CCP 02-22-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

B. Criteria for Evaluating Concept Plans This list presents evaluation criteria in the form of questions that had to be answered about each planning scenario. Each criterion was derived from one or more of the goals for reuse of TCAAP. Potential measures of these criteria are shown in italics. The last page of this section indicates which goals relate to which criteria. As concept plans were developed and rermed, each was evaluated against these nineteen criteria. This procedure provided a consistent way of viewing each plan and comparing it to other plans. One result was that the plans could be compared side-by-side in matrix form, enabling the Task Force to chart its progress toward a desirable end product. The criteria were never formally weighted -- that is, no criterion was given less or more importance in decision-making relative to any of the others. However, it was clear throughout the review process that open-space, environmental and fiscal criteria were of primary concern to the Task Force and therefore received more of their attention. In the end, these were the critical factors that afrected the Task Force's rermement of the concept plans and ultimate acceptance of the preferred alternative (discussed in greater detail in Section IV). Land Use and Community Character UCl Is the mix of land uses suitable for Arden Hills? UC2 What is the community core/focal point? Does it contain enough space to accommodate a variety of uses? Is it accessible to the rest of the (off-site) community? UC3 Does the plan reduce or eliminate existing land- use deficiencies -- e.g., retail imbalances, housing choices, etc.? UC4 Does the plan respond to expected short-term and long-term market demands? Transportation and Infrastructure TCl Does the primary transportation network lend itself to efficient development patterns and adequate property access? TC2 Does the transportation system provide adequately for different travel modes? TC3 Does the plan permit practical reuse of existing infrastructure systems? TC4 Do the transportation and utility systems respect and enhance natural features? extent of each land use; match with existing land use patterns; variety of housing types; possibility for mixed and shared use; place- ment of high-intensity uses near major roads;marketflexibility presence of a gathering place; combination of uses; land availability; proximity to major roadway links; accessibility from Arden Hills; uniqueness presence of missing uses; presence of uses in in oversupply possibility for quick marketing; market flexibility; space for unforseen opportunities; protection for long-term development; ease of phasing linkages to regional network; lot/parcel configura- tions; proximity to collector; extent of road duplication extent of streets, sidewalks, trails; inclusion of transit loops/hubs/nodes/faciiities; proximity to collector extent of reusable infrastructure systems, including roadslroadbeds; other reusable facilities respect for natural contours; avoidance of natural areas; extent of NURP ponds and other quasi- Camiros. Ltd./SEH, Inc./LHDL. Ltd. TCAAP Framework Plan Page 5 Chapter III I .1 I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I .1 I I