Feb 09 Planning Commission

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.