My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-26-1996
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
09-26-1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2022 2:49:22 PM
Creation date
8/1/2018 6:49:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV EDC
EDC Document Type
Packets
Date
9/26/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
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).
Show annotations
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 /> ip • 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 /> There were three common elements in each redevelopment,plan that were revealed <br /> _ <br /> by the committee. <br /> • Each plan contained specific designated areas of development. 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 /> were developed with the assistance of an outside consultant who specializes in, <br /> corridorand_downtown,redevelopment plans:and communityconsensus ,,, <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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.