HomeMy WebLinkAboutREGISTRY RIDGE, 4TH FILING - PDP - 32-95G - CORRESPONDENCE - (3)i _.
-- I_. -- � ...
.� . i
'',
�,
�� 1 .__
12.20.00
TO: Project Planner
FM: Clark Mapes, Advance Planning
RE: Registry Ridge Filing 4, LUC standards 3.5.1(D) and (E)
The applicant has requested a clear statement of staff's position on these 2 standards as they apply
to Registry Ridge 4 ° Filing.
On behalf of both Advance Planning and Zoning, we must say the plan does not meet the
standards.
This comment happens to correspond with Fire Department preferences for a clear street address,
and with comments on Code section 3.5.2(B) with its minimum requirements for variation to avoid
monotonous repetition.
The specific Code citations are symptoms of a fundamental difference in priorities in the whole
approach to land development. The City's priority for neighborhoods, based on the Comprehensive
Plan, is on neighborhood streets as positive public spaces designed around inviting pedestrian
access and visual interest, in addition to accommodating vehicle access; the priority of the proposed
plan is on vehicle access to garages only. As a general observation, this is a land development
concept that only fits local standards if it's designed with the mindset that the driveway/garage
arrangement is located on a rear alley -like drive so that it doesn't dominate a neighborhood street,
and the front has a positive, interactive relationship to the street. The Comp Plan and Land Use
Code are permeated with more specific explanations of these general ideas briefly summarized
here.
Staff suggests that the applicants do some localized design in response to the standards. As new
models are designed to meet the minimum variation standard, attention should also be given to a
front entry facing the street and a sidewalk that leads to the street. A marked transition from public
to private space such as with porches, pediments, arbors, railings, low fencing, etc, should be
thoughtfully considered in the context of 3.5.1(E).
At this time, we see no demonstration of attempts to exhaust all possible design solutions, which is
required of design work meeting 3.5.1 (D) and its larger purposes. On the contrary, the proposed
plan is apparently a stock plan and a predetermined number of units packed onto the site, period.
(With the possible exception of the rear drive access to some of the units which creates a basic
arrangement that responds somewhat to local standards.)
The applicants requested an unequivocal answer and so one is given above. However, there is one
equivocal opening we must acknowledge: if a good faith effort exhausts all possible design
solutions, and it ends up being infeasible to improve the relationship of buildings to sidewalks, then
it is possible that the standards could be met under the "to the maximum extent feasible" clause.
Also note that if the applicants prefer not to do any more design, then staff suggests that the
applicants request a modification to the noted standards and present their case at a public hearing.