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.

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.

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.

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

New Poll Question

A new poll question has been posted and will run until March 31st.

"Sense of place" is essentially the feeling one gets about the environment around them. The question for this poll relates to some of the design characteristics of neighborhood streets that influence their "sense of place", specifically street width and street trees.

Recent PRD subdivisions have generally included narrower streets with street trees integrated into thier design. One such example is Crosby Commons (SE of the Heller Crosby intersection).