSED .........................5% <br />Each choice, though, did have groups wni n backed it more <br />Istrongly. 18-24 year olds opted for residential development, <br />while renters supported shopping establishments. Office <br />fbuildings was favored by residents planning to stay b-10 years, <br />35-44 year olds, and professional/technical households. - The <br />support for industrial development was scaitered across the c ity, <br />while over 5S year olds and r tirees supported any type of <br />construction. In sum, the City might wish to consider mixed <br />purposes for the site, or just proceed in the absence of a firm <br />0 <br />preference by the voters. <br />59