Feb 09 Planning Commission

378 views

Published on

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

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
378
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Just by way of introduction for those who may not know me, I’m Ethan Spoo, senior planner with the City of Oak Harbor and I’ll be the project manager for the subdivision code update from this point forward taking over for Rob Voigt. Last month, staff briefed Planning Commission on the Subdivision Code Update. In 2008, we brought the stakeholder involvement to a close. Now in 2009, we’re entering a new phase of the project in which we’ll be drafting code language to address issues raised by stakeholders and the PC. So, this month is the first month when we’ll be discussing how to solve the problems instead of defining the problems themselves.
  • Feb 09 Planning Commission

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

    ×