HomeMy WebLinkAboutPROSPECT GREENS PUD - PRELIMINARY - 15-95 - CORRESPONDENCE -s, p,,�., � A�v-�.7 •as tie c,E - � ► sco �n
�-► wt -
& (*65� �
y --val
• . J� I
r Y
t
go
��,Vne� ( Ll f, 16 10)
ILE
L�Nto
I c�
PROSPECT GREENS. CM. 3/31/95� �r ��►c-r17�
Sure enough, the City promotes appropriate densities, a mix of densities, and in many
cases higher densities to create a more compact city. There are benefits and efficiencies to
this.
This project works toward many goals for density and compatibility of infill development.
However, higher densities cannot be achieved by squishing down single family detached
housing, compromising the function of streets, sidewalks and yard spaces to result in a
skimpy or substandard living environment. With regard to streets, one reason for narrowing
city standards is to create a more friendly multi purpose space when cars can be
accommodated in other ways. Most design thinking in this direction seems to be based on
an idea of the street as a more pedestrian friendly front -porch frontage.
Higher density development with small yards typically provides corresponding common
open space, as this plan does. In a situation as tight as this one, the definition and design
of the internal open spaces is critical so that they are distinct as inviting and useful spaces
and not merely "left over" or residual areas that seem to belong to the adjacent units.
With this in mind'.
- the sidewalk is almost unusable because of the rigidly engineered discontinuity of line.
The sidewalk should be a part of the structure that FORMS this "neighborhood" and not
merely a residual strip along the parking stall layout.
- The narrowness of the street is not offset by other special provisions for cars OR by a
particularly pleasant pedestrian environment. It simply looks like a cramped garagescape.
One of the main points of narrower streets is to ELIMINATE the row of garages in favor of a
row of porches.
- The layout pushes the living units closer to the periphery, making the "private decks" less
private and affecting privacy on adjacent parcels more than if the garages were on the
periphery, and the units slid up to give more backyard space. Also, some of the "private
decks" directly face each other.
- The layout pushes the building mass to the edge with no transition.
- Could the internal open spaces be consolidated and better defined as spaces? Or is the
"Active Open Space" as shown meant to be the only commonly useable space? In any
case, it does not look like it's very useful as "Active Open Space". It seems to bleed out and
relate more to the trail as trail corridor space and to the adjacent units as their yards.
-The privacy fence could be a long blank wall if not designed for some interest. As tight as
the project is, it would be nice to relate the fence to the architecture. Could the garages be
incorporated into the fence in a creative way?
- Is there any provision that could be made to address the likely need for outdoor and
garage -type storage, given the tight situation and small garages?
- As negative as this sounds, the project looks good in concept. Could spaces be
consolidated to be useful, and the sidewalk made continuous, again, to be useful? Should
ther be some common storage area or sheds? Are there maybe two or three too many units
on the plan?
Please see the enclosed sketches.