Date post: | 07-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | robert-voigt |
View: | 618 times |
Download: | 1 times |
SUBDIVISION CODE UPDATE
Purpose
•A) Process to Date
•B) Design Brief
•C) Proposed Amendments
1.Buffer Corridor Design2.Street Trees3.Stormwater Facility Designs4.Short Plat Design
•D) Relevant Policy Issues / Questions
Level 1 – What’s the
Issue & Goal?GoalIssue
Level 2 – Why?
Stakeholder input PC Input Existing cond. Model code
Reasons
Name of alt 1
Alternatives & effectsLevel 3 - Choices
Name of alt 2
Effect 1
Effect 2
Effect 3
Effect 1
Effect 2
Effect 3
Decision and AdoptionLevel 4 Decision
Process to date
Design Brief
•To provide direction to applicants in a user friendly format, a companion Design Brief will be developed as part of the Subdivision Project .
•This document will describe the Code with visual examples, and illustrations.
Discussion Format
•Issue: What’s the problem?
•Goal: What do we want to achieve?
•Proposed Amendments: The fix.
•Policy Issues: Questions raised?
Buffer Corridors
•Issue: Unsightly / inconsistent corridor buffers, which suffer from windthrow.
•Goal: Improve visual character, create consistent “gateway corridor” design
Buffers - Proposed Amendments
•Two options: (1) 40-foot buffer or (2) 25-foot buffer. For both, minimum tree density. Natural vegetation counts.
•Specify requirements for new landscaping.
•Define protection measures
•Keep existing streets and restricted access
Large Buffer
Small Buffer
Buffers – Policy Issues
•Should 40-foot be required to supplement?
•Should clearing and replanting be an option?
•Flexibility – right balance?
•Others? Goal achieved?
Street Trees
•Issue: Inconsistent look to Oak Harbor’s streets, poor visual characteristics.
•Goal: Improve visual character, improve the look and feel of residential streets.
Street Trees – Proposed
Amendments•Required of all new developments, both
sides of street.
•Trees planted every 25’/30’ along both sides of the street in landscape strips
•Require deciduous
•Trees planted in ROW, owner maintains
•Removed trees replaced, requirement on plat
Street Trees – Policy Issues
•Short plats exempt?
•Owner maintenance?
•Spacing?
Stormwater Facilities
•Issue: Poor aesthetic quality of stormwater ponds in new plats.
•Goal: Improve visual character, standardize requirements.
Stormwater Facilities – Proposed
Amendments•Set a priority to locate stormwater
ponds away from residential lots
•Require landscaped ponds – natural vegetation counts
•Consider safety
•Restrict eco-bloc, require decorative materials
•Require shallow or sloped ponds or limit fencing.
•No chain link fences
•Maintenance requirements on plat
Stormwater Facilities – Proposed
Amendments
•Shallower sloped ponds require more area.
•If ponds are landscaped, do they do need to be located away from residences?
•Other design concerns?
Stormwater Facilities – Policy Issues
Short Plats
•Issue: Inflexible standards associated with access/street requirements.
•Goal: Provide options for lot access and street requirements.
Short Plats – Proposed
Amendments•Allow access easements provided:
- Number of lots limited by type of access
- Hierarchy of access
- Public utilities in private streets
- Access dimensions clearly defined
•Allow frontage on easements
Short Plats – Policy Issues
•Limits on number of lots served?
•Hierarchy of access?
•Prescribed dimensions or range?
•Sidewalks? Both sides?
•Connectivity at dead ends?
Further DiscussionFormat?
Next month – Pedestrian Facilities• Code requirements to:
• • provide clear direction for improving street connectivity, and
• • ensure that non-vehicular connections are required through all street ends.
• Design standards for both parks and street ends to promote non-vehicular connections.
• Standards and requirements to include and integrate non-motorized transportation options in plats (through connections, transit facilities, griding with walkways and trails, connecting trails to neighboring plats, etcetera).
• Design standards for pedestrian connections and trails.