Two items:
1) A clarification of the language on non-motorized rights-of-way guidance.
2) A question whether the minimum height ratio is an appropriate measure of walkability in campus settings.

1) We are applying the pilot credit in a campus setting, where many of our projects front walks and greens, as opposed to streets. I assume then, for the purposes of buiding height ratios, that we should treat a walk that crosses parallel to the facade of the building as a non-motorized right-of-way.

The non-motorized ROW guidance requires "a minimum 1:0.5 ratio of building height to street width." Although the "street width" term is used, which might imply the sidewalk width, I take it that this ratio should instead refer to the distance from the walk centerline to the facade of the building. This would be consistent with the motorized street calculation method.

2) While our project satisfies this minimum 1:0.5 requirement, I would expect that there are many existing buildings in campus settings that will not satisfy this requirement. In the case of a 10' walk placed 30' from the facade, the minimum height ratio would require a 70'+ building. Yet many observers are likely to consider a four-story campus building as described above to be very walkable. I wonder if the building height ratio is an appropriate requirement for walkability for projects in campus settings.