My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-29-1996 WS
MoundsView
>
City Council
>
EDA
>
Packets
>
1994-1999
>
1996
>
04-29-1996 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/14/2018 10:18:53 AM
Creation date
6/14/2018 10:16:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV EDA
EDA Document Type
Council Packets
Date
4/26/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR DRAFT PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN <br /> INTRODUCTION <br /> The Highway 10 Corridor Proposal is presented by the highway 10 subcommittee <br /> consisting of the following: <br /> • Peg Mountin - Economic Development Commission <br /> • Gary Stevenson - Planning Commission <br /> • Pam Star- Parks & Recreation Commission <br /> • Staff: Cathy Bennett, Paul Harrington, Mary Saarion <br /> The Highway 10 Committee was directed to present options for the development of <br /> the Highway 10 Corridor in Mounds View. The first step in this process was to review <br /> how other communities addressed corridor redevelopment. This enabled the <br /> committee to take the best strategies from each plan and apply them to Mounds <br /> View. The following corridor plans were reviewed. In addition, the committee took a <br /> bus tour of several community corridors. <br /> • Cedar Avenue -Apple Valley <br /> • Highway 13 - Burnsville <br /> • Highway 5 - Chanhassen <br /> • University Ave - Columbia Heights <br /> - • <br /> • Edinborough/Centennial Lakes - Edina <br /> • Highway 3 - Hopkins <br /> • Old Highway 8 - New Brighton <br /> • County Road E -Vadnais Heights <br /> • Highway 61 -White Bear Lake <br /> • <br /> There were threecommon-eleme ntea each.redevelopment;planthat were revealed <br /> by the committee. <br /> • Each plan containedTspecificc"designated areas,:of evelopment. Those areas of <br /> development addressed land use, zoning, landscaping, environmental <br /> engineering and how the area fit into the entire corridor plan. <br /> • The other common element, with the exception of Apple Valley, was thatthey <br /> weredeveloped,with the assistance of_an outside consultant who specializes in, <br /> corridoranddowntown redevelopmentplans:ans =community consensus-r, <br /> building. <br /> • The final element is that redevelopment is a very slow, costly and risky process <br /> that takes strong local leadership=-In addition, there is usually strong resistance <br /> to•change and not everyone will agree with any plan since there are significant <br /> impacts to residents, businesses and traffic. Each City stressed the importance <br /> of remembering to keep focused on the big picture! <br /> • <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.