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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Planning Commission Meeting April 22

The Planning Commission meeting on April 22 is designed to provide staff and the Commission with an opportunity to discuss, and provide direction on two aspects of this project, specifically:

A. an outline of the analysis I have completed on past subdivisions, and how their characteristics influence the livability of our neighborhoods; and,

B. an introduction of issues associated with short plat requirements and how they impact opportunities for infill development.

Evolution of City and Plat History

The city has developed through the incremental change represented by over 176 individual plats (subdivisions) beginning in 1889 with the original Town of Oak Harbor plat. It is interesting to note that the first plat of the community included park space, Smith Park.

I have just completed an extensive analysis of the historical plats for Oak Harbor where I examined 50 plats looking at a variety of characteristics to better understand the way subdivisions have influenced the look and function of our city, including:

• number of intersections;
• connections to neighboring areas;
• lot size;
• dead end streets;
• block and street patterns; and,
• open space or parks.

The relationship of these characteristics affect our way of life and livability in a host of ways:

• how easily we can move around our neighborhoods;
• our access to open space or parks;
• traffic management; and,
• urban sprawl.

By examining these we will be better able to determine how to best achieve the neighborhoods we desire for our city. This will be the subject of the discussion I will be having with the Planning Commission at their meeting on April 22.

I will also be posting these findings and other analysis of current conditions to the blog shortly.