CCP 02-22-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I. I I I I I I I .. I I I I I I .. IV. Concept Plan Development Development of four concept plans began as soon as the goals and related criteria had been solidified. The intent of these initial plans was to provide a means of testing the viability ofvarious uses and intensities of use on the site. Each plan would therefore have a different focus. Before determining what those foci should be, however, it was essential to establish a physical framework that would be common to all the plans. This framework would "fIx" certain elements of the site -- that is, elements that cannot (or should not) be changed, that provide fIxed opportunities or obstacles, or that need protection from all urban development. The framework would in turn shape all subsequent planning. A. Planning Framework 1. Transportation System No site, particularly none as important as TCAAP, exists in isolation. Each site must be linked with other sites to build a coherent regional development pattern. The transportation system provides the links that create this pattern and make it work. It also provides coridors through which major infrastructure components can pass without disrupting nearby uses. Because the area around TCAAP is largely developed and therefore fIxed, site-access points were fairly simple to derme: . On the south: Primary access at Harn1ine Avenue and CSAH 96; secondary access possible at Snelling or other existing street connection. . On the east: Limited access possible only on the north side of the Army Reserve property. Marsden Lake and related protected areas effectively block all other access on this side of the site. . On the north: Primary access at [Moundsview Road] and County Road I; secondary access possible at another existing street connection to the east. . On the west: Primary access at I-35W and County Road H; sccondary access possible from US 10. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOn will probably prohibit primary access directly from US 10, because the contemplated 10/96 intersection would be too close to the IO/I-35W interchange to permit additional traffic movements. However, secondary access from thc southwcst might be provided as part of the 10/96 interchange. Given these points of access and the emerging open-space framework (see Sub-section 3, below), it became clear that on-site roads would follow a fairly consistent pattern: . North-south connectivity through the site would be desirable, given the site's large size (two miles across in each direction). However, this connection wonld not be probided by the Harn1ine Avenue through-route that was long planned for. The direct north-south route would not only cut through a sensitive natural area but it would serve little purpose: Harn1ine Avenue north ofTCAAP extends only about a mile into a residential area, and regional north-south movements are better served by Lexington Avenue. North-south connectivity would Camiros. Ltd./SEH, lnc./LHDL. Ltd. TCAAP Framework Plnn Pagel Chapter IV