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.  

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.

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).

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. 

 

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.

"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.

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/.

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.

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.

Video Report - Parks Board March 10

The next video report will be posted this evening and outlines the Park Board meeting held March 10.

The discussion focused on pedestrian/bicycle connections and trails within our neighborhoods. The Chair of the Board also suggested that the City use the local radio station to get the word out on this project. That idea is being added to out "to do" flip chart. Feel free to leave comments about the content of the video under this posting.

The park board also discussed the current Comprehensive Park Plan update (see blog at www.cohparkplan08.blogspot.com). The issues of interconnectedness of neighborhoods and trials throughout the community were also part of that discussion. One aspect of how both projects are interrelated was the conversations about pedestrian/bicycle connections in neighborhoods and how that impacts park use and access to parks and open space. I will be explaining this more extensively at the Planning Commission meeting on April 22.

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.

Poll Results

The results of our second on-line poll are in! 17 people voted and answered the question "Which kinds of neighborhood streets do you prefer?" with the following responses:

1. Wide streets without trees - 5% - 1 vote
2. Wide streets with trees - 52% - 9 votes
3. Narrow streets without trees - 0% - 0 votes
4. Narrow streets with trees - 52% - 9 votes

Not surprisingly, the preference shown in this poll is for tree lined streets within neighborhoods.

Poll Results

The results of our first on-line poll are in! 24 people voted and said "Subdivision Rules Should Focus On":

1. Design and look - 62% - 15 votes
2. Walk/Bike connections & trials - 58% - 14 votes
3. Environmental impacts - 58% - 14 votes
4. Street widths - 25% - 6 votes
5. Other - 16% - 4 votes
6. Parking - 8% - 2 votes