>>> Christian MilNeil <c.neal.milneil@gmail.com> 8/7/2013 4:45 PM >>>
Hi Bruce, Caitlin, Bill and Kevin,

In an email discussion over the city's current street connectivity standards, our group began discussing this proposed development on Munjoy Hill:
http://www.munjoyheights.com/

I'm not sure if they've submitted formal plans to your offices, but we thought that this project raised some interesting questions w/r/t our Complete Streets discussions. For instance, it looks as though the developers would like to discontinue the public ROW of East Cove Street rather than furnish a public connection to Sheridan; it also looks as though they're planning to adhere to the letter of the city's current technical standards for Sheridan Street, which is rather at odds to the quality of the development's central outdoor space, and to some degree at odds with the site's current use, the wooded Jack Path. 

Among our small group, we think that the city could do better. It's possible that the developers themselves would probably like to do better, but find themselves constrained by our old inflexible design standards. 

So we asked ourselves what kinds of Complete Streets ordinances and technical standards would we need to get this development proposal more in line with what we'd want and what the future residents of this development might prefer to have in their front yards. Jonathan Owens made a sketch with some annotations and photo examples of what a better street could look like if the developers were freed from the current tech. standards (it's the attached PDF). 

We think that this project could be a productive complete streets pilot project done in collaboration with the developers (whose work in other neighborhoods is mostly admirable, in my opinion). 

Presumably the developers are going to be doing a site plan review for this project in the near future, and these sacrifices of public ROW could be contentious at the neighborhood and Council level. A more flexible 'complete streets' design with better amenities could give the developers better political support, plus additional flexibility in their site plan and more value in their completed development to homebuyers. If the developers plan to seek Council approval for ROW amendments anyhow, it might make just as much sense for them to pursue an alternate route — to ask the Council for a special exception from street design standards in exchange for an opportunity to try something more innovative and more publicly beneficial in close consultation with city planners. 

What do you think — would this be a possibility? 

(cc-ing Jonathan on this message, FYI)

Christian

http://christianmilneil.com

[Attachment:  montage “Sheridan Street Mews” with ideas for treatment]