Your Chance to Get Involved

The process of updating the City of Oak Harbor's Municipal Code is nearing its last few steps.  

The Planning Commission has received copies of the "staff draft" of the compiled Code amendments for review (OHMC 19.31 and OHMC 21 - see previous posts).  Shortly the City will hold a Public Hearing on the suggested Code amendments for City Council to make its final decision.  

The public hearing will be the last opportunity for the City to take your comments regarding the Code amendments associated with this Project.

Until the Public Hearing, Planning Staff are available to answer questions and receive your comments; contact Senior Planner Ethan Spoo at the City of Oak Harbor, 360-279-4513 or email: espoo@oakharbor.org.

Public hearing

The next draft of the amended Code will be presented to the Planning Commission at the regularly scheduled public meeting on July 28th. This draft will incorporate, as appropriate, the comments provided to staff by July 14th. 

During the July 28th Planning Commission there will be a public hearing to take further public comments prior to the Planning Commission forwarding a recommendation on the revised Code to City Council.

Comments on the draft Code

In the last post we provided copies of the completed first drafts of the revised Codes that deal with subdivisions and PRDs in Oak Harbor.  

Comments on these two drafts can provide meaningful insight and staff would appreciate these by July 14th.  

Comments can be left on the blog or sent directly to Senior Planner Ethan Spoo at the City of Oak Harbor, email: espoo@oakharbor.org , tel: 306-293-4513.  

Draft Code Language - Chapter 19.31 and Title 21

After a significant process that has included staff resources, stakeholder input and a series of public meetings with the Planning Commission a first draft of OHMC 19.31 and Title 21, with all the combined changes, are available for review (see below)

The Planning Commission received both drafts yesterday evening at the regularly scheduled public meeting. Hard copies of the legislative edits of these documents are available at City Hall.

CTED Update

In addition to the work to develop and review the draft Code, staff are also currently crafting a status report for CTED.  This is a requirement for the Project as CTED has provided funding to the City of Oak Harbor to complete the Subdivision Code Update.

Just as with the previous status report, once complete, this report will be posted for public access on the blog.  

Draft Code Language

Currently staff are generating and reviewing the complete set of Code changes for the Project. This is an extensive process that takes into account all the work to date and the information generated throughout the Project.

The Planning Commission has already reviewed draft language for the Code amendments during a number of their regularly scheduled public meetings. Earlier blog posts detail these changes, with copies of the draft code also available for viewing.

In addition to the more "significant" changes proposed for the Code, the drafts being generated currently also include a number of "housekeeping" changes that deal with 1) the format of the Code, 2) the structure of the regulations to improve overall readability, and 3) Code language simplifications and redundancies.

Commercial Uses in Subdivisions

Part of the issue of including other uses in PRD neighborhoods is the overall viability of these secondary uses.  

The Planning Commission was concerned that allowing small-scale commercial or office uses might result in businesses that fail and leave the neighborhood with vacant space right in the heart of the neighborhood.   The issue was one of ensuring the balance between residential and secondary uses is appropriate to foster success.  

Staff clarified to the Planning Commission that the proposed Code language is opening PRDs to the possibility of including mixed use or town center concepts with supportive secondary uses. The final decision is one to be made by the applicant, who will decide what the viability of the commercial uses will be.  Staff also pointed out that some types of uses may be more viable in the future with new gridded street patterns and development patterns being developed as a result of the Code changes initiated by this project.  

Concerns over the types of uses that could be integrated in the PRD were also discussed.  These were addressed when staff talked about how the Code would be structured to include a strictly defined set of uses (as described by the Planning Commission as “service-oriented commercial" - dry cleaners, barbershops, etc.).

Review - April PC Presentation

Staff used the materials below during the April Planning Commission meeting; this is included as an imbedded copy so that it can be read online; as well as a link to download the report in PDF or text file (see the Documents section of the sidebar).

To read the document in full screen mode select the "full screen toggle" button in the frame around the document.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Arts & Architecture Research subdivision code upd oak harbor

Review- March 09 PC Presentation

Here are the materials used by staff during the March Planning Commission Meeting.

The information is included as an imbedded copy so that it can be read online; as well as a link to download the report in PDF or text file (see the Documents section of the sidebar).

To read the document in full screen mode select the "full screen toggle" button in the frame around the document.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Arts & Architecture Research subdivision code upd oak harbor

Review - Feb PC Presentation

The handout below is from the February Planning Commission Meeting and is included as an imbedded copy so that it can be read online; as well as a link to download the report in PDF or text file (see the Documents section of the sidebar).

To read the document in full screen mode select the "full screen toggle" button in the frame around the document.

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Arts & Architecture Research subdivision code upd oak harbor

Review - January PC Presentation

The final steps of the Planning Commission's review of the Subdivision Code Update are underway.  These will include the review of the Code language as it reads after all the suggested changes have been made.  

To allow the Planning Commission members, and others, to refresh their memory of the discussions since January of this year, the handout materials used during the meetings are being published on the blog.

Below is the handout for January's meeting, included an imbedded copy so that it can be read online; as well as a link to download the report in PDF or text file (see the Documents section of the sidebar).

To read the document in full screen mode select the "full screen toggle" button in the frame around the document.

Jan 09 Planning Commission Materials

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Arts & Architecture Research subdivision code upd oak harbor

Mixed-use Buildings vs. Neighborhood Center

One of the issues that was addressed by the Planning Commission during their last meeting was the integration of other land uses into PRD developments.  The PRD Code has always envisioned the integration of supportive uses in residential PRD subdivisions.

One of the suggested amendments presented for the PRD Code update is to create more refined standards for the integration of other uses in PRD neighborhoods.   

The concept of commercial in residential areas (provided they are tightly regulated to ensure compatibility) was seen as a positive by the Planning Commission.  The preference being the integration of mixed uses in residential PRD developments with developments that are more like "Town Centers" than mixed-use buildings. 

The regulations that structure how these "Town Center" type additions to PRDs are designed will focus on many different aspects, including:

• walkability;
  
• appropriate architecture:
  
• appropriate location (central to new PRD);
  
• addressing impacts such as building size, traffic impacts, orientation to the street; and,
  
• specifically defined list of approvable uses that are compatible.  

Draft Code: PRD Open Space

The other main area of discussion during last month's Planning Commission meeting was the development of standards for the design of open space within Planned Residential Developments (PRD).

The main interest was to address the difficulty inherent in reviewing open space plans for PRDs caused by the structure of the Code and limited direction it provided to assess proposed open space designs.

Resulting from that discussion, the following draft Code has been written to provide parameters for creating more accessible, usable, and visible open spaces within neighborhoods. The new regulations will define things such as minimum sizes and dimensions; provision of necessary connectivity for pedestrians; required amenities; and, integration of stormwater facilities. The Planning Commission will be reviewing this language as part of its regularly scheduled meeting next week.
_________________________________________
19.31.xxx– Design – Active Open space.
Common open space shall be provided for use as recreational, park or environmental amenity for the collective enjoyment by occupants of the PRD project, and designed as follows:
(1) Common open space shall comprise at least 10 percent of the gross area of the PRD;
(2) Common open space shall not include public or private streets, driveways, buffers, screens, perimeter landscaping, parking areas or the required or provided yards for buildings or structures;
(3) A minimum of 50 percent of all required open space in a PRD shall be “active” open space. Active open space provides opportunities for physical activity to residents of the PRD. Active open space must meet the following requirements:
(a) Be a minimum of 5,000 square feet in size to be counted toward the minimum 10 percent open space requirement. The space must also have a minimum width of 50 feet and depth of 90 feet.
(b) Have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a public street.
(4) Shall contain such accessory or complementary structures and improvements as are necessary and appropriate for the benefit and enjoyment of residents of the project, and shall include at a minimum:
(a) Pedestrian-oriented lighting
(b) Seating
(c) Signage indicating what the operational hours and rules for the use of the open space
(d) Trash can(s)
(e) An activity center such as children’s play structure, tennis courts, basketball courts, walking / bicycling paths or a trail-head kiosk at the entrance of a trail system. There are other types of activity centers other than those listed here which can be proposed by applicants. Any proposed activity centers within active open spaces shall provide exercise opportunities for residents of the PRD.
(5) Active open spaces must be visible and accessible to users, not hidden behind residential lots.
(6) Active open spaces must have pedestrian connections to both sides of a residential block on which it is located.
(7) All open spaces shall be privately-owned and maintained by the homeowners association.
(8) If a public open space or park is designated on the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan within the boundaries of a proposed PRD, it must be provided and can be credited toward the required 10 percent open space.
(9) Trails and adjacent open spaces can count toward the minimum required 10 percent open space requirement in PRDs, provided that the trails meet the requirements of OHMC section 19.XX.XXX.
(10) 50% of stormwater ponds may count as open space within the PRD. However, no more than 25 percent of the required 10 percent open space in a PRD may be stormwater pond. Ponds which are counted toward open space requirements must meet a high level of design and be an amenity to residents and must have all of the following characteristics:
Be landscaped. At least 75 percent of the pond basin (sides and bottom) shall be landscaped.
(a)Be a “wet-pond” not a “dry-pond.” Wet ponds provide both detention and treatment functions and contain some water during most parts of the year.
(b) Be surrounded by a trail or be located adjacent to another active open space, Locating children’s play structures next to ponds is prohibited.
(c) The pond must be curvilinear in shape, not rectangular.
(d) Only 30 percent of the pond may contain berming.
(e) Materials: no ecoblock shall be used in the construction of the pond. Baffles shall be made of aesthetically pleasing material.
(f) The slope of the pond shall be 3:1 or flatter and landscaped per requirement (a) above.
(g) The pond access shall be made of geogrid or other aesthetically pleasing materials. Gravel and asphalt shall not be used.
(h) No fencing shall be provided around the pond.

19.31.XXX Design – Passive Open Space. Passive open space is “non-active” open space which preserves natural areas and provides scenic amenities to a PRD. Passive open space shall meet the following minimum requirements:
(1) Passive open space may be no more than 50 percent of the total required open space in PRDs.
(2) Preserved natural areas, such as wetlands, streams, and woodlands may count as passive open space.
(3) Passive open space may include open fields and landscaped areas which are held in common by the homeowners association.
(4) All passive open spaces which count toward the minimum 10 percent open space in a PRD must be at least 5,000 square feet in area, with minimum dimensions of 50 feet wide by 90 feet deep.
(5) All passive landscape areas shall be accessible and visible to the residents of the PRD.

Draft Code: Pedestrain Connections and Subdivision Layout

During last month's Planning Commission meeting one of the main areas of discussion was improving pedestrian connectivity within subdivisions; essentially by changing the focus of subdivision layout from an automobile oriented street network, to a block and street pattern that is focused on pedestrian movement.




The following draft Code is the result of the work to integrate the comments and concepts discussed during the meeting and includes:

• requirements for pedestrian walkways which provide more direct access throughout neighborhoods;
• reduced block lengths to reduce walking distances;
• design standards for pedestrian walkway safety; and,
• landscape and fencing standards for walkway aesthetics.

Because these issues are also closely related to lot configurations and street patterns, the draft Code has also integrated appropriate standards for their design characteristics, for example restricting the use of cul-de-sacs.

The Planning Commission will be reviewing the draft Code language below during the regularly scheduled May meeting on the 26th.
_____________________________________________

Chapter 21.40
DESIGN STANDARDS
Sections:
xx.xx.xxx General Statement
xx.xx.xxx Relationship to adjoining street system and development
xx.xx.xxx Relationship to street system extensions
xx.xx.xxx Street layout - grid.
xx.xx.xxx Intersection Spacing
xx.xx.xxx Dead-end Streets
xx.xx.xxx Blocks - Lot Configuration
xx.xx.xxx Blocks - Size
xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections
xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - required improvements
xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - alley access
xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - design
xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - design - safety
xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - Maintenance
xx.xx.xxx Lots—Dimensions.
xx.xx.xxx Access requirements
xx.xx.xxx Property Corners at intersections
xx.xx.xxx Industrial and commercial blocks and lots - general statement
xx.xx.xxx Industrial and commercial blocks and lots - Lot orientation
xx.xx.xxx Industrial and commercial blocks and lots - Lot arrangement
xx.xx.xxx Industrial and commercial blocks and lots - Property corners at intersections

xx.xx.xxx General Statement
The following design criteria address the street, block and lot layout of subdivisions and are intended to provide an attractive and safe network for both pedestrians and vehicles within Oak Harbor. The criteria promote walkable neighborhoods which contribute to the efficient and comfortable movement of pedestrians within Oak Harbor.



xx.xx.xxx Relationship to adjoining street system and development
(1) Linkages, including streets, sidewalks, pedestrian or bike paths, shall be provided within and between neighborhoods when they can create a continuous and interconnected network of roads and pathways;
(2) Ensure continuity of adjoining streets and arterials by extending connections to the boundary of the development.
(3) The location of all principal, collector and minor arterials must conform to the Transportation Element of the Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan;
(4) All streets dedicated shall be full-width except along the boundary lines of the plat. Half-width streets may be permitted along the boundaries of a development upon approval of a final plat.

xx.xx.xxx Relationship to street system extensions
(1) At a minimum, stub streets with sidewalks shall be required within subdivisions to allow for future connectivity;
(2) Such accesses shall be extended to each of the boundaries of the project, unless an exceptional circumstance of topography, critical areas or existing development prohibits such a connection. Provided, however, that if an adjacent property has a reasonable likelihood of redeveloping in the future, the Director may require a street stub.
(3) Implementation of this requirement shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.

xx.xx.xxx Street layout - grid.
(1) The street pattern utilized for subdivisions shall be predominantly a grid or modified grid pattern with intersections designed at right angles or T intersections.
(2) Exceptions:
(a) The grid pattern may be adjusted to a “modified grid” by reducing the number of linkages or the alignment between roads, where the following factors are present on site:
(i.) Infeasible due to topographical constraints or presence of critical areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan; and/or
(ii) Substantial improvements exist on adjacent properties which inhibit a connection.
(b) Alley Access: Alley access is an acceptable street pattern.
(3) Alleys shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Alleys may be required in residential areas and to service all properties fronting on arterials.

xx.xx.xxx Intersection Spacing
(1) Intersection spacing of less than one hundred twenty five feet (125') is not allowed.

xx.xx.xxx Dead-end Streets
Dead-end streets may only be permitted by the Director where due to demonstrable physical constraints no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible.
(1) Dead-end streets shall only be allowed where:
(a) An exceptional circumstance such as steep topography, a critical area identified in the Comprehensive Plan, or existing development which prohibits a connection;
(b) The street length for the dead-end as measured from the intersection to the terminus is no longer than 400 feet;
(c) The design of the dead end turn-around has been approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Department. Oak Harbor encourages alternative dead-end designs which reduce stormwater impacts and use less space. For acceptable turn-around designs, please see the Design Brief; and,
(d) A pedestrian connection has been provided for connectivity or future connectivity as per OHMC xx.xx.xxx; Provided, however, if a another pedestrian connection exists or is planned going to the same destination which offers a non-circuitous route for pedestrians, two pedestrian connections to the same destination shall not be required.
(e) A temporary dead-end may be approved when connections to adjacent properties cannot be extended at the time of development, but will be provided in the future and such turn-around is required for emergency vehicles.

xx.xx.xxx Blocks - Lot Configuration
(1) Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two (2) tiers of lots, except where:
(a) There is an abutting principal or minor arterial defined in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan;
(b) The location and extent of environmental constraints prevents a two-tiered lot arrangement including size and shape of the parcel and,
(c) Prior to approval of single-tier lot configuration based on exceptions
(i) and (ii), the proponent has demonstrated to the City that a different layout or provision of an alley system is not feasible.

xx.xx.xxx Blocks - Size
(1) Blocks shall be 600 to 800 feet in length;
(2) Blocks may be up to a maximum of 1000 feet in length provided:
(a) The applicant has exhibited, through written materials, drawings, and illustrations, submitted as part of the plat application, that an exceptional circumstance such as topography or a critical area identified in the Comprehensive Plan makes this impractical and,
(b) An alternative block pattern is proposed which achieves the goals and intent of this chapter; and,
(c) Mid-block pedestrian connections conforming to OHMC xx.xx.xxx are provided for all blocks over 800 feet in length.

xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections
Pedestrian connections shall be integrated in to the design of subdivisions to enhance the connectivity throughout the plat as per the following criteria:
(1) All pedestrian facilities required by this code must be publicly accessible either by easement or dedication provided:
(a) the City may choose not to accept dedication of pedestrian ways not identified in the Comprehensive Plan; and
(b) all dedicated pedestrian ways must be designed to City standards identified in OHMC 19.XX.XXX; and
(2) Be located mid-block, aligned with street ends, lane ways, other pedestrian walkways, mid-block connections destinations or trails to provide continuous connections.

xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - required improvements
The applicant shall install pedestrian walkways in any of the following circumstances:
(1) When a pedestrian connection, walkway, or trail is shown on the Comprehensive Plan;
(2) If the pedestrian connection is necessary to provide non-circuitous pedestrian access to a park, open space, or activity center or feature within or adjacent to the subdivision;
(3) Mid-block pedestrian connections for blocks that are over 800 feet long;
(4) Pedestrian connections shall be provided to all adjacent uses at no greater than 800-foot intervals. The location of these connections must be coordinated between property owners. Specific connections to adjacent uses may be waived if:
(a) The applicant has exhibited through written materials, drawings, and illustrations, submitted as part of the plat application, that this is impractical or unsafe due to:
(i) an exceptional circumstance such as topography, or the presence of critical area identified in the Comprehensive Plan; or
(ii) the characteristics of the adjacent use or potential use as determined by the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
(b) an alternative connection to a higher-order street bordering the subdivision or PRD can provide a non-circuitous route to the adjacent use;
(c) an easement or dedication for future connection is provided as may be determined by the Director.

xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - alley access
(1) The city may require pedestrian connections in the form of alleys or easements for pedestrian access having a total width of 20 feet along rear or side lot lines.

xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - design
(1) Pedestrian connections shall be built to the following standards:
(a) constructed of either concrete or asphalt and be a minimum of 10 feet wide;
(b) hard-packed gravel may be used for walkway surface in areas adjacent to natural or protected features delineated in the Comprehensive Plan;
(c) be constructed within an easement 20 feet wide;
(d) a landscape strip of 5 feet shall be provided on either side with100 percent turf grass cover and deciduous trees planted at 30 foot intervals with no less than two trees on each side of the pedestrian way. Bark mulch and wood chips are not allowed in landscaped areas adjacent to the pedestrian connection;
(2) Fencing is required along the edge of all adjacent residential lots provided:
(a) it is limited to 6 feet in height;
(b) is no closer to the street than the front setback;
(c) is not constructed of chain link or plastic or vinyl strips.
(3) Lots are strongly encouraged to front on the pedestrian walkway to provide “eyes” on the walkway, and promote usability and safety of these facilities. The sides of lots may be located along pedestrian walkways, however, this is a less preferable option, since fencing is required to separate the pedestrian walkway from areas on private lots such as side and rear yards.
(4) Mid-block connections which cross more than one residential block and intersect streets, must meet pedestrian safety requirement before they will be approved. Pedestrian safety must include the following elements:
(a) Adequate site distance for vehicles to see pedestrians and stop, if necessary.
(b) Signage warning motorists that a pedestrian crossing is near. Signage must be provided to motorists approaching from both directions.
(c) At a minimum, painted striping must be provided to delineate the crosswalk. Applicants are encouraged to use crossing designs which include different materials, such as pavers or pavement patterns, or rumble strips to warn motorists of the crossing. Raised crosswalks may also be provided.
(d) Staggered bollards at all intersections of mid-block crossings and the public right-of-way.
If safety measures cannot be provided to ensure adequate pedestrian safety , the mid-block crossing may be required at a different location or not be required to extend across the adjacent street at a proposed location.
(5) Pedestrian connections which meet the design standards above, can be counted as passive open space in PRDs.

xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - design - safety
(1) Walkway safety shall be supported by ensuring that the alignment, landscaping and fencing shall be such that:
(a) users have clear vision from one end to the other; and,
(b) that plantings provide clear visibility from the ground up to 30” above grade;
(2) In natural areas with existing vegetation, sight lines for pedestrian safety may vary if either of the following is demonstrated by the applicant:
(a) the protection required of the natural area by other OHMC or other applicable regulations prohibits the walkway design to meet this requirement
(3) The entire length of the walkway must be reasonably well lit for its intended hours of use. Lighting must be directed downward on to the walkway and may not overflow onto adjacent residential lots.
(4) Bollard lighting is required at pedestrian connection entrances;
(5) Pedestrian-oriented signage directing users to the walkway and appropriate use is required at all entrances;
(6) The intersections of walkways with public right-of-way must have a minimum-ten (10) foot outside radius to promote clear vision into the walkway from passersby. As a substitute for this requirement, fencing along the walkway may terminate ten feet before the intersection with the public right-of-way.

xx.xx.xxx Pedestrian Connections - Maintenance
(1) Pedestrian connections and trails shall be maintained by an association of home owners.
(2) The following language shall be placed on the face of the plat relating to the maintenance of pedestrian connections:

xx.xx.xxx Lots—Dimensions.
(1) The size, shape, and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated.
(2) Lots must be of a shape so that reasonable use and development may be made of the lot.
(3) Generally, the depth of the lot should not be more than three times the width of the lot.
(4) Every lot shall have a minimum width of 60 feet at the building line. All lots which do not have a width of 60 feet at the setback line as referenced under the applicable zoning ordinance shall indicate on the face of the final plat the location of said building line. Lot frontage shall be a minimum of 30 feet.
(5) Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines, and no more than 20 degrees from perpendicular to the front property line with which it intersects.
(6) Side and rear lot lines shall be straight, or composed of straight line elements.



xx.xx.xxx Access requirements
Each lot must have access to a public street or road. Alternatively, access may be by private access easement per the requirements of OHMC xx.xx.xxx and XX.XX.XXX.

xx.xx.xxx Property Corners at intersections
All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have a minimum radius of fifteen feet (15').

xx.xx.xxx Industrial and commercial blocks and lots - general statement
The division of land for industrial and commercial purposes shall conform to the requirements and minimum standards of residential design except as provided in this Section.

xx.xx.xxx Industrial and commercial blocks and lots - Lot orientation
The size, shape and orientation of lots shall meet the minimum area and width requirements of the applicable zoning classification and shall be appropriate for the type of development and use contemplated.

xx.xx.xxx Industrial and commercial blocks and lots - Lot arrangement
Insofar as practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines.

xx.xx.xxx Industrial and commercial blocks and lots - Property corners at intersections
All lot corners at intersections of dedicated public rights-of-way, except alleys, shall have minimum radius of twenty five feet (25 feet).

Dead Ends - Planning Commission Discussion

One of the most significant changes to the Subdivision Code that will be made is the restriction of dead end streets in new subdivisions, as was discussed by the Planning Commission at their last meeting.  

This impacts the efficiency of the street network, for both motorized and non-motorized transportation options. Of particular note is that with the kind of interconnected street system that removing dead ends fosters, the more options and convenience there is for pedestrians.  This is one of the most important and oft repeated goals of this project; and also why other communities have also eliminated the use of dead ends in new developments except for special circumstances.

Fences and Ped Connections - Planning Commission Discussion

The Planning Commission discussed the important relationship of fences along pedestrian connections, and the need for their design to be addressed with the new Code.  These fences impact security and privacy for both the public areas of the walkways and the private areas of the neighboring residential yards.

If fences are too low they can have little effect in defining the private space; however, if they are too tall the walkway can become too confined to be comfortable for users (this also relates to the overall width of the walkway). 

Fence materials also impact the way that they "fit" in aesthetically with the neighborhood.  The new Code will restrict the use of chain link fencing, or plastic/vinyl slatted fencing for this reason.  

As with other common amenities within PRD's the Code will likely require that the Home Owner's Association maintain these facilities.  This is another reason why the Code is being written so that the landscaping of these pedestrian walkways can be easily maintained. 

Open Space Min Size - Planning Commission Discussion

One of the issues that has resulted from the development of PRDs (Planned Residential Developments) over recent years is the difficultly in defining what is acceptable open space for calculation toward the 10% required of the Code.  

There are no clearly defined terms by which to measure these spaces; therefore, some applications come forward with open space calculations that are comprised of areas that are better described as "left over" space, as opposed to spaces integrated into the overall design of the subdivision.  The most extreme of these are spaces that are excessively narrow, or hidden behind residential units so that few can see or have access to them.  

For the development of the new Code, minimum size standards will be defined for these PRD open spaces. The Planning Commission discussed the possibility of a 50 X 90 foot minimum.  One of the associated issues is how open space credit will be given to pedestrian trails (even if they don't meet the minimum size requirement).  This will likely be addressed by clear definitions of the different kinds of open spaces: pedestrian trails, active open spaces, passive open spaces, etcetera. 

Mid-block Connections - Planning Commission Discussion

One of the design solutions that has been "discovered" through the review of model codes is the use of mid-block pedestrian connections to improve walkability within a neighborhood. This is especially important where large development blocks are allowed; as these significantly increase walking distances even to locations only one street away.  

To make sure that these pedestrian connections are most effective there location will be structured by a few rules, for example:

• aligning pedestrian connections from one block to another;
  
• aligning pedestrian connections with T-intersections;
• providing pedestrian connections at dead ends; and,
• providing multiple pedestrian connections to important community amenities such as parks and open space. 

The safety of these connections (particularly where they meet the sidewalk/roadway) will be addressed by their design features, for example:

• site distance;
  
• signage; and,
  
• rumble strips.
  

Block Length - Planning Commission Discussion

One of the main issues that was discussed with the Planning Commission was developing standards for block length in new subdivisions.  This directly relates to the goals associated with pedestrian connectivity, aesthetics, and environmental impacts.  

The initial discussion was focusing on a maximum block length of 800 feet (many other communities have block length restrictions, with some as short as 400 to 500 feet). 

One of the proposed new Code provisions was requiring mid-block pedestrian connections for blocks over 800 feet. However, this could inadvertently result in many block much larger than 800 ft. just by using a mid-block pedestrian connection.  This would go against the intent of the regulation.  Therefore, a different approach will be developed to define new Code language which restricts block length to a maximum 800 feet with some specific exceptions and mitigation methods defined.

Draft Code: Street Sections

The new Code language shown below deals with street sections. This Code is intended to provide clear direction on street design while also allowing for a new level of controlled flexibility with an administrative variance process.

Currently Chapter 21.40 Design Standards (sections 21.40.010 through to 21.40.075) is almost exactly the same as the language in Chapter 11.17 Street Design Standards. This entire Chapter will be reworked to eliminate this redundancy. As part of that, the following Code language will be used to direct street design.

XXX.XX.XX1 Required Street Improvements. All land divisions with more than nine (9) residential units or 18 multifamily units accessing the same street must provide public streets that meet the configurations described in Table XXXX: Required Street Improvements

Table XXXX. Required Street Improvements (to be added in OHMC)

XXXXX2. The City has a two-tiered process for reviewing alternative residential street designs which do not meet the requirements in Table XXX. In the first tier, applicants for residential subdivisions and PRDs may request to vary from the required configuration of the essential elements within a street section. These types of alterations are reviewed administratively through an “adjustment” process. In the second tier, applicants may propose unique street designs which do not contain one or more of the essential elements under a Type IV waiver process reviewed by Planning Commission.

XXX.XX.X3 Adjustment Application for Alternative Street Designs.
(1) The Director may at the request of an applicant, allow adjustments under a Type II Review process to the street sections specified in Table XXXX “Required Street Improvements standards” in residential subdivisions and PRDs. If an adjustment is requested, it must meet all of the following criteria:
(a) All of the “essential elements” continue to be provided in the street design. Essential elements are defined as:
(1) Pedestrian facilities must be provided on both sides of the street. Pedestrian facilities must be a minimum of five (5) feet in width, but need to be either concrete or hard packed gravel. However, hard packed gravel surfaces may only be provided adjacent to open spaces, and shall not be provided adjacent to residential lots.
(2) Adequate guest parking is provided. In place of on-street parallel parking lanes, applicants for residential subdivisions and PRDs may provide alternative parking designs, including head-in or diagonal parking, parking courts in cul-de-sacs, or parking in side alleys. A minimum of one (1) guest parking space per three (3) residential units must be provided, whether or not parking is provided in parallel spots, an alternative design or a combination. Guest parking spaces must meet the parking space size and access requirements specified in OHMC section 19.44.110. The guest parking spaces must be within 500 feet of 80 percent of the units within the subdivision or PRD.
(3) A landscaping element which has a continuous dimension of ten (10) feet in width. The landscape element may be one or more landscape strips located within the street section. Low impact development (LID) bio-retention and stormwater treatment facilities may be interpreted as a landscape elements.
(4) Two, minimum ten (10) foot wide travel lanes.

(3)Waiver for Alternative Street Designs. Applicants for residential subdivisions may also propose alternative street designs which do not contain the essential elements listed in OHMC section XXXX. The waiver will be reviewed under a Type IV review as specified in OHMC 18.20.260. process by the Planning Commission.

(4) Application Materials for Alternative Street Sections. Requests to for alternative street designs, either under the Adjustment or Waiver processes, must be received from the applicant at the time of preliminary plat or preliminary PRD development plan submittal and must contain at least the following:
(a) section drawings prepared by an Engineer certified in the State of Washington that clearly illustrate the proposed street improvements.
(b) written rationale for requesting to vary the Required Street Improvements which describes:
(i) how the proposed street section will provide an equal or better street design for vehicles and pedestrians.
(ii) the proposed design will not compromise vehicle or pedestrian safety,
(iii) public utilities, such as storm, sewer and water can continue to be provided,
(iv) all comprehensive plan designated vehicular and pedestrian connections will continue to be provided and,
(v) all pedestrian facilities will continue to meet ADA standards.
(c) if an applicant is applying for a Waiver to vary from the required street elements, all of the following additional criteria must be met:
(i) there are unique site conditions which necessitate alternative street designs not common on other residential sites or
(ii) essential elements which have been eliminated from the street design are unnecessary either from a functional (pedestrian or automobile movement) or safety standpoint and,
(iii) the applicant proposes to offset the loss of the essential element by replacing it with another element (i.e. bike lanes in place of landscaping) within the street section or the development proposal contains unique, high-quality components which achieve a higher level of design than would otherwise be provided, such as additional open space, unique architecture, or other site amenities and,
(iv) essential elements are not being eliminated for applicant convenience.

Draft Code: Easement Access for Plats

The following proposed Code language will allow lots to be developed without frontage on streets. This change to the current requirements is intended to allow for more flexibility within short plats, and areas where providing street frontage is particularly difficult.

This new Code language will be part of Chapter 21.50 Improvement Standards. The concept of access easements was initially brought up as part of the Short Plat discussion. This Code language is proposed so that the benefits can be extended to all plats as applicable, not just short plats.

Short plat Section 21.60.070 Design Standards and Required Improvements may need to be revised accordingly.

XXX.XX.XX1 Alternative Access Exception. The City may, at the request of the applicant and as permitted by the Oak Harbor zoning code, allow access to residential lots created through land division by alternative means, in the form of shared drives and private streets when in the opinion of the Development Services Director and City Engineer:
(a) The improvement of a public street is not necessary to accommodate public utilities.
(b) the improvement of a public street is not necessary to provide safe and efficient traffic flow.
(c) The improvement of a public street is not necessary to provide access to future developable area;
(d) The improvement of a public street is not necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and general public and,
(e) A site contains natural constraints, such as topography or environmentally sensitive areas, and the provision of an easement would reduce impacts to those areas

XXX.XX.XX2 Shared Drives. Shared drives may be created which access a limited number of units as follows:
(a) four (4) single-family lots or,
(b) eight (8) multifamily units.

XXX.XX.XX3 Private Streets. Private streets may be created which access a limited number of units as follows:
(a) Nine (9) single-family lots or,
(b) 18 multifamily units

XXX.XX.XX4 Design Standards. Shared drives and private streets shall be constructed to City standards as required. The City Engineer may require a turnaround to City standards on any easement access drive. The following standards outline the required elements and dimensions of shared access drives and private streets:

Table X. Required Elements and Dimensions for Private Streets (to be added to OHMC)

XXX.XX.XX5 Development Standards for Easement Access Lots. All lots or residential units that abut or are adjacent to an easement access drive are required to take access off the easement, unless it is determined by the Development Services Director or City Engineer that:
(a) it is impractical or impossible due to:
(i) existing site conditions;
(ii) existing structures; and, or
(iii) topography or environmental constraints of the site.

XXX.XX.XX6 Services. A maximum of two lots can be served by private utility side services within an easement, unless the City Engineer determines that a public utility main is necessary for adequate area service. Three or more lots served within an easement will require public utilities.

Draft Code: Stormwater Facility Design

The aesthetic impacts of stormwater facilities will be improved with the following Code amendments. Planning Commission will be reviewing these at their next meeting Tuesday April 28th.

This is entirely new Code language, and will be part of the Design Standards Chapter; how/where it will fit within the revised Chapter still needs to be determined.

XXX.XX.XX1 Stormwater Facility Location and Design. Stormwater facilities shall be located and designed with consideration to aesthetics, and to incorporate the facility as an amenity to the land division with features such as landscaping and natural building materials. The provisions in this section apply to all subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments proposed within Oak Harbor. The following design requirements shall apply to the location and design of stormwater facilities.
(1) Locations. Where feasible, open spaces and tree retention tracts within subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments shall be located adjacent to stormwater facilities to create the visual effect of larger open space areas. .
(2) Materials. Structural materials utilized within stormwater facility design must have regard for natural aesthetic principles.
a) Gabion baskets, and gabion rock are not permitted in stormwater facility designs.
b) All structural elements of ponds shall utilize stone or other natural material that have decorative finishes. Use of concrete in stormwater facilities is prohibited unless the concrete has a decorative finish and is combined with screen plantings to reduce the visual impact of these facilities. The use of ecology block in pond construction is prohibited.
(3) Design. To limit the need for safety fencing resulting from steep slopes, stormwater facilities shall be designed with shallow internal slopes (recommend 3:1 or flatter) whenever feasible. If it is demonstrated that safety fencing is required it must:
(a) be decorative or ornamental in nature. Chain-link fencing with slats is not permitted, although vinyl clad chain-link fencing is acceptable if screened by plantings and,
(b) for safety reasons, not completely limit visibility to the pond. Ponds shall be designed such that safety fencing is not required on more than two sides of the pond or 50% of the circumference, whichever is less.

XXX.XX.XX2 Stormwater Facility Landscaping. Landscaping shall be required for all stormwater facilities within land divisions. The purpose of the landscaping is to improve visual quality and provide screening of the stormwater facilities from streets, public areas, and neighboring properties. The following standards shall apply to the landscaping for stormwater facilities.
(1) Landscape Design. A landscape plan that meets the standards of this section shall be designed by a Landscape Architect certified in the State of Washington and submitted as part of the preliminary plat or the preliminary PRD development plan application.
(2) Landscape Perimeter. A perimeter landscape area, of minimum 10 feet wide, is required adjacent to all stormwater ponds. This area shall be delineated on the face of the plat and associated landscape plan. The perimeter landscape area shall include:
(a) evergreen ground cover, shrubs and bushes, to provide 100% ground cover of the perimeter area within two (2) years; native species and low-maintenance varieties are preferred. If a trail or pedestrian path is included around the stormwater facility, the area outside the trail or pedestrian path, but within the 10-foot landscape area must have 100% groundcover within two (2) years.
(b) a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees to provide visual interest, with a planting density of at least one tree for every 250 square feet of Landscape Perimeter.
(c) natural vegetation may be used to fulfill the landscaping requirements. However, all trees which pose a safety hazard and are subject to wind throw and blow down, must be removed.
(3) The perimeter landscape area may include a trail or pedestrian path for recreational purposes, provided that the side slopes of the pond are not steeper than 3:1.
(4) In the event that a trail, open space, or park has been identified and/or required by the City of Oak Harbor adjacent to, or integrated with a storm water facility, it shall be installed above the maximum extended detention level or five year storm level, which ever is greater, in order to prevent frequent flooding.
(5) Plantings must be designed and constructed not to conflict with the function of the stormwater facility as defined in the DOE Stormwater Manual.
(6) If a pond with two or more cells for treatment is proposed, one or more of the cells must be planted.
(7) No more than 50% of the pond circumference may have berming.

Draft Code: Street Trees

The following is the draft Code being proposed for including Street Trees in Oak Harbor's new developments. This language will result in a significant change the way neighborhoods look and evolve. The addition of street trees will impact the way neighborhoods look and feel, and help with a variety of environmental impacts such as improving air quality and reducing stormwater impacts.

This new Code language will be part of the Design Standards Chapter; how/where it will fit within the revised Chapter still needs to be determined.

XXX.XX.XX1 Street Trees Required. Street trees shall be required along both sides of “Principal Arterials”, “Minor Arterials, 2-lane”, “Collectors with Bike Lanes”, and all “Local Residential” streets designated with the Transportation Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the street trees is to improve the visual quality of the street, improve the pedestrian environment, and provide the environmental benefits of improved air quality, reduced stormwater impacts, and reduced heat-island effects associated with large paved areas.

XXX.XX.XX2 Street Trees Design. The following standards shall apply to the installation of street trees.
(1) Street trees of a species specified in table XX , shall be planted in the designated landscape strip within the public right-of-way, 30 feet on center along frontage for all divisions of land; on both sides of any public street;
(2) At the time of planting, all street trees shall be a species listed in Table XX “City of Oak harbor Acceptable Street Tree Species” or as otherwise approved by the Director.
(3) Species. The following table identifies tree species acceptable to the City of Oak Harbor.

Table XX. City of Oak Harbor Acceptable Street Tree Species (to be inserted in the OHMC)

XXX.XX.XX3 Street Tree Protection. To protect their function, define management responsibilities, and protect the health of the street trees, the following language shall be placed on face of the plat:
Street trees planted in the designated landscape strip along the frontage of all lots, as per the approved landscape plan associated with the residential plat of ___________, shall be maintained by the property owners of lots directly adjacent to the location of the street trees. The replacement of street trees for those that have died is the responsibility of the adjacent property owners. The location and tree species for replacement street trees must be in conformance with species allowed in Table XX. Or as approved by the Director and shall not obstruct the travel lane or parking stalls at full maturity.
If property owners do not maintain street trees, the City of Oak Harbor may choose to maintain these trees and invoice the adjacent property owner for the work.

Draft Code: Buffer Corridor Standards

The first sections of new Code language will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at their upcoming meeting next week.

There are a variety of issues that will be covered, therefore each section of Code is being posted as a separate blog entry. This first one deals with language relating to buffer corridor standards.

This new Code language will be part of the Design Standards Chapter; how/where it will fit within the revised Chapter still needs to be determined. The existing language referring to the buffers (21.40.040) will be removed.

XXX.XX.XX1 Landscape Buffer Required. A landscaped buffer shall be required along all minor arterial roads for a width of at least 25 feet abutting all standard residential subdivisions and PRDs. The purpose of the landscape buffer is to minimize the impact of the roads on adjacent residential uses; encourage tree preservation and planting; and to create visually attractive corridors along these roadways. The Landscape Buffer shall be established as a separate tract on the face of the plat. The provisions in this section apply to all residential subdivisions and Planned Residential Developments (PRDs), excluding Short Subdivisions.

XXX.XX.XX2 Landscape Buffer Design.
The landscape buffer may incorporate either natural vegetation, applicant proposed vegetation or a combination of both. The purpose of the following requirements is to provide a “complete” buffer which contains overstory, understory and groundcover vegetation.
(1) The Landscape Buffer shall include the following landscaping:
a) trees planted 30 ft on center along the entire length of the edge closest to the arterial road, and no closer than 10 ft from this edge of the buffer to avoid conflicts with the required utility easement.
(b) shrubs and bushes, to provide 100% ground cover of the buffer area within 2 years; drought-tolerant, low-maintenance varieties are strongly preferred.
(c) sufficient shrubs and bushes to provide a continuous four-foot high visual screen of the arterial road from within the land division. The plantings must not restrict site distance at intersections.
(d) in addition to the street trees identified in (a), throughout the entire buffer area a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees, of a species determined suitable by the City of Oak Harbor, shall be provided at planting density of at least one trees for every 400 square feet of the buffer area.
(e) all required plantings in the buffer shall avoid conflicts with public utilities and the species shall be selected to avoid root damage to sidewalks, streets and curbing.

(2) Those areas of the landscape buffer where suitable natural vegetation of understory and ground cover and healthy stands of trees not prone to wind throw or blow down after adjacent areas have been cleared, may be retained as substitute for the required landscaping in (1) provided:
(a) street trees are planted as per (1)(a);
(b) evergreen ground cover is present as per (1)(b);
(c) screening is present as per (1)(c); and,
(d) the minimum number of trees are present as per (1)(d).
(e) trees which pose a safety hazard from wind throw or blow down must be removed.

XXX.XX.XX3 Landscape Buffer Protection. To protect their function, define management responsibilities, and protect the health of the landscape buffers, the following language shall be placed on face of the plat:
(1) Tracts ______, are set aside as landscape buffers. No vehicular access to the adjacent roadway is permitted to protect, vegetation and planting areas for their environmental and aesthetic value to the community, and.
(2)Maintenance of Tracts ________ shall be the responsibility of the home owners association and not the City of Oak Harbor. If the association disbands, maintenance responsibility for Tracts ________ defaults to the individual lot owners within the boundaries of the originally approved residential subdivision or planned residential development. If the landscape buffer is not maintained, the City of Oak Harbor may choose to impose a fee structure or invoice the property owners within the boundaries of the originally approved residential plat to maintain landscape buffers.
(3)All vegetation shall be maintained to preserve the health of the buffer plantings, and to maintain the landscaping in a manner that conforms to the original landscape and maintenance plans associated with the residential plat approval, including replacement of dead or diseased plantings.
(4) Trees deemed to be a hazard by a professional arborist certified in the State of Washington may be removed, subject to approval by the City of Oak Harbor. Removed trees must be replaced. The City reserves the right to exempt the requirement for an Arborist assessment if in the City’s opinion the tree is obviously a hazard, diseased, or dead.
(5) No dumping of vegetation or debris is allowed in Tracts _______.
(6)No structures are allowed in Tracts ________.

Walkway discussion video & map

The video and Google map below are provided as tools for preparation of the April Planning Commission discussion on walkways.

The video identifies a number of the design characteristics that will be explored during the meeting; while the map shows the locations of the local examples highlighted in the video. With this information people will be able to visit the sites in person and get a better sense of the design issues first hand.


April Planning Commission Preparation: Walkway Discussion from Robert Voigt.

-Click on the markers for additional information-


View Larger Map

Walkway width and surface treatment

Two important features of walkway design that affect how easily they can be used and people’s desire to use them are walkway width and surface treatment.

To ensure that these proposed walkways can be used throughout the year and are as accessible as sidewalks, while also being cost effective to build, it is suggested that they be hard surfaced with asphalt (as a minimum standard). For walkways that are within a wetland buffer, or other similar environmental feature there will likely be standards that allow compacted rock chips as the walkway surface (similar to portions of Oak Harbor’s existing waterfront trail/walkway).

Since most of the walkways in new subdivisions will be directly bordered by properties, and therefore private front, side and backyards it is important to design them wide enough to make them appear as distinctly different from the private property. This will make them comfortable for pedestrians to enter them and use them.

The width of the walkways also impacts how safe they are, and how safe they appear to be. Again, given that these walkways will be bordered by private properties, they will likely have fencing (6ft high is max. allowed and typical) along significant portions of their lengths. The kind of enclosure created by narrow walkways and sight obscuring fencing can make the walkways feel very narrow, reduces sightlines into the walkways (the “eyes on the street” often referred to for passive oversight and safety), and creates an overall uncomfortable sense of enclosure when walking through them.

Although walkway users may not be able to look over the fences in these cases, their close proximity to people’s private yards resulting from narrow walkways also impacts the private residential users. The perception in these cases is that people’s privacy is being compromised.

Overall walkways, with these characteristics are less likely to be used and are often viewed as less of an asset for the community/neighborhood. Therefore the proposal will be to require walkways that are:
1) wide enough to provide ease of view through the walkway from the street and a comfortable sense of enclosure;
2) incorporate landscaping to clearly define the walkway and enhance its visual characteristics; and,
3) are wide enough to create a comfortable distance between walkers and private yards to support the sense of privacy for neighboring residents.

Staff will be discussing the specifics of these elements with the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Feel free to comment on the blog about walkway ideas, or examples within Oak Harbor, as these can be incorporated into the meeting’s discussion.

Walkway locations

The proposal staff will be discussing with the Planning Commission will suggest that walkways are required to:

1) enhance the network of sidewalks by providing more direct routes through neighborhoods; and,
2) provide direct pedestrian connections to adjacent uses and neighborhoods.

This second point is intended to create a more complex “net” of connections and options for pedestrians to move throughout the community.

By not treating pedestrians the same way as cars (and only providing walkways/sidewalks that follow the same routes as streets), with these two new kinds of pedestrian infrastructure concerns in the design of new subdivisions, people will have more options and direct access to uses and services in Oak Harbor.

One of the suggested standards is to require pedestrian walkways connecting to the edges of all new plats for all boundary sides that are over 400 ft in length (or the maximum length of a block).

Pedestrian Oriented Design

The reason staff will be discussing pedestrian walkway design characteristics during the next Planning Commission meeting is because of the importance design plays in making these connections useful, effective, comfortable to use, and safe.

Pedestrian walkways will be required as part of the complex pedestrian transportation system, not as trails for pastime use. This is an important distinction, as trails are primarily a recreational amenity, and the walkway connections that are proposed for new subdivisions are intended to help people move around in Oak Harbor.

The importance of increased pedestrian oriented design in our communities for public health reasons has been highlighted for a number of years now. While this is an important aspect of creating an effective and efficient pedestrian network in Oak Harbor, it is not the sole reason for such changes to the OHMC as will be discussed by the Planning Commission.

It is valuable to remember that people without access to vehicles (many seniors, youth, people that can not afford a private vehicle, and some persons with disabilities) require an infrastructure system that allows them to move throughout their community; and pedestrian walkways are a significant part of that system.

In an effort to keep the design standards for subdivisions concise and easily understood, staff will be focusing on a few key characteristics:
1) walkway locations;
2) walkway width;
3) surface of the walkway
4) sight lines; and,
5) lighting.

April Planning Commission Meeting

The next Planning Commission meeting to discuss the Subdivision Code Project will be held on April 28, 2009.

At that meeting staff will be discussing Code amendments dealing with pedestrian facilities and open space in new subdivisions.

Additionally, if time permits for adequate preparation staff will also be dealing with the characteristics of PRDs and design standards used for their review.

Traffic Calming Options

As part of the discussion during this month's Planning Commission meeting regarding street sections, it is expected that traffic calming will be explored. 

The image below shows a variety of traffic calming devices. 

 

Street Section Examples

The following images illustrate two street sections that will be discussed by the Planning Commission on Tuesday evening's meeting.

The first drawings are of a wide street section with parking on both sides of the street.

The second image set below, is a Narrow Section with parking on one side of the street.

Street Section Policy Issues

For the discussion with the Planning Commission on streets there will be two primary policy areas that staff will be exploring: 

1) the elements within a standard section (i.e., sidewalks, planter strips, on-street parking, etc.); and, 

(2) the dimensions of those elements. 

The combination of elements and their dimensions are a reflection of the community’s values. A community that wants to encourage biking may allow bike paths to substitute for on-street parking. The concept of “complete streets” or having a healthy balance across modes has tended to be effective in the long-run. Streets which disproportionately favor one mode of travel over another (i.e. no sidewalks) usually have a detrimental effect on quality of life.

The following discussion points out some of the policy issues associated with the standard street sections that will be proposed during the Commission meeting.

Essential elements. The list of possible elements that can be provided in a street section are numerous and can include parking (parallel or diagonal), travel lanes, bike facilities, pedestrian facilities, landscape strips, LID facilities, use of different paving for sidewalks and streets, etc. Staff have chosen required elements based on already approved and publicly-vetted street sections contained in the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan approved in 2008.

On-street parking. On-street parking is a central issue in considering narrower street sections, because it tends to be reduced when street widths are narrowed. Parking is often provided on both sides of streets in Oak Harbor. However, as narrower lots have been provided, on-street parking has been reduced as the distance between driveway aprons is not sufficient to provide room for parking, even with parking lanes required in the streets.

Practically speaking, the choices are to provide no on-street parking, provide some on-street parking (one side of the street) or provide a high level of on-street parking (both sides).

If no on-street parking is provided, it will reduce the amount of pavement required, thereby reducing development and maintenance costs and likely have less environmental impact, due to a reduction in impervious surface.  However, people may be forced to park further away from their destination where parking is available. 

If a high level of on-street parking is required, the City is not as likely to have complaints from citizens about parking, but development, maintenance and environmental costs are likely to be greater. If no on-street parking is provided, guest parking can still be provided in parking courts on dead-end streets, such as has happened in the Fireside development.

Right-of-way width and narrow streets. Narrow streets do not necessarily mean narrower rights-of-way. If parking is eliminated or reduced, the City has a policy choice to make; require wider sidewalks and landscape strips to add up to 50 feet of right-of-way, or is the r-o-w reduced, creating more area for private improvements and an incentive to construct narrow streets? Retaining a wider right-of-way allows the City to plan for future public facility expansions.

Landscape strips size. The street sections proposed 5-foot landscape strips. Smaller landscape strips have been used in other jurisdictions, including Oak Harbor. However, smaller strips tend to result in cracked sidewalks and curbs from overgrown tree roots.

Traffic calming. The City receives complaints about traffic calming (or lack of it) in neighborhoods. Narrow streets do not preclude traffic calming and, in fact, promote slower speeds in comparison with wider streets.

Three-tiered review process. The three tiered process proposed in a previous post is designed to eliminate staff, applicant and Planning Commission time spent processing variance requests for deviations from existing street standards. Minor deviations can be processed under an administrative variance process, saving major deviations (change in required street elements) for Planning Commission review. There would no longer be a need for Planning Commission review of minor deviations.

Staff will be seeking Planning Commission input on these policy issues prior to drafting the Code language for street widths.

Street Variance - Performance Criteria

For the Planning Commission review of a variance application for street sections, the intent is to make a determination if the proposed street section is a “good” or acceptable street design. That determination will be based on specific performance criteria. 

Applicants would not be permitted to eliminate required elements without demonstrating how they are providing an equal or better level of design as a substitute. The review criteria may be similar to the following discussion examples:

1) Provision for alternative modes on both sides of the street. A development that abuts an open space with a trail on one side of the street may be able to provide the trail in place of the required sidewalk. 

Similarly, an applicant may wish to provide a bike path instead of a sidewalk on the side of street where no houses front. Both of the above are examples of “good” design because the applicant is substituting for required elements, not eliminating them altogether, and still providing non-vehicular transportation and pedestrian access facilities.

2) Landscape element provided or wider sidewalk in lieu. There are many ways landscaping can be provided along streets, either in traditional planters, in center landscape islands, or in LID bio-retention facilities. 

Eliminating the landscaping element without providing something in lieu would not be acceptable, as there is no element to replace the characteristics and purpose of the landscaping.

New Street Section Variance Process

The existing code has a two tiered approach for review of proposed street widths within plats:

1) Design streets to meet adopted standards (curb, gutter, 5-foot sidewalks on two sides, and a 36 - 44-foot pavement section contained within a 50-60 foot right-of-way); 

2) Propose street sections which do not meet the standard, and go through a “waiver” process with Planning Commission review, or be granted flexibility through the PRD process (also reviewed by Planning Commission).

This second tier is costly in terms of time and staff resources for application review, even with minor variations being applied for.  

Most of the requests to deviate from standards that have been processed recently (past 5 years at least) are for narrower street sections.  This suggests that Oak Harbor’s standard street sections are out dated.

Staff are proposing a new three-tiered process meant to reward creativity in “good” street design and reduce staff, applicant and Planning Commission time spent reviewing alternative street sections in standard plat applications:

1) Standard designs. Offer two options for standard street designs. 

2) Administrative variance. An administrative deviation from prescribed street section dimensions only; if an applicant demonstrates that they cannot provide one of the standard two street sections for unusual site or design reasons.

3) PC Review. If an applicant demonstrates they cannot provide one of the essential elements in the street section (sidewalks, landscape strips, curbs, or 10-foot travel lanes), then they can request Planning Commission review an alternate street design as part of the overall plat review (similar to PRD).

March Planning Commission Meeting

This month, staff will discuss residential street widths and associated policy issues with the Planning Commission. 

Street widths are a relatively involved issue with ties to many other city polices therefore this will be the only subject discussed during this review of the Subdivision Project. 

Some of you may be aware that last year, the City approved new street sections as part of the update to the City’s Transportation Element of the comprehensive plan. However, the Code has not been updated to reflect these changes in the Transportation Element; therefore they are being amended through this project.

LID Amendments

One of the main goals of this Project is to address the increased environmental impacts associated with stormwater management and runoff resulting from development.  This part of the Project is associated with the Puget Sound Partnership Low Impact Development Project (PSP LID).

The scope of many of the suggested LID changes from the PSP LID Project are very technical and will be part of later phases of that Project; also, many are somewhat impractical to incorporate within the scope of the Subdivision Project.  

Finally, due to the overall magnitude of the LID changes, they will not be reviewed on their own, but those that easily fit within this Project’s amendments will be added when appropriate.

Short Plats

The inflexible standards associated with access/street requirements is the next item on the Planning Commission's agenda.

The following suggested Code “rules” are intended to provide options for lot access and street requirements:

• allow access to lots by way of access easement, provided: the number of lots is limited to 4; there is no need for a public street to facilitate sewer & utilities, provide street connectivity, or provide on-street parking; the specific dimensions are clearly defined and based on engineering
• allow lots that have frontage on an access easement (not requiring street frontage for all lots)s

Stormwater Facilities

The poor aesthetic quality of stormwater ponds throughout developments will also be addressed by the Planning Commission; with the goal to improve visual character, and standardize requirements across all new subdivisions.

The suggested OHMC standards include:

• set a priority to locate stormwater ponds adjacent to open space, tree retention tracts, etc. and away from residential lots
• require landscape screening of stormwater ponds (with specific planting standards)
• restrict the amount of screening, so that some visual access into the pond is provided for safety
• restrict the use of eco-bloc in pond walls
• require decorative concrete or natural stone in pond walls
• require ponds designed with shallow slopes, or stepped, so that safety fencing is not required or only allow pond designs that would require a max. of two sides to have safety fencing (not completely enclosed)
• restrict chain link fence with slats for screening
• require some landscaping around all ponds (with specific standards, such as a 5’-10’ perimeter planting area)
• maintenance requirements placed on the plat

Street Trees

Rules for requiring street trees in new subdivisions is the next item for the Planning Commission to review.

The issue is the inconsistent look to Oak Harbor’s streets, poor visual characteristics; with the goal being the improvement of the visual character of neighborhoods, standardize requirements, improve the look and feel of residential streets.

Suggested code provisions:

• require street trees in all new developments
• trees planted every 25’/30’ along both sides of the street
• deciduous 3” caliper trees of a species acceptable to the City (considering long term tree health, roots, utilities, tree size)
• street trees planted outside of the right of way (ensuring compatibility with all City street sections)
• trees maintained by the property owners
• removed trees to be replaced accordingly
• street tree maintenance/replacement responsibilities identified on the face of the plat

Buffer Corridors

This item for the Planning Commission’s consideration deals with the landscape corridors along a number of Oak Harbor’s arterial streets.  The issue is the unsightly/inconsistent corridor buffers and eventual loss of trees in these buffers.  The goal is to improve the visual character of the buffers, standardize requirements, and create consistent “gateway corridor” designs throughout Oak Harbor.

The suggested “rules” for the new code that will be reviewed are:

• maintain buffer corridors on existing list of streets 
  
• maintain restricted access through buffer tracts
  
• expand the buffer width from 25’ to 40’ (to improve likelihood of successful tree retention)

• For areas with existing vegetation require the “brush” to be cleared or “cleaned up” and add additional plantings: complete groundcover; additional trees planted in a “natural” pattern (as opposed to formal patterns like street trees); additional shrubs to provide screening

• Areas were existing vegetation is not present, or has been removed, require new landscaping: one row of deciduous trees along the street side, spaced every 30’ (street trees); a second row of coniferous trees along the rear lot side, spaced every 25’ to 40’ feet (to provide screening); shrubs & bushes between coniferous trees (to provide screening); ground cover throughout (for aesthetics and to reduce possibility of erosion) 

• Define specific protection measures for these areas on the plat: maintenance responsibility of Home Owners Association; no structures, dumping of debris; tree removal needs City approval, and based on arborist report; removed trees and shrubs must be replaced as per the approved landscape plan
  

The following images illustrate the options presented.

Process to Date

The review phase of the Project that the Planning Commission is now undertaking involves the large policy decisions, as well as, the specific language that will be featured in the new Code.

Click on the image to the left to see how this step fits into the Project process to date.

February Planning Commission Meeting

The Planning Commission meeting for the month of February was intended to complete two major tasks:

1) Review points identifying the suggested new “rules” that will be written into the Code, relating to:

• Buffer Corridor Design
  
• Street Trees
  
• Standards for Stormwater Facilities
  
• Short Plat Design
  
• Low Impact Development (LID)
  

and, 

2) Discuss policy issues/questions associated with the suggested new “rules”.

January Planning Commission Update

This past week the Planning Commission was reintroduced to the Subdivision Code Update Project, after not having this brought before them for many months.  This meeting essentially launched the next phase of the Project, the development of the Code amendment language to fulfill the project goals.

At the meeting, Development Services Director, Steve Powers gave the presentation to the Commission. The Commission members had a number of questions about the project, which were discussed. 

One of the goals of the meeting was to receive direction from the Commission on their  preference for reviewing the Code amendments (whether the code changes should be reviewed by subject matter or based on the Code structure, essentially from beginning to end).  The Commission decided that the most effective approach would be to review the Code amendments by subject (for example: open space, streets, buffers, etcetera).

Other topics discussed included:

• review of the Project goal to improve the readability, and understandability, of the Code;
  
• the timeliness of the Code update;
  
• interest in requiring trails within new subdivisions and their importance to the community's liveability; and,
  
• ensuring that issues of safety are considered with reduced street widths as will likely be proposed by the Code amendments.
  

To facilitate the fast paced schedule of this phase of the update, the proposed code updates will be posted on the blog for review in advance of the Planning Commission meeting.

Online Stakeholder Engagement Update

One of the components of the community engagement strategy for this project is this blog site.  The blog has also been used as an innovative structure for the project itself; changing how information is gathered and presented; how stakeholders and staff can monitor the project; and, providing information on the blog to improve project accountability to readers.

 

This blog site has been providing up-to-date information relating to the project as would be found in a typical “file”. However it is made available to stakeholders 24 hrs a day, independent of their location, and also includes ways of tracking, researching and commenting on information not available with traditional methods. The City has also included online surveys, multi-media video reports, and video presentations on the blog as ways of improving communication throughout the Project. 

At the conclusion of the initial analysis phase of the Project City staff developed a second blog that detailed the findings (www.cohdelayered.blogspot.com). This second blog was designed as a companion site to the first and has been equally successful in improving information transfer to stakeholders. The effectiveness of these approaches is significant when compared to historic experiences with standard public participation methods within Oak Harbor and other municipalities. 

The following statistics illustrate the success of these innovations in terms of public participation and improving access to project information.

 

COHSUBDIVISION.BLOGSPOT.COM 

• Blog Launch Date: February 18, 2008 
  
• Visits total: 1,032 
  
• Visits Washington: 566 
  
• Visits Regional: 277 
  
• Visits Local: 202 
  
• Returning Local Visits: 127 
  
• Length of Visit Average: 2:32 
  
• Length of Visit Average Local: 3:41 
  
• Local Returning Visitors 
  
• Average Length of Visit: 4:51 
  

COHDELAYERED.BLOGSPOT.COM 

• Blog Launch Date: April 23, 2008 
  
• Visits Total: 237 
  
• Visits Washington: 158 
  
• Visits Regional: 108 
  
• Visits Local: 96 
  
• Returning Local Visits: 76 
  
• Length of Visit Average: 2:48 
  
• Length of Visit Average Local: 3:47 
  
• Local Returning Visitors 
  
• Average Length of Visit: 3:15 
  

ONLINE VIDEOS

a) Subdiviion Intro, 

Length 0:34, 105 views; 

b) Subdivision Public Engagement, 

Length 2:40, 90 views; 

c) Subdivision Park Board Meeting March 10, 

Length 2:29, 95 views; 

d) Robert Voigt's Delayering Presentation to the Planning Commission, 

Length 22:15, 46 views; and, 

e) Subdivision Project Update, 

Length 17:41, 16 views. 

Total video views 352; with a potential total viewing time of 1941 min. or just over 32 hours.

The Status Report includes outlines of the stakeholder engagement results. 

Update on Community Engagement

As part of the Subdivision Code Update Project the City decided to conduct the public participation component in a manner that expanded the scope of community engagement while also exhibiting the kind of innovation, commitment to community participation, and creativity, desired of the end product.  

In addition to online tools, such as this blog, adaptations to standard “open house” meetings have been made to provide meaningful face-to-face interaction with stakeholders that is more suited to contemporary lifestyles. Staff scheduled roundtable meetings and conducted a number of weekly public coffeehouse meetings that allowed people to communicate with staff in less formal and time consuming ways. The results of these efforts have been positive. 

The use of innovative communication methods has not been at the sacrifice of traditional methods of public participation. Standard approaches have also been used such as: Planning Commission meetings; City Council Standing Committee Meetings; Parks Board meetings; and mailed surveys. 

Over 250 Personal letters were sent to people that have previously participated in City planning initiatives within the past 2 years, and to persons within the Development Industry that have had applications within the city within recent history. These letters invited the participation of these stakeholders and actively engaged citizens at the beginning of the project, and also informed them of the opportunity to participate and monitor the project through the blog. 

The Status Report details the results of all the engagement efforts for this Project.

Planning Commission Meeting: Code Drafting Schedule

This weeks' Planning Commission meeting involved discussion about developing the schedule and approach to drafting proposed Subdivision Code Section changes. These proposed amendments are the result of all the work on the Project to date.  A table outining these is included in the Status Report described in a previous post.  

Please feel free to post comments on the blog on any of the proposed amendments.

Online Survey Findings

The following are the online survey responses. Since only two responses were received, the overall value of the statistics form the survey are not that meaningful. However, the comments were interesting. They are also listed below for information and open to further comment, as are all posts on the blog.

Comments:

Q1 - Naturally, the city should concern itself with the look and feel of new development. However, developers do a pretty good job of designing their sites as best as they can. Some of that depends on the type of homes and intended market. Extra money may be spent on implementing more costly designs if the market will support it. Oak Harbor already has some very stringent design standards dealing with open space, tree retention, parks, etc., which then dictate design.
Q2 - Identify main "corridors" to have these and place emphasis there, not on every development. Any such trail would need to be dedicated to the public and then add to further maintenance load for the City.
Q3 - The only way this can be successful is for the trail to be dedicated to the public or is within a right-of-way. Private owners will certainly not want the liability of inviting the public onto their trail. If an owner dedicates the land, the city should install the trail.
Q4 - Yes, it always looks nice. Perhaps some flexibility in amounts and locations could be incorporated. Is there long term effects to the Public Works - leaves in storm system or to be swept up.
Q5 - Yes, but don't over regulate it. Perhaps 50-75% of the perimeter should be screened by fence or vegetation. Or give incentives for creative designs. Developers already have large expenses into building the ponds. Perhaps creating an incentive program would work. Developers would incorporate many items if they felt that they received credit for them. Reducing impact fees may be a credit.
Q6 - It may depend on the location.
Q7 - Absolutely not, there are many ways to encourage LIDs. These "naturalized" areas would be too small to do anything and would look terrible. The more property taken from developers just drives up the cost of new homes.
Q8 - If street trees become required, doesn't that reduce some of env. impacts already? "Naturalized" areas often become eyesores.
Q9 - How about encouraging the above items by requiring a developer to incorporate a certain percentage of them. Require the project to include "5 out of 10 of the following items..." or something like that. Provide encouragement but allow choices and flexibility because each project is different. Too many requirements just adds to layers of hurdles already in place. Responsible development is good, but can also become so restrictive that the prices become unaffordable. Costs are always passed on to the consumer.
Q10 - Creating a landscape buffer requirement doesn't do anything if there isn't a design standard.

Results of Stakeholder Engagement

The online survey for this project has been closed. The Survey began on October 25th, and has been running since.

Although the blog for the Subdivision Code Update has been a very successful component of the stakeholder engagement process for this project (as detailed in the Status Report), this online survey has been less successful in generating input, receiving only two responses. A recent post described the characteristics of the online tools used for this project.

LID Integration

The integration of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques into the revised Subdivision Code has been one of the goals of this Project.  The City of Oak Harbor has had the benefit of being selected to participate with the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) to analyse its Municipal Code and identify opportunities and ways that LID techniques can be integrated into the Code.  This partnership is a significant advantage for the community; and the Subdivision Project is designed to align with the work being conducted as part of the PSP LID Project.

To achieve this, the Subdivision Project will incorporate a number of the PSP LID recommendations.  These will primarily be those that address large scale characteristics of development, such as:

1)  reducing the amount of impervious surface with new subdivisions; and,

2)  reducing site disturbance during and after construction.

The final draft materials from the PSP LID consultant have recently been received by the City. The next step is the review of these materials and determining the most appropriate changes, both for the PSP LID Project as well as the Subdivision Project, given the points mentioned above.

Staff Meeting

On January 9 City of Oak Harbor staff and the Consultant (Robert Voigt) working on the Subdivision Code Project met. 

During this meeting the upcoming project schedule and tasks were reviewed, including this month's Planning Commission meeting, scheduled for January 27th.

New Staff Resource

The City of Oak Harbor, Development Services Department has recently added a new Senior Planner, Ethan Spoo, AICP.  One of Ethan's duties will be to assist with the development of the new Subdivision Code.

His contact information is as follows:

Ethan Spoo, AICP

Senior Planner

City of Oak Harbor

865 SE Barrington Drive

Oak Harbor, WA 98277

(360) 279-4513

Fax: (360) 279-4519

espoo@oakharbor.org

Planning Commission Meeting - January 2009

The Planning Commission will resume their review of the Subdivision Code Update Project during their regular meeting in January.  This first discussion of the new year on this topic will include the following:

1) the results of the community engagement to date;
2) outline of proposed Code section changes;
3) expected results of Code changes; and,
4) "next steps" discussion/schedule for upcoming meetings.

Subsequent monthly Planning Commission meetings will involve review of the new Code language.  The Commission will also assess the details of the expected results of the Code changes in terms of their ability to meet the intent of the Project, specifically, to provide more sustainable, and livable subdivisions, as well as, a more readable/understandable OHMC. 

As always, the public is welcome to attend and provide comments at the Planning Commission meetings.

Project Update

The Status Report for the Subdivision Code Update Project has been completed.  This represents a major step in the development of new regulations for subdivisions in Oak Harbor.

The report outlines the Project to date including:

• policies; 
  
• meetings; 
  
• use of web 2.0 tools for stakeholder engagement; 
  
• statistics for blog use (for both www.cohsubdivisions.blogspot.com and www.cohdelayered.blogspot.com); 
  
• project direction;
  
• proposed Code amendments; and, 
  
• expected results.
  

The document is accessible here.

Tell a Friend

A new feature has been added to the blog to help readers share information with other community members - TELL A FRIEND.
It is a tool that allows you to forward a blog post without leaving the site. TELL A FRIEND provides a number of options for email and social networks to forward blog posts, just choose the one you need. Click on the TELL A FRIEND icon, which can be found at the end of each post, and share ideas and information with your community members.

Code Analysis

The subdivision project has entered a new phase this month.  At this time we are assessing actual language of the existing Code (Oak Harbor Municipal Code Title 21, Subdivisions and Chapter 19.31, Planned Residential Developments) to determine what specific changes will be required.  

This step will take all the Project information, direction, and comments to-date and use it to identify the parts of the Code that need to be amended, deleted, or added to fulfill the Project intent.

This information will also be provided to CTED (WA State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development) to fulfill one of the requirements of the grant they have provided to the City of Oak Harbor for this project.

Contact Information Change

As of November 2008 the primary contact address for this project has been changed to rob(at)robvoigt.com . Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have.

Also, remember that you can always leave comments on the specific blog posts.

Video Report - Standing Committee July 14

On July 14th I made a project status report to the Governmental Services Standing Committee of City Council. This presentation outlined the current status of the Subdivision Code Update Project and the upcoming phases and direction.

Development Services Director, Steve Powers, also provided introductory comments and commentary describing how the Project incorporates work being completed by the City in cooperation with the Puget Sound Partnership as well as a grant from CTED.

The video report below provides an account of the meeting and includes all the slides from the presentation. The video is just under 18 minutes in length.


Subdivision Project Update from Robert Voigt on Vimeo.

Survey

Please take the time to fill out our short 10 question survey.

All participants and comments are welcome.

JUST CLICK HERE

Coffeehouse Discussions Close

I enjoyed the opportunity to speak with community members at the coffeehouse sessions over the past weeks. With each conversation I learned something that will help me with developing the revised Subdivision Code.
As the Project is moving into another phase I will no longer be holding coffeehouse meetings. I thank those people that came out to provide or get information on the Project, and the manager and staff at the Starbucks (Harbor Station) 32650 SR 20 that provided the venue.

Short Plat Rules to Support Infill

Short plats (those subdivisions with nine or less lots) can assist with infill development to meet the requirements of the GMA for example in terms of density; reduced sprawl; and housing options.

However, the existing Code requirements (such as building streets and lot configuration, etcetera) are difficult to meet in these smaller developments, and therefore discourage this kind of infill.

Staff will be amending the Code to remove the obstacles, while still maintaining regulations that provide for fitting infill development patterns.

Fences

The concerns about fences along some of the major corridors in the city were raised early on in the project. The primary issue is how these fences, combined with landscape buffers impact the sense of place along the street when they vary greatly in terms of maintenance and location along the street.

Fencing is not addressed in the Subdivision Code; however, the PRD Code does require that fence design be defined.

Because of their close relationship, this issue will be addressed by the Code amendments focused on the concerns about landscape buffers.

Streetscape Characteristics - "Cute Streets"

The phrase "cute streets" was first brought up during an early Planning Commission meeting, referring to pleasant residential streetscapes. These streetscapes were described as being superior and creating more livable neighborhoods. This shorthand phrase refers to streets in residential neighborhoods that have a number of common favorable characteristics, in terms of there built form and design, for example:

• trees along the street;
• sidewalks;
• buildings that "address" the street with their windows and entrances;
• narrower drive and parking lanes;
• building facades that are not dominated by garages;
• landscaping along the street; and,
• access to parks, trails and/or open space from the street.

The same sentiment has been echoed to me a number of times during this project, by both the general public (at coffeehouse, and Rotary meetings); as well as, meetings with those involved in the business of developing residential neighborhoods (Realtors, and developers).

The Code changes resulting from the 10 areas of direction will combine to help the community achieve more livable "cute streets" with future subdivisions.

Landscape Buffers & Tracts

The Subdivision Code requires specific landscape buffers along some of the major streets in Oak Harbor. The purpose is defined in the Code:

"to minimize the impact of the arterial on the adjacent land uses and is not to allow access to individual parcels".

The aesthetic design of these landscaped areas has a significant impact on one's experience driving or walking through our community. The Code allows for a variety of design options; which has resulted in less than favorable continuity or quality of these corridors. The public, Planning Commission, Staff and City Council have dealt with these issues repeatedly.

As per item 1 on the list of recommended direction, staff will be refining the buffer/corridor design regulations to provide:

• more continuity (while maintaining some flexibility for site differences);
• better quality aesthetics;
• better maintenance regulations; and,
• a healthier urban forest.

Subdivision Entrance Designs

Early on in this Project the members of the Planning Commission expressed interest in developing design parameters for subdivision entrance features. Some of the concern was to ensure that these features are well maintained and fitting with adjacent buffer/landscape areas. These entrance features can act as reference points, or gateways into a new neighborhood/subdivision; and help define a sense of place for the area.

Over the past few years these features have become more prominent, and larger in scale. This may be due to changing aesthetic trends and larger development size. Staff are not aware of any instance of concern for these features in terms of negative impacts.

The location of any such feature must not conflict with sight lines for roadways and is regulated through the application review phase by engineering standards for road safety. Additionally, the maintenance of these features are the responsibility of the respective homeowners' associations. In fact the maintenance of all commonly owned property/tracks in new subdivisions are typically the responsibility of the homeowners' associations; and these requirements can be found on the recorded subdivision plats.

Staff will review the maintenance, buffer, and landscape requirements defined in the code to ensure there are no conflicts. This will fit within the ten areas of direction defined at the conclusion of the first phase analysis for this project.

Survey

Those of you that live within Oak Harbor will be receiving a short survey regarding the policy direction developed to this point of the project. These surveys will be sent through the mail over the next two months as part of your utility bills. Please take the time to respond and return your surveys.

I will also be posting a copy of the survey online and invite anyone viewing the blog to provide their input as well. We welcome input from all.

However, of course the findings from the surveys returned by the residents of Oak Harbor will be weighted differently than those gathered online.

Community Ideas

The next series of posts will focus on the items listed in the two virtual flip charts on this blog.

The charts were designed to track ideas and concepts raised during the project, provide accountability, and a form of action research whereby the stakeholders’ involvement directs the focus of the project more so than in “standard” planning processes.

This is done by using the charts to;
1) document concepts raised by participants;
2) present a reference list to guide project direction; and finally,
3) provide a way of assessing progress by comparing the stakeholders’ ideas with the actions taken during the project.

Coffeehouse Discussions

I had the opportunity to speak with a number of community members at my coffeehouse sessions last week, and look forward to more discussions this and next week.

Generally people were interested in the scope of the Subdivision Project and wanted to know where they could get more information on the subject. I directed them to the blog sites and provided some printed materials I had available.

Coffeehouse Discussions

The Coffeehouse Discussions will begin next Monday (July 28th) from 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm at Starbucks (Harbor Station) 32650 SR 20.

I'll be at Starbucks to provide information, hear your ideas, and generally discuss this project for the next few weeks, on Mondays-Wednesdays-Thursdays.

See you there.

"Lifestyle Habits"

During the July 14th Governmental Services Standing Committee meeting, an interesting large scale issue was raised for discussion. The theme of the issue was our "community's lifestyle habits", and how we design our neighborhoods for them.

Some of the specific subdivision design elements that were included in this theme were:

1) amount of parking required (both on street and off) for neighborhoods;
2) pedestrian oriented design; and,
3) design standards for narrower neighborhood streets.

Standing Committee Meeting

On July 14th, I presented a project update to the Governmental Services Standing Committee of City Council.

The presentation outlined the project to date, including its scope; general findings; and public engagement strategies and statistics. A video of the presentation will be available shortly.

The Governmental Services Committee regularly scheduled meeting is the second Monday of each month, at 7:00 a.m. at City Hall.

Subscribe - Automatic Updates

I have added a new feature! Now you can automatically receive updates from the blog.

In the left hand sidebar you see this icon under the heading Subscribe. By clicking on it you can have updates automatically sent to you – this is called an RSS feed.

Click here to see a short 3 min video explaining how it works, and how to sign up for this free service.

Staff Technical Meeting

On June 24th staff continued the review of the Puget Sound Partnership recommendations for incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) into our Municipal Code.

This is a significant body of work, and is expected to take many more months. The benefit to the Subdivision Update Project, is that the City is receiving expert assistance for the LID project that will directly benefit the goals of this project as well.

As the LID recommendations are refined, they will be discussed with the Planning Commission at future monthly meetings.

Staff Technical Meeting

On June 16th staff met to review the preliminary recommendations associated with a project from the Puget Sound Partnership, for which the City is receiving State assistance. The State is providing expert assistance to review our Municipal Code and create amendments that support Low Impact Development (LID).

The range of these draft recommendations includes: subdivision regulations; street design standards; stromwater facility management; zoning districts; and, land clearing regulations. As we move through this process of reviewing the recommendations, those that relate to the subdivision project will be rolled into this project/process.

Municipalist Blog Post

Just as I am launching the blog for the update to the Design Regulations, a public sector focused blogger based in Washington DC has asked me a number of questions about how we are using this medium here in Oak Harbor.

For those of you interested in knowing more about how all this blogging stuff works, take a look at the post here.

New Blog - Design Regulations Update

I have launched another blog for the project to update the Oak Harbor Design Regulations and Guidelines. While this project is not part of the Subdivision Code Update, it may be of interest to the community because it relates to the regulations that direct the look and feel of new development within our city.

The update is focused on our community's historic downtown and builds upon the work completed as part of the Windjammer project.

This is a relatively short project that is scheduled to be completed by August. Check out the blog at: http://www.cohurbandesign.blogspot.com/.

Planning Commission Meeting May 27

On May 27th staff, the Planning Commission and the public had another opportunity to review and discuss the issues identified during the Delayering analysis recently completed.

The discussion centered on park and walkway design, and connections between walkways, transit facilities and subdivisions.

The next meeting will be on June 24 and will focus on alternative short plat requirements to support infill development; as well as, the remaining five items from the issues list.

I will be posting a complete list of talking points from these Commission meetings shortly.

Roundtable Meeting May 14th

On May 14th I facilitated the first stakeholder roundtable meeting.

The 7 participants included representatives from the development industry (including locally based builders), and community members that have a long history of community service through participation in various planning initiatives.

The discussion went very well with many important points raised. The overall themes included:

• providing clear design direction;
• allowing for site specific flexibility;
• performance based measures for requirements; and,
• infill development with alternative short plat regulations.

I will be posting a complete list of items from this, the April 9th and May 7th meetings shortly; as well as, adding items to the Ideas/Concepts Flip Chart.

Video Report - Planning Commission April 22

The video report about the first phase findings has been posted (22 min). It shows the presentation I made to the Planning Commission on April 22. The complex urban design principles are explained with visually interesting and insightful images generated through an innovative mapping technique called delayering.

The information is also available, and can be commented on, at www.cohdelayered.blogspot.com.

Whidbey News Times Article

The May 15 edition of the Whidbey News Times (opinion section) has published an article about our use of blogs for engaging the public.

Meeting May 7

On the morning of May 7th I had another discussion with a community group about this project; this time it was with the Sunrise Rotary group.

Fifteen to twenty Rotary members participated in the discussion with questions and comments ranging from the need for community members to be active in this project; to open space in new subdivisions; and the importance of walkability and trails.

I will be meeting with other interested groups of citizens and businesses throughout this project. If you would like to participate and have me present and/or facilitate a discussion at your business, or organization, please contact me and we can make arrangements

Meeting April 9

On April 9 I made a presentation about the Subdivision Code project to a group of about 15 local realtors at Koetje Real Estate. The discussion we had covered a range of points about the purpose of this project and community outreach.

Interest for more connectivity between neighborhoods was perhaps the most important urban design issue discussed.

I will be meeting with other interested groups of citizens and businesses throughout this project. If you would like to participate and have me present and/or facilitate a discussion at your business, or organization, please contact me and we can make arrangements.

First Phase Findings

A companion site ( www.cohdelayered.blogspot.com ) detailing the findings of the first phase of subdivision analysis has been set up. This outlines the general characteristics of “existing conditions”, in terms of how our subdivisions look and function. The intent is to provide information on this major component of the project in a cohesive way and facilitate discussion.

The information on the companion site is essentially the same as presented to the Planning Commission on April 22, 2008. Some changes have been made to suit the blog format. Also, unlike a typical blog this second site is meant to be read from top to bottom as a single report. (see video of presentation)

To gauge community interest, and desire for certain design characteristics, staff developed a visual preference survey for the 2006 comprehensive update to the Design Guidelines and Regulations. That process resulted in more effective and streamlined site planning, and is making new developments streetscape oriented and pedestrian friendly.

For this project, we are developing another VPS, and would like your assistance. Please email images to rvoigt@oakharbor.org showing subdivision characteristics that you like or dislike, with a short comment about each picture. Note that the images can be of any location; since we can adapt successful design solutions for our community, and learn lessons from examples of unfavorable designs.

I will be posting notices about where and when the surveys will be conducted in the coming weeks.

Poll Results

The results of our last on-line poll are in! 18 people voted and answered the question “Should walk/bike trails be required in new subdivisions, and should they connect to neighboring subdivisions?” with the following responses:

1. Yes, require them - 72% - 13 votes
2. No, don't require them - 16% - 3 votes
3. Yes, connect them - 66% - 12 votes
4. No, don't connect them - 5% - 1 vote.

These results point to a preference for using trails as neighborhood connections.

Whidbey News Times Article

The April 9 edition of the Whidbey News Times (front page) has published an article about the use of blogs for various projects at the City http://www.whidbeynewstimes.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=84&cat=23&id=1190746&more=0.

Fellow Senior Planner, Cac Kamak was quoted in the article discussing this new use of blogs for City projects: “It’s like a virtual, on-demand City Hall. People can chime in at anytime and have their issues addressed”. This is evident in the fact that to date this blog has received over 150 unique visitors, with over half returning repeatedly to gather more information about this project.

You can now participate in conversations and meetings without being in the same place, or at the same time together, by coming to the blog when it's convenient. As more of you participate in the process the more complex, interconnected, and holistic the "solutions" can become. This way you can have a direct impact on your community.

When visiting also remember to check out the archive section for past posts!