HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK VILLAGE - MODIFICATION OF STANDARD - 26-99 - CORRESPONDENCE - LUC REQUIREMENTS (5)teve Olt - Re: Spring Creek Village age
From: Clark Mapes
To: Basil Harridan, Bob Blanchard, Dave Stringer, Gle...
Date: 9/24/99 9:42AM
Subject: Re: Spring Creek Village
Regarding Troy's points.
Good points. The modification does test the margins of City Plan policies.
Does the Importation Channel, as "topography and a natural feature", requiring a bridge, render the
connection infeasible? Also, does a ped/bike spine in lieu of a street meet the alternative compliance or
modification criteria? If so, then we can support a plan without the connection.
I have also been swayed by my perception of the costs vs benefits of a bridge in this particular instance,
connecting two otherwise isolated developments, and also by my perception that accommodating
alternative modes as well or better than a street does, is acceptable here.
Those points may be weak, i.e. not well substantiated or suppoted by policy.
Regarding existing residents fears, a couple of other City Plan Goals look relevant.
First, a significant goal is to "confront and mitigate the negative impacts of the car on our lives". It
elaborates by emphasizing alternative modes. This looks consistent with the modification request to a
degree. HOWEVER, there is nothing in City Plan that says alternative modes are all that needs to be
accommodated, that inefficient car travel is OK, or that alternative spines can be substituted for public
streets to connect neighborhoods.
Second, a goal on p. 24 acknowledges cut through traffic, but I admit it actually calls for calming design
and not disconnection: "neighbohrood streets will be extensively interconnected, but designed to protect
the neighborhood from excessive cut -through traffic".
Regarding Advance Planning comments: after staff last Weds., I wrote up a detailed and carefully worded
explanation of why Advance Planning would support the modification or alternative compliance in this
situation. We had a hard time getting to one position as you heard from Pete. But I talked him into it IF a
generous spine truly functions as like a street in every way except for the vehicle access. We marked up
a plan continuing Hobbit directly as a 35-foot tree -lined way. We asked that development then be
designed around that, rather than vice versa.
For everyone's info, the overall plan as shown would need at least one other significant modification so
Steve and I agreed that they should:
(1) be made aware of that so they don't go get one modification and THEN be surprised to hear that they
need others; and/or
(2) remove the overall plan from this modification request. They should just show the Hobbit corridor and
label the rest of the site as "Neighbohrood Commercial District Development".