feb 09 planning commission
DESCRIPTION
Feb 09 Oak Harbor Planning Commission presentation for the Subdivision Code Update ProjectTRANSCRIPT
SUBDIVISION CODE UPDATE
Purpose
•A) Process to Date
•B) Design Brief
•C) Proposed Amendments
1.Buffer Corridor Design2.Street Trees3.Stormwater Facility Designs4.Short Plat Design
•D) Relevant Policy Issues / Questions
Level 1 – What’s the
Issue & Goal?GoalIssue
Level 2 – Why?
Stakeholder input PC Input Existing cond. Model code
Reasons
Name of alt 1
Alternatives & effectsLevel 3 - Choices
Name of alt 2
Effect 1
Effect 2
Effect 3
Effect 1
Effect 2
Effect 3
Decision and AdoptionLevel 4 Decision
Process to date
Design Brief
•To provide direction to applicants in a user friendly format, a companion Design Brief will be developed as part of the Subdivision Project .
•This document will describe the Code with visual examples, and illustrations.
Discussion Format
•Issue: What’s the problem?
•Goal: What do we want to achieve?
•Proposed Amendments: The fix.
•Policy Issues: Questions raised?
Buffer Corridors
•Issue: Unsightly / inconsistent corridor buffers, which suffer from windthrow.
•Goal: Improve visual character, create consistent “gateway corridor” design
Buffers - Proposed Amendments
•Two options: (1) 40-foot buffer or (2) 25-foot buffer. For both, minimum tree density. Natural vegetation counts.
•Specify requirements for new landscaping.
•Define protection measures
•Keep existing streets and restricted access
Large Buffer
Small Buffer
Buffers – Policy Issues
•Should 40-foot be required to supplement?
•Should clearing and replanting be an option?
•Flexibility – right balance?
•Others? Goal achieved?
Street Trees
•Issue: Inconsistent look to Oak Harbor’s streets, poor visual characteristics.
•Goal: Improve visual character, improve the look and feel of residential streets.
Street Trees – Proposed
Amendments•Required of all new developments, both
sides of street.
•Trees planted every 25’/30’ along both sides of the street in landscape strips
•Require deciduous
•Trees planted in ROW, owner maintains
•Removed trees replaced, requirement on plat
Street Trees – Policy Issues
•Short plats exempt?
•Owner maintenance?
•Spacing?
Stormwater Facilities
•Issue: Poor aesthetic quality of stormwater ponds in new plats.
•Goal: Improve visual character, standardize requirements.
Stormwater Facilities – Proposed
Amendments•Set a priority to locate stormwater
ponds away from residential lots
•Require landscaped ponds – natural vegetation counts
•Consider safety
•Restrict eco-bloc, require decorative materials
•Require shallow or sloped ponds or limit fencing.
•No chain link fences
•Maintenance requirements on plat
Stormwater Facilities – Proposed
Amendments
•Shallower sloped ponds require more area.
•If ponds are landscaped, do they do need to be located away from residences?
•Other design concerns?
Stormwater Facilities – Policy Issues
Short Plats
•Issue: Inflexible standards associated with access/street requirements.
•Goal: Provide options for lot access and street requirements.
Short Plats – Proposed
Amendments•Allow access easements provided:
- Number of lots limited by type of access
- Hierarchy of access
- Public utilities in private streets
- Access dimensions clearly defined
•Allow frontage on easements
Short Plats – Policy Issues
•Limits on number of lots served?
•Hierarchy of access?
•Prescribed dimensions or range?
•Sidewalks? Both sides?
•Connectivity at dead ends?
Further DiscussionFormat?
Next month – Pedestrian Facilities• Code requirements to:
• • provide clear direction for improving street connectivity, and
• • ensure that non-vehicular connections are required through all street ends.
• Design standards for both parks and street ends to promote non-vehicular connections.
• Standards and requirements to include and integrate non-motorized transportation options in plats (through connections, transit facilities, griding with walkways and trails, connecting trails to neighboring plats, etcetera).
• Design standards for pedestrian connections and trails.