Jan 09 Planning Commission

531 views
454 views

Published on

Jan 09 Oak Harbor Planning Commission presentation for the Subdivision Code Update Project

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
531
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Jan 09 Planning Commission

  1. 1. Subdivision Code Update
  2. 2. Purpose <ul><li>Project update for Commission </li></ul><ul><li>Anticipated schedule discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Review proposed Code changes as outlined in the Status Report. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Purpose <ul><li>Project update for Commission </li></ul><ul><li>Intended schedule discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Review proposed Code changes as outlined in the Status Report. </li></ul>
  4. 4. Background <ul><li>Last Commission meeting – June 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Concluded the first phase findings: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Code review, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>site visits, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>analysis of historic plats, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>urban design and model code research. </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Ten Specific Areas of Direction <ul><li>1. Standard design(s) for buffer corridors. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Open space configuration and design standards. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Code requirements to: • provide clear direction for improving street connectivity, and • ensure that non-vehicular connections are required through all street ends. </li></ul><ul><li>4. Design standards for both parks and street ends to promote non-vehicular connections. </li></ul><ul><li>5. Standards and requirements to include and integrate non-motorized transportation options in plats. </li></ul>
  6. 6. Ten Specific Areas of Direction <ul><li>6. Design standards for pedestrian connections and trails. </li></ul><ul><li>7. Define alternative street section options for subdivisions to maximize their benefits, and reduce the impacts excessive street sections can have. </li></ul><ul><li>8. Design and landscape standards for stormwater facilities similar to current site plan regulations. </li></ul><ul><li>9. Improved regulations focused on creating an appropriate “urban forest” (such as through street tree requirements, and improved tree retention mitigation). </li></ul><ul><li>10. Short Plat Code revisions that would remove obstacles, and assist in better fulfilling the intent of the GMA with these plats. </li></ul>
  7. 7. Additional Input <ul><li>The Commission provided very engaging and interesting discussions on this Project. </li></ul><ul><li>Staff will incorporate additional comments from Planning Commission and stakeholders into project. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Stakeholder Input <ul><li>Entrance features </li></ul><ul><li>Landscape requirements for subdivisions </li></ul><ul><li>Tree retention areas </li></ul><ul><li>On & off street parking requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Trail connectivity </li></ul><ul><li>Performance standards and designs for parks and trails </li></ul><ul><li>Park and open space requirements for new subdivisions </li></ul><ul><li>Integration of PRDs into existing neighborhoods </li></ul><ul><li>Traffic calming standards </li></ul><ul><li>Screening of trails and walkways </li></ul>
  9. 9. Stakeholder Input <ul><li>Clarify landscape and architectural design requirements of PRDs </li></ul><ul><li>Improve the submittal requirements to aid review </li></ul><ul><li>Performance standards or parameters to guide variance review components of PRD. </li></ul><ul><li>Reducing street widths </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluating the apparent excess of on-street parking in subdivisions </li></ul><ul><li>Improving pedestrian accessibility and safety </li></ul><ul><li>Buffer design </li></ul><ul><li>Trail and open space designs </li></ul><ul><li>Improved pedestrian amenities </li></ul>
  10. 10. Stakeholder Input <ul><li>Connecting trails and open space </li></ul><ul><li>Design standards for parks and open space </li></ul><ul><li>Including street trees in new development is important, and has been seen as an asset for those places that have provided them </li></ul><ul><li>Need to address the unsightliness of stormwater management ponds </li></ul><ul><li>Narrower roads are preferred, although some limited concern was expressed for the potential loss of parking that may occur </li></ul><ul><li>Standards need to be clear while allowing for some areas of flexibility </li></ul><ul><li>Performance based standards </li></ul>
  11. 11. Online Community Engagement <ul><li>COHSUBDIVISION.BLOGSPOT.COM </li></ul><ul><li>Visits Local: 202 </li></ul><ul><li>Returning Local Visits: 127 </li></ul><ul><li>Length of Visit Average Local: 3:41 </li></ul><ul><li>Local Returning Visitors Average Length of Visit: 4:51 </li></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>ONLINE VIDEOS </li></ul><ul><li>a) Subdivision Intro, </li></ul><ul><li>b) Subdivision Public Engagement, </li></ul><ul><li>c) Subdivision Park Board Meeting March 10, </li></ul><ul><li>d) Robert Voigt's Delayering Presentation to the Planning Commission, </li></ul><ul><li>e) Subdivision Project Update, </li></ul><ul><li>Total views: 352 </li></ul><ul><li>Total viewing time: 1941 min - just over 32 hours . </li></ul>Online Community Engagement
  13. 13. Purpose <ul><li>Project update for Commission </li></ul><ul><li>Intended schedule discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Review proposed Code changes as outlined in the Status Report. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Next steps <ul><li>Developing specific changes to the Code </li></ul><ul><li>fulfill the project goals; livability, sustainability, readability </li></ul><ul><li>address Planning Commission and stakeholder comments </li></ul><ul><li>incorporate best practices identified in model codes </li></ul>
  15. 15. Schedule <ul><li>Five Meetings – February thru June. </li></ul><ul><li>Two methods: </li></ul><ul><li>(1) Subject Matter Method – staff presents code changes by area of concern </li></ul><ul><ul><li>pedestrian connections, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>street sections, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>landscape buffers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(2) Type of Change Method. Staff presents code changes by type of change </li></ul><ul><ul><li>amendments to existing code sections, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>new code sections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sections to be eliminated </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Purpose <ul><li>Project update for Commission </li></ul><ul><li>Intended schedule discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Review proposed Code changes as outlined in the Status Report. </li></ul>
  17. 17. Commission Direction <ul><li>As the following table is reviewed staff request that the Commission identify areas of concern, ideas, and other appropriate direction. </li></ul>
  18. 18. More accurate reflection of Comprehensive Plan Include language about sustainability, for example. Update purpose statement to reflect the intent of this Project Readability 21.10.010 Title – Purpose Improved readability of the Code Streamlined review process diagrams to help clarify meaning Opportunities to augment and/or replace Code language with clear drawings describing specific provisions. Readability Title 21 Improved readability of the Code Streamlined review process. clarity, consistency and accuracy changes Throughout these Code Sections all language will be reviewed and modified to identify and eliminate wordiness, redundancy and unnecessary complexity. Readability Title 21 Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  19. 19. A more complete assessment of subdivision applications This may include references to safe networks for pedestrians/non-motorized transportation for example. Expand the list of elements identified Sustainability Livability 21.20.060 – Approval or Disapproval of Subdivision and Dedication – Factors to be Considered – Conditions for Approval – Findings – Release from Damages Eliminating redundancy within the Code Allow forms to be periodically updated outside the complex Review Process V for Code revision. Delete this Code language. Reconciled with Chapter 18.20 – Permit Process Article III. Readability 21.20.010 Process for Preliminary Subdivision and section 21.20.030 – Prints, Applications and Fee Submittal. Clarification of meanings of various standards Definitions such as “building setback line”. The definitions updated Readability 21.10.040 Definitions Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  20. 20. Improved aesthetics and function that fulfill Comprehensive Plan policies (such as more useable open spaces and integration of various uses, trails, transit stops, and neighboring subdivisions). New or refined language for: landscape buffers; use screening; subdivision entrance features; required walkways and their design standards; etcetera. Updated language that will clearly define performance standards/parameters for the required improvements as applicable. Readability 21.40.040 – Required Improvements. Improve the quality of information on final plats. This language would cover “standard” or typical easements. Specific easement language developed Readability 21.30.040 (7)(a) Easements Improve the quality of information on final plats. Specific requirements for tables that identify calculations for open space, etcetera. Updates to reflect the additional/amended requirements that result from the Project. Readability 21.30.040 – Prescribed form. Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  21. 21. Improved function and aesthetics of street network in subdivisions. Define specific street section options and performance requirements. Reflect the desire for street sections that are narrower and provide more of the features commonly referred to as “complete” streets. Livability (4) Street Right-of-Way Requirements. Improvement of subdivision form and function which addresses current shortfalls in pedestrian orientation. Refinement of requirements to support pedestrian linkages. Improve the overall connectivity of the street network to avoid the continued development of disjointed and unconnected neighborhoods that have resulted from recent developments. Sustainability Livability 21.40.070 – Street and Block Layout. More contemporary and environmentally sound subdivision development. Limit the amount and impact of clearing and grading activity on a site. Amendments as determined appropriate based on the PSP LID Project findings. Sustainability 21.20.050 – Grading and Clearing. Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  22. 22. More livable and integrated subdivisions that support pedestrian oriented designs. Design standards for both parks and street ends to promote non-vehicular connections. There are a number design parameters that could be added to this Section and therefore it may be adapted as a new Design Standards/Required Improvements section (as in the current Short Subdivision Chapter). Livability 21.50.010 – General Improvements More contemporary and environmentally sound subdivision development with reduced environmental impacts. Some of the main recommendations of the LID Project. It is expected that a number of the main PSP LID Project recommendations could be added to this Section to achieve significant environmental improvements. Sustainability 21.50.010 – General Improvements (3) Drainage Simplification of Code and reduced confusion. Refined performance standards for unusually shaped lots. Revised language to address consistent problems with flag lots. Sustainability Readability 21.40.080 – Lots Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  23. 23. Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. Develop diagrams and drawings to be included in various Sections to help clarify meaning. Opportunities to augment and/or replace Code language with clear drawings describing the specific provisions. Readability Chapter 19.31 Planned Residential Developments Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. Examples include clarity, consistency and accuracy changes Identify and eliminate wordiness, redundancy and unnecessary complexity. Readability Chapter 19.31 Planned Residential Developments More effective short plat regulations that support infill. The unique difficulty identified with the street frontage requirements of short plats. The overall structure of the Short Subdivision Chapter 21.60, shall be amended to reflect the structure of the revised Subdivision Chapter. Sustainability Chapter 21.60, Short Subdivision Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  24. 24. Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. More refined performance parameters for determining consistency with these standards. Readability 19.31.040 General Standards and Requirements – Parcel Size. Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. More refined performance parameters for determining consistency with these standards will be developed. Readability 19.31.030 General Standards and Requirements – Density Ensure that open space is appropriately integrated into the overall design of neighbourhoods to improve aesthetics, and access. Active/passive recreation requirements for open space. Specific design parameters will be defined for open space to improve function and aesthetics similarly as those described above for Title 21. Sustainability Livability Chapter 19.31 Planned Residential Developments: 19.31.020 General Standards and Requirements – Open Space. Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  25. 25. Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. Remove Section This Section is entirely redundant, as traffic analysis is part of the Engineering review. Readability 19.31.070 General Standards and Requirements – Access to Development. Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. This Section requires clear parameters and definitions. Readability 19.31.060 General Standards and Requirements – Uses Permitted. This may ensure that the city develops more closely to the standards expected and defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The City may wish to require the use of the PRD standards with all plats that are greater than 10 – 15 acres as opposed to the current standard of 20 acres. Sustainability Livability 19.31.050 General Standards and Requirements – Mandatory Application of Standards. Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  26. 26. Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. This section will be deleted as it restates the zoning standards, and can not be varied. Readability 19.31.110 General Standards and Requirements – Building Height. Provide greater assurance that the visual impacts of increased density are addressed. Improve aesthetics of new development within the community. Specify the design of required screening/buffers. This Section will be amended to provide specific screening design standards and a more clear description. Livability 19.31.090 General Standards and Requirements – Yards. Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. Provide flexibility in lot sizes and dimensions based upon specific conditions of the property. Added clarification of the parameters that must be met to support any change in requirements (as described). Readability 19.31.080 General Standards and Requirements – Permissive Variations in Requirements. Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  27. 27. More livable and integrated subdivisions that support pedestrian oriented designs/uses as outlined with the Project's principle foci. For example: revised open space requirements. The Design Standards will be more specific and eliminate the complexity of options that has historically resulted in confusion and less than optimal subdivision designs. Livability Readability 19.31.220 Preliminarily Development Plan – Planning Commission Review. Improved readability of the Code, and overall understandability for all readers/stakeholders. Streamlined review process. This section will be deleted as it relates to a standard that can not be varied and is redundant, restating the parking standards. Readability 10.31.140 General Standards and Requirements – Off-Street Parking. Expected Results Examples Discussion Project Focus Code Section
  28. 28. Additional Discussion <ul><li>How would the Planning Commission like to discuss the amendments: by subject matter or by code language ? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there additional items the Planning Commission would like to bring forward at this time regarding the schedule or proposed amendments ? </li></ul>

×