HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 27
AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
PUBLIC MEETING
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 3, 1997
. "l
City of Ashlc.nd
planni,ng EX,h, ib,it,
E^,,,,,,C!:..-, fi 7 ,
PA #_,.. ,_''_ I
DATE SIA~:~)
OPENING
Mayor Cathy Golden opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Convnittee members present were Cate Hartzell, Mark Amrhein, Mike Morris,
Alan DeBoer, Marie Donovan, and Larry Medinger. Staff present were John McLaughlin, Planning Director and Susan Yates, Executive
Secretary.
It was decided public comments would be taken (three minutes per person) from those who did not speak at the meeting on October
20, 1997.
Golden stated that all prior committee meetings held over the past two years were public meetings and were advertised in the
newspaper. In addition, there has been a mailing list of comprised of 40 names.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Carlos Reichenshammer, 600 Emigrant Creek Road, asked the proposed ordinance be looked at in relation to health and safety,
aesthetics, and legality, The aesthetics portion should be deleted.
Phil Walden. 144 Nutley Street, favored the ordinance because it benefits the entire community. This ordinance is similar to the
restrictions on vintage houses.
Jerrv Weiss, 1801 Crestview Drive, made some comparisons to building he has seen during his 84 years and cautioned that it is easy
for developers to build and walk away.
Gerald CavanauQh. 560 Oak Street. supports the strictest controls on hillside development. Prior meetings were well publicized and
he does not know how anyone could have missed this ordinance in the making, He appealed to those who oppose the ordinance to
recognize that no sacred rights or values are being threatened by these regulations but rather what is at stake is the health of the
community.
Evan Archerd. 120 N, Second Street, asked over what distance is a slope measured, Everything that is trying to be accomplished in
the new ordinance is already in our existing planning code. During his own recent planning process with the City, all the items relating
to slope, geology, trees, etc, were brought up and he does not see the need for another layer of regulation.
Rick Landt. 468 Helman, believes this ordinance is at a point where it is close to being adopted. He had the following points: Page
15 ' 3. Retention of natural state, delete the language "involving partitions and subdivisions". He suggested adding language at the
end of 3.: For partitions and subdivisions, developer may use a formula for individual lots or for the project as a whole. IRefer to
Landt's memo for remainder of wording.)
Page 22 ' (graphic of driplinel. Add an explanation: Oftentimes, tree drip lines do not correspond to root locations and in fact feeder
roots extend far beyond tree driplines. IRefer to Landt's memo for remainder of wording.)
Page 25 ,(ridgetops). He believes this portion is good not for aesthetic reasons. but for ecological reasons. The tops of ridges tend
to be the place where there is more precipitation. He suggested adding to Page 24, 6. d.: Building envelope location and other
development shall be located to avoid ridgelines to minimize concentration of downslope water and fire damage and to maximize
groundwater recharge.
Landt's suggested wording for page 15 . 3,: Encourage location of the natural state areas on ridgetops.
Charlotte McKernan. 97 Scenic Drive, stated adequate notice was given for the public meetings of the hillside committee dating from
1994 to the present. Several articles appeared in the Tidings relating to the meetings. She asked the original ordinance be approved
Lu6A -7
'87
in its original form.
Bill Tweedie, 1537 lilac Circle, referenced 18.62.080 E. (pages 25, 26, and 27). He believes it would be a mistake to modify or delete
the sections contained on these pages. The consequences will be visible throughout town and will destroy the natural hillside. There
are countless examples of similar design and color restrictions in cities in Oregon and the U.S. He saw firsthand leyesoresl in southern
California what happened to the hills with little or no restriction on hillside development.
Narcissa Kellev. 83 Granite Street, likes the modifications that have been made to the proposed ordinance,
Jov Lenaerts. 495 Chestnut. #23, living just above the hospital, is frightened of fire during the fire season on the hillsides. She is
concerned about adequate roads and water levels.
Susan Hunt, 220 Nutley, felt the revised document was an internally written document. How were the different items chosen to stay
and remain? Golden explained that Staff put everything in and choices can be made. The committee is advisory.
Jenifer Carr. 388 Grandview, expressed concern with the lack of wording in the document regarding the altering of sites on hillsides.
If, for any reason, a site is closed down, once alteration has occurred, there should be clear restrictions and measures taken to prevent
future slides, floods, etc.
Natalie Padno, 573 Carol Street, did not believe 35 percent slope is in any way arbitrary. Much of the hillside should be classified
as ecologically unbuildable because of the granitic soils.
Richard Colvard. 400 Allison, referred to Section B. ,Hillside Grading and Erosion Control. He believes the recommended change,
excluding individual parcels, does not adequately protect against erosion and the degradation of the natural stale of the hillside.
Joan Steele. 332 Glenn Street, stated she had some involvement with the drafting of these standards. She is concerned about flooding
and believes restrictions are necessary.
Wvnne Ferouson. 1537 lilac Circle, said she believes prohibiting any further development of the steep hillsides would be best, bul the
next best thing would be adoption of the proposed set of standards to protect the community from future disasters.
Marv Mann. 477 Taylor Street. said she owns property at 309 Wimer Street which would be included in the hillside standards. The
proposed ordinance puts a financial burden on her. She has been paying taxes on this property for 25 years. T wenty,five pages of
regulations are not necessary. She believes if the City could pay attention to the existing building requirements and following
development every step of the way, making sure regulations are being adhered to should be sufficient.
Wendee KellinQton, 1211 S, W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, OR 97035, representing the Rogue Valley Council of Realtors, said the realtors
are also citizens 1800 membersl. She referred to the Urban Growth Boundary and said the importance of the UGB only works if you
can urbanize densely, land within an UGB and then protect the land outside. Kellington showed a map indicating the ordinance will
eliminate 1,000 redevelopable and in-fill housing units in the City. This burden has not been coordinated with the City's partners in
the region as well as OLCD. She showed a diagram of the 35 percent slope. The Oregon State Building Code makes it clear there
are certain limitations imposed on the construction of units on slopes in excess of 35 percent but things are constructed in Portland
all over the place at 100 percent. It can be done: can it be done safely?
Kellinglon said Oregon's land use planning law has already determined that a local government shall attach only clear and objective
approval standards regulating appearance or aesthetics to an application for development of needed housing or to a permit for
residential development. The standards or conditions shall not be attached in a manner that will deny the application or reduce the
proposed housing density provided the proposed density is otherwise allowed in the zone. The City has to keep in mind that as part
of a state with a land use planning scheme, it requires inside the UGB that we increase density and find ways to increase density.
UGB's only work if you can increase density.
AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER 3, 1997
MINUTES
2
0?gJ
Russ Silbioer. 562 Ray lane, said aesthetics and color should not be a part of the hillside development ordinance.
Tom Ferrero. 760 Oak Street, explained he was involved in the drafting of the hillside ordinance because of his training and professional
experience as an engineering geologist. He helped draft the ordinance for the City of Brookings. He told the committee during the
process that aesthetic and color controls were not justifiable. He presented an example geological grading ordinance to the hillside
standards committee which included a multi,level approach to regulating hillside development that called for the application of
increasingly stringent requirements for geologic and engineering analysis and design for sites on increasingly steeper slopes. It was
adopted by the committee with minor changes and submitted to the Ashland Planning Department. The ordinance that emerged did
not include the multi,level approach but had been replaced by an arbitrary 35 percent building level. Thirty,five percent is arbitrary:
some sites on slopes greater than 35 percent are buildable with proper design and grading and some are not. He stated that hillside
development should be controlled adequately to prevent safety, environmental, and property damage hazards. He believes a look should
be taken at the floodway protection portion of the ordinance which is inadequate, for example, the allowance for 50 yards of fill for
development on floodways.
C. Herschel Kino, 791 Faith Avenue, said that common sense tells him you do not develop roads and houses on unstable soil regardless
of the slope and you do not cut trees down that help stabilize the soil. He asked the Council to pass a reasonable regulation.
John Fields, 645 Oak Street. explained he has followed this process from the beginning. He, along with Friends of Ashland, pushed
to resolve the issue of hillside development. He believes incredible compromises have been made to give away density and that Ashland
is doing a good job of finding more buildable lots, greater densities, and smaller lots, Though 35 percent slope is arbitrary, it is a
reasonable slope that allows people reasonable views, roads and development. He noted there is only one person who has spoken
about her piece of hillside property.
Rhonda lewis, 841 N, Main Street. read a letter from Dave lewis, Ashland.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Hartzell and Mclaughlin said Carr's concerns are addressed under B. 7. Maintenance, Security, and Penalties. Mclaughlin reported
Nolte said this section combined with the City's general powers regarding public safety were appropriate measures.
Mclaughlin addressed Archerd's question by saying slope is measured in the area proposed for development.
Mclaughlin explained when subdivisions occur on hillside lands that allow for the creation of new lots, conditions are imposed requiring
specific items be followed. As time has gone on, they have become mOre stringent. The proposed ordinance would provide a more
clear path for developers to follow,
landt's point is well taken according to Mclaughlin and his recommendations should be looked at more closely, There is disturbance
of the hillside area that goes with development of the area and the creation of terraced or staging areas during construction may not
get paved or covered with impervious surface and ultimately become part of the landscape. We still look at 20 percent impervious
coverage as a maximum in most zones. In addition to recognizing the lot coverage requirements for a home, a portion of the lot will
remain essentially undisturbed and the vegetation will not be scoured off and removed.
Donovan said she is opposed to the 35 percent slope requirement. She is not hearing a safety issue as to why this has to take place.
With regard to the ordinance in general. she would rather have Staff work with people as they come in and be guided through
development but one standard fitting every situation will not work. She sees a conflict with the erosion control and fire safety issues.
On the one hand, the more trees you take down to build a house, the less fire hazard. The more trees that remain the better erosion
control.
Hartzell is pleased with the changes made around the trees. With regard to slope, the comprehensive plan has to be looked at and
in accordance with it, move in that direction.
AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR HillSIDE DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER 3, 1997
MINUTES
3
651'
Amrhein wondered why we went from 20 percent to 25 percent (slope). Mclaughlin said it evolved in the process. While serving
on Citizens Planning Advisory Committee. Medinger recalled that years ago he and the John Fregonese found Park Street to be the
worst example of grid line thinking. Park street is a north trending street. In the Environmental Resource section it talks following
the contours of the land rather than working with a rectangular grid. Park Street exceeds 20 percent slope at the upper end and that
was an awkward slope for a street. Wheeldon commented that we have already moved from what are the state guidelines from 25
to 35 percent.
Mclaughlin said subdivisions can be approved at greater than 35 percent with variances. however, it would be a difficult process.
DeBoer likes the changes Staff has made.
Hartzell referred to page 25 ,ridgelines. Other options would be one,story, height limitations extending beyond ridgetops, etc. On
page 27 e. ' Roof forms. she suggested putting the language back in because there isn't any shall/shall not language. It is a guideline
that reflects the work of the committee. With regard to f., Hartzell wondered why it had been stricken. If there is a fire under the
deck area. it is a fire safety issue,
Golden went through the document from the beginning.
Hartzell referred to page 3 and wondered if "lot maintenance" should be defined.
Donovan brought up concerns on page 13 about a 35 percent slope from the existing 40 percent and Hartzell raised concerns about
the existing 20 percent within the Comprehensive Plan and 35 percent. Amrhein is tempted to go back to the 40 percent but to make
it consistent with the Comp Plan, he thinks the lower end should be moved to 20 so instead of 25 to 35 percent, perhaps we should
go from 20 to 40 percent and that would still agree with the Comp Plan and on the upper end that would stay at what is existing.
Going to 40 percent does not deal with some of the issues and this is not moving in the direction of the Comp Plan. Mclaughlin
explained the Oregon Administrative Rules, Goal 1 0 (housing needs) the definition of buildable lands is slopes greater than 25 percent
are not included unless it has been determined for a city's own Comp Plan as buildable lands. It is not a developability standard; it
pertains more to housing inventory.
Morris tends to agree with the 35 percent but he does not like the idea of doing anything above that. He suggested 35 to 40 percent
with an engineering variance. DeBoer does not have a problem with 35 percent and as long as a variance can be requested. He is
concerned with 33 property owners losing their buildable lots.
Donovan believes it should be changed to 40 percent and building should go one, by-one to the Planning Department. Property will be
devalued and it should not be necessary to get a variance on property that is buildable. Medinger is moved by Amrhein's argument.
It is always automobile access that is the problem without tearing up the hillside. If you can show how building can be done, it should
be allowed, Forty percent starts to get a little steep. He agreed with Morris. Hartzell said it is just 'can you do it' but what are
all the other impacts Ifire, access, etc.) that go along with that.
Golden noted four options to bring before the Council. (1) Move it from 20 to 40 percent. 121 leave it at 35%, (3) Have a 35 percent,
up to 40 percent with engineering requirements with a variance, and 141 40 percent.
On page 14 and 15, Medinger supported the changes proposed by Rick Landt. Mclaughlin will review the language with City Attorney,
Paul Nolte.
Medinger asked for "or cash deposit" added to top of page 18.
Wheeldon noted on page 20, 2. ' landscape professional seems like a big leap to arborist once the damage has been done, In the
review process, how do we bridge that gap? Mclaughlin said the viewpoints should be similar, however, the arborist is left to enforce
because of the value of the trees.
AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR HillSIDE DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER 3, 1997
MINUTES
4
(;, '1 tJ
On page 25 ' ridgeline ' Wheeldon wondered if there would be other opportunities within the context of the lands we are looking at.
Medinger mentioned the property down Thornton Way, McLaughlin said most of the remaining sloping areas do not involve much in
the way of prominent ridge locations. Medinger said that may be true in the near term but what about in the future? Medinger,
Donovan, Morris, DeBoer, and Amrhein voted to delete Landt's suggested language. Hartzell would like to see some language in terms
of the ecological value of that moisture and language that would different design. McLaughlin said his recommendations on the
deletions is to bring back guidelines as something to include with the ordinance. Hartzell does not want to give up on design or
aesthetic regulation. Wheeldon would like it left in and address it in some way whether it be through the guidelines or the ordinance.
Golden asked Hartzell and Wheeldon work with McLaughlin on some alternative language.
On page 26 ' Building Design ' Medinger would like to see a book of guidelines. Medinger suggested adopting 30 feet to the roof
edge or 35 feet to the midline of the roof between the roof peak and the roof eave, It would allow design flexibility. Golden
wondered how that would work with a flat roof.
Golden asked for the committee's wishes on roof forms. It is not regulatory but advisory. Medinger agreed but thought the language
needs to be clear. McLaughlin said this can be covered in the guidelines. Donovan would like to see this section deleted as many
people have trouble with controlling aesthetics. She would like guidelines because they are suggestions, not enforceable. Amrhein
believes the section should be removed. Hartzell wanted to see the options and Morris and DeBoer did not want to see it eliminated
completely. Mclaughlin said guidelines would incorporate more information about overall development on the hillsides as well as
design issues and the items in this section gone into in greater detail. The key is that they are not enforceable because they are not
adopted as measurable standards or as standards required with the development. It will take Staff some time to get the guidelines
written.
Donovan thought this process started with a fire and safety issue and she is not certain how it became about aesthetics. McLaughlin
explained that aesthetics has been a key factor from the beginning of the ordinance discussion.
With regard to f. (page 27), Amrhein, Medinger, Hartzell. Wheeldon, Morris, and DeBoer wanted the items left in and Donovan wanted
them removed. Wheeldon suggested changing "g." to "shall" to "should", however, Medinger, Morris, DeBoer wanted it deleted while
Amrhein wanted it deleted and put into the guidelines and Hartzell wanted it left in.
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR HillSIDE DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER 3. 1997
MINUTES
5
07/
CITY OF ASHLAND
MEMORANDUM
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
DATE:
October 30, 1997
TO:
Ad Hoc Hillside Ordinance Committee
FROM:
J.;li
John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development ~
RE: Response to issues - new Standards for Hillside Development ordinance
I. Affordable Housing
It has not been the City's policy to meet affordable housing needs through new
development on hillside lands. It is recognized that hillside development generally involves
higher cost property, greater construction costs, and additional economic obstacles that
make the provision of truly affordable housing (affordable to households at median
income or below) unrealistic. As an example, the City defines moderate cost housing
(affordable to households at 125% of median income for Jackson County) to be
$ 113,000. The average sales price of single family homes in Ashland in 1996 was
$163,110, or approximately $50,000 above moderate cost housing. The average
assessed value of single family homes within the hillside area of Ashland is approximately
$207,152, or approximately $94,000 above moderate cost housing and $44,000 above
the average sales price of Ashland homes.
Recognizing that the $207,152 value is for existing homes, and that newly
constructed homes tend to be higher in value than existing homes, It is very unlikely that
any truly affordable housing would be created on existing hillside properties, with or
without this ordinance.
II. Impact on Buildable Lands
Opponents to the ordinance have raised the issue of the reduction of buildable
lands and the impact on the City's buildable lands inventory. From the city's vacant lands
inventory, there are approximately 415 potential new dwelling units possible In the
Hillside Lands area. After Implementation of the ordinance, it is estimated that the total
number of dwelling units would be reduced by 33, to 382. This is due to change in
slope restrtctlon from 40% to 35% for buildable lands.
b1~
Within the city limits, there is an estimated vacant lands inventory for 1674
dwelling units. The reduction of 33 units represents less than 2% of the total developable
units.
Of the 33 units potentially lost from the Inventory, 26 are in the RR-.5 zoning
district, 2 are In the WR zoning district, and 5 are in the R-I zoning district. Again, from
the Vacant Lands Inventory, there is currently a 36-year inventory of large lot
development opportunities, and the reduction of 26 units changes that to a 33.5-year
Inventory. Within the R-I district, there is essentially no change, with a 10 year inventory
stili remaining. These inventories are greater than the 5-year inventories required by the
City's acknowledged comprehensive pian, and provide many opportunities for the
construction of large lot housing within the City.
The reduction of 33 units is an estimate by the City regarding the effect of the
ordinance, and the total reduction may be less due to the availability of density transfers
as allowed under the ordinance - 18.62. II O.
Further, Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 for the implementation of Goal
10 - Housing, OAR 660-08-005 defines "Buildable Land" as follows:
"Buildable land means residentially designated vacant and, at the option of the local jurisdiction,
redevelopable land within the Metro urban growth boundary that is not severely constrained by
natural hazards (Statewide Planning Goal 7) or subject to natural resource protection measures
(Statewide Planning Goals 5 and 15). Publicly owned land is generally not considered available for
residential use. Land with slopes of 25% or greater unless othelWise provided for at the time of
acknowledgment and land within the 1 OO-year floodplain is generally considered unbuildable for
purposes of density calculation."
From this definition, it is clear that from a statewide perspective, urban residential
growth Is not expe~ted to be accommodated in any significant way on hillside slopes
greater than 25%. The City of Ashland has recognized that a significant portion of our
community is located on steeper hillside slopes and has, through the comprehensive plan,
chosen to recognize slopes up to 40% as potentially buildable. However, that decision is
cleariy a local decision, and cities' have the right to adopt impiementing ordinances more
restrictive than their comprehensive plan. Therefore, the adoption of a 35% limit on
buildable lands In the ordinance Is clearly a justifiable decision by the City.
III. Ashland Comprehensive Plan Policies
Opponents have raised the issue that the adoption of revised hillside standards is
not supported by the comprehensive plan. The following represent plan policies and text
that Staff believes support the adoption of hillside standards:
CHAPTER IV -- ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
"Future development on steeper slopes and on granitic terrain should be planned with the contours
of the terrain in mind, rather than following a rectangular gtid. In many areas of the city, streets
are impassable during icy conditions due to steep grades. Rain showers often tend to be sholt and
intense, favoring a high surface runoff. Deeply weathered, easily eroded plutonic terrain commonly
slits local stonn drains, and diverts volumes of water down the north-trending streets, occasionally
flooding streets and private property. These nel!ative effects could be diminished by strict
0q3
development controls on areas over 20% slope."
"The Ashland planning area has a moderate to high landslide potential, especially where granitic
terrains and steep slopes exist. ... To prevent activating potential slides, deep cuts and excavations
should be forbidden without extensive engineeling and geologic study, surface runoff should be
directed toward existing natural drainages, and c1ealing vegetation on especially steep slopes should
be prohibited." (Ashland Comprehensive Plan -- Page IV -4, emphasis added)
"Areas of steep slope on highly erosive granitic soils are very sensitive to development activities.
The best control to erosion is to limit development in areas that are sensitive." (Ashland
Comprehensive Plan - Page IV-8)
GOAL: HAVE SOUND SOIL CONSERVATION AND EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES
IN AND AROUND ASHLAND.
Policy IV-S Require that development be accommodated to natural topography, drainage, and
soils and make maximum use of existing vegetation to minimize erosion.
See ordinance section 18,62,080.E. - Building Location and Design Standards regarding
accommodating natural topography. See ordinance section 18,62.080.C. - Surface and
Groundwater Drainage regarding drainage, See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. - Hillside Grading
and Erosion Control regarding soils. See ordinance section 18,62,080,B. and D. regarding erosion
control and vegetation.
Policy IV -6 Prevent development and land management practices which result in rapid runoff and
accelerated erosion.
See ordinance section 18.62.080.C, - Surface and Groundwater Drainage, and 18,62.080.B. -
Hillside Grading and Erosion Control.
Policy IV- 7 Require site-preparation procedures and construction practices which minimize erosion
and sedimentation.
See ordinance section 18.62.080.B. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control.
Policy IV -8 Protect essential hillside drainage areas for absorption of storm runoff, and other areas
subject to severe soil erosion, unless control can be established.
See ordinance section 18.62.080,B - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control.
Policy IV-9 Incorporate site drainage practices that reduce runoff velocity and volume, by utilizing
the natural properties of the soils and vegetation in conjunction with sound engineering practices.
See ordinance section 18.62,080,C, - Surface and Groundwater Drainage.
Policy IV -10 Insure that areas of general slope over 30% are zoned for two dwelling units per acre or
less, and permit total lot coverage to be no more than 20%.
Policy IV-I I
Restrict any new partitioning or subdivision of land on slopes greater than 40%.
eaq+
See ordinance section 18.62,080A - General Requirements
Policy IV-12 Forbid any new development or cuts and fills on slopes greater than 50% unless
absolutely necessary and scientific and geologic evidence is available showing that it may be done safely.
See ordinance section 18.62.080A - General Requirements, 18.62.100 - Development Standards
for Severe Constraint Lands.
Policy IV -13 Use development perfonnance standards based on the natural topography, drainage, soils,
lot coverage, and densities in place of arbitrary subdivision standards to ensure that natural features area an
integral part of the design phase of future developments.
GOAL: PRESERVE FOREST AREAS WITHIN AND AROUND THE CITY FOR THEIR
VISUAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND WATER QUALITY VALUES.
Policy IV-3? Emphasize the preservation offorest vegetation to the extent feasible as forested areas of
the City are converted to urban uses.
See ordinance section 18,62.080.D. - Tree Conservation, Protection and Removal.
Policy IV-38 Use low-density zoning to ensure that development of the forested hillsides is kept at a
level that maintains the forested integrity of the areas.
GOAL: DIRECT DEVELOPMENT TO AREAS THAT ARE LESS THAN 40% SLOPE. ALLOW
ONLY LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AT LESS THAN TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
ON AREAS OF GREATER THAN 30% SLOPE. PERMIT ONLY LOW INTENSITY
DEVELOPMENT OF STEEP LANDS, WITH STRICT EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE
STABILITY MEASURES.
Policy IV-34 Develop erosion control standards to ensure that development of these forested areas will
not cause erosion problems.
See ordinance section 18.62.080,8. - Hillside Grading and Erosion Control.
Policy IV-35 Restrict creation of new lots on land that is greater than 40% slope, unless a buildable
area of less than 40% slope is available on each lot.
See ordinance section 18.62.080A - General Requirements
Policy IV-36 Zone all lands which have a slope generally greater than 30% for development that will
have no more than 2 dwelling units per acre or 20% lot coverage by impervious surfaces.
GOAL: TO PRESERVE EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITATS AND NATURAL AREAS WITHIN
THE CITY WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
Policy IV -41 Continue to strengthen the site review process to assess accurately the environmental
impact and ensure that changes in land use acknowledges limitations and opportunities of the site and have
as little detrimental im act as ossible,
See ordinance 18.62 - Physical and Environmental Constraints
&15
CHAPTER VI - HOUSING
GOAL: ENSURE A VARIETY OF DWELLING TYPES AND PROVIDE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE TOTAL CROSS-SECTION OF ASHLAND'S POPULATION,
CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVING THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE CITY.
Policy VI-3 a) Slope protection and lot coverage performance standards shall be used to fit development
to topography, generally following the concept that density should decrease with an increase in slope to
avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts. This objective shall be used consistent with the desire to preserve
land by using the smallest lot coverage possible,
See section 18.62,080 - Development Standards for Hillside Lands
CHAPTER IX - PUBLIC SERVICES
GOAL: TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY OF ASHLAND.
Policy IX-23 Ensure that all new developments include a drainage system which protects adjoining
property as much as possible,
See ordinance section 18.62,080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage.
Policy IX-24 Encourage drainage systems that utilize natural drainageways and minimize the amount
and rate of surface runoff.
See ordinance section 18.62,080.C. - Surface and Groundwater Drainage.
IV. 35% Slope vs 40% Slope for Buildable Areas
The City currently defines the maximum buildable slope for the creation of new
building sites as 40%. The proposed Hillside Development Standards ordinance reduces
that maximum down to 35%. As stated above, the impact of this change is minimal on
the buildable land supply within the city. However, the positive Impact on the
environmental resource can be great.
From the Soil Survey of Jackson County, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service
of the USDA, the maJority of solis on Ashland's hillsides that are impacted by the
ordinance are rated as having severe limitations affecting the construction of dwellings and
local streets. From the survey, the following definition Is taken:
"Severe - soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special
design, significant Increases in construction costs, and possible increased maintenance are required.
Special feaSibility studies may be required where the soli limitations are severe."
The new ordinance recognizes these slope difficulties and follows the
comprehensive plan, which states liThe best control to erosion is to limit development in
areas that are sensitive." Slides have shown to the committee indicating the difficulties
with development on Ashland's hillsides and the erosion and landslide potential of these
areas. The reduction of buildable areas from 40% to 35% provides the city with an
(0 q<a
additional buffer from the potential damage caused by slope disturbance during and after
development.
Infonnation has been provided indicating that steep slopes can be successfully
developed, even up to 100% slope. It is not disputed that there is an engineering
solution to almost all environmental concerns. The concern Is not with the construction
of new foundations for homes, but rather, with the total site disturbance which leads to
further erosion of the hillsides, stonn drain blockage, and damage to downhill properties.
As stated in the soli survey, "significant increases in construction costs" occur with
development on hillside lands, and the steeper the slopes, the greater the costs.
From the "Land Use Geology of Central Jackson County, Oregon" prepared by
Department of Geology and Minerallndustrles of the State of Oregon, much of Ashland's
hillside areas are classified as:
"Local slopes t 0-50%; landfonns include moderately steep hills and valley, hazards include
moderate slope-erosion potential and local to large scale mass movement; land use potential
variable."
"Reliance on human memory to define slide hazards completely is not adequate. Memory is
incomplete and often inaccurate and makes no allowance for changing stability with changing land
use. Furthennore, it does not provide the sophistication required to address all pertinent facto~ of
potential mass movement."
"The grading provisions of the Unifonn Building Code should be adhered to in all cuts and fills.
On steep slopes, areas of mass-movement potential, or areas of past mass movement, more detailed
and rigorous treatment is generally required."
It is our opinion that the reduction of buildable areas down to 35% is a justifiable
decision of the city, based on the desire to reduce the potential damages that can be
caused by hillside disturbance. The balance of a relatively small number of potential
dwellings removed from the city's inventory, compared to the benefits of not developing
on slopes greater than 35% appear to be clearly favorable to adoption of this new
standard.
V. Wildfire Lands/Fuel Reduction
The Forest Lands Commission has raised concerns that the ordinance, as proposed,
requires a rather rigorous review process for landowners who wish to only reduce the
wildfire hazards of their property. The ordinance does not distinguish between tree
removal associated with subdivision development and for wildfire management - the same
standards apply. We have made recommended language adjustments in the ordinance to
address this concern.
The definition of "development" has been modified to not include tree removal,
and a tree removal for wildfire management under review of the Fire Department does
not require a Physical Constraints Pennit, nor all of the required studies.
VI. Building Location and Design Standards
o q 1
This section of the ordinance has proved to be the most controversial. The use of
design standards for single family dwellings Is a little used planning tool in Oregon, and has
raised concerns from the real estate and development community, as well as general
citizens.
The basis for the standards was a recognition of the hillside areas as a significant
feature of our community, and increased scrutiny on new development in this area would
be appropriate.
This section is broken Into two parts - building location and building design. The
building design portion is primarily concerned with the provision of building envelopes on
parcels, clearly indicating the potential areas for development. The building design
portion has seven sections regarding the actual appearance of new structures on hillside
lands.
Staff has provided three options addressing the concerns raised regarding this
section:
I, Maintain the standards as they have been presented with no modification. This recognizes
the original concerns and input from the groups that came before the Council requesting
that new hillside standards be adopted.
2. Delete all building design standards (18.62.080.E.2. a-g) and the building location
requirement avoiding ridgeline locations (18.62.080 E.I.d). This recognizes the concern
of the real estate and development community who have recently become involved in the
process.
3. Remove the more discretionary location and design standards, maintain the more
measurable standards, and provide a separate handout on recommended design guidelines
for hillside development. This would involve the deletion of 18.62.080.E. I.d ' (ridgeline
exposures), 18.62.080.E.2.e. (roof forms), 18.62.080.E.2.f. (overhanging decks). and
18.62.080.E.2.g. (color selection). The remaining standards would be retained including
those addressing building envelopes (18.62.080.E.1. a'c); and those addressing building
design' 18.62.080.E.2.a (hillside building height - 30' max.), 18.62.080.E.2.b. (utilize
stepped foundations). 18,62.080.E.2.c. (building step back and wall height, 20' max.),
and 18.62.080.E.2.d. (horizontal building planes - 36' max.).
It is our recommendation that the committee consider Option 3. It still provides
increased standards for development addressing bulk, scale, and site disturbance in an
objective manner, while not being so prescriptive as to prohibit individual choice of color
or roof orientation. The changes representing Option 3 are indicated in the attached
ordinance. We have not prepared a booklet of guidelines at this time, but we believe that
one could be prepared in a reasonably short period of time for adoption at a later date.
VII. Other Issues
Other minor changes have been made in the ordinance to address "housekeeping"
concerns raised in the process. These are clearly marked in the ordinance.
Notice - The city attorney has reviewed the requirements for notice regarding this
action and has detennined that individual notice to property owners is not required by
state statute or local ordinance.
01'?
Public Involvement - the fonnation of an additional committee to take additional
testimony and address concerns, and the scheduling of an additional public hearing before
the Ashland City Council on November 18 has provided opportunities for additional
public involvement.
Conclusion
Overall, It Is Staff's opinion that this ordinance represents an appropriate tool for
the regulation of development on Ashland's hillsIdes. With minor changes, we believe
that It should be forwarded to the City Council for a public hearing and ultimate adoption
on November 18, 1997.
(p 11
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
PUBLIC MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 20, 1997
OPENING
Mayor Cathy Golden opened the informal meeting at 7:10 p.m. Convnittee members present were Alan DeBoer, Mike Morris, Mark
Amrhein, Cate Hartzell, Carole Wheeldon, Larry Medinger, and Marie Donovan. Also present were Paul Nolte, City Attorney, John
McLaughlin, Planning Director and Susan Yates, Executive Secretary.
Mayor Golden announced that packets containing hillside development information were available at the Planning Department.
A slide presentation was made by Richard Hart, geologist, showing slope areas in Ashland before and after the flood of January 1997.
He explained how granitic soil erodes and the effect of run,off from impervious surfaces. He presented several examples of slide areas
occurring during the flood. He asked if we were creating a situation where it is hard to maintain a balance of development and the
environment on the hillside. What are the true costs of having hillside development?
Planning Director, John McLaughlin, gave a slide presentation explaining what process occurred in developing the hillside ordinance.
The ordinance is supported bV the Comprehensive Plan. The current requirements for hillside development are applied on a "condition"
by "condition" basis. The proposed ordinance aids developers because it is more predictable and acts as a cleaner target for designers.
McLaughlin reported the timeline of events and talked about the main items that came out of the process: balance, incorporating
design into the hillside, how to deal with existing vegetation, addressing wildfire concerns, meeting the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, impacts on buildable lands, affordable housing and "needed housing", and the impact on the Urban Growth
Boundary.
Mayor Golden introduced the committee members.
SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE (summary of commentsl
Julian Starr. 921 Blaine Street. Ashland. is concerned that 36 foot wide buildings seem small; 48 feet can work. His aesthetics
concerns relate to gables, poles, windows and color. It is expensive to hire a geotechnical engineer.
Ed HouQhton. 219 Loaan Drive. Ashland. is worried about homeowners who would want to make changes to their home in an approved
subdivision. He wondered if taste should be dictated.
Steve Morjia. 610 Chestnut. Ashland. believes the geotechnical requirements are necessary and the ordinance should be tried but
perhaps in an advisory way. He is concerned about doubling of lot coverage requirements,
Debbie Miller. 160 Normal Av.. Ashland. said she served on the convnittee that developed the hillside ordinance. The members were
representative of the convnunity. She would like others to look at long,term solutions.
Carlene Hester. 820 Pinecrest. Ashland, thought there could be a possible violation of state land use laws with the proposed ordinance.
She thought effected citizens would be outraged to know their property might be included as part of the hillside ordinance. She did
not believe there had been adequate public notice of meetings and no minutes were available of those meetings.
Bruce Roberts. 230 Piedmont. Ashland, believes each hillside has its own unique concerns and the developments should continue to
be approved with "conditions". Thirty.five percent slope seems arbitrary to him; 40 percent is safe for development.
John McLendon. 105 Bush Street. Ashland. said his concerns involve tree inventory. Six inch dbh is too high, Short trees are
important for stabilizing the hillside.
David SoraQue. 520 Gtenview. Ashland. explained the slide presentation dealt with erosion and the biggest erosion culprits are the roads
that are surfaced with decompressed granite. He read a letter that had been submitted to the Planning Department expressing his
1~r.:,
concerns with architectural controls.
Claire Collins. 315 Hioh Street. Ashland, said she served on the hillside committee for the past two years and there was newspaper
coverage of their meetings. The committee had input from geologists, hydrologists, engineers, planners, and the fire department. She
wondered if those persons not living in the hillside areas should be asked to subsidize flood bonds and special fire equipment.
Fran Orrok, 1030 Ivy Lane, Ashland, favors the slope control and erosion control. however, the design standards reflect a certain
arrogance. She has fire control concerns as there is far more danger from fire than flood.
Richard Ernst. 975 Walker. Ashland. stated he has been attending hillside committee meetings from the beginning. Some of the slopes
need to be protected from erosion. He is concerned about the maximum number of trees that should be left on the property. The
only way to take out vegetation is to work out a plan with the fire department.
Rad Welles. 359 Kearney, Ashland. pointed out that there are more than 400 lots affected by the ordinance. People who want to
build more than a 300 square foot addition would be affected. He convnented there will damage anytime there is a major flood, With
regard to building envelope size, he thought a formula could be used rather than "reasonable size", The arborist required to take the
tree inventory needs to be a surveyor as well to locate all the trees on the site. This might be appropriate for new development. but
not for a house addition. What is the "hearing authority"? Mclaughlin said it could be Staff, Planning Commission or Hearings Board.
Welles would like to see something added if a tree is so close to a building envelope that it might damage the tree. that the tree could
be removed.
Bob Taber. 97 Scenic Orive. Ashland. read the letter he sent to the Mayor and committee,
Sand v SpaldinQ, 535 Culver Rpad. Talent. expressed CQncerns about aesthetic requirements and the noticing process. Everyeftected
person should be noticed.
Barbara RyberQ. 373 Vista. Ashland. said she had attended a few of the hillside committee meetings and found them to be very
democratically run. She favors the ordinance and questioned the cost to human health and safety without it.
Ramona Oavol. explained the hillside ordinance grew from a sustainable conference held several years ago which was attended by
several hundred citizens and one of the main concerns was hillside developry1ent. She is concerned that now the process is being
stopped by a different group just prior to implementation.
Johanna Fisher. 77 Mallard. Ashland. stated she has received notices of the meetings all along.
Sabra Hoffman, 345 Scenic Drive, Ashland. reported she has participated for the full two years as a citizen observing the process.
She said if someone wants to participate, he/she has to bear some responsibility in making sure they are on a mailing list. She came
to know the City's hillsides as being very vulnerable, Choosing to live and develop on a hillside is a responsibility and the ordinance
attempts to work on multi, faceted issues. With regard to the committee, everyone was pitching in to volunteer their knowledge base
and they looked at various models of other places and applied what is very unique about our community to the ordinance.
Emile Cloutier. 904 Beswick. Ashland, wondered if the City is prepared to defend itself if the hillside ordinance passes-
Ron Thurner. 1170 Bellview. Ashland. explained that he has participated to one degree or another for the last seven or eight years
pushing for hillside standards. The ordinance is a result of the Comprehensive Plan, is overdue and does not go far enough.
Sandy Rovce, 2360 Ranch Road, Ashland, believes it is important to address this issue as a community issue. Everyone who is
effected should be noticed.
Don Rist. 260 JOY Drive, Talent. is concerned With lack of notice to property owners, The owner of a hillside property pays taxes
Hillside Development Committee
October 20, 1997
Minutes
2
1ft, 1
for his view and should not be told what color to paint his house or what design he can havE.
Rick Harris said that downzoning requires noticing and that IS what is happening with the proposed ordinance. Democracy is protecting
the mdividual over the majority. He felt Hart's presentation was slanted. The dramage systems in Ashland have been engineered
backwards and that IS what caused the problems during Ihe flood,
Larrv Frank. 14553 Hwv. 238. Appleoate. Oregon AssoCiation of Realtors, said the adoption of the ordinance needs to be postponed,
He read a letter into the record. Several issues. including private property rights. madequate notificatIOn. the lakmg of properties that
are unbuildable are of concern to him. He thinks this ordinance will affect the usability of a property and will constitute a "taking".
He suggested the ordinance should be brought to a vote of the people,
Bob Strasser. 3917 Bridoeport, Medford, Rogue Valley AssociatIOn of Realtors, LeglSlatrve Committee. stated this IS not about realtors
but about rights and consent; property rights. He sees two issues: community support and compliance with the law. He believes
the effected property owners should be notified.
RESPONSE FROM STAFF
Nolte said the issues raised by the attorneys will be addressed. There is nothing in the ordinance that cannot be fine. tuned to bring
it into compliance. The City is building the record to show compliance with the state-wide planning goals.
McLaughlin said the more specific items raised this evening will result in some flne.tuning. The bigger issues will be up to the
committee and Council to make recommendations such as design and building height.
Wheeldon suggested that the committee and public submit prepared questions to Staff to be answered at the next meeting. Alter the
questions are answered, the committee can deliberate and there could be a subsequent meeting.
COMMITTEE OUESTlONS TO STAFF
Wheeldon wanted Rick Harris' question answered regarding downzoning. McLaughlin responded to his culvert question stating that
there is a plan to replace the old storm drain system but it takes some time. Wheeldon asked about "conditions" on developments.
Mclaughlin said when Staff knows there will be a potential problem in a certain area, they can impose conditions.
Donovan would like to revisit the percentage of slope. Also, is there a tool to make property owners aware of the ordinance? She
would like discussion on aesthetics.
Medinger would like further discussion about building on ridgelmes and about percentage of slope and gables facing out.
Hartzell would like Oon Paul to address the fife safety ISsues of buildmg along ridgelines.
Morris has questions about what can and cannot be removed from the hillsides.
FUTURE MEETINGS
The next meeting will be held on November 3, 1997 at the CounCil Chambers. There WIll primarily be discussion between the
committee and Staff but publtc mput Will not be dIScouraged,
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p,m,
Hillside Development Committee
October 20. 1997
Minutes
3
.A "
',' 'A '.\
~ -- ('
,
,
D\.'\dopl11cnt Standards Illl'
lIillsidc I.ands
. ,
..._~~-~.
. '. ,,' '. .
'Q,~.'
, c:
... AII<le~el~p,~e~tshalloccur on'~ndi of'. >-
:..~ '- :35% slope. or les,s (unlesstotallot;-:35%1 '..,'
.~::.' ~":: :;.: "".:,",' ;::.';-";' >~,>..;:.,~ ,"'~'-':;" ~';"', ,';'::,' \~':'.":,:;,"<' >-:;'- :,',,:p_~,~
.~i;':':L.Nevi sl(e~ls,.~fta.9 drj.~s;diiv.ways 'sh~1I b'e;:{~
;d~~:.:~t:~9.ns~~c!~~J~.n~~a,?~~\9~ ~~~,o/'!~!9.P.~,.~,t:'e~s /;"X.:':t:~~
~~~~f~~yiJJ~~f~~~~j~;~i~~;~~~ii
"~-, n\-:,\":,:,,,"".''l~';'~li'.:'~~,%!~.r;...;i:~~ :':"~.~";:':':;).:j( ....,~~.,; '...:;..:'2..... "/"-, ,",
"~., .~~~,,~~v,..,,~.-C~.i9,.::ll,;.-r~'~'"'";.' ":Jt.'if.P!. _ ,':"'!'" '.:~~~'., "'>,'0- ;
Ikwlopmcnt Standards Illl'
" lIillsidc Lands ,
~... . '._-~.~...,-. -','
';';Suildin Localion and Des; n Standards'
.'/,':<_.-:" -' '. ,':0'" " ::.' ,- -'"."
'.":_ Building iEnvclopc~required. conscrv.c trees, rialuralfcalurcs, :..:
.:~";";:"'~nciil.\'Old~~gC~m,~~llPo~UfC.~.;':'.-,.. " ",,'~ . "":
/ ..:,.':. 'el.lild;ng heigh! no' greeter t~n :3O'(currciittY'in tlCCCSS of 35'.' :,'.~~'
::.-:,~"~iewabl~ height a1l0wccl}..:.vcrllealwall hciahlllmitcd 1020:_:;. .,~:
>" :~j{$~?Pb.~C,k~: leqUir.~:~ H..~~~o,~!a1~~1.~~,I,~IC~. 10 3?: ,~:o~~et~. ::', .'~ ,:;::.~
',\;\"Ro~'foimt;,.$hO~'d. be ~tokch u~:'1arg~'d,OWrlhill:~Cing. gables: l'
,)~::~::-.:: ~~~tI~~ ,~vo,~e~:,~i::,: 5::~,'::i"'\' ;t:~:~'r"..:;:'::;:::~' <.:\\ ~;?; ~)~7~.<::: \':;.::~::~:,:';; '~):~:
};:'.,iio;c;t~ngin9 cic~ks \1iihVCr1iciil,:~ppOrt$>.~~;$hait,bf:'~IfOid~cr~~
,:.-':;,:,:"','-:-::',,,~';.\.; :' ;.;,' / i ~ .. ',';:'. .;,':--. .~,',~ ...,.';.,~:.;:, .~, ',:'.;: .; ;~:':'IJt;.
:i\;.JI tlo~ color..$~~H bc..~OOrdi~r~~ ~,~ ~lJI',~und~n.'f.:;1~.;.;: '::'~V:~
<~F~:~~;~,~~'~) ,;:,;~~j~~:(~,~i.~:~{;~:~,~:;?f~~o'~:f.uf'.;?i~~~~~{i
?
174
Ashlulld COll1prch~l1si\'c Plal1
.... .... . ",'
:'~thaPle~"" :~:.
:" Ii'~ 'ErJsule av""flei~"of dwelling types end prOVide . .";';
~.' :;',r.hOllslng opportunities forthetotal cross-sectlon or Ashlam,'s .;~/,
..-~;it=;:~1&;:~;rZ;j1;i1;r~1~rl~::7.':'::%\~!
~.'_ ~':.":;;:'sra"dalds .IIall 00 usedlo fi1l!evetopmonl ~o lopography, generally /~
":').' ~~~'{OllOVIi119Ihe concept Ihat donsity should deaeaw wilh aninCrsasei.::.
':':'. "':(1n tklpela avoid cKc:ossive elosioiiend hmside CU1$,";_This ~jer.live 'l'~'
'-"' ;". ;::'1.';';"$hall bo used DOn'si~lenlV1ilh the d<!Sire I,oproserve a&.nd bV ~sing !;.~ ~_'.'
lf~qt1;~~J~~I;~rf{~[~Jill~t.x~}ill~i~~;lj~LI
AshJulld Comprchcl1sin',l'full
:G:h~~t~}~;:'-. :"'i;
". .:'~.'~ To provide an adequate 51_orm w3te,rdralnage system.,
;;_(-::::- ..h.'O~~h,~~~ ~h:e.~~~!,~:~'~~V~" ~~~I~.n,~:; :;':,:.:,7:":.;;~:<;:,'~.:'\C'.i':::,.;i:;:~, ,'.' :',
,,>,/~. ,E.cl..icUJ!:11 Ensure ih~' all ne:N d~~(llopmunl~ Include :'fdrain;i.~l)> .',~<'
~>~ :,',;' 'System:\'Itllclrpro~,cI~n~jolni~9 ~r(lk1tf.v $1$ nwctt ~~pQ~~~ble;::':i~:~~~:;;;';~
"f-~ti.PI~r.liJ;';E"Vjto.n~en.l.l~Resouri:.e~,;~,;{':&;;':~:'..;);~
~,~\;'~.',~ ;f'18.Venl !1evek!p~n! ~"d Imid tn3n~9~~:nel_lf prac;l.~ >:f1I.~~~$~,~::~,,(:~t'
"}:?'!li.dn!aPld,~nCl".!~d p~'Il.ral~t~r()SIO~,:::.: ~':'.,.;;::"~:<;::I/;',..;~~<':;",::,,;:;;~,
;';~) ~:. 'Inaorporalo sitaarainllgo pra,(:tioCs ~hal ~educe IUnDfr v~1dc:i1r.,0nd.,"t ,~:h,
:~Jy.'.;-;,,:,o'umo.bv VlillzlnD Ihli nalural f!roperlios oJ tlie, ~O,ji~8nd ,::. /,: '. '\.';',;,:";, .::\
'.:::'~~';}' ;..,ge&'1IiCln In JlOnJunClioll'.~ith $Otind engineetlng pr,actioes ';:f;f,:;,;~:{ t: ~:
,~~~'~~f~i~f~i~i~?t~~i~~;~tW.~~~~fMt;i~t~;~~~
115
i\,I1I:llhi C\\!11I'I'C'IiI'Iio;;h' 1'1,111
....----........
<c. Chapter IV. Environmental Resources
. GOAL: Oncel development (oare3s th.:lt ;'lre less Ih;ln407Q'
Slope>. "Allow only lowden~ilYdcvel0pmenl 011 less than tv.'o .
dwelling units pel ;:le,c on :ueas greater lh,1O 30% slope:
Pumi1 only low intensity development on steep I.mds, mth
. .str!ct~rosion.(:onlIOI :an~ $.lop~.~I;~b!l.lty rnea.sur~~:'., ,. .
,._ '. f2lio'JY~ .20no.an lands 'v.tlich ",we (I slope generally_, :"_ .
. '..{lrcalet.lhan 30% rOt d':M'loJlrnenl thdl wHl_ha~o mimorelllal12 "..;."
, .dwcUi~ units per <lClC Of 20% 101 C(wetag(! bV im~lvjous';" '."':
"$.l,lrfa,CC'S'-"")\>' -. ".. '" '.,-..~...,.
".: ....i... ...,.C,.... \.,
":
" ''',' ,':,' :,:"~,. >..- ;..'.:- ;'''',':.c., . . '.
'i1~:;~~~{,>,~ ~:,;,~~'::f{,:~:\:.,.:\t::;~~:.:&:::::~~~,::if~~~;~~~i~;:~~;'~~~;i~'~p:~~:~}
4
"11("
MEMORANDUM
O.\O:'ONS,
,. 'r,
o>'~,:' Of ASL~CO."o
'"..... 'r.,
; i:; "'."',',", ,,%
~ . ~.".: ;:
- .
".' ~
,.. ..''''0.... '.;-' ;
'" /' - .:"
0","\. OI?EGO~ /'....
r~ ..\
'II- ,~ ~,,\
CITY OF ASHLAND
Department of Community Development
Conservation Division
DATE:
October 24, 1997
TO:
John McLaughlin, Planning Director
FROM:
Robbin Pearce, Tree Commission Staff Liaison
RE:
Hillside Development Recommendations
I have attached comments from John McClendon which I think are relevant and I felt
that his explanations were essential to understanding why the comments were made,
I have also included a graphic which has some vital infonnation which should be
incorporated into our graphic on page 22,
I have additional comments of my own which 1 would like to add.,
pg 3, 18.62.030 Definitions N Professional Arborist - this definition should not include
(.. .or landscape architect licensed by the State of Oregon) There is serious discussion to
bc had as to the "tree" ability of landscape architccts.
pg 5. 18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required - I hardily agree with Mr. McClendon's
point regarding 4 inch trees and a survey to be required for the entire parcel to be
developed.
pg 11. 18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preservation Lands A 2 - If
retention of the trees is not feasible a written explanation should be submitted as to why
not.
pg 12. 18.62,080Development Standards for lIillside Lands A 2 b vegetation is not
defined and should be included in the Definitions section
pg 13 & 14 18,62,080Devclopment Standards for Hillside Lands 13 2,4 c and 5 d
... Irrigation may be provided to cnsure growth if necessary, There are basically no plant
materials that can become established in this area without irrigation, Irrigation should be
required throughout the establishment period of two years. The watering system need not
be of a permanent nature but watering should be required for a minimum two years,
'7 1 S'
The Tree Commission whole heartedly supports the Hillside Development Standards as
an effort to protect our fragile hillside not only for development but also as the
viewpoint and vista of our community,
111
l .
ASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
June 10, 1997
PLANNING ACI'ION: 97-044
APPLICANT: City of Ashland
WCATION:
ZONE DESIGNATION:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:
ORDINANCE REFERENCE: 18.62 - Physical and Environmental Constraints
REQUEST: Adoption of Hillside Development Standards, and general housekeeping
measures updating chapter 18.62.
I. Relevant Facts
1) Background - History of Application:
This ordinance modification has been underway for approximately two
years, with many study sessions, work committees, and citizen groups
providing opportunities for input.
2) Description of the Proposal:
The recommended changes are indicated on the attached ordinance.
Deletions to the current ordinance language are in strikeol:lt while new
sections to the ordinance are indicated in shaded telet.
This is a new and very aggressive regulatory section of the Physical and
Environmental Constraints ordinance. The recommended changes put in
to ordinance language many of the requirements currently required by
conditions of approval for hillside developments. Further, it expands the
regulatory powers regarding tree protection, erosion control, and building
design. It provides for greatly improved regulation of hillside subdivisions
and partitions, ensuring sensitive development while recognizing the
legitimate development potential of the properties.
One of the major changes to be noted is that the construction of a single
family home, or an addition to an existing home of greater than 20% of the
footprint, in areas classified as Hillside Lands will now require a planning
~.:2. J.
action for approval. This will require notice to surrounding property
owners the hiring of a geotechnical expert to prepare grading and erosion
control plans, the hiring of a professional arborist to prepare a tree plan,
and the designing of the home in accord with the design requirements of
the ordinance.
II. Ordinance Amendments -- Key Features
Page 1
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent was modified to more clearly reflect the purpose of
the entire ordinance.
18.62.030.B. was added to provide a calculation for determining average project
area slope for use in determining the amount of the project which must be
retained in a natural state.
Page 2
18.62.030.D. The definition of "development" in terms of this ordinance was
modified to include greater regulation of hillside disturbances.
Page 3
18.62.030.H. A new definition for "Geotechnical Expert" was added to define who
would be required to prepare plans for hillside development
18.62.030J. A new definition of "Landscape Professional" was added.
18.62.030.K. A new definition and graphic were added for "natural grade".
18.62.030.L A new definition for "natural state" was added.
Page 4
18.62.030,N. A new definition of "professional arborist" was added to define who
would be required to prepare tree plans.for hillside development
18.62.030.P. A new definition and graphic were added for "slope".
18.62.030.Q. A new definition was added for "stripping"
PA97-o44 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
City of Ashland/Hillside Development Standards ' June 10, 1997
Page 2
~;);;J..,
Page 5
18.62.040.E.1.k. In addition to a topographic map being required, a slope analysis
shall be submitted indicated buildable and non-buildable areas. A graphic was
added to assist in the understanding of the requirement.
Page 6
18.62.040.E.1.m, p, q, r, & s, Additional requirements for plan submittals were
included in this proposal, specifically defining the areas of land disturbance and
storage areas, as well as listing who prepared the plans, and the time line for
development.
Page 7
18.62.040.G.3 & 4. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission are specifically
given authority to require a performance guarantee (financial bonding) for the
development, as well as requiring, if deemed necessary, additional studies by
professionals at the applicant's expense.
Page 8
18.62.0S0.C. New definition of regulated areas - "Hillside Lands"
Page 9
, 18.62.070 Minor modifications were made in the Floodplain Corridor
regulations, to clarify previous language and to address other issues which have
been raised.
Page 11
18.62.070.1.3,4, & 5 This change modifies the opportunity to develop basements
in the floodplain corridor. Previously, commercial buildings in the historic district
could develop basements in the floodplain corridor. This is almost exclusively in
the Plaza area, and would be similar to Munchies restaurant. After the recent
flood, Staff does not believe that it is in the City's interest to allow further
basement development in this area.
Page 12
18.62.070.M This section has already been modified as indicated and approved by
the Planning Commission and Council as part of the North Mountain
PA97-o44 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
City of Ashland/Hillside Development Standards June 10, 1997
~~3
Page 3
neighborhood plan adoption. No changes area proposed from that adoption.
Page 13
18.62.080 A new purpose statement has been development for the new Hillside
Lands section of the ordinance.
18.62.080.A.1. This section states that lands >35% slope are unbuildable, reduced
from the 40% currently in the ordinance. Further restrictions are also applied.
Exceptions for lots entirely greater than 35% slope are also addressed.
18.62.080.A2. This section requires, in addition to all of the requirements of
18.62.040.E., that should the proposal involve the creation of new building lots,
that a geotechnical study be prepared. This section was added to address the need
for geologic information to assess possible slope stability issues.
Page 14, 15, & 16
18.62.080.B This is a new section regulating Hillside grading and erosion control.
The section limits the time when land disturbances may occur, requires that a
portion of the lot be retained in a natural state, and defines the nature of cuts and
fills associate with the needed land disturbance. Erosion control measures are
required as part of the plan for the development (prepared by a geotechnical
expert).
Page 17
18.62.080.B.7 A new section was added regarding the maintenance of erosion
, control measures, and security and penalties should the measures fail or not be
installed properly.
Page 18
18.62.080.B.9. A new section requires that the project geotechnical expert must
provide a final report indicating that the construction took place in accord with
the designed plans, and that scheduled inspections were conducted verifying that
this occurred. Past developments have provided the city with detailed plans, but
many times the developer did not follow them, or the project engineer was not
consulted about any modifications during construction. This requirement will
address that issue.
Page 19
PA97-Q44 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
City of Ashland/Hillside Development Standards June 10, 1997 S'd ~
Page 4
18.62.080.C. A new section was added regarding new standards for surface and
groundwater drainage.
Page 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
18.62.080.0. One of the main areas of concern regarding development on
Ashland's hillsides centers around trees. This is a new section addressing the
need to protect and incorporate trees into the project design. The section is
divided up to provide a sequence of events which must be followed in project
design. First, the tree plan must be prepared by a professional arborist. Then,
the following steps occur:
1. Inventory of existing trees
2. Evaluation of trees for conservation
3. Determine trees to be preserved in project design
4. Develop tree protection plan during project construction
5. Prepare a tree replacement plan for removed trees
Following those steps, there is a tree enforcement section that requires that the
approved plan be followed, including tree protection, etc...
Page 25, 26, 27
18.62.080.E. Another area of major concern driving the Hillside Standards was
the desire to create design standards for new development. This section includes
some proposals addressing building envelopes and locations, building height,
orientation, mass, bulk, and roof design. Further, color of the structure shall
"coordinate with the predominant colors of the surrounding landscape," essentially
restricting the use of bright colors on hillside lands.
Page 28
18.62.080.1. A new section was added providing opportunities for administrative
variances from the proposed Hillside Standards, if it can be shown that the
variance will result in equal or greater protection of the resources protected by
the ordinance. We believe this allows an adequate "safety valve" to handle very
unique hillside areas, while still providing adequate protection.
Page 32 & 33
18.62.130 This is a new section regarding penalties for the entire Physical and
Environmental Coru;traints ordinance.
PA97-o44 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
City of Ashland/Hillside Development Standards June 10, 1997 '?? ~ s-
Page 5
III. Procedural - Reauired Burden of Proof
This application is a legislative amendment to the land use ordinance, in accord
with section 18.108.170.
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Each time this ordinance has come up for review, a list of recommended changes
has been submitted. Such a list was prepared at a recent review on June 2, 1997
by a citizen group. Staff will be presenting the recommendations during the
public hearing, and the ordinance can be amended as necessary prior to the City
Council public hearing.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance modifications, including changes
deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission and City Council.
PA97-Q44 Ashland Planning Department - Staff Report
City of Ashland/Hillside Development Standards June 1.0, 1.997 ?:J-6
Page 6
Hillside Development Permit Process
Is land regulated?
Detennine location
Determine slope
(above boulevard'1)
(>25%'1)
If both of the above, land is subject to Hillside Development Standards.
Is proposed development regulated?
Earth moving >50 cu. yds. or > 1000 sq. ft.
Removal of trees
Construction of road, building, etc... or addition >20% of existing footprint
Prepare Plan -
Obtain Professional Assistance:
Geotechnical Engineer to prepare grading and erosion control plans
Professional Arborist to prepare tree plans
See section 18.62.040.E.1.
Contour Map
Existing natural features
Trees
Methods of erosion control
Methods of water runoff control
Methods of tree protection
Proposed land disturbances
Proposed storage areas for excess materials
If partition or subdivision, additional geotechnical studies regarding geologic hazards
are required.
Development Area:
All lands > 35 % slope shall be unbuildable, including streets & drives.
Exceptions: Entire lot is > 35 %, then one building site
Streets as indicated on street dedication map
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plans Required
Must be designed by a Geotechnical Expert
Land disturbance shall occur only from May I to October 31
25 + % of the area must be retained in a natural state
Cut slopes shall be protected from erosion
Fill slopes shall be protected from erosion
Revegetation required - planting plan required
All erosion controUgrading shall be maintained in perpetuity.
Performance bond required
Site grading must consider sensitive nature of site
~(
Final inspection report required from project geotechnical expert.
Surface and Groundwater Drainage
All drainage systems must be designed to avoid erosion
Divert storm water from cut faces or fill slopes
Use flow-retarding devices to minimize runoff volumes.
Tree Preservation
Inventory exis~g trees
all trees >6" dbh
species, extent of tree canopy, location (:t3 ')
for subdivisions & partitions, must be by landscape professional
Evaluate for Preservation
Tree health
Tree structure
Species
Potential Longevity
Tree Preservation in Project Design
Protect and incorporate trees into project design
Locate improvements such that maximum number of trees are preserved
Locate building envelopes such that max. # trees are preserved
Tree Protection
Before beginning construction, fence trees, etc... as per 18.62.080.D.4.
Protect root wne
Avoid changes in soil hydrology and site drainage
Tree Removal
Determine if tree can be removed
within building envelope
within street, parking area, etc..
within utility easement
tree is a hazard
within or near cuts and fills
Tree Replacement
Prepared replanting plan that provides canopy over the project site, and
reduces impact.
Tree Enforcement
Trees must be removed in accord with plans
If trees removed without approval, must pay 3 time cost of replacement or
market value, whichever is greater.
Damaged trees - fine of $50 per scar
Building Location and Design Standards.
Building envelopes required
Shall maintain % of natural state
Shall maximize tree preservation
Shall avoid ridgeline exposures
SJ .;< ~
Building Design
Max height of 30'
Cut buildings into hillside to reduce visual bulk
Utilize building stepbacks
Orient roof slope with hillside
Reduce horizontal building planes
Avoid overhanging decks
Minimize building color contrast with natural environment
Admini~rative Variances
If option can be provided that is better than ordinance standards, variance may be
granted by hearing authority.
Additional Standards
If application is for partition or subdivision (creating new lots), then geotechnical
study must be provided analyzing geologic risks of project, project site, and affect on
surrounding properties. 18.62.080.A.2.
~ .;< <J
TYPE III PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLANNING ACTION 97-044
REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE ASHLAND LAND USE ORDINANCE. SECTION 18.62 _
PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS, REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF NEW
STANDARDS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
Mclaughlin reviewed the latest version of the Hillside Development Standards. The main goal of the
plan was to define our hillside lands in the ordinance. At this time, anything under 40 percent Is not
regulated. The proposed standard would be anything above 35 percent would be unbulldable. The
Issues were identified that would be the basis of the regulation. The ordinance Is broken Into sections.
Plans will need to be prepared by a geo.technical expert One of the main Issues that was discussed Is
tree preservation. Building location and design standards have also been Incorporated. After the
meeting last week. Molnar will make a few housekeeping changes that will be Incorporated into the
ordinance.
Considerable discussion ensued with regard to wording on the last page under 'D.'....'owner of the
property from which erosion occurs...together with any person or parties who cause such erosion shall
be responsible...'. Mclaughlin said the owner of the property is responsible If there is erosion when they
take over from the developer. The owner has the option of going to the developer If they feel there is a
problem. The City approves a development in accord wtth the design professionals. Some of the
Commissioners wondered why tt was In the ordinance. Mclaughlin said In order to make tt very clear to
everyone.
Hearn moved to continue the meeting until 11:00 p.m. It was seconded and approved.
Hearn wondered what would happen wtth If someone decided to do a small addttion to their home. Will
they have to hire professionals? Mclaughlin said If the plan involves the need for erosion control or
engineered foundations tt will involve a professional. Those in attendance at the meetings wanted a very
clear line and 20 percent Is that line.
Howe asked about Page 24, paragraph a (2), replacing of trees in the wildfire prevention. She feels this
paragraph is contradictory. Armitage reads tt as full canopy closure which Is not really wanted.
Mclaughlin said this has been a very difficult section (replacement trees). Armttage asked Mclaughlin
to re-work this section along wtth native vegetation and native species and some consideration for what
Is ecologically there now. Molnar suggested something either native or something of similar resource
value. HARTZELL mentioned page 29, Fire Prevention and Control Plan, perhaps tt should reference
back to page 24.
Giordano likes the flexibility of the administrative variance.
Morris wondered how heights and colors were established. Mclaughlin said the height standards were
established in the building code under current definition of height. The proposed ordinance is trying to
be conveyed what you see what Is defined as height. The 20 foot high maximum Is for an aesthetic
standard.
RICK VEZIE. 446 Walker, said he had some problems with a few aspects of the ordinance. Page 27, e,
"Roof slope shall be oriented in the same direction as the slope of the land whenever possible". This
ASHlAND PLANNING COMMISSION
REGUlAR MEETlNG
MINUTES
JUNE 10, 1997
7
'F/3ZJ
means the slope of the roof will ALWAYS have to be sloped in the direction of the land. He would prefer
it to read "Roof slopes sloping In the direction of the slope are encouraged' so there is more flexibility to
deal with certain aspects of design. This should not necessarily apply to additions and renovations.
Paragraph f, he Is not sure it should apply to additions and renovations (color selection). Mclaughlin
thought the changes would be acceptable to Incorporate.
Armitage said if anyone had these types of comments to give them to Mclaughlin.
JOHN FIELDS, 845 Oak Street, said he has some trouble with the wording on aesttietic standards. On
page 26 and 27. "Large gable ends on downhill elevations shall be avoided..... At what point is it large?
If it is a southern exposure, what about solar gain? There are complicated design Issues. Any kind of
subdMslon will not allow enough flexibility. It will be hard to regulate. The standards need to be
quantified or it just needs to be a guideline. Mclaughlin said this Is trying to put Into ordinance form a
guideline. This works as long as everyone Is reasonable.
.CA TE HARTZEll, said she hopes they can find a middle ground. They began this wanting a guideline.
With regard to a remodel. a person may not want to increase the footprint but may want to Increase the
height. Then what?
DOUG NEUMAN, 4240 Oayton. showed a picture of the house he built on Waterline. You do not really
see it from below and it Is about 34 feet high. He liked 35 height. On page 2, under Development 2.,
"the removal of three or more trees..... what takes precedence, the fire hazard or fIVe percent of the dead
trees? On page 7. F' & G 4, 'Require speclal evaluation by a recognized professional" Neuman believes
there should be some kind of time frame. Mclaughlin said it would have to be within the 120 limit ~and
use decision process).
JENIFER CARR. 388 Grandview, said she wants something that deals with abandonment of property
once the site has been altered. The language that should be applicable Is: 'A project cannot be
abandoned without proper design and construction of the pennanent fill, storm drainage systems, and
erosion control". There should be a stipulation for regular and frequent maintenance of the emergency
stonn drains systems that would necessary to ensure that they continue to function (annual Inspection).
Mclaughlin read from the guidelines that "land disturbance shall occur only May 1st to October 31sr.
Howe moved to forward this document to the Council with some minor changes by Staff. Hearn
seconded the motion and carried unanimously.
OTHER
Briggs wondered if anyone is going to SanFrancisco to hear Duany.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
ASHLAND PlANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JUNE 10. 1997
8
<?3(
HILLSIDE STANDARDS
Environmental Concerns from Comp Plan
CHAPTER IV - ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
"Future development on steeper slopes and on granitic terrain should be planned with the
contours of the terrain In mind, rather than following a rectangular grid. In many areas of
the city, streets are Impassable duling Icy conditions due to steep grades. Rain showers
often tend to be sholt and Intense, favoling a high surface runoff. Deeply weathered,
easily eroded plutonic terrain commonly slits local stonn drains, and diverts volumes of
water down the north-trending streets, occasionally flooding streets and private property.
These nel!ative effects could be diminished by smct development controls on areas over
20% slope, "
"The Ashland planning area has a moderate to high landslide potential, especially where
granitic terrains and steep slopes exist. ... To prevent activating potential slides, deep cuts
and excavations should be forbidden without extensive engineering and geologic study,
surface runoff should be directed toward existing natural drainages, and clearing
vegetation on especially steep slopes should be prohibited." (Ashland Comprehensive
Plan _. Page IV-4, emphasis added)
"Areas of steep slope on highly erosive granitic soils are very sensitive to development
activities. The best control to erosion is to limit development In areas that are sensitive."
(Ashland Comprehensive Plan - Page iV-8)
GOAL: HAVE SOUND SOIL CONSERV A nON AND EROSION CONTROL
PRACllCES IN AND AROUND ASHLAND.
Policy IV-S Require that development be accommodated to natural topography,
drainage, and soils and make maximum use of existing vegetation to minimize erosion.
Policy IV.6 Prevent development and land management practices which result in rapid
runoff and accelerated erosion.
Policy IV -7 Require site-preparation procedures and construction practices which
minimize erosion and sedimentation.
Policy IV -8 Protect essential hillside drainage areas for absorption of stonn runoff, and
other areas subject to severe soil erosion, unless control can be established.
Policy IV -9 Incorporate site drainage practices that reduce runoff velocity and volume,
by utilizing the natural properties of the soils and vegetation in conjunction with sound
engineering practices.
Policy IV-I 0 Insure that areas of general slope over 30% are zoned for two dwelling units
per acre or less, and pennit total lot coverage to be no more than 20%.
fC::; 1
Policy IV-II Restrict an new partitioning or subdivision of land on slopes greater than
40%.
Policy IV-12 Forbid any new development or cuts and fills on slopes greater than 50%
unless absolutely necessary and scientific and geologic evidence is available showing that it
may be done safely.
Policy IV-13 Use development perfonnance standards based on the natural topography,
drainage, soils, lot coverage, and densities in place of arbitrary subdivision standards to
ensure that natural features area an integral part of the design phase of future
developments.
GOAL: PRESERVE FOREST AREAS WITHIN AND AROUND THE CITY FOR THEIR
VISUAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, WILDLIFE HABITAT, AND WATER QUALITY
VALUES.
Policy IV-3? Emphasize the preservation offorest vegetation to the extent feasible as
forested areas of the City are converted to urban uses.
Policy IV-38 Use low-density zoning to ensure that development of the forested hillsides
is kept at a level that maintains the forested integlity of the areas.
GOAL: DIRECT DEVELOPMENT TO AREAS THAT ARE LESS THAN 40% SLOPE.
ALLOW ONLY LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AT LESS THAN TWO DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE ON AREAS OF GREATER THAN 30% SLOPE. PERMIT ONLY
LOW INTENSITY DEVELOPMENT OF STEEP LANDS, WITH STRICT EROSION
CONTROL AND SLOPE STABILITY MEASURES.
Policy IV-34 Develop erosion control standards to ensure that development of these
forested areas will not cause erosion problems.
Policy IV-35 Restrict creation of new lots on land that is greater than 40% slope, unless a
buildable area of less than 40% slope is available on each lot.
Policy IV-36 Zone all lands which have a slope generally greater than 30% for
development that will have no more than 2 dwelling units per acre or 20% lot coverage
by impervious surfaces.
GOAL: TO PRESERVE EXISTING WILDLIFE HABITATS AND NATURAL AREAS
WITHIN THE CITY WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
Policy IV-41 Continue to strengthen the site review process to assess accurately the
environmental impact and ensure that changes in land use acknowledges limitations and
opportunities of the site and have as little detrimental impact as possible.
'?!~'t
CHAPTER VI - HOUSING
GOAL: ENSURE A VARIETY OF DWEllING TYPES AND PROVIDE HOUSING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE TOTAL CROSS-SECTION OF ASHLAND'S
POPULATION, CONSISTENT WITH PRESERVING THE CHARACTER AND
APPEARANCE OF THE CITY.
Policy VI-3 a) Slope protection and lot coverage perfonnance standards shall be
used to fit development to topography, generally following the concept that density
should decrease with an Increase In slope to avoid excessive erosion and hillside cuts, This
objective shall be used consistent with the desire to preserve land by using the smallest lot
coverage possible.
CHAPTER VIII - PARKS. OPEN SPACE. AND AESTHETICS
GOAL: TO PROVIDE THE PEOPLE OF ASHLAND WITH A VARIETY, QUANTITY
AND QUALITY OF PARKS, PARK FAQlITIES, OPEN SPACES, TRAllS, AND
VISUAL RESOURCES SUFFlOENT FOR THEIR NEEDS.
Policy VIII-12 Require, where posslble, that the original vegetation be retained and
require the restoration of new vegetation If It Is removed.
CHAPTER IX - PUBLIC SERVICES
GOAL: TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE STORM WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEM
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY OF ASHLAND.
Policy IX-23 Ensure that all new developments include a drainage system which protects
adjoInIng property as much as possible.
Policy IX-24 Encourage drainage systems that utilize natural draingeways and minimize
the amount and rate of surface runoff.
8:'- 1
ROB E R T
B.
OLSHANSKY
II
PAS
American Planning Association
Planning Advisory Service
Report Number 466
'110
Appendix B. List of Jurisdictions Submitting Hillside Documents
We sought to collect as many hillside plans and
ordinances as possible, We contacted every municipality
identified in previous summary studies (Thurow, et .11
1975; Chewning 1974), <IS well as articles and news notes in
past issues of Pia/llllfl,'; (lnd other APA publications (e.g.
Schwab 1992; Krohe 1988). In addition, we contacted
Councils of Government in hilly metropolitan areas,
seeking referrals to local hillside plans and ordinances For
California, we were able to use previous surveys done by
the Co vernor's Office of Planning and Research (California
Jurisdictions SUbmilling Hillside Documents
Alabama
Huntsville
Arizona
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Sedonia
Alaska
Anchorage
California
Agoura - Hills
Arcata
Big Bear
Calis toga
Clayton
Corte Madera
Duarte
Fillmore
Glendora
Humboldt County
La Quinta
Larkspur
Los Gatos
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Oakland
Palm Springs
Paso Robles
Poway
Redwood City
Ross
San Diego
San Mateo
Santa Barbara County
Santa Rosa
Sierra Madre
St. Helena
Vallejo
West Covina
Colorado
Boulder
Jefferson County
Manitou Springs
Maryland
Montgomery County
New Mexico
Santa Fe
Alameda County I Pairview
Belmont
Bradbury
Camarillo
Colusa County
Cupertino
EI Cajon
Fremont
Grand Terrace
Irvine
laVerne
Lorna Linda
Mariposa County
Montebello
Morro Bay
Oceanside
Palmdale
Petaluma
Rancho Cucamonga
Riverside
San Anselmo
San Dimas
San Mateo County
Santa Clara County
Santee
Signal Hili
Tehachapi
Ventura
Woodside
Georgia
Gainsville/Hall County
Minnesota
Red Wing
North Carolina
Asheville
Sugar Mountain
Tennessee
Putnam County
Utah
Ogden
Park City
Provo
Salt Lake City
Sandy City
Weber City
Anaheim
Benida
Brea
Carls bad
Concord
Oanville
Encinitas
Fullerton
Hayward
Kern County
Lafayette
Los Angeles
Martinez
Monterey Park
Napa
Orinda
Palo Alto
Pittsburg
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
San Bernardino
San Jacinto
San Rafael
Santa Clarita
Saratoga
Simi Valley
Thousand Oaks
Victorville
Yucaipa
Hawaii
Honolulu/City, County
Maui
Kauai
Montana
Gallatin County
Ohio
Cincinnati
Hamilton
Virginia
Clarke County
Findlay Township
Loudoun County
Anderson
Berkeley
Burbank
Chula Vista
Contra Costa County
DelMar
Escondida
Gilroy
Healdsburg
La Canada-Flint ridge
Laguna Beach
Los Angeles County
Milpitas
Moraga
Napa County
Pacifica
Palos Verdes Estates
Pleasanton
Rancho Palos Verdes
Rocklin
San Carlos
San Juan Capistrano
San Ramon
Santa Cruz
Scolts Valley
Solana Beach
Torrance
Vista
Idaho
Boise
Pocatello
Antioch
Beverly Hills
Calimesa
Claremont
Corona
Diamond Bar
Fairfax
Glendale
Hemet
La Habra Heights
Laguna Niguel
Los Altos Hills
Monrovia
Moreno Valley
Norco
Palm Desert
Pasadena
Portola Valley
Redlands
Rolling Hills
San Clemente
San Luis Obispo
Santa Barbara
Santa Paula
Shasta County
South Pasadena
Ukiah
Walnut Creek
Kentucky
Kenton County
Nevada
Sparks
Oregon
Clatsop County
Multnomah County
Portland
Washington County
Washington
Chelan County
Everett
King County
Seattle
New Jersey
Mine Hill
Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh
g1 (
2.1
Office of Planning and Research 1993; California Office of
Local Government Affairs 1988) to identify 153
communities claiming to have some form of hillside
regulations. We identified a total of 234 locations with
hillside plans or ordinances, and received documents from
190 of them (81 percent response rate). Our collection
represents 22 states, though 145 of the 190 locations are in
California. Of the 45 jurisdictions outside of California,
only 10 of them are from non Western states, despite our
efforts to find as many of these as possible.
Many locations sent more than one document, including
plans, hillside ordinances, and related ordinances. Many of
the plans and ordinances are not explicitly for hillside
development, but rather include hillsides as subsets of other
ordinances, such as sensitive area ordinances or subdivision
ordinances in generaL Of the 190 jurisdictions, 129 (68
percent) sent ordinances that explicitly focus on hillside or
mountainside issues.The ordinances vary significantly,"in
their purposes, their approaches, and level of detail. In order
to systematically describe these variations, we performed a
content analysis of each document received. Analysis covered
three general topics: purposes, ordinance characteristics, and
implementation strategies.
PURPOSES
The statements of purpose were organized into the
following seven categories: 1) health, safety, and general
weUare; 2) avoiding geologic hazards; 3) fire protection;
4) natural resource protection (water supply, open space);
5) natural phenomena protection (river corridors, vegetation,
habitats, soils); 6) aesthetics; and 7) access. Of the 190
jurisdictions, 75 percent identified aesthetic purposes, and 71
percent identified natural phenomena protection. (See Table
Bl.) A majority also identified health and safety, geologic
hazards, and natural resource protection. Of the seven
purposes, the two that were least frequently cited were fire
protection (29%) and access (30%).
We subdivided the purposes into 34 specific subpurposes.
Of these, the ones identified by 40 percent or more of the
jurisdictions were:
Rare, unique, or special environments
Preserving overall scenic quality of site
Erosion or siltation
111 (58%)
107 (56%)
93 (49%)
93 (49%)
82 (43%)
79 (42%)
Protecting vegetation
Slope stability
Preserving aesthetic character'
Flooding, excess runoff
77(41%)
Table 81. Statements of Purpose
No. of Jurisdictions
Purpose listing purpose
Aesthetics 142 (75%)
Natural Phenomena 134 (71%)
Geologic Hazards 122 (64%)
Health. Safety, General Welfare 121 (64%)
Natural Resources 114(60%)
Access 57 (30%)
Are Protection 56 (29%)
24
Table 82. length, In Pages,
of Hillside Documents Collected
Length (Pages) Number of Documents
1-2 29 (to.7%)
3-5 69 (24.4%)
6-10 60 (22.0%)
11-20 55 (20.2%)
21-50 38 (14.0%)
51-100 13 ( 4.8%)
> 100 8 ( 2.9%)
Table 83. Slope Thresholds for
Hillside Regulallon
Number of Jurisdictions
Tbreshold (of 150 total with thresholds)
40% 5
35<1/0 1
30% 10
25% 16
20% 16
17% 4
15% 31
120;..> 5
10% 54
5% 8
DOCUMENT CHARACfERISTlCS
The documents varied in size, style, and appearance, as well
as in readibility. Two-thirds of them were between 3 and 20
pages long (see Table 82), although 11 percent were only one
or two pages in length. One-third of the documents used
graphics to.illustrate design concepts, and 18% contained
maps of hillside areas.
Nearly half (48%) of the documents were part of a zoning
ordinance. The rest were plans (9%), guidelines (16%), or
some unspecified part of a municipal code (19%). Some were
difficult to classify.
The documents define "hillside" a variety of ways. The
most common is to specify a threshold slope steepness, above
which hillside regulations apply. But there are other methods
as well (some of them used in combination.with the slope
threshold method),
Any site steeper than.a threshold slope 150 (79%)
Based on overlay district 108 (57%)
Based on hazard areas or some other feature 42 (22%)
Based on elevation 7 (4%)
The amount of the slope threshold varies. Thresholds are
shown in Table 83. For most (65%) of the jurisdictions,
hillside regulations are triggered at slopes of 15 percent or
less. For 62 (41 % of those with thresholds) of them, the
regulations are triggered at slopes of 10 percent or !ess. Thus,
a slope does not need to be very steep to be considered a
'?1~
"hillside" in many communities. Erosion, runoff, and road
grade problems can occur on slopes as shallow as 10 percent,
and many communities take a conservative approach in order
to prevent any such problems.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Implementing strategies used by respondent jurisdictions
were grouped into seven broad categories, as shown in Table
84. Nearly 90 percent of jurisdictions restricted site design in
hillside areas, and nearly 90 percent offered or required unique
project approval procedures in hillside areas. In addition,
most jurisdictions also used strategies addressing land use or
lot size, building construction, vegetation, and road access.
Frequency of use of the varioUS strategies provides some
clues as to which goals have the highest priority_ It is one
thing to list goals in the beginning of the ordinance, but quite
another to enact regulations aimed at those goals. The most
frequently cited strategies were: grading controls (72%;)
mandated replacement or planting of vegetation (65%);
requirements for technical studies by professionals (59%);
limits on vegetation removal (57%); building setbacks (56%);
restrictions on type or design of building (53%); and
restrictions on maximum land-use intensity (47%). Generally,
vegetation and land-use intensity appear to be the most
important issues to these communities, and road access is of
lesser importance.
Table 84. Implementing Strategies Used by Responding Jurisdictions
Percentage Percentage
Number of of Total Number of of Total
Strategy Respondent' Re'pondent' Strategy Respondents Respondents
1. Land Use and Lot Size 138 73% 4. Tree/Vegetation Restrictions 148 78%
SpeCifying maximum density or intensity 89 47% Mandated replacement or planting 124 65%
SpeCifying minimum lot size Limited removal 109 57%
or dimensions 82 43% Fire safety as basis 68 36%
SpeCifying perm'"ed uses 68 36% Vegetation management mandated 53 28%
Requiring no-build areas 5. Road and Parking Restrictions 116 .61%
(a minimum %) 19 10% Road standards 79 42%
2. Site Design and Construction 166 87% Roads parallel to contours 72 38%
Grading 136 72% Parking restrictions 67 35%
Setbacks 107 56%, Common access drives 27 14%
Open space 74 39% 6. Other Design Regulations 53 28%
Clustering 61 32% Lighting 42 22%
Impervious surface coverage SO 26% Signage 23 12%
3. Building Restriction, 136 72% 7. Procedural and Policy Strategies 169 89%
Type or design 101 53% Require technical studies by professionals 113 59%
Maximum height 86 45% Variances or special exceptions 79 42%
Materials restricted 75 39% Grandparenting of existing uses 68 36%
Fire safety as basis SO 26% Conditional uses permitted 56 29%
Orientation/siting 40 21% Transfer development rights, density bonuses 40 21%
Maximum footprint 23 12% Homeowners' association 19 10%
~13
25
CITY OF ASHLAND
MEMORANDUM
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
DATE:
May 23, 1997
TO:
FROM:
Interested Parties ~//>\'
Ashland Planning Department ~
RE: Hillside Development Standards - Final Draft
Enclosed is the final draft of the Hillside Development Standards. This is the
culmination of many hours of work by many individuals and we believe that it is a fine
effort.
A meeting of the Citizens for Hillside Standards/Friends of Ashland to review the final
draft prior to going to public hearing will be held Monday June 2, 1997 at 7:00 pm in the
City Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street, Ashland, Oregon. The first public
hearing for adoption of the standards will be held before the Ashland Planning
Commission on Tuesday, June 10, 1997 at 7:00 pm at the City Council Chambers.
Everyone is encouraged to attend these meetings.
/550
IASHLAND PLANNING DEPARTMENTI
/55/
SectlonB:
18.62.010
18.62.020
18.62.030
18.62.040
18.62.050
18.62.060
18.62.070
18.62.075
18.62.080
18.62.090
18.62.100
Chapter 18.62
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
PurpoBe and Intent.
RegulatlonB.
DefinltlonB.
Approval and Permit Required.
Land ClaBBlficationB.
Official Maps.
Development StandardB for Floodplain Corridor LandB.
Development Standard,,; for Riparian Pre,,;erve Land,,;.
Development Standard,,; fOI [1661,,, 1Il1J ::k>p" r 1I11UI ";m!!lw!4~ Land,,;.
Development StandardB for Wildfire Land,,;.(Ord 2747.1994)
Development Standard,,; for Severe Con,,;tralnt Land,,;.
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Chapter Is to provide for safe, orderly
and beneficial development of districts characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions
~;f.~mQl.1Yall!l?lK~I;t{ii~1E'~; to limit alteration of topography and reduce encroachment
upon: oraiterationOf,aii:,inatural environment and; to provide for sensitive development In
areas that are con,,;tralned by various natural features. Physiographic conditionsllJ1i~q
~1iJ'f!!lIlJ.iiil&il1i.ltt~ can be considered to Include, but are not limited to: ,,;iOpe of the
iand:naturaCdralii.age ways, wetland,,;, soil characterl,,;tlc,,;, Etentlal land,,;lide area,,;, natural
and wildlife habltatdfutq[~;tir~q{~~~'J&~~.i!!{tt<<qli{i!fl'pJ!ijl!Wti!lI1Y~~~B!ii.-
18.62.020 Regulations. The type of regulation applicable to he land depends upon the
c1a,,;,,;lfication In which the land I,,; placed, a,,; provided In Section 18.62.050. If those
regulations confiict with other regulations of the City of Ashland's Municipal Code. the more
stringent of the two regulations Bhall govem.
18.62.030 Definition,,;. The following terms are hereby defined aB they apply to thl5 Chapter:
A. Architect - An architect licensed by the State of Oregon.
tz..
-':.:i
....
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints Ordinanre Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 1
1552.
~
B.
Buildable area - That portion of an exlBting or propoBed lot that IB free of
building reBtrictlonB. For the purpoBe of thiB ordinance, a buildable area
cannot contain any Betback areaB, eaBementB, and Blmilar building reBtrlctionB,
and cannot contain any land that IB Identified aB Floodplain CotTldor LandB, or
any land that IB greater than~&~ Blope.
C.
CoheBive SollB - ReBldual or tranBported ooilB, uBualiyoriglnating from parent
rock which contalnB Bignificant quantitieB of mineralB which weather to clay.
CoheBlve BoilB have a PlaBtlclty Index of ten tfGTor more, baBed on laboratory
teBtlng by AASHTO, or a Blte-Bpecific Bclentific analYBiB of a particular ooil
material.
Development - Alteration of the land Burface by:
1. ~~j~jlml~!mly!gl~~f!!~€iif7'Jrading, filling i!~Bf!filt!aj8R cutting"""
ol;l,el ell 1 't1'..I.l.le~II:~..ll.otl,lt~..I~v()lvln~..rnor~.than~ft,Y..(5c;)~.cublc xardB
ili!l.I'Wlllf~!Ii,@,j~~,W1Bln~!;~j@mfflI~!~tm!iiE.
The removal of three or more living treeB of over Bix t6]-incheB diameter
at breaBt height (DBH), or the removal of five percent ~f the total
number of living (or dead treeB) over Blx t6]-lncheB DBH, whichever IB
greater, on any lot within al,'y ellO (1) olllcI1Jlll.;i{~ year'j~, or any
form of commercial logging;
il~IIIIIIY_lllllifia'j'!i.~.!!~'i!iffi!gf
COn5trUctionOfab;:;II,j'lng~road:drivewaY'Earl(ing area, or other ........ 'P
ii[i.l_fllliall;:'"w":.:~II.f~
~6i;~~:~~t~ji.!! of any Btream!m~ij~~g&!ml~!~q!\i~.
D.
2.
~j
34.
4{5.
E.
Engineer - A regiBtered profeBBlonal engineer IicenBed by the State of Oregon.
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinanre Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 2
/'553:.
F.
G.
H.
HI.
19;
L
Engineering Geologist - A registered professional engineering geologist
licensed by the State of Oregon.
Floodway Channel - The floodway channel as defined In the Flood Insurance
Study for Ashland. Oregon. published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency on December 1. 1980.
Gully - A drainage incision. commonly caused by erosion, which does not
experience regular or seasonal stream flow. but does act as a channel for
runoff during periods of high rainfall.
-
m~l1g'l;{i!fZr{iq~I1I~~
~!~~l1!RmB~Ii~~lgWl
1I~11(!lp*n~t!\m~H
~~t!~iR~t~
IIlilllllirJiiiI9f
'7}~~
,\ ~~ N^TU~Al- 6r....,.o..DE'
cu" ~INI-s.~ED 61Z.ApS
T ~
~~~.(2 'W//d4?f'i~t!!i~~
~'I7I1~'.~~W
CUT A>JD FIl..l- ceos'5 SE%CTION
tN!. Non-cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils containing no or very little
clay, usually from crystalline granitic parent rock. Non-cohesive salls have a
Plasticity Index of less than ten-f1e7. based on laboratory testing by AASHTO.
or a published scientific analysis of a particular soil type.
Physical and Envirorunental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 3
/551
d{J.
~.
18.62.040
A.
N.
It.-
..........---..........--
Riparian - That area associated with a natural water COUrBe Including Its
wildlife and vegetation.
!*....
.C'
.;~,~:
Ge.."'P~ ~ '5l-Ope-
....
6''''o~ "",. --
'5${" __--
oz., ...-
...-
-
~
10 ",.e,
vCft.TIc:.,.&.L-
PI~.......<::."" (v)
..j"
A"
--
LH"'''''~.:..:.:~T..::.~
r I (H)
oSLOf"f: CAl.CUL-ATION
-
H
Qi
:",."
.v
". t~:.-/.'~
"~:;:~.!:
(pea.~Gt;; "'F <SLb"-G- r -r~~IoJT 4F ~)
Wildfire - Fire caused by combustion of native vegetation, commonly referred
to as forest fire or brush fire.
Approval and Permit Rea.ulred.
A Type I Physical Constraints Review Permit Is required for any development, as
defined In 18.62'o30(C), in areas Identified as Floodplain Corridor Land,
Riparian Preserve, [1051,0 al1d ~Iol'c r allul c!;!!lml@ land, or Severe Constraint
land.
B.
If a development Is part of a Site Review, Performance Standards Development,
Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then
the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the Planning Action at1d I'"
addlti"11o!l1 rcc el,all ~c eLal gcJ.
C.
If a development Is exclusive of any other Planning Action, as noted In
Subsection B, then the Physical Constraints Review shall be processed as a
Staff Permit.
Wi
,;.;.:.:.
, n""<<'7."0'jme.~~
'="V ~,. ",v:.,~~Ar%"~~~;rt;r:
W~. '1l!iir&A'''aff
,t.,~ ,;.:~:~ ,
'~lmultalliiOoo1S:
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 4
(555"
ea. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required for any development
requiring a Physical Con5tralnts Review:
1. ,', tJlt;>. plan~B~n containing the following:
a. Project name.
b. Vicinity map.
c. Scale (the scale shall be.!lt least one tlTlnch5uals Fift;.Y (50}
feet or larger) .'- . 'i;,Arl. .. ..~l'~
J.
d.
e.
f.
North arrow.
Date.
Street names and locations of all existing and proposed streets
within or on the boundary of the proposed development.
Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
location and use of all proposed and existing buildings, fences
and structures within the proposed development. Indicate which
buildings are to remain and which are to be removed..
location and size of all public utilities affected by the proposed
development.
location of drainage ways or public utility easements In and
~d ~cent ~ the proposed development.&Eiii*rJt~
.^.E1ttt
l<o:<<<.;<'......:w:~<<<<<.^~.<<-v,:.:.
A
topograph
Ie map of
the site
at a
contour
Interval of
g.
h.
I.
k.
Slope c..teeory are.-eo are
.rue of uniform olope
(~ln 5'h) of ~e maxlmum
l"dle.teA.
510pe Ie me.eure-d
pe'l'et\4:tlcular to eantcur
liMe
.~;~;" ~Z~.[tEIMRW2~~;~l~
.
I. location of a.1I patting areas and spaces, Ingress and egress on
the site, and on-site circulation.
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 5
1'S5&
n.
o.
1"
!t'
r~
R~
m.
k!pptir~~tjocations of ~.II,,;xisti8~8a~urai..f,,;~tur,,;s includi8~.:.but
-,
-.
!lV!Wi In forested areas, it is necessary to identify only those
trees which will be affected or removed by the proposed
development. Indicate any contemplated modifications to a
natural feature.
The proposed method of erosion control, water runoff control,
;~~B protection for the development~~'IB'Qjr%l.i~mjm
Building envelopes for all existing and proposed new parcels that
....,.....-.
.11.[lfli!_fIRIIII[~~~Igf
2. Additional plans and studies as required in Sections 18.62.070,
18.62.080,18.62.090 and 18.62.100 of this Chapter.
Eft Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review Pennit shall be issued by
the Sta.ff Advisor when the Applicant demonstrates the following: ...... ..................
1. ..1IiltlI111Ii~~:~'i"!'I~;
Je,c1oplI ,~l1t "lIll1ot CllUoe Jllll1llgc; 01 hllZ:lll J to pOl 601115 01 pi opclty
UpCll1 01 -'lJj-'lCc;l,t to tl,c -'II C-'I of Jc,dopl1lcl1t.
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 6
1:J51
2. That the applicant has considered the potential hazards that the
development may create and Implemented 1 CiI!lOI1<<I~lc measures to
mitigate the potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to reduce the
adverse Impact on the environment. Irreversible actions shall be
considered more seriously than reversible actions. The Staff Advisor or
Planning Commission shall consider the existing development of the
surrounding area, and the maximum pennltted development permitted
by the Land Use Ordinance.
4. That the development Is In compliance with the requirements of this
chapter and all other applicable City Ordinances and Codes.
Ri.
The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission has the power to amend plans to
Include any or all of the following conditions If It Is deemed necessary to
mitigate any potential negative Impact caused by the development:
1. Require the retention of trees, rocks, ponds;~ff~~!Im1lfi~ftl water
courses and other natural features.
Require plan revision or modification to mitigate possible negative or
Irreversible effect upon the topography or natural features that the
P.r.? sed devel<:EI11,;,nt r.n"aY,,~':l~;e:
2.
.~;i
....:0.
,~t
ri~
c.
l1.c CtilFF 1.J,1501 01 Plill1l1ll1g COllllll1551011 I1li1y ..lei... 1;l.c PI1:Y5"",,1 ill1J
[1,,11 01111 ICI ltill C0l15tl illl1t:5 Rc,lc\, PClllilt IF, III It6 01'1111011.
1. l1.c I" o"o"cd J(;,CIOI'II1Cllt hllll.iI,(; iI JctlllllClltZlI cffect Oil tl1(; lilI1J6
I eguliltcd illlJ plotectcd by tl115 CI1i1l'tel, 01 If 111(;011515t0l1t "itl, tl.o
COIl '1'1 d lei lol"e Plllll.
2. WI ,CI C It ill'l'MI 5 tl1i1t till' 1'1 c1'05i1115 I'"wt of iI 11101 c cAtcl15l,c
JO,CIOI'1I1Cl1t thilt "oulJ I cquh C II 1l1116t;cJ 51te 1'I1ll1, CI o1;l.cl PlilI1I1111g
l.etlol1. III tl.15 e1l5c,ll1'1'10,1l115 to ~C 1'051;l"'l1cd Ul1tllll col11l'leto
I'IilI1111110 ill'l'lIeiltlol1 11115 ~CCI1 I'loeC5!jcJ.
18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be used to determine the
classifications of various lands and their constraints to building and development on them:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 7
/55fi
A. Floodplain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential stream flow and flood hazard.
The following lands are c1asslfled as Floodplain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 100 year floodplain as defined by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. In maps adopted by Chapter
15.10 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Floodplain Corridor land In maps
adopted by the Council as provided for In section 18.62.060.
3. All lands which have physical or historical evidence of flooding in the
historical past.
4. All areas within t..el1t:y (201 feet (horizontal distance) of any creek
designated for Riparian Preservation In 18.62.o50(B) and depleted as
such on maps adopted by the Council as provided for In section
18.62.060.
5. All areas within ten fle}-feet (horizontal distance) of any drainage
channel depicted on maps adopted by the Council but not designated
as Riparian Preservation.
B. Riparian Preservation - The following Floodplain Corridor Lands are also
designated for Riparian Preservation for the purposes of this Section and as
listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints Overlay Maps: Tolman,
Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen, Ashland, Nell and Wrights Creeks.
C. [I 0,,1,0 ~I1J ~Iopo r 1I11U1 ~;ellfJi Lands - Lands with potential erosion
hazards. [16151,0 LlIl,J" 1I11d Clopo r 1II1ulc!;[!!LlRiI Lands are lands which are
!~i~!~~~~fifi~f~~II~:r!~:!~~!!!~K~
1. All areas defined as "I ",,1"11 1I11d ,,1,,1"" ftlllulO !l!DW!!!'''lnds on the
Physical Constraints Overlay map and which have a slope of 1\51 ty (10:~)
~jpercent or greater.
D. WIldfire Lands - Lands with potential of wildfire. The following lands are
classified as WIldfire Lands:
1. All areas defined as wildfire lands on the Physical Constraints Overlay
map.
E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe development characteristics
which generally limit nonnal development. The following lands are classified as
Severe Constraint Lands:
1. All areas which are within the flood way channels, as defined In the City's
Flood Protection Ordinance, Chapter 15.10.
Physical and Enviromnenl1ll Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 8
/5'SCJ
18.62.060
A.
2. All lands with a slope greater than fiFty (50~b)~ percent.
F.
Classifications Cumulative. The above classifications are cumuiative In their
effect and. if a parcel of land falls under two f2T0r more classifications. it
shall be subject to the regulations of each classification. Those restrictions
applied shall pertain only to those portions of the land being developed and not
necessarily to the whole parcel.
B.
Official Maps.
The City Council shall adopt official maps denoting the above identified areas.
Substantial amendments of these maps shall be a Type 3 procedure.
Minor amendments of the maps to correct mapping errors when the
amendments are Intended to more accurately reflect the mapping criteria
contained in this ordinance or In the findings of the Council in adopting an
official map may be processed as a Type 1 procedure.
18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands. For all land use actions
which could result In development of the Floodplain Corridor, the following is required in
addition to any requirements of Chapter 15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Floodplain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform Building Code. Chapter
70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten ~eet outside of
flood way channels, as defined In section 15.10. and the fill shall not
exceed the angle of repose of the material used for fill.
3. The amount of fill In the Floodplain Corridor shall be kept to a minimum.
Fill and other material Imported from off the lot that could displace
fioodwater shall be limited to the following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary to build
permitted structur;s onl the lot. ri I 'Immlr$~m~'Wlm
:: ~@~!#i!~,!~!i;g.i&af!!!!pJI.
d. A total of ~cubic yards of other imported fill material;
01 till oX I,U! ,JI &.l (300) cubic; .)'LlI de pCI Ll"1 ". ..Llel,","1 16
01 "atol. TIle"e allloullt6 al" tl." 1I1axilllulll eUl11uILltl,,, Fill tl.at
call be Il11pol t&.l "I ,to tl,,, 6It". legal JI"66 of tl,,, llul11bel of
pel I 0I1t6 165u&.l.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measur~!1:?t110f~II:~~~.~~d
shall not exceed the above amounts. ~@!~P~i!!,*;1iW!
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 9
/5(.",0
11"IRIlWI~II.i_IIIlr.9i1t&m\~..'.~iiW;
4. If additional fill iB neeeBBary beyond the permitted amountB in (3)
above. then fill materlalB mUBt be obtained on the lot from cutting or
excavation only to the extent neeeBBary to create an elevated Bite for
permitted development. All additional fill material Bhall be obtained
from the portion of the lot In the Floodplain Conidor.
5. Adequate drainage Bhall be provided for the Btability of the fill.
6. Fill to ralBe elevatlonB for a building Bite Bhall be located aB dOBe to
the outBlde edge of the Floodplain Conidor aB feaBlble.
B. Culvertlng or bridging of any waterway or creek Identified on the official mapB
adopted pUrBuant to Beetion 18.62.060 mUBt be deBigned by an engineer.
Stream croBBingB Bhall be deBigned to the BtandardB of Chapter 15.10. or
where no flood way haB been Identified, to paBB a one hundred (100) year flood
without any IncreaBe In the upBtream flood height elevation. The engineer Bhall
conBider in the deBlgn the probability that the culvert will be blocked by debriB
in a Bevere flood, and accommodate expeeted O~~cF1?~:~ill.~S~~,~I~.~r;;i~~~~d
bridging Bhall be kept to the minimum neeeBBar)f@il.MRnI?&4i~l?El~,
but iB exempt from the IImltatlonB In Beetlon (A)above:Culverting or bridging
of BtreamB Identified aB Riparian Preservation are Bubject to the requirementB
of 18.62.075.
C. Non-reBldential BtructureB Bhall be flood-proof to the BtandardB in Chapter
15.10 to one (1) foot above the elevation contained in the mapB adopted by
chapter 15.10, or up to the elevation contained In the official mapB adopted by
Beetlon 18.62.060, whichever height IB greater. Where no Bpeeific elevationB
exiBt, then they mUBt bc c1e,ll!7c<Jit!~~%l to an elevation of ten f1e]-feet
above the creek channel on ABhland, Bear or Neil Creek; to five tsTfeet above
the creek channel on all other Riparian PreBerve creekB defined In Beetion
18.62'o50(B); and three t31-feet above the Btream channel on all other
drainage waYB identified on the official mapB.
D. All reBid entia I BtructureB Bhall be elevated 00 that the loweBt habitable floor
Bhall be raiBed to one f1Tfoot above the elevation contained In the mapB
adopted In chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained In the official mapB
adopted by Bection 18.62.060, whichever height IB greater. Where no Bpeeific
e1evatlonB exlBt, then they mUBt be conBtructed at an elevation of ten tte7
feet above the creek channel on ABhland, Bear, or Neil Creek; to five t5Tfeet
above the creek channel on all other Riparian Preserve creekB defined in Beetion
18.62.050(B); and three t31-feet above the Btream channel on all other
i~ii,i~~;;;1;!~i:1~~fi~rp!?J!!!!~!~~f!~~~
loweBthabitableftoor shailbe certiftedtothe city by an engineer or Burveyor
prior to IBBuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Btructure.
Physical and Envirorunental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 10
/:)61
E. To the maximum extent feasible. structures shall be placed on other than
Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the caBe where development IB permitted In the
Floodplain corridor area, then development Bhall be limited to that area which
would have the BhalloweBt flooding.
F. ExiBtlng lotB with buildable land outBlde the Floodplain Corridor Bhalllocate all
reBldentlal BtructureB outBlde the Corridor land, unleBB FlPty (507,) pel cellt or
more of the lot IB within the Floodplain Corridor. For rooldentlal UBeB propoBed
for exlBtlng lotB that have more than F1Fl;y (50%) "01 COl1t of the lot In Corridor
land, BtructureB may be located on that portion of the floodplain corridor that
IB two f2Tfeet or leBB below the flood elevatlonB on the official map!?, but In no
caBe c10Ber than t..cl1ty (20) feet to the channel of a Riparian PreBervatlon
Creek. ConBtructlon Bhall be Bubject to the requlrementB In paragraph D above.
G. New non-reBldentlal UBeB may be located on that portion of Floodplain Corridor
landB that are t.." (2) feot IIllmior 10M ~e1o.. BJ:,\the flood elevatlonB on
the official map!? adopted In Bectlon 18.62.060. Second Btory conBtructlon
may be cantilevered over the floodplain corridor for a dlBtance of t..Cllty (20}
feet If the clearance from finlBhed grade IB at leaBt ten {1e}-feet In. height, and
IB BUpported by pillar!? that will have minimal Impact on the flow of floodwater!?
The finlBhed floor elevation may not be more than two f2Tfeet below the flood
corridor elevatlonB. .
H. AlllotB modified by lot line adjuBtmentB, or new lotB created from lotB which
contain Floodplain Corridor land mUBt contain a building envelope on alllot(B)
which contaln(B) buildable area of a Bufficient Blze to accommodate the UBeB
permitted In the underling zone, unleBB the action IB for open Bpace or
conBervatlon purpoBeB. ThIB Bectlon Bhall apply even If the effect IB to prohibit
further dlvlBion of 10tB that are larger than the minimum Blze permitted In the
zoning ordinance.
\. BaBemenw.
1. Habitable baBementB are not permitted for new[Pf11!ilml!1W I MUG' ,tI.<l1
BtructureB or addltlonB located within the Floodplain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable baBementB, UBed for storage, parking, and Blmllar UBes
are permitted for reBldentlal BtructureB but mUBt be flood-proofed to
the BtandardB of Chapter 15.10.
3. Dc,GIo""IClt of 1"!l~lt.1~I,, ~.15CI11CAlta "f e>:15tll1!J 11011 I colJcl1tl.11
5tl UCtUI C6 t"'<lt .11 C .1t "I ~clo.. tll" Flood e1C,.1tiOll" COllt",llloJ ill tl.c
ofAcl.1IIII.1"5 511.111 ~" pCllllltW III tl,c ,"ol,l.1l1d I (joOOllc II ,tCI cot 1\1 M.
.1" J"FilloJ II, tl." l,51.I.1IlJ COlliI'I cl.eIl51,., 1"1.111.
~. He IIC.. h.1~lt.1~lc ~.1OClll"lltc 1"1.01 tl1.1ll thO (2) fect ~Ch'h t51.., flood"I",I, ,
COI I Idol "lc,.1tIOIl6 61..111 ~" "CllIlItW Oil .1IlY cxl6tlll\:j 01 11".. 11011
I CCIJ"lltl.11 6tl uctul " outclJo tl,c I 0I6OOllc IllUI c5t .11 C.1.
5. 1I.1~lt.1~k; ~.16CI1IGl1t6 61,.1l1l1ot ~" tJ60J fOI 6lcoplll\:j "IU.1I'!;"'''.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 11
ISC::. ;l...
J. Storage of petroleum products. pesticides. or other hazardous or toxic
chemicals is not permitted in Floodplain Corridor lands.
K. Fences constructed within t..Cl1ty (20] feet of any Riparian Preservation Creek
designated by this ordinance shall be limited to wire or electric fence, or similar
fence that will not collect debrl~or?b~~~~~t~??dw~~r;:;.~~t~?~including
iiii_llli,iill.BII.'lIr~~m'~~~
L. Decks and structures other than buildings, If constructed on Floodplain
Corridor Lands and at or below the levels specified in paragraph (C) and (D) of
the section. shall be flood-proofed to the standards contained in Chapter
15.10.
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments in and adjacent to the
Floodplain Corridor shall be located outside of the Floodplain Corridor, except
~~~Eii~~il1~~~;~~~~~'~~~;i~ri~l~~IC Ji5t.o, ,ccJ~!1~I~*fil11!1j~~~
1~~wl..I.I.lIl1ll1lt~llrlll;&E!IIII~w!1@~lr
18.62.075
A.
Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands.
All development in areas indicated for Riparian Preservation, as deAned in
section 18.62'oSO(B), shall comply with the following standards:
1.
Development shall be subject to all Development Standards for
Floodplain Corridor Lands (18.62.070)
Any yt~ 5p/O/Oic5 "f pi"C, ".ok, RI , 1I1.oJI "11C, '1/0.., "I D"u~I.o" rIt over six
t6]-inches DBH shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible.
Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for streets, access, or
utilities. The crossing shall be at right angles to the creek channel to
the greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a minimum.
2.
3.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2. I May 23, 1997
Page 12
/~'3
4. The general topography of Riparian PreBervatlon landB Bhall be retained.
1&ff_fl(ili~BWIl~l_i{t~~i!~Ji~~i~~Pt
~~;~It.llfI_Wilt.IIUjg~j(~[iq..'qrE~ii
21
lit;
i~
OW
Sf:
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 13
/si.:,f
Jl
~)
~..,
~.
~..,
~
fJ
g:j
rn
I"
,
.
<.,.
;:;:m:~~.!ilt!jmm
:.: ;$i :xU:.".~.*(t4~~*"-'iM,<</~)'.#.:::::'''''':::::;:::'~iN
;<li\L41!Rd@k,1lt*Halt~3r#Am!i(JL;
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1m
Page 14
I~/.; -:;
.~L: ::~1itf_<<~~~mirmm(l["iij~~
,!
~'
_lr9l
",.:~r~IRI'~@'iJ.~l~;~~lJil!!m!~!Jm!1J!m;
JW;
Cut Slope anel
Fill Slope
Rel\ulrement6
200
u.......
Fill 5Iopo
HolghI
Not to Scale
For lIIu.tratlon Only
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 15
15'~'
Reduce Effective Vleual
llu(~ ~y UtlllzlnB
Stepped Foundation"
'Wl'Mi~~am:rmf;l_lrU1';&ll:'N~
.~;~~m.ffl<1~~Rt:~~:&,fflJt:~<,~~~,~<.;,.;.;
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 16
/ S"b 1
7~ tiil__il[([_lia~Bf.&__..~f!fjij~j~.w~
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints OrdillllIKe Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 17
IS";'
~
~11..,1'1I411111111'1I1'"i~'lltr~
l~q!?!rllllfilr..'lIrl!IIIIIIII~II~~im;
~
m ~YelMii~~~~rAl9R1!im1!i1!1~R~~J~Iimltl;ID~';f[;IR~~i
~] !!1~R~fi@Iii!1MIjg~I!S~
,'.. ;\11 Jc,oI"pl11/'Ilt: ..hlcl, I CIII".C6 ,~cttltl"ll 01 JI6tuI ~61;opMII tlllJ IM,c5 tLe
dl6tUI ~cJ 6011 tit tI 61ol'c of Fiftj (50~~) pCI Mlt 01 11101 e "Lall colllply hltL tl,c
FcIlC>I.III;, 6ttll,.Jal J6,
1. ,'.lly oxpc>"cJ 6011 61 ,all ~c le,~"tatcJ III a mal1l1CI to lec6ttl~1I611 a
,~"tati.e C0I1I111Ullltj I.Itl ,II, a OIIC (1) ycal pCI ioJ fi 6111 i615ual1Cc of a
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 18
I 5'~ '1
CCI"tIFicllte of OectJpllllCY, If III iglltlol1 10 110t 1'1 o,iJcJ. tl,el1 tile cxpo,;cJ
ooilldU!:>t ~e plllllecJ ..Itll !:>pcoieo hidel, elll1 CUI ,I,e hitl,out II I Iglltiol1.
2, ','egetlltl,e co,cl.lock. JIY 01 eOll,clltlollllllllllOOI1IY. 01 oti,cl pCIII,llI1Cl1t
CO.,C.I UltJOD ~c Ilu~ll1ttlil1~ ill rC1l'ctull3) 011 Aiello nl.lcL ltt'hO bcCII
dl!:>tul ~cd.
3, 111coo I eotllci;loll0 01la1l11"t apply to al CM of exp66cJ bcJlook ..I,iol,
CXIIIl:1It: 110 01061011 poDclltltll.
Be, 1&_:rI....wmE~r9ml:f',I1:Y Itfflevelopment1[~I!1!!9i8li_l~
hl1lcl, Ii .01 eaooo 1'.110 l1at;U1 all ul10Ff ~Y JCOI Cll!5lhg 1;l,e II1FiI1;1 atlol, of 1;1,0 6011
shall conform to the following stanaaras:
I~
r~4w;.III1I.\lIIII.
" ,w"'<'.';~jMg~~~~Yi{J~
.m ....... . ,>:~.>:.;.:
a:
L42Z'
~'..
, ';;'"''''''W ,'~lr~R~Y'l1~fl;q~i!i~iJ\11!lfJlliM9ft;M~
ibQal1t1f11.1fjr~'!II!III~
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 19
/570
6:~~Zi~~mD~~;!;:;ffl;;;~;I}PP\PYf'4wthe C~yv P!JhllcWot1;s
1, 1\111 ""f JI ",i11"'~" IlltJ6t ~O MllecteJ. 0011151 elleJ "'Id JII ccteJ cltl,ol ~y
ul1ac, ~I OUlla plpc 01 COIIOI cto 01 "'61'1 ,,,,It \lutte, 00 '" City 6tl cot 0,
6COllll Jl t\il1 61 A l1~tull\1 Htrt>CI caUloC.
2. ,\11 JI ",IIl<'l~e f1 0111 "I i,01,"'Y6. 1''''1 kll1~ "'[ ell6 <'IIIJ otl.el i1111'01,loU6
6U[ ftloc6 II ,U6t ~c collooteJ. oemtl olleJ "'IlJ JII/~eteJ 00 '" City ot, oct 01
6001111 JI ",Ill ~:Y UIlJOI ~I OUIIJ I'II'C 01 001101 ete O[ 1l01'1,1l11> ~utkl,
3. o 1>1. O[ llltc[ I ,lite 1110151.05"6 of 0001111 hlltCI J161'Oolll. ouol, 116 ",;iel\chAelJ.
111Uot ~e 1l1'1'[ o,eJ ~y tho Clty'o Pu~lio Weel ko DOl'llltlIlCIII>.
C. C[,l>o 1l1,J riil:5,
1, ,\11 euto. \ll ",01111",01 Allo ol,llll eCIlFol1ll 00 Chlll'tel 70 of tl.c Ul1lf"llIl ,
BuiiJIIl~ CoJc,
2. Ii, tlJJltlell. llllY "ut:5 1111J/,,[ Arlo ~I ClltCI 151,.<11115,,0 I.UIIJI eJ Afty (250)
cu~lc :\,<'1101:5 II1U6t ~c Jeol~lleJ ~:Y <'III lOll~IIlC:C1 00 lOOIl'l'ly "ltl.'UI3C
CI."'l'tlOl 70. Such cuto "'IlJ/OI AII:5 ohllll ~o JC5I~lleJ III wel, tl 1ll11[lI1CI
th",t tl.cy "iii ~c :5t",~le F6[ 151,,:, UoC IlltOllJeJ,
3, IF tl.lO lOXCll,,,,tlcl, 1:5 Ilot <'I City :5t[ lo~ 01 <'I I'u~lio 11~l.t of h"'Y. tl.c
lOl1~II1C:C' !ih<'lll J.xllll lo to tl.o City. <'Iftcl tl.lO lOut <'11101101 All 1:5 oollll'llOteJ.
tl,<'It It ,,1l:5 OOl1otl U61>eJ M 1'1<'111:5 <'11101 11100156 <'III !itllI1J"" J:5 :5ct f"ltl. III
tl.c 1'1<'I1,!i "'1'1'[ e,eJ,
~. tJotl ,II '''' III tl,lo :5cctkm 01 ,llll "'~I iJ06 tl,lO Clty'o I i~1 ,15 to II ,:5l'c"t 1."1 k 111
1'1 "~I lO55 01 III 115:5 oollll'lcteJ :5t",t6.OO III11ko "'1'1'1 "1'[ l<'It" IIlO<'l5UI 611 ,CI,t6
<'lId tC6to 00 Jet-cIIIlIIlC If tl,c out <'I[1J All h1l6 IIl<'1Jc llCCO[ Jill", to 1'1<'11 '.
<'11101 00 I equiI 0 <'Iltel <'Itlol1:5 I'llo[ to AIMI <'11'1'1 i;,<'I1 of tl,o out <'IIIJ/OI All.
i~!!i~irlll"W.~l4!fI1E~!~i9l1jm!!!~l4@j_@
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 20
157/
1.llf~I~lflliliRr~I.II~lr..'''p~~!~B!tP~PY
----
l~ilI9pl'tllllt(lllll!re~i@h~lli1J1h~mg~l%
~~#m9I1i~II&'~I~II~~BII.!lllill'Tilr~!~!qiW~9~@
;~twi~I._1Il?II'IIl!rfJ1mt~R!I!#~F9f&'~r~~!imp&~~r#
0; !f~fi'lfjm!m9r~**!!1yi
~; Y~l1lw\I%8m!1l.I~Qril,ij@iY~~~P49[%j~!1~....,ijgf.~\
;B@q$il!II'lllilrl#~~r~,ij~prq~&i8rfQr~~!9i1;
Ili.I.'lrllliltllllll.~I.tllllf&
"I!~ri;r~E.tBII~III.II.li~II.~IW~I~t
t;r ~~-,.. F:::::~;;::, ~.
1'41If.r~~ r, '\y" : ~~~t~:n~~:nt I
JiBe L,BC{":j tree.
SensItive devdomcnt
optlO!1 for property
Physical and Environmental Constrainls Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 21
/57:2-
1~~mlll_['llli~~~~!l~:p!.I;~!im~~!Y~Iili@
~"":i~:~.I"!~!1qgtl~!li!m~f1!~f1~!!~q!~
.. .<~ x:s.
IB_&jr~,tl:~;
&~ m!1
iilll~Ri$etl
o Tree Conservation
'~ Guideline
,
,
- A tional)' Protection
.... Area - Hand Excavate
Only. No Hea\'Y
Drlpllne Fence Dl61meter &julpment or Pming
f"i..I.II.lr.il:~~Ui
;8mn...w~VllllrIIIRil~!_I~1111_llillllr~!~~P!gr
Physical and Envirorunental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 22
1513
conservation unle,,;,,; indicated on the gn'lding pians, a,,; approved by the
City, and profroolonljl arborivt. If gl"adingor col1l3tructiOl1 ie approved
~~~~~ ~~1i~~I~;;~t~:~=~;l:~r~::':~~:;t:~i~~u~eb;!;::i:~
me.a$urel> to protect the roots.
;=!~E;~~:1:E~!~;:f~~~~~~~::~1t:;~
Ole131gmiWfor WfJ~tvation.
-:
~
a.
tketl"ee i& located withil1 the building el1Velol?e.
Thetreell3locatedwitl\ln a prOpQOOd vtfetit; driveway, or parking
b.
area .
D. " ,TI;letree!elocatedwitl\il1;1l water. 6ewer, or other, public utility
ea6emef\j;:
~JC,
rrof~iqn~I~rl0riiit, '
6. TmReplacem<itJt:' Tree&iipprbved forremoval;witl1 the exception of
trees removed becau0e they were determined to be diseased,&&i:lcl. or a
hazard. shalt be replaced in compliance with tfibfol!owing standards:
Physical and Enviromnental Con'Jtrainl"i Ordinance Revision
lIillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,) May 23, 1997
Page 23
151../
Tree Planting
Guideline
SO IlIllkkkotpt
6' from \nlf1~
5~t'l>fIb'IfWu"Ml\lIIltl.-.
t4ft,aUPIIlWown,.
anol....b..""'.'f'l'Hl~
wU, . I161H1\llt<Illk .wt..
CI//t.t{cU.iI pili""*, _ Itf!oulo::l 1or~-5
~- UI. .cr:. t1f U1. ,,""..G..IIM Pflb'
"atlv,..,I.t\ouLlHUHJIot-fC.
I.(OIIM ....h~ too eMtaln WIIlt-<<.
s~ 'Cf' ." roo;hl It.~ Iowol
f~klMf'trointrllnl::...1\<4
u.p .... ,fUll.
5<St UCl<IllTI -.l ,rwM
,;/gwAl[._mmfi!!!jJW:m~
m'
W~
fimfjf~!p;;
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 24
/515'
a, All tree removal shall be done in accord with the approved tree
removal ant:! repl;iYfment plan, No tr8$sd~j<Jnated forconl'ietVatiOt1
e;l1afl beremovedwithO\,lt prior approv,alofthe City of Aul1land,
~
~i1y~$i1;
Iqr&.~al_~aill_lilil&I_"iiili.lIi_1_llr'11Ii~I.~~
f9!!@&i.i1~~p~ffl9mr9~j
~~f*~Jl~I~j:r:!~~~F:~r
:~~~~~~tJfoni'liiiqtot~ii folloivlng
~; ,',' ,,*~~Rliil@!m~@J]xm(;p#
~h~!I..ppiimlhji!Rgj.iq~F!~'..ji!riia
WiPU~'~lgp~9~9.Rt*Rrlgi;.~;
b. Buildjngeiivdopi3l'i and
i<::lt4esigi1",haU;';~4ti!i;6 the
~h~6frt~~#j~~geof ,
thelbtjn,"lJiar;UfI'lI~j;ate, al'i
requireJ.ln i8.G2.qe,p ;"2.
~L"r LINES ~
. LE~;;;:,:J5'V
t~"'~ &l.Ill-p,...tH.e I
y.....ll.D I :-Y:. ^(.flA 1-- !':.~UI,L"D
("or..""') I i-'-'! ,q '(~o<o
~ \,' ~ J .",OINO
c.ov,"~,"
1~6' '_,_,)~I.'''D'""U""
fllftf'lT I
YA~O YJo,(o llNa-;. I
(~ETe.,a...c:lC) I ('St:T8o.'><::.I'- Llo.JE"S) ~t.~
I I _ I F~T YI'J...D
_h.:JL.... L.':.,:,,~ ~''''''''~'J,L---
ST R..E "'T R.,O,W.
--.-------..-.. ..-.--
~ee~~~:t~~~~ci~U~~lIi;1:~!3~~;;,~Cawd to ll1ayJit1ize
Physical and EnvirOl~,ental Constraints 6rdinance Revision
HillSide Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23,1997
Page 25
157'
Retentlotl of hllhslde
chlirlicter IinJ nliturlil
elope l7)' avo~ln6
rkAeellne
Iocatlon~
::<'<'':
~e //
'<(..~/'!4~"v
/.--;.~e
./" t/\)V'
Permitted ...-:
/' ,,\
/' \\."vJ.
____/ <;tf-~(1
//'~
Not
Permitted
"(..f:.f)VJ.:- ,::i-
____ ~~1'0
........-: ~\(\t
..... ~.
rurf.\
".V
(1(f.o,G<
---
/--- /,100'
'mitillilllil\~~
illJFltlflilllllii.lllllllltil
IMi.I_'III;~~r~!im!!rn~;!!mJ~;~mJ~;gm~!~~
---=
r~~~~i1!lpgr~!~14~;(~~ur~k!1(qJ
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 26
IS77
..--
~~\.~o .........-"
------y..e'\,(6'(i.
......, -$~\~~
..-- ~
~
..-- Orient Roof
__ <- Slept: with Ultt
~ ----- HIlIl'I~e
..--
:r
"'~l
Ht,
20'
~-'-~
~
, I
! I
16.t.4ln,mum ~5' ~
. Offeto1;
( \ l.-- MlIlKlmum ,
~r::t:::::'~. --._.1
-;.u'ff..'
".
(1'f"b.O
~
eIt. Any development or partitioning which Is proposed 111 [I o51,e .old Slop" r ailul e
t!ll!@jq~'jLands must be shown on a master plan at the time the final plan or
plat Is filed, All development must comply with the master plan. Any
Improvements necessary for the Implementation of the master plan (e.g" storm
drains. gutters. etc.), which Involve two f2T0r more parcels of land must be
constructed by the applicant prior to any development occurring on the
parcels,
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 27
157?
EG,
Ff{,
All structures on LI "oi, C llllJ ~I"pc r ~ilul eJ!l!Imlf.!.~ Landssh~[[hav~f?undations
which have been designed by an engineer or architect mlill@.~mA!'I~Ei~l!l#
fi~Mie~E4~J~!1:E!_,
All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line adjustment must Include a
building envelope on all lots that contains a buildable area;~@;I1!!l@i~~;~I9~
of sufficient size to accommodate the uses permitted in the underlying zone,
uniess the division or lot line adjustment Is for open space or conservation
purposes,
IW1WfMrt~il[IJ.I!rllti"jlllll_~I.II'w
~il$i
m~;~f_ll:tlllt_~f!ljif&t~~1;wI1~rm:mtj~iW
~!!~~d~@)qlllll~fl1ti\y~X{f#~IH!@]t~Y!!~!~'!lfl~m!m!mHllin~~~~~':131
IrII1l'1W1fi~II!r!.~f~m!rJ2i~mY~lr~!M1n~I~njm~IU~@~~,~HlJ!!m~
18.62.090
A.
Development Standards for Wildfire Lands.
Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards Developments, or
Partitions.
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be required with the submission
of any application for an outline plan approval of a Performance
Standards Development. preliminary plat of a subdivision. or application
to partition land which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard
areas.
2, The Staff Advisor shali forward the Fire Prevention and Control Plan to
the Fire Chief within 3 days of the receipt of a completed application,
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 28
/5'7q
The Fire Chief shall review the Fire Prevention and Control Plan, and
submit a written report to the Staff Advisor no iess than 7 days before
the scheduled hearing. The Fire Chiefs report shall be a part of the
record of the Planning Action,
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan, prepared at the same scale as the
development plans, shall Include the following Items:
a, An analysis of the fire hazards on the site from wildfire, as
influenced by existing vegetation and topography.
b. A map showing the areas that are to be cleared of dead, dying,
or severely diseased vegetation.
c, A map of the areas that are to be thinned to reduce the
interlocking canopy of trees,
d, A tree management plan showing the location of all trees that
are to be preserved and removed on each lot. In the case of
heavily forested parcels, only trees scheduled for removal shall
be shown,
e, The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel Breaks that are
required to be installed around each structure. as required by
18,62.090 B,
f, Roads and driveways sufficient for emergency vehicle access and
fire suppression activities, including the slope of all roads and
driveways within the Wildfire Lands area,
4, Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority shall approve the Fire
Prevention and,Control Plan when, in addition to the findings required by
this chapter, the additional finding is made that the wildfire hazards
present on the property have been reduced to a reasonable degree,
balanced with the need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number of
trees and plants for erosion prevention, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.
5. The hearing authority may require, through the Imposition of conditions
attached to the approval, the following requirements as deemed
appropriate for the development of the property:
a, Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to be thinned and a
formal plan for such thinning,
b, Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce fuel load,
c. Removal of all dead and dying trees,
d, Relocation of structures and roads to reduce the risks of
wildfire and improve the chances of successful fire suppression.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be implemented during the
public improvements required of a subdivision or Performance Standards
Development. and shall be considered part of the subdivider's obligations
for land development, The Plan shall be implemented prior to the
Physical and Envirorunental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 29
;-Sto
issuance of any building permit for structures to be located on lots
created by partitions and for subdivisions or Performance Standards
developments not requiring public improvements. The Fire Chief, or
designee, shall inspect and approve the Implementation of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan, and the Plan shall not be considered fu[ly
implemented until the Fire Chief has given written notice to the Staff
Advisor that the Plan was completed as approved by the hearing
authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards Developments, provisions for
the maintenance of the Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be
included in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the
development, and the City of Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of
such covenants, restrictions, and conditions.
8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner shall be responsible
for maintaining the property In accord with the requirements of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan approved by the hearing authority.
B, Requirements for construction of a[1 structures.
1, All new construction and any construction e><panding the size of an
e><isting structure, shall have a "fuel break" as defined below.
2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free of dead or dying
vegetation, and has native, fast'buming species sufficiently thinned so
that there Is no interiocking canopy of this type of vegetation, INhere
necessary for erosion control or aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may
be planted In slow-buming species, Establishment of a fuel break does
not involve stripping the ground of all native vegetation, "Fuel Breaks"
may include structures, and shall not limit distance between structures
and .residences beyond that required by other sections of this title,
3, Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break wi[1 be installed, maintained
and shall e><tend a minimum of 30 feet, or to the property line,
whichever is less, in all directions around structures, e><c1udlng fences,
on the property, The goai within this area is to remove ground cover
that will produce flame lengths in e><cess of one foot, Such a fuel break
shall be increased by ten feet for each 10% increase in slope over 10%,
Adjacent property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the
development of primary fuel breaks.
4, Secondary Fuel Break, A secondary fuel break will be installed,
maintained and shall e><tend a minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary
fuel break where surrounding landscape Is owned and under the control
of the property owner during construction, The goal of the secondary
fuel break is to reduce fuels so that the overall Intensity of any wildfire
is reduced through fuels control.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 30
1511
C,
D,
18.62,100
A,
Q,
c.
5, All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed with Class B or better
non-wood roof coverings, as determined by the Oregon Structural
Specialty Code, All re-roofing of existing structures in the Wildfire Lands
area for which at ieast 50% of the roofing area requires re-roofing shall
be done under approval of a zoning permit, No structure shall be
constructed or re-roofed with wooden shingles, shakes, wood-product
material or other combustible roofing material, as defined in the City's
build ing code,
Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope Failure Lands shall be
included In the erosion control measures outlined In Section 18.62.080,
Implementation.
1, For land which have been subdivided and required to comply with A, (6)
above, all requirements of the Plan shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of construction with combustible materials,
2, For all other structures, the vegetation control requirements of section
(B) above shall be complied with before the commencement of
construction with combustible materials on the lot, (Ord. 2657,1991)
3, As of November 1, 1994, existing residences in subdivisions developed
outside of the Wildfire Lands Zone, but later included due to
amendments to the zone boundaries shall be exempt from the
requirements of this zone, with the exception of section 18.62.090 B.5,
above, All new residences shall comply with all standards for new
construction in section 18.62.090 B,
4, Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire lands zone prior to
November 1, 1994, but later included as part of the zone boundary
amendment, shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire
Prevention and Control Plans outlined in section 18,62.090 A," (Ord
2747,1994)
B,
Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to development, grading, filling,
or vegetation removal and, whenever possible, altemative development should be
considered,
Development of flood ways is not permitted except for bridges and road
crossings. Such crossings shall be designed to pass the one hundred (100)
Illiliiil~fl~.ili~tilii~tiJ!I'~llfirii~r'
flootl!9l1i
Devebpment of land or approval for a planning action shall be allowed only when
the following study has been accomplished. An engineering geologic study
approved by the City's Public Works Director and Planning Director establishes
Physical and Environmental Constrainlli Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2,1 May 23, 1997
Page 31
I =rg.;l.,
that the site is stable for the proposed use and development, The study shall
include the following:
1. Index map,
2, Project description to include location, topography, drainage, v~etation,
discussion of previous work and discussion of field exploration methods,
3. Site geology, based on a surficial survey, to include site geologic maps,
description of bedrock and surficial materials, including artificial fill,
locations of any faults, folds, etc" and structural data including
bedding, jointing and shear zones, soil depth and soil structure.
4, Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions that may pose a potential
hazard to the site, or that may be affected by on-site development,
5, Suitability of site for proposed development from a geologic standpoint.
6. Specific recommendations for cut slope stability, seepage and drainage
control or other design criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
7, If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist to establish whether
an area to be affected by the proposed development is stable,
additional studies and supportive data shall include cross-sections
showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with subsurface exploration,
results of laboratory test and references.
8, Signature and r~istration number of the engineer and/or geologist,
9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to evaluate the site,
18,62.110 Density Transfer, Density may be transferred out of unbuildable areas to buildable
areas of a lot provided the following standards are met:
A, Partitions and subdivisions involving density transfer shall be processed under
Performance Standards, Chapter 18,88 of the Ashland Municipal Code,
B, A map shall be submitted showing the net buildable area to which the density
will be transferred,
C, A covenant shall be recorded limiting development on the area from which
density is transferred,
D, Density may not be transferred from one ownership to another but only within
the lot(s) owned by the same person,
E, Density may be transferred only on contig uous lots under common ownership,
F, The density of the buildable area may not be increased to more than two (2)
times the permitted density of the underlying zone. Fractional units are to be
rounded down to the next whole number. (Ord. 2528, 1989)
l,r,~,I,~
l.iY """'€ ','
\.l~~tl1i).iTt,yl
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 32
IS'S: 3
~
Ir~If_'r.r_lllil'l~m!~n4,;)l1B111!lli!19!l&B~.
~
IIr.lllll.,Tli..1~11ilrl.f
Physical and EnvirorunentaI Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
StaIT Draft 2.1 May 23, 1997
Page 33
J5~'1
Responsibility
. Address capacity of building department to conduct follow through on comparing plans to
the built project.
. Address shortcomings in the neighborhood planning process and recommend changes,
. Paths to compliance: Make a simplified proscriptive path with the option of "running the
gauntlet" if using an alternative, ,
Other
.
.
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TI
.
4
92.040 Application for approval of
subdivision or partition; tentative plan:
applicability of local government laws, \1
Before a plat of any subdivision or partition
;;ubject to review under ORS ,92,044 01;1\' b~
made and recorded, the person proposini the
subdivision or partition or authorized a"ent
or representative of the person shall make
an application in writing to the county or
city having jurisdiction under ORS 92,04~ for
approval of the proposed subdivision or par-
titton in accordance with procedures e;tab,
lished by the applicable ordinance or
regulation adopted under ORS 92,044, Each
;;uch application ;;hall be accompanied i:>y a
tentative plan showing the general design of
the proposed subdi\ision or partition, No plat
for any proposed ;ubdhision or partition may
be considered for appro\'al by a city or
county until the temath'e plan for the pro-
posed subdivision or partition has beer, ap-
proved by the city or county, Approval oi the
tentative plan shall not constitute final ac-
ceptance of the plat of the proposed subdhi-
sion 'or partition for recording; howe\'er.
approval by a city or county of such tenta-
th'e plan shall be binding upon the city, or
'county for the purposes of the prepar~non
of the ,subdivision or partition plat, and the
city or county may require only ouch
changes in the subdhision or partition plat
as are necessary for compliance with the
tenus of its appro\'al of the tentative plan for
the proposed subdhision or partition,
-=>- (2) Aft~,September.9, 1995, when a heal
J!overnment makE:-5 a decision on a land USE::
application for a :ubdivision inside an urban
growth boundary, only those Iocall'o\'~rn"
ment la.ws, implement'Mllndet",m a"J(j'j~,wl-
~dlfed comprehen;;ive plan that are in Hfect '
al' the time of application shall govern,ub,
:equent construction on the property ur. I es'
the applicant elects (,ther",ise.
(3) A local g"vernment may establi"h a
time period durin~ which decisions on land
use applications under subsection (2) of th"
section apply, H(,wever, in no event shall the
time period excee<:t 10 years, whether or not
a time period is established by the local ~"v_-
f:mmcnt. IAmf:ndl:'i by 195.'i c.i56 H; 197:3 c.6~ ~,
I~lj.l <:.826 ~S: 1989 c.T.Z 15: 1995 c,812 ~91
/(" .,
Hillside Development Standards
4/29/96
Below is a list of guidelines and recommendations that have been considered to date in the
process of citizen review of hillside development. These are still being discussed; they are not
agreed upon. They are meant to address a set of issues and problems which have surfaced
within the community,
Guidelines are general in nature and are considered more like recommendations rather
than requirements, They are related more to community values, These guidelines could be
written, with clear illustrations, and haflaea aut VlIl<O'IU(,.\t and! in the pre-application
process,
Regulations are recommedations that citizens endorse be written and enforced as
ordinances with objective criteria,
, /,'~.
\ "
,~\
Process
· Develop a Hillside Model Code with provisions for Special Area plans, Integrate
transportation, geographic, neighborhood, etc, overlays with successful neighborhood
plans that involve participatory planning, Neighborhood plans would be comprehensive
special area plans developed with consideration of broader overlays,
· Consider the relationship of recommendations to the comprehensive plan,
· Examine our land-use physical constraint chapters,
. Build a 3-dimensional model of the City
w
" ......
.;.\' :(\
Vegetation
Guiddi"""
. (", · See Preliminary Draft for "Protection of Trees"
'}: · Consider in the design phase the use of trees and vegetation to mitigate or mask
structures,
Identify and preserve pre-existing trees and other vegetation, >~..w, c",,;, ~ ;Wf?J ')
Utilize native species of grasses and shrubs when stabilizing slopes,
Establish educational tools for teaching the use of vegetation as effective buffer for
privacy, wildlife and natural areas,
Implement more effective treatment for cut slopes than the current use of hay bales and
jute netting,
K. .
K- .
4 ·
?
. Uj<\'~a~~~~;p:'~:~~g~ty /r"P~"P1
~"";~~~~::r streets to maintain hillside~haracfe~and vegetation,
· Maximize retention of wildlife habitat areas,
IA · Create and implement education programs to inform about value of vegetation in
ecosystem function, erosion control and viewshed value,
· Minimize impervious surfaces / Ratio oflot coverage to slope,
· Retain and establish native vegetation in riparian areas,
1
/, 10
Regulation:
. Regulate to avoid alteration of pre-existing landforms, including natural courses, rock
outcroppings,
. Require and monitor the implementation of strengthened erosion control methods,
. Prohibit removal of vegetation from slope that has a very low probablility of revegetation
success,
. Prohibit structures and fill within feet of creeks, streams and drainage courses,
Geology
Guidelines:
Regulation:
. See Preliminary draft "Hillside development Geologic Hazards Ordinance"
. Require development on slopes above 20% to utilize a State of Oregon certified
engineering geologist.
. Require the computation by a certified geologist or hydrologist of surface and
groundwater impacts that will result on site and downslope from proposed hillside
development. Require plans to detail prevention of impact downslope, Require bond for
financial responsibility on projects with expected impact downslope,
. Calculate fill slope and cut slope angles in relationship to the composition of soil impacted,
Slope, Cut and Fill
Guidelines:
. Maintain or recreate natural contour ofland,
. Consider both surface and substrata in zoning,
Regulations:
. Retain _% of natural topography per lot,
. Adopt Uniform Building Code for cut and fill standards,
. Slope: definition based on average of entire slope or on building envelope?
. Maximum buildable slope
. Maximum cut and retaining wall height
Viewshed
Guidelines:
Regulation:
. Prohibit structures within a specified distance of ridgetops,
. Screen cuts and building mass with landscaping and color consideration
Infrastructure
Guidelines:
2
/, 7!
Regulations:
. Establish assessment system that reflects increased cost of hillside infrastructure
maintenance and development,
Architectural Design
Guidelines:
. Design building to the context of the lot. Consider perspective from each angle: adjoining
properties, the street and as backdrop,
. Design building that is compatible in bulk and density with the existing development.
. Blend building with natural topography through design with slope profile and/or use of
color, materials, (siding), rooflines, retaining walls, Consider integrating horizontal and
visual planes with projections or architectural detail.
Regulations:
. Increase setbacks or reduce building envelope,
. Establish maximum square footage,
. Limit bulk - building stepback in 3-D building envelope, height restriction as relates to
slope; step structures up or down with slope,
. Density - clustering and open space or spread out?
. Restrict buildable slope to %
. Restrict percentage of visible building face that railed decks can occupy,
Roads
Guidelines:
. Design roads and driveways so as to disperse surface water to the maximum extent
possible,
. Design roads on the most stable (least erosive, dispersive, highest strength) ground
available,
. Design transportation paths that encourage alternative forms of transportation, with
attention to walkable slopes and safe pathways,
Regulations:
. Require pedestrian ways and bikepaths on all streets on hillside,
Safety
Guidelines:
· Correlate density with accessibility factors for existing City emergency services,
Regulations:
. Require owners of vacant, undeveloped parcels to clear % of dead brush and
combustible vegetation,
· Revise current tall weed and dry grass ordinance to achieve prompt compliance with
regulations during fire season, Require architectural standards that minimize fire hazard ort
homes in the wildfire lands zone, such as those relating to decks, balconies, roofing, eaves,
· Enforce multiple access standards,
3
I (, 1:J.....
Responsibility
. Address capacity of building department to conduct follow through on comparing plans to
the built project.
. Address shortcomings in the neighborhood planning process and recommend changes,
. Paths to compliance: Make a simplified proscriptive path with the option of "running the
gauntlet" if using an alternative, ,
Other
.
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND TI
.
.
4
92.040 Application for approval of
subdivision or partition; tentative plan:
applicability of local go\'emment laws. \ 1
Before a plat of any subdivision or pan;tion
o'ubject to review under ORS ,92,044 m:l\' be
made and recorded. the per59n proposin': the
o'ubdivision or pan it ion or authorized a>!ent
or representatiw of the person shall make
an application in writing - to the county or
city having jurisdiction under ORS 92,04~ for
approval of the proposed subdivision or par-
tition in accordance ,,~th procedures e;tab,
Iished by the applicable ordinance or
regulation adopted under ORS 92,044, Each
mch application shall be accompanied by a
tentative plan sho\\~ng the general design of
the proposed subdi\~sion or partition, No plat
for any proposed ;ubdh~sion or partition may
be considered for appro\'al by a city or
county until the tentatiw plan for the pro-
posed subdivision or partition has been ap-
proved by the city or county, Approval of the
tentative plan shall not constitute final ac-
ceptance of the plat of the proposed subdi\~-
sion or partition for recording; howe\-er,
approval by a city or county of such tenta-
th'e plan shall bf. binding upon the city or
'county for the purposes of the preparc.tion
of the ,subdivision or partition plat, and the
city or county may require only such
changes in the subdidsion or partition plat
as are necessary for compliance with the
tenus of its appro\'al of the tentative plan for
the proposed subdh~sion or partition,
(2) After Septemb.erJl, 1995,...when a hcal
io'vemment make; a decision on a land use
application for a subdivision inside an urban
growth boundary, only those local, gO\'Hn-
ment laws, impltmentW\m-dl!f~an'aclill"wl,
edged comprehtns;ve plan that are in '...Ifect
at the time of application shall g()vern"ub-
sequent construction on the property ur.leS'
the applicant eltcts otherwise,
(3) A local I!',vernmtnt may establioh a
time period durins: which decisions on land
use applications under subsection (2) of thlE
section apply. Hf)WeVer, in no event shall tht
time period exceeJ 10 years, whether or not
a time period is tstablish..d by the local !(oV-
E:mment. IAmtndt<i b)' 19~ (..756 ~7; 197:1 c.6Y:; ~7
19'1-1 c,626 ~S; 1989 c,..2 ~5; \995 0.8\2 19\
It, 13
1?Y
1~
B,G. HICKS
CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
190 VISTA STREET ASHLAND, OR 97520
PHONE 541-482-8451
FAX: 541-482-8638
TO JOHN MCLAUGHLIN
CITY OF ASHLAND
PLANNING AND DEVELOP NT
DATE APRIL 16,1997
DRAFT-- DRAFT-- DRAFT-- DRAFT-- DRAFT
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RECUMMENDATlONS
BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AND MAPPING IN JANUARY 1997
IN THE GRANITIC AREA OF ASHLAND
1. FILLS AND FILL SLOPES:
"No trenches excavated for the purpose of installing utility lines. phone lines, etc.
shall be placed in any fill. " Any trenches INADVERTENTLY excavated must be
backfilled, The design of the backfill must insure that the trench does not form a ground
water path or channel promoting slope failure and that the backfill material is protected
from piping failure,
{Evidence from January 1997 clearly indicated that this type of trench (and others
described below) were responsible for significant damage.)
2. CUTS AND CUT SWPES:
"No trenches excavated for the purpose of installing utility lines. phone line, etc.
. " {See No, 1, above, for second sentence,)
. FILL SLOPE STABILIZATION: (using Soil Bioengineering and Biotechnical
slope stabilization as described by Gray and Sotir in their 1993 textbook.)
(SPECIFICATIONS ARE NEEDED FOR STABILIZATION OF GRANITIC CUT AND
'fILL SLOPES; 1 WILL SUPPLY A DRAFT WITHIN 10 DAYS.)
1
Lo
I ~ 1(
{ ",~0
I ''It.
~ 1" 0 .,s,v- " '" '...
.~.... ..,l..l
4. ROCK WALL SPECIFICATIONS: ;v' '.
{SEE NOTE FOR NO. 3.}
a. Rock walls greater than --- feet in height all have either a free-draining backfill placed
between the wall and the excavated surface or have woven geotextile with a minimum
flow rate of 50 (???) gallons per-quare foot installed between the rock wall and the
excavated surface, /h{;', ,,,,,./
r' (1/'\
b, Rock walls shall be constructed no steeper than ~?? (i,e" one horizontal to eight
vertical), (!he committee should discuss this cut slope issue.)
{Far too many rock walls just ''fell over" (or just lost their 'understanding' ; this issue
must be addressed The next time we may not be as lucky; some one may be injured.)
5. SIDE-HILL DRAINAGE DITCHES:
{Thou shalt not cut side-hill drainages ditches in dg fill material.}
[obviously this must be formalized:]
" ~
~~ 6. REVEGETATION VS. STABILITY:
:v vJ, ~"0l Do not place sprinklers at the top of steep cut slopes < <<this phrase{ concept must be
~\ ,~aIpPlified and defined for clarity, }
\ " ....
\ r', " ~1\'
\/[go~ P,S,: I do not believe it is correct to advocate steeper cut slopes because "they reduce
. erosion", Steeper cut slopes are much more difficult to revegetate and do not "hold fill"
needed to reestablish vegetation on these slopes,
Steep slopes cut into "decomposed/disintegrated granitic rock" (which has the over
integrity to stand in a vertical cut) generally tend to fail by "slabbing" due to failure on
joint planes or due to 'stress reliet', These factors and the added stress of ground water
effects results in loss of many rock walls.
7. "SLIVER FILLS":
{'Sliver fills" (define) are not allowed} P,S,: Develop better expression than 'sliver fill',
8. RE. STAFF.....DRAIfY 1.1 pr. '\~ 9, 1997.
Y-e!Jq.(j ''J-If.'uJ l~~,
(~age 2~ Noc"9. Inspections and Final Report; Section a. '
{add to this section: " Prior to commencement of construction, the schedule of
geotechnical inspections planned for the project will be supplied to the Planning
Department." ~m
B,G, lllCKS '
2
I' 75'
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND ACCESS SUBCOMMI'ITEE
Report from April 3 meeting
The primary discussion centered on the trade-off between accessl:>y~mergency
vehicles to hillside area fires, and the reduced amount of cut and grading
necessary if streets were narrower and steeper,
What are the costs/benefits?
Factors include soil disturbance and erosion, vegetation loss, number of
dwellings that could be built with different street standards, protection of
watershed, property and life losses,
Balance of personal safety decisions and endangerment of community
Example: Oakland (political pressure and fire protection procedures)
Ultimately a Council-community decision to determine what is acceptable
What is Fire Dept. presently doing to increase fire protection?
Education--an officer visits every home in the wildlands fire zone (about
1700 at present) to discuss safety procedures, clean up of burnable material
near home, etc,
Planning--all applications are studied, weighed against standards; may
require inside sprinklers,
Protective measures--work with other agencies to clean up areas, remove
dead and dying brush and trees, AmeriCorps has piled and burned slash.
More manpower needed! Volunteer patrols watch for and remove illegal
camps in forest, usually close roads in summer.
Counsel--has studied ordinances of other cities to compare their safety
standards with Ashland's. Have recommended new guidelines to City
after each major fire, but construction industry has deemed them too
expensive.
Recommendations for ordinance writers
1. Use photography or other visual means to show cut and fill with
current grade restrictions, then compare land disturbance when allowing
steeper slopes,
2, Hire geologist on contract basis
I~ 1"
3, Balance concems about sprawl with proposed hillside densities,
4, Understand some questions and policies are philosophical, and can not
be answered by technology,
1617
Hillside Development Standards
Proposed Planning Process
Meeting One - March I L 1996 7:30 - 930 PM
I. Introduction to the Process
II, Current hillside development regulations in Ashland
Bill Molnar, Ashland Planning Department
III, Review of other cities' regulations
Susan Hunt, Julie Schwartz, Friends of AsWand
IV, Issues
I, Fire - Don Paul, AsWand Fire Department
2, Land Integrity - Richard Hart, Headwaters, Inc,
3, Legal and Liability Issues - Dan Hams, Davis Gilstrap
Hams Hearn & Welty
4, Traffic access and safety - Carole Wheeldon, Transportation
Planning Advisory Committee, AsWand City Council
5, Viewshed and Design Standards - John Fields, F.OA
V. Questions
V, Summary
Meeting Two - March 16. 1996 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM
I. Introduction
II. Identification of Common Values
III. Scoping ofIssues - working in small and large group to identifY issues
and questions '
IV, Recommendations - working within small and large group to begin
identifYing potential recommendations
V. Discussion
VI, Summary
VII, Tour - group tour of AsWand sites that demonstrate challenges and
Issues
/~ 1~
Extract for Existing Gtlvernance of Hillside Development
City of Ashland "Land Use Ordinance"
Ihe following is an outline for our existing Land Use Ordinance Criteria that effects Hill~ide Development.
18.62.040 Approval and Pennit Required.
A. Type I Physical Constraints Review Permit in areas identified as Erosive and Slope Failure land, or
Severe Constraint land.
D. Plans required for Physical Constraints Review:
E. Criteria for approval.
F. The Staff Advisor or Planning Commission has the power to amend plans to include any or all of the
following conditions if it is deemed necessary to mitigate any potential negative impact caused by the
development:
G. The Staff Advisor or Planning COlll1lllssion may deny the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Review Permit if, in its opinion:
18.62.050 Land Classifications :
B. Riparian Preservation-
C. Erosive and Slope Failure Lands-
D. Wildfire Lands
E. Severe Constraint Lands-
1-8.62.060 Offieial Maps
18.62.080 Development Standards for Erosive and Sloped Failure Lands.
18.62.090 Development Standards for Wildfire Lands.
18.62.100 DevelO1JTllent Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
18.68.160 Drivewav Grades
No new driveway shall exceed a grade of 20% for any portion of the driveway.
18.76.060 Preliminarv Approval of Hag Partitions.
Flag driveway grades shall not exceed a maximwn grade of 15%. Variance up to 18%.
18.88.050 Street Standards.
B. Street Grade.. (Same as flag requirements)
Friends of Ashland- Hillside Ordinance Study Session 3/7/96
/6 J' ;J.
Please consider the following questions, as well as those YOII may have, in
preparation for the March 16th meeting.
What values do we hold in common relative to development on the hillsides of Ashland?
Are there issues not raised during the March II th meeting that are important to this
effort?
How can we mitigate new development's impacts on existing neighborhoods?
Should system development fees reflect true cost of hillside development, or be used to
encourage or discourage certain types of development?
Should scale and density be regulated in hillside development?
Is ridgetop development different than development on the sides of hills?
Are the following design elements important in developing standards?
- landscaping relative to visible volume and height of a project
- stepped retaining walls vs. single plane walls
- recessed or terraced projects
- use of non-combustible materials
- use of "fire-resistant" vegetation
- curb cuts, driveway size and parking areas
- grading and retaining walls
- fire suppression systems
- other....
1(, 8'(
Glossary
1. Hillside
Land which has an average percent of slope equal to or exceeding) 0%. [Larkspur,
CA]
Areas that have a slope equal to or over 15% [Talent, OR]
Areas that are between 30-40% slope [Ashland ORT
2. Percent Slope
The ratio of vertical to horizontal distance; i.e. 1% slope = I' vertical and 100'
horizontal; 10% slope = 10' vertical and 100' horizontal.
3. Viewshed
Existing landscape and or building as viewed from public and private spaces.
4. Site Topography or Natural Terrain
Natural contours of the land.
5. Setback
The distance between the center line of a street and the setback base line setback
from which yard measurements are made, measured horizontally and at right
angles from said center line.
Issues
This is a partial listing of issues related to hillside development standards.
A. Fire Safety
a. Increased fire danger from human activity in and near interface zone
b. Increased demand on, and challenges of emergency access
c. Altered strategies for fire fighting and prevention due to residential structures
d. Impact on ecosystem and viewshed of vegetation reduction as fire prevention
B. Land Integrity
a. impact on ecosystem of cut, fill, roads, vegetation removal activities
b. Impact on wildlife
C. Legal and LiabUity Questions
a. What restrictions exist over a city's ability/responsibility to regulate
b. What is the owner's/city's liability for impacts on other property, infrastructure?
c. Does the "public" have any rights?
d. Are there restrictions on private land rights?
D. Traffic Access and Safety
a. Impact on existing streets and roads
b. Potential for restricted number of access routes
c. Impact on ecosystem of increased road building
E. Viewshed and Design Standards
a. How might design standards be used to mitigate impact on viewsheds?
b. Scale and density
F. Other
I ~ 8'D
The intent of these meetings is to increase our understanding of the needs
around hillside development standards, to engage in dialogue and problem-
solving and to write ordinances that represent the vision of a broad cross-
section of the community.
In order for us to dialogue and preblem-selve tegether in the centext ef
different perspectives and epiniens, it is impertant that we all agree to. fellow
seme basic ground rules. These are the enes we weuld propese fer use. There
may be ethers that you can suggest as we begin the meeting.
. Raise yeur hand to. indicate yeur desire to. speak.
· Listen by acknewledging cemments made by ethers, checking fer greup
understanding and asking questiens fer clarificatien. If side cenversatiens
arise, parties will leave the reem so. as net to distract.
· Fecus en issues and interests rather than en persens er pesitiens. We
participate in discussien to. understand the ether's peint efview and to.
create selutiens to. the greup' s identified geals, net to. "win."
. Participate henestly, with integrity and courtesy.
. Respect the diversity within the greup and attempt to. find cemmen
greund.
· Keep the discussien fecused en the identified tepic. Keep statements to.
the peint to allew fer an epen discussien.
· Discuss un-discussable issues in an respectful manner.
· Maintain a sense ef humer and a spirit ef common purpese.
!b7q
\~~
\..~~.J
~. .~.
, j
I .
. ' i
. '. 4dJ.IU~~ I
\ p.~ -to cr~
\ ~ ;J1 ~-~ ~/lA~Q, .
\ . O-Y1o ~l
\,rvl-{ hM-t' ~ 11M;m( 1
\ VV-(-t-. w-uh ~ I
.~F~ \
,
I
i
l
".-::;;,"-'
I~ ?3
,
Wdl"xde. O..-cA,r'-D.f1ce-:.
\. /)l~~/L'-f L~ c.h~,
C Of\C mIL nA~'r!' <-0jG' Cc Q ~ ('i
Iu'__'<1,_ 0.....l!. i( (..j) O_^--.Qcc. '\..R
[~ yjz"-Qh",~ iAIJ-,'LL,
leu <L
ll.h..R. D-lt-ut.~ QJ...(cL. G..k 0\...(. t Ci <:)" 'J U <:.XeG'\..
t'l clu. GL,t
t::, r:ii_,--,~u.JfJ.-.
"-
~ Ot'><.._-fJ'L..LhJ_^--4.1..-U~ ~I.:..
6 ''h...-cU_4-cd..L-
l4(.U..J'LCL(t eLV
Lv'-----C:"-- ?G--Lf..l U-L~ ().)'V
"'- rt:( ,'CJ:::'"LO"\... L0
Ou___ v\a../lL
'-~
J.cch..h._cU ,~,~ '4--t\"!'..../..-by
\lJ 'P~'--'1 CMJruu J.0
'I)kO-u !.AU.,( if,( "1
, ,,^, v . Vu L 0tl<Uw^--,I,
/.ULC4 c-Uv~,~ ,(~ I I~U
1Jv.
!uA.u-lz WI "-
I] t.-cLc~ l"<- '-. f'^--CUfYl..-L_a-L ..~
""v"", I... OU'" v " (, UJJ,-,.~UV MJ",,-- "-
!J(~~' u'~ "~, OdJ.<oA."-U'-u..cy U I I~
'<U.~u-<--
tDtL-.l.L\...L( t..l-~ ^-
L,u;C ~. ~~"--- t c$v., n~
~(<: a._I.. CtJu 4. G..;lGl ~I'(- 1'o-v.. '!UJf:-V,
\j,~ ~ 19).) FOA '-fueL "--'-- '~h'U~ 1>\.Jv..I:.(''f W (tc,,(ou<u .u4LUA- {/wJ: u,.cuo. fU-Co.. W
t~
<.O(L.o...zd..LLlL (I_/v:L
'" VY\ pct Q XU::C
L"'- --fu...UI(..La.L J./1u...d.. eel. '"1 M a ,V;J. c:LA.. <:i.A../ .
Jiu, lu.J:.
~
L<t.{U4( ufv
/'v.-4..-tQ(.-U...u 0LV r'-- 1., <,^-,--, ?lQ.<LIU"-'I cI).< 1""- . lj <i...c ~ K/vi
"I 6.....Q.A..qud..'--I,I1rJ.J..I.CQ..fu.t... t.()(tL/~~). -Jy ^ oV'1 , 4.c 7'0~ -ptiL^-".-
~"-o)O-G.o,~, ,3~c WIi-"J: JJu., 'p'0CLU- C. IJL o/-A, (CuI. ULc),CL d.1L -?<,U0:V 't ~ {, V. ~QAO. OU.A.
"-Weld. "'i\..cc ciLe.. cuJc 1"-<.1."----'-'1 "
{) '10.1. "- 6- "-0LcL4 'I WQ.L!v
<L<!.LK 'b 'if"-( 0-1U,~ " CAL C'cu.'(cJ. t
11.. ',' n~r" ,"',.. "-K ""'^'Lrv..~,^,
1U-<1-~ ~ ,'u.u~v, .------_ ~~~ 'ULI. 1- ~~
1 o oJ. d.. l\.' .v.. { "J
'{-( Q.'\...d..cl.A.o.i'
wcQt
Wid. ~,,,-,- ~LCy
OuJtl.~ LV .:J<'.<'-ruu (.i~
<L
(1..'\.0...... /u...Lh... o.L;
g
Cui--- "--<.cu'i'
<<-~ ... C.O>'L--U.'Ll..--LLo.-..- J.Jl!.uL4....1t~L l.J1.Q.r...Vo.-fu.R w/Oi...LC tAC<L--co~ '-.,1..Ji..... u~ }l..D..f1. D-1--/--J
AD L,l..C\.(' (L--<...l.r!-...
(:1.,,+~'G
d... ('0f--"-- L t-k......L. cr::r~->-LLU'--'-6f r'-Z e a.JLCJ~'
')O~CUL~ tiJv..fu'J'\...L, LJ..L...LCU 0J{ rf1....u----lA <U...r.......u. ct..v\._
U.-CJ....a. riCOU-
JZe.knnoi of
0o.fur" I {cpoij'G P'-j "
I'" '
- (YK€t, ^"I -
~lct,,;g. ~''*'~ .1;,,,, 1<8"'1"-"=
"I, 0(. lei ~ c,,^ b<- <-u.+ - ~il
IrtdIVU:'UAo.I lot J S""-bclIV,~,O()
"'Ow-a.!, of "'0 oct, b0." """-~""
O{(1..ln..OJ,C~:J ~<>f'T'I ~Qf c.:tie's
~i.........LQ~\~ ~o~
o<-<'v "-!:oJ (~hl"""") reJ"-Ia,j,CX;j
opho,,, 5<<- "",0, ~,~ Auh"'-^.d"
A.cce~ I 5he~-\' 2{Gd.e
Ura If\..~~
?lOk:e.tl.ofl ~, n...oJvvo.-\ d,r'G.d\'Qq-c:.--
~.eQ_d 9f (lJ.../1 9.f+ v...:-G.{~r'
2,,) """'''^-'!
prlvQt<2: CvJ()ev~h. p 1~.s~C5
prI0~ r>hOt'\
~<.t"o.,c>,~ kX:11\ h~(9h( ,I"^-S,h
~""o.....-...ciOJ-<clt> l'eSV-lCL:hD~ .:.b. (Yl<.h.OU0t.., SG.~ci,v'~,o:.)
l.A(::w~hQ.(t prot"",,--~~, by\l....,~
~ct,,'":, ctV)'~~ "'-"-""'-OJ 0:0
.x, buo,"" bv,;lci,~ ,oS :;\~
&twt Wf, h,<S
~h.O:blt.~
V((et\Q Jy CO~ ~u~
cOmr()u.n,,,::/ l'Y'\.pa~t' v'all.l.€S
Solo...r :L~d-..Q....td~ -{..,..-1OUS\'-"?
31~ YYH~e..~/~..
C"Off'.-p'Q....r~ d.1~CJ,,'~,~:IIO;' a..A.J1 01". h~
u.d.opt u'tt-e.-.Q ~ .p..a..,-.. ..p((~+Ci....-+'~ to
<:'Ocv. C: I I ro !I' f-
'b..,.,,;,1cJ
~ 't;\- (eLo...-(e \--0 <{1ractc,. (Dc..d ~<-pr'lot.~
Friends of Ashland
Piannlng COn1l11lSSl0n
ASh.Land OJ{
NOV - 2 1995
Dear COn1l11lSSloners:
J{esldents of Asl1.Land have been concerned tor severa.L years that
gUlde.Llnes tor constructlon on the s.Lopes surroundlng town are
lnadequate to prevent bUlidlngs unsulted to the terraln and
natural resources. Many lssues, lnC.LUdlng harmony and
compatability with the surroundings, have not been addressed.
Aithough the Planning Department did begln a serles ot meetlngs to
secure input for new standards, that process has never been
completed. unfortunately, at this time no new criteria are in
place; more disturbing, neighborhood plans are already being
written before city-wide regulations are adopted.
Friends ot AShland urges the Commission to work with Statt and the
public to discuss and decide solutions to some of the identified
problems of hillside construction. These standards must be in
place soon, so all contractors and property oweners can plan
future building accordingly. We would be happy to help in any
ways need to expedite this important porcess. Please let us know
how FOA may assist.
Sincerely,
~~'u. ~uvv
November 1,1995
cc: /John MCLaughlin
City Council
Catherine Golden
For the Board
/ ~ gG;
Post Office Box 3010, Ashland, Oregon 97520
II:
~I'"
'II Ii"
III!'
;illl""
:-j!nr
:~;i/
!ii'.:
;:iI:
,
i
.~.
KNOX. MARK
A~hland. OR 97520
LEWIS. JIM
640 "A" ST
A~hland. OR 97520
,'I'
MAJESKI. JOAN
268 VAN NESS AVE
ASHLAND. OR 97520
MEDINGER. LARRY
MEDINGER CONSTRUCTION CO.
P.O. BOX 702
A~hland. OR 97520
MOATS. BRUCE
1043 CANYON PARK DR.
Ashland. OR 97520
MOORE, MARIKO ~ GREGG
1082 BELLVIEW AV
ASHLAND. OR 97520
NEUMAN. Doue
4240 HWY. 99 SOUTH
Ashland. OR 97520
PAUL, DON
FIRE DEPT
Ashland. OR 97520
RACHOR. DOROTHY
ROSE BUILDING DESIGN
1017 BRANDON WY
PHOENIX. OR 97535
RYBERG. BARBARA
373 VISTA ST
Ashland. OR 97~20
SCHWARZER. ROBIN
850 SISKIYOU BLVD. STE 6
ASHLAND. OR 97520
STEELE. JOAN
332 GLENN ST
Ashland. OR 97520
TABER. ROBERT E.
P.O. BOX 1095
Ashland. OR 97520
VEZIE. GAIL AND RICK
446 WALKER AV
ASHLAND. OR 97~20
WHEELDON. CAROLE
COUNCILOR
815 OAK STREET
A5hJand. OR 97520
~~..~.,.>~,.
'''-~~4f';,.,;
.~..
LANDT. RICK
487 ROCK ST
PO BOX 874
Ashland. OR 97520
MAC.
CITY OF ASHLAND
Ashland. OR 97520
Me CLENDON. JOHN
105 BUSH ST
Ashland. OR 97520
MILLER. DEBBIE AND HOWARD
160 NORMAL AVE
Ashland, OR 97~20
MOLNAR. BILL
Ashland, OR 97520
MOSLEY, KEITH
SUSAN VAUGHN
565 TAYLOR 51
ASHLAND. OR 97520
PADNO. MILTON ~ NATALIE
573 CAROL ST.
A~hland. OR 97520
POPE. KESTRAL
P.O. BOX 582
ASHLAND. OR 97~20
REICHENSHAHHER. CARLOS
600 EMIGRANT CREEK RD
ASHLAND. OR 97520
SCHWARTZ. JUL I
237 ALMOND 5T
ASHLAND. OR 97~20
SEDA. PETE
1257 SISKIYOU *224
Ashland, OR 97520
STOUT. KENDLAR
130 ORANGE AV
ASHLAND. OR 97520
THURNER. RON
1170 BELLVIEW
Ashland. OR 97520
WEXLER. TOM
569 CLAY 5T *3
ASHLAND. OR 97520
/(0 8'6
KeY-v:} ke"" <-(,__/r Y1
1'17 C.,;",dr/<A -I/-ve_
r1rll. /IiP~,,:,;;")n
.',.__..,..,........_~..~....-..
iUI;
_a.,___
HILL) HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT
ALLEN. BARBARA
BOB FISHER
511!1 GUTHRIE 5T
Ashl~nd. OR 97520
BAILEY. VAVA
165 ALMOND 5T
Ashl~nd. OR 97520
COCHRANE. ANDY
624 W VALLEY VIEW RD
ASHLAND. OR 97~20
CRAWLEY. CHRISTINE
124 STRAWBERRY LANE
Ashland. OR 97520
DE VAUL. RAMONA G.
865 PALMER RD
ASHLAND. OR 97520
FERRERO. TOM
760 OAK ST
ASHLAND. OR 97520
FISHER. JOHANNA
77 MALLARD 8T
ASHLAND. OR 97520
HAGEN. KEN
COUNCILOR
:548 ROCK 5T ":5
Ashland. OR 97~20
HARRIS. MARIA
Ashland. DR 97520
HART. RICHARD
308 AVERY ST
ASHLAND. OR 97520
HASSELL. ANNA
25 WESTWOOD ST
ASHLAND. OR 97520
HO~~HAN. DAVID & SABRA
345 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND. DR 97520
HUNT. SUSAN
220 NUTLEY
Ashland. OR 97520
KEMP. CHELSEA
595 ELKADER
ASHLAND. OR 97520
CEJ
AMRHEIN. MARK
804 ROCA 8T
ASHLAND. OR 97520
BROWN. MEG
385 STRAWBERRY LN
P.O. BOX 1094
Ashland. OR 97520
COLLINS. CLAIRE
315 HIGH ST
Ashland. OR 97520
DAVIS. DOROTHY
4l!17 SCENIC DR
ASHLAND. OR 97520
ERNST. RICHARD & VAN
975 WALKER AV
P.O. BOX 1134
Ashland. OR 97520
FIELDS. JOHN
845 OAK 5T
Ashland. OR 97520
GOFF. MAX I NE
1974 MOHAWK
Ashland. OR 97~20
HARBOUGH. JON
212 VISTA 5T
ASHLAND. OR 97520
HARRIS. RICK
RE/MAX REALTY
33 N FIRST 5T
Ashland. OR 97520
HARTZELL. CATE
8Bl EAST MAIN ST
Ashland. OR 97~20
HICKS. B. 13.
190 VISTA ST
Ashl.nd. OR 97520
HOWE. ANNA
1'555 WINDSOR 9T
Ashl.nd. DR 97~20
HWOSCHINSKY. PAUL
443 STRAWBERRY LANE
Ashl.nd. OR 97520
KINCAIRN. KERRY
147 CENTRAL AV
ASHLAND. OR 97520
lie, 87
JOINT STUDY SESSION
CITY COUNCll- PLANNING COMMISSION
HillSIDE DEVELOPMENT
TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
NEXT MEETING:
APRIL 29, 1997 7 PM
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1175 EAST MAIN STREET
Note: The Technical Review Committee
last met on the evening of April 16th.
The comments from their discussion have
not yet been incorporated in the final
draft. However, the final draft will reflect
those recommendations and will be
handed out at the meeting.
/6 ~t
"
Minutes
April 29, 1997
Joint Study Session
Ashland City Council & Ashland Planning Commission
In Attendance:
Mayor Golden, Councilors Reid, Hauck, Wheeldon, Hagen, Laws;
Planning Commission members Jarvis, Giordano, Hearn, Gardiner,
Bass, Howe, Carr
Staff: McLaughlin
Topic: New Hillside Development Standards (P&E Ordinance)
Meeting convened at 7:10 pm.
McLaughlin presented the new development standards, and
distributed copies of the draft report. Members discussed
possible changes to the ordinance, including the building design
standards and what triggers when permits are required.
Comments we.re received from the audience. Those submitting
testimony were: Joan Still, Claire Collins, Larry Medinger, Mark
Ahmrein, Richard Ernst, and Susan Hunt.
No action was taken. The standards will be scheduled for a
public hearing at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting.
Adjourned:
8:55pm
/~ff1
c:X'~ ~ c:r~
~.~~-
J,______~ - /~ <
~AL..-u. ~ '5 ~
L<X'~ '" ~-
~~fi~
~
~~~ eyr-
,:~~~_ ke'~~
~.-d~ .. ~~- ~~~~
~ .. ..,L 4~U -'U.-'.~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~..s..L- ~
~~,~._, ';1-_ ...A.:f .
. ~ ~ <::5.ef!L'~ it..~ ~ ~ -
E ';'~~r--=~oA~- ~~~
~~ ~_ ~~.b~~ .,L,~/~/--
.:!:L. ~ ht-.-t. /7L'Zt' ~ qtAr. '4--.~ ~~~~----=--V"
-"""_ . Yl..c>-.t '.-e ~ a.. ~j) i<...~" , _ ~a1 ~ .
/~-X!,,~ D_~ _ II .cI /77FL7.C./1f':f'
~~ ~hnv 1-..- ~/L~- .~=~.
tZ-~~ '-8.'L~'- d~~ ~~. fP
~~ ~ .,/",<-,.-. ~ 'V"o ~ ~ ~
~6".~,,4" ~ ~nv ~~t:7
:::0-~./ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . /ed~
~~~ ~ -cL- ~~', . A IJ _
-~.f~~~~
~ ~ ~ - AJ-<.-J~.:. hUp'
:1~ ~""~-'~' ~~~~.
~~~ _ ~-~~;T" ~~. ~~ ~~(/7t<7.
~rMP..we~- ,-,),I"'~ =y'E;:;p~~
~ ~~i ~~"'I' ..~":: ";k;.,'.A.d; ~~
~.L.u-L ~~. #r/ ~ ~ ..~. ;~ '~~.~~
~~A.~.f/~Q~~~ _.~~_ ~~.h'.'
?d- 5<.~ '?",-----;:=: 'CL..- u..-1- ~ "'" ~:;..._:=-':-P:,z t:L. .>d<7....,/~
::JA....<,,(.(! ~ thv~ ~ ~
(-~;/::;/ '.
- /?J-,u /
...
~
/6 ?o
~r:?..tD&,~
1"J/3. ~J-<--'<'I' -:- ~~ -I-~~ ?
~f~ ~ ~ ~~- Y3<-L~~
~ 4n-~"/-"",,><.Z,:'fL.-Ykdc4 ~~~
~~~f~~r~Ao(
~t;,
~~,j ~~r/t-' .6<-,f.t?,_~~
~~~~~t'~~~~
~. ~.../ ~~t.,h tY/, h?4. ~.'.hU5~ ~
~:~ ~-
~~~-~~:a~~~~~-~~
~ ~~ ~I ~ ~e&....
/6 'r I
om Tom renelO 10. Cale Hartell
Dale: 6/16197 Time 074330
Page 1 of 2
FEfjIi~R;;-1 r\
\\~ ~GEOJGIC 760 Oak SI.
FERRERO G~DLOC;JC
Ashland OR 97520 (5-+/)488-2452
~:"'f"""'"
,:.:,~~/ ", ":.,
('~ ~,
E"tiT@,>/
Ashland Hillsid~ D~vdopm~nt Standards Draft 1.1 - COlllm~nts bv Tom F~rr~ro r~garding
t100dwav issues. 4.'29:')7.
18.62.050
/\.3
Very important point' This allows consultants to detinc real t1oodways.
18.62070
Al
Fills not allowed in t1oodway, but adjacent to t100dway - design as per U13C
Nok: As this and other comments indicate, I believe that no filling should be done
in t1oodways, even with cutting of equal volume. The 50 yard allowance under
A3e means that the flood way can be tilled and hazards increased in 50 yard
increments. Enough floodway filling has taken place All t100dway tilling should
be stopped now.
A2 ...outside oft1oo<hvay con'idors (not c1HHUlels) as ddined in sectiou 18.62.050,,\
(not 15.10)
A3 No soil or other erodable till in the t100dplain con'idor (see note above).
Materials that would displace t100dwaters limited to...
a OK
b OK
c OK
d No - remove this item
e TJnnecessary
/\.4, 5 and 6 UtUleccssary
B ......The engineer shall consider in the design known or mappable t100d levels. and
the prohability...
C. D For the 10 and 5 tix)t restrictions, they should be ahove the creek t100dwav not
chatUlel.
E Should read "Stmchlres shall be placed on other than Floodplain Corridor Lands'"
I
Englneering (Jeolog)', (Jeoh).drologv, EnVIronmental
Geolog)' and Aimmg Geology Since /983
/, '1'~
.
m Tom Ferrero To. Clle H<lrtl-ejl
Dille 6116197 Time 07.44:52
FERRERO GEOLOGIC
760 Ook Sf. Ashlond OR 97520 (5'-11)488-2'-152
Lea\'c th~ rest out.
F "Existing lots....outside Con'idor land". Leave the rest out.
(j "New non-residential. ..that ~rc 3 fed above the t1ood.....in section 19.62.060, or
detennined bv a geologist whichever is higher"
Add that basements calU10t be lounded below t100d elevation. Applies to
struc'ures adjacent to tloodways.
2
Engll1eerll1g Geology. Geohydrology. Environmental
Geology and ,\1I11ing Geologr SlI1ce 1983
.
Pilge? 01 2
/6 r3
Ashland Hillside Development Ordinance 1997
My name is Richard Ernst; I live at 975 Walker, Ashland.
I have been out to the end of Ivy Street, off Mountain Avenue to
the west. I think the lots there laid out create huge problems. Some
Hillside Development Ordinance is appropriate to stop the sorts of
potential erosion problems that appear there. But the draft goes
overboard. The basic points I believe important are:
1. There is no need to keep owners of hillside lots from
building houses that can be seen from the street. They should be
able to plan their houses around their available views so that they
can see their best views from their houses. They should not have to
restrict their house-building so that people on the lower lands can
look up and see only trees and sky.
2. There is no need to require that there be "a maximum
number of trees" on each lot on Ashland hillsides. Nor should an
owner be prohibited from putting in non-native plants .- flowers,
shrubs, ornamental trees, orchard trees, unusual non-weedy trees.
If a lot keeps 5 or more trees with a total of 30"DBH, or the
equivalent, it should be free of restrictions on tree removal and
planting.
3. Those living on hillsides should be able to eliminate poison
oak, blackberries, manzanita, dandelions, thistles, mistletoe, high
weeds, and long grass from their entire lots. They also should be
free to remove excessive trees, interlocking canopies, and
combustible natural growth close to houses. While such are part of
a "Natural State" on Ashland hills, an owner should be able to
eliminate them from his entire lot however steep it is.
4. Fire prevention should have top priority in making policy on
building homes all over the city.
5. The desire to maximize the mountain views of people living
at lower elevations - or driving through town - has no overriding
power. People building on hillsides have some rights as to the use
of their lots, rights that are not to be invad
April 29, 1997
If.:. rl-
Thoughts on a draft ordinance re Hillside Development, Ashland
Chapter 18.62.
030 D Definition of "Development": {cutting three trees in
five years is a "development" under the draft ordinance} It seems
that the word "development" was in the ordinance for some time and
that "removal of trees" was inserted later to add a new kind of
"development". As a result, problems result, for this word is often
used to deal with issues with no relativity to tree removal.
030 K Definition of "Natural State"; The general idea that
some land should be left in some sort of a "natural state" makes
some sense, but this draft's definition of the word causes problems
becuase it prohibits removal of nuisance vegetation such as poison
oak, thistle, blackberries, mistletoe, manzanita, dandelions, high
weeds and long grass, as well as cottonwood, aspen, and poplar, AND
excessive trees (to eliminate interlocking canopy), for examples.
Also an owner of "natural state" land should be able to build
retaining walls, and should be able to plant walnuts, magnolias,
fruit trees, etc.. and to thin to get specimen trees of ornamental
beauty. Is it not sufficient to limit bull-dozing, grading, and the
like that changes the "natural land state"?
030 second K. Definition of "Wildfire"; The supplementing
definition language should include grass and tall weed fires.
040 D m. What is a "forested area"? how big must an area be
to count? What trees, etc. are counted. The purport seems good if it
is to allow reasonable and sensible reports for lots of, say, 50+
trees.
040 E. On its face, the elimination of "reasonable" seems to be
arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and so in violation of law.
But is the. change to provide a wide opening - - so that the taking of
any "measures" may be enough to allow approval of a permit?
050 C. This clause indicates that the draft ordinance is to be
enacted to help the view from other areas. This clause emphasizes
that this draft gives no consideration to views from this area! Thus
one is not allowed to consider view in locating a house in a Hillside
Land; one must always keep a maximum number of trees to improve
the views from the flat areas of Ashland. Owners-to-be of Hillside
houses are nay entitled to build to get the best view. Visitors and
owners in other parts of Ashland are entitled to good views. Fair?
050 C I. Does this clause mean that any "lands" [lot??] in the
Hillside Lands map area with less than 25% average slope are
outside the "Hillside Lands" regulations? Or is a lot covered if it
/6 9tr
has a square yard of steep natural terrain. How big a piece is
necessary to be a "Land"? Can it be a piece of only 10M sq It? Is
each lot separate? Can a "Land" be part of a presently existing large
lot? Or is it the whole lot, now or after subdividing?
050 D. I need to see the map showing "Wildfire Lands".
050 C: This seems to say that any land in Ashland that can be
seen from other land .- higher or lower -- is "Hillside Lands". This
probably is simply poor drafting and that "include" etc.. should be cut.
080 A. As cutting of three or more trees is within the
definition of "development", this clause seems to say that one can
cut trees only on lands having "buildable area". This raises the
question again of how big is a "land". This language suggests that
trees may not be cut on non-building site lands. BUT, it may be very
good to hold down tree over-growth on lands with no buildings.
Parcels that have a dense overgrowth of vegetation, such as vacant
lots on the easterly end of Pinecrest Terrace, need to be improved by
cutting many trees. The existing provisions as to "Wildfire Lands"
[18.62.090] call for this action. THERE IS A CONFLICT in 18.62
080 A: This states that no one can remove trees from "slopes"
in excess of 35%? BIT: Too dense a growth of trees on a slope is
particularly bad. Such density needs to be corrected.
What is a "slope"? How many square feet are necessary in order for
the area to be a slope? Is the reference to "average slope"? Is
there no possibility to improve the looks of "slopes" areas?
Also this clause permits a house if 100% of the lot is over 35%
in slope, but prohibits a house if 10% of the lot is flatter.
080 B 2: This clause imposes a requirement that substantial
portions of a lot be kept "in natural state". The amount is at least
half of the lot--25% plus 25%+ for slope. The effect is obviously
arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, and unlawful -- for this states
that nothing can be done on the "natural state" area. It states that
trees can not be cut in a "natural state" area even to help the view
and that trees in such an area cannot be cut even though there are
too many trees because of interlocking canopies. Furthermore it
says one cannot eliminate weeds, nuisance vegetation, etc. Also it
says that retaining walls cannot be built.
Perhaps one can reduce the dilemna if "project" may mean a
development area, not a lot, but maybe not. This "natural state"
requirement can also foul up drainage and erosion control.
Maybe "natural state" as defined in 30 K is not meant here.
BUT there should be a more sensible definition of the phrase "natural
/ {, 1G
state" as used in the ordinance. Or perhaps there is a need for two
phrases with two different meanings.
080 B 7. This clause includes another use of "natural state",
here in regard to the "original slope". What is meant, in view of the
specific definition of "natural state" in the draft? There is room for
some improvement of "slopes"!
The area marked on the Hillside Lands map includes some flat
spaces where swimming pools can be allowed. Are these outside the
regulations? Ashland should not discourage people from moving here
if they want to swim and can afford a swimming pool and if it can be
built on a significant flat area, without causing an erosion problem.
080 C. THIS CLAUSE RAISES A BASIC CRITICISM OF THE DRAFT:
The whole idea seems to be to require that the house-holder keep the
maximum number of existing trees without any regard to other
considerations. (In other words, there is a "one issue" approach to
building in hillside areas, i.e. a "bare number of trees simplicity").
This maximum number of trees requirement is put into the current
draft of an ordinance, without any consideration of:
Any desire of house owners to see the mountains, etc.
The quality of the trees on the parcel
The variety of trees on the parcel
The slope of the land
Tree density interlocking of canopy;
over-lap of drip lines
The fire risk of trees close to the house and of too many trees
A desire of house owners to thin to encourage specimen trees
The desire of house owners to add different tree varieties
The desire of house owners to have various sizes of trees
Street, drive-way, and alley locations and shape.
It may well be that developers, spec builders, bull-dozer operators,
etc. will act in the cheapest way possible and so some regulation of
their activities is appropriate: However, there are potential home
owners to be considered. They should be entitled to have their own
ideas of a good house and lot be an important planning consideration.
The draft ordinance seems intent on restricting speculative builders
at the cost of the actual owners of the homes built.
The "bare number of trees simplicity" characterizes this
section 080 C of the proposed ordinance. Thus: See C 3 ("maximum"
used two times), C 5, and D 1 c, for examples.
While there is an indication that "maximum" number of trees
does not apply to Wildfire Lands (apparently because of fire risk)
this exception does not meet all needs: Lands in the "Wildfire"
/6 r7
definition are not the only type of land where fire risk is
significant, and fire risk is not the only consideration;
There are other considerations that indicate that "bare number
of trees simplicity" does not meet the public needs. The "one issue"
presentation requiring retention of the "maximum number of trees"
is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, unlawful.
80 C 6. Replacement of trees by two [or up to 4] smaller trees
is required without any consideration being given to the number of
the trees already on the parcel. A fundamental difference between
lots is ignored. Also: is it correct to assume that same variety
trees are always available -- such as 3" DWH black oaks, etc.?
An absolute denial of a right to put in different tree varieties
is certainly unreasonable and unlawful. The draft may permit equal
or better quality trees, while rejecting cottonwood, aspen, etc.
There is need, of course, to prevent cutting of all, or even
several, of the large oaks or Ponderosa pines or Douglas fir, or even
madrone, on a property, solely to cut tract building costs. Cost-
cutting can dominate spec and tract building so that the replacement
of the cut trees by the developer/builder might be weedish trees
such as poplars, cottonwoods, aspen, Monterey pines, etc., or the
developer/builder might put in no trees at all. But there needs to be
a more surgical approach to regulation.
The tree replacement language needs to be redone to give
consideration to the number and quality of trees on each property, to
accept that owners can have legitimate desires to have houses
facing the best view and to have variety in trees (including fruit
trees and colorful trees) and that owners can have legitimate
desires to develop potential specimen trees by giving them adequate
open sky to expand to achieve an ornamental specimen character.
It is reasonable for owners to plant black walnut trees, maples,
ponderosa pines, Douglas firs, Redwoods, other pines and cedars,
magnolias, elms, and orchard trees. On our lot, we grow English
walnuts, almonds, plums, pears, peaches, figs, apples, nectarines,
apricots, prunes, cherries, persimmons, and pomegranates. We have
dogwood, flowering crabapples, holly, birch, Ponderosa pine, Douglas
fir, black walnuts, quince, rhododendrun, camerias, azelias, etc.etc.
Magnolias are attractive.
The idea that regulation should be drawn solely to get the
maximum number of trees on a lot, or a hill-side, is arbitrary,
capricious, unreasonable and unlawful.
Richard Ernst
April 29, 1997
! ~ tff
Chapter 18.62
PHYSICAL , ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
sections:
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent.
18.62.020 Regulations.
18.62.030 Definitions.
18.62.040 Approval and Permit Required.
18.62.050 Land Classifications.
18.62.060 Official Maps.
18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor
Lands.
18.62.075 Development Standards for Riparian Preserve Lands.
18.62.080 Develop)llentStandards for Erooivc and elope
FQilurc#R1m191a~ Lands.
18.62.090 Developm:;r;eg€:ihdards for wildfire Lands. (Ord
2747, 1994)
18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to
provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of districts
cl1aracterizedbydiversity of physiographic condi tionsiiil1tD'9!
!~!a'!'~!i'~"!!!g!!!'i!i!~: ~~ ~~~~;a~i~~r~i~o~n~fn~~~~!~aPhY
environment and; to provide for sensitive development in areas
that are constrained by various natural features. Physiographic
~~~~~~~~n~~'n"!ffi~'~"!"!I~'1'~!~!~!i~~h~a~a~~,c~~~~~:~ed to
drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential
il1iiifj_iiiii~~j;ii~'J.;~iIDI&i$6:;r~.~~"',, ll~~llfBBA}l
18.62.020 Requlations. The type of regulation applicable to he
land depends upon the classification in which the land is placed,
as provided in Section 18.62.050. If those regulations conflict
with other regulations of the City of Ashland's Municipal code,
the more stringent of the two regulations shall govern.
18.62.030 Definitions. The following terms are hereby defined
as they apply to this Chapter:
A. Architect - An architect licensed by the State of
Oregon.
"ili;:,<':~<<<'
:M:~~:4~4:s~~:'<W:":~;<.dt~'~M:~:*~?:~~(::-jf::?~m
..:::::<::<~::=::::::::::::;:i:m::::::;:;:::;~:;~t~:;:::;'::~:~~:::::$:::::::::::::~:;:::;~:;:i=:~=:~::.;~:::j';i.. ,';'
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 1
/G 9;
Illillllillillliliililil.'I!III!li,lllilil!~~~.a~
.~":~~~~~I~~!~~!~!1,~"
~
B. Buildable area - That portion of an existing or
proposed lot that is free of building restrictions.
For the purpose of this ordinance, a buildable area
cannot contain any setback areas, easements, and
similar building restrictions, and cannot contain any
land that is identified as FloodplainCorridor Lands,
or any land that is greater than~%~~~ slope.
C. Cohesive soils - Residual or transported soils,
usually originating from parent rock which contains
significant quantities of minerals which weather to
clay. Cohesive soils have a Plasticity Index of ten
(10) or more, based on laboratory testing by AASHTO, or
a site-specific scientific analysis of a particular
soil material.
D.
Devel()J?~ElIlt;:~J\:lt:;~:ra..t.~oll. ,()J:!;l1~:L<lP<i f;urface by:
1. 1I~~lIillil~~"'~t~~'Z"I!'~!~~~d;~~in;illing,
a'otI~'tY"'Tnvolvin more than rift. 50 "ff cubic
d 1 t~"lfW"'''''~W;;<"''TV..d\jf~1li':l.e!
~er
six f6+-inches diameter at breast height (DBHl, or
the removal of five percent (S~) of the total
number of living (or dead trees) over six +&T
inches DBH, whichever is greater, on any lot
~
3-4. const'rucfionof a building, road, drivewa ,
iii~l~iiiiiiilii~ijlii[lil[~ii.~i'i'lltl.di~l~
2.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1m
Page 2
17txJ
4_
E. Engineer - A registered professional engineer licensed
by the state of Oregon.
F. Engineering Geologist - A registered professional
engineering geologist licensed by the state of Oregon.
G. Floodway Channel - The floodway channel as defined in
the Flood Insurance study for Ashland, Oregon,
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on
December 1, 1980.
~
Hm. Gully - A drainage incision, commonly caused by
erOS1on, which does not experience regular or seasonal
stream flow, but does act as a channel for runoff
during periods of high rainfall.
~~
rii1Jlu", '7(~/~
.: ~~:)Q~;;~;;;-
~
Ii}
'-
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 3
/70{
~M.
IN.
.-,-..,.,..-,-.,'.',...._--'--_..'.-....-.-..-,-.-,-.'.'.'..'..'--...-............-.-.-,-.-.-,.-.-.',-_._----'--'--'-:-,..:..-.-.-,-..-.-...........-.'-'.:.':;:.:::.::.::.,-...-.....-,-..-...-.....
Non-cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils
containing no or very little clay, usually from
crystalline granitic parent rock. Non-cohesive soils
have a Plasticity Index of less than ten (10), based on
laboratory
testing by
AASHTO, or a
pUblished
scientific
analysis of a
particular soil
type.
Riparian -
That area
associated with
a natural water
course
including its wildlife and vegetation.
~~,AO~ Of!.. ~LOPe: --~)
(I'. k t. ~ ~ .,..-
~p..."" ~ __ 10 ".1IfT"
0/0 6- -- I v..II(,......Ic:.Al-
t,.'50 ..-"" pl.':...r.....Nc:.e (v)
_- -J,
--- . ---
",.....,
~ 4 4-0 F_PT - . ~
I l-+O~I~NT""'l.- D~'T"""""G.~ ,
N) .
Sl-ope CAL...C.UL-AT(ON ';<
v
-
H
(:::>EicZF-::'G"'G':- .c:-p 'SL<'"-"....'t-<' ::- ..,~&...,..- c::>F _~_;
~~!'!lll;tllll;I'llltlltl'I.lllrlllll'1111111IiIIIlIIIDgfll{~gnl~m'E
g~,lrl;lllilk:,,~,,:~llilil'itlillllltli(III.R,~
K1\l.
18.62.040
A.
B.
wildfire - Fire caused by combustion of native
vegetation, commonly referred to as forest fire or
brush fire.
Approval and Permit Required.
A Type I Physical Constraints Review Permit is required
for any development, as defined in 18.62.030(C), in
areas identified as Floodplain Corridor Land, Riparian
Preserve, Eresivc and ~lopc FailurcU$Wm~mag land, or
Severe Constraint land. ".,.".,.".,.,.,.,.....""".,...,.".".,.,.
If a development is part of a site Review, Performance
Standards Development, Conditional Use Permit,
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9. 1997
Page 4
( 7 (r;z.
Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then
the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the
Planning Action ana RO aaditional fee ahall be cRar~ca.
C. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning
Action, as noted in Subsection B, then the Physical
Constraints Review shall be processed as a Staff
Permit.
~~
9$. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required
for any development requiring a Physical Constraints
Review:
1.
~.ait~~!Je~~a~'!!~~~~ containing the following:
b. vicinity map.
c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one ~
inch equals fifty (50+ feet or larger).
North arrow.
Date.
Street names and locations of all existing
and proposed streets within or on the
boundary of the proposed development.
Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
Location and use of all proposed and existing
buildings, fences and structures within the
proposed development. Indicate which
buildings are to remain and which are to be
removed.
Location and size of all public utilities
affected by the proposed development.
Location of drainage ways or public utility
~:~;~~~;:~~:~~!!ii,i,iii,i'!lii~~t~iiii~~~m
interval of five f5+feet or less.
Location of all parking areas and spaces,
ingress and egress on the site, and on-site
circulation.
~gQPr~@~*~Xocations of all existing natural
features'includin , but not limited to, all
~~;;i !'ii\!I!:"~!!Wllllllllllll'Fff!~fi'!!!8~
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j .
k.
1.
m.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 5
/163
or
trees which will be affected or removed by
the proposed development. Indicate any
contemplated modifications to a natural
feature.
The proposed method of erosion control, water
runoff control, and tree protection for the
development.
Building envelopes for all existing and
proposed new parcels that contain only
I:lUilda,-?le. . area (asd~fined bYJ:hisChapt~J:"'
~i;
n.
o.
2. Additional plans and studies as required in
sections 18.62.070, 18.62.080, 18.62.090 and
18.62.100 of this Chapter.
~. Criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review
Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the
Applicant demonstrates the following:
L~
adjacent to the area of dcvelopmcnt.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential
hazards that the development may create and
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 6
/76<f
Fq.
implemented reaaonablc measures to mitigate the
potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps
to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff
Advisor or Planning commission shall consider the
existing development of the surrounding area, and
the maximum permitted development permitted by the
Land Use Ordinance.
4. That the development is in compliance with the
requirements of this chapter and all other
applicable city Ordinances and Codes.
The Staff Advisor or Planning commission has the power
to amend plans to include any or all of the following
conditions if it is deemed necessary to mitigate any
potential negative impact caused by the development:
1. Require the retention of trees, rocks, ponds,
water courses and other natural features.
Require plan revision or modification to mitigate
possible negative or irreversible effect upon the
topography or natural features that the proposed
developlUent mayca\l~e... .. ........... .......... ... ............. ....................................... ...
ie#
2 .
3;
4'
c.
The ~taff Advioo~ or rlannin~ Comm~ooion m~y deny ~he
rhyo1cal and Env1ronmental Conatra1nta ReV1ew rerm1t
if, in ita opinion:
1. The propoocd development ,:ill have a detrimental
cffect on thc landa rc~ulated and protected by
thia Chaptcr, or if inconaiatcnt '.,ita tae
Comprehenaive rlan.
2. Where it appcara that the propooal io part of a
more elctenoive development that ,."Quid require a
maoter aite plan, or other rlanninq ~ction. In
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 7
! 165
thio caoe, approval io to be pootponed until a
complete planninq application hae boon proceeoed.
18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be
used to determine the classifications of various lands and their
constraints to building and development on them:
A. Floodplain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential
stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are
classified as Floodplain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 100 year floodplain
as defined by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the
Ashland Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Floodplain
Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council as
provided for in section 18.62.060.
3. All lands which have physical or historical
evidence of flooding in the historical past.
4. All areas within t\.'enty (20+ feet (horizontal
distance) of any creek designated for Riparian
Preservation in 18.62.050(B) and depicted as such
on maps adopted by the Council as provided for in
section 18.62.060.
5. All areas within ten (10) feet (horizontal
distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps
adopted by the Council but not designated as
Riparian Preservation.
B. Riparian Preservation - The following Floodplain
Corridor Lands are also.designated for Riparian
Preservation for the purposes of this section and as
listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen,
Ashland, Neil and Wrights Creeks.
C. Eroeivc and 8100c FailureBn$MWs$d$ Lands - Lands with
potential erosion hazards;EFo'iin'e Lando and 81epe
-
anifnope Failure ijllWW.~~!i!$;.Lands:
1. All areas deflnea'as'crooion and Glope failure
nili~it;;ii;W~$;lands on the Physical ConstraintsOverlay
map ana which have a slope of forty (40'1;) g;?
percent or greater. ......
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9. 1997
Page 8
/1tJb
D. Wildfire Lands - Lands with potential of wildfire.
The following lands are classified as wildfire Lands:
1. All areas defined as wildfire lands on the
Physical constraints Overlay map.
E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe
development characteristics which generally limit
normal development. The following lands are classified
as Severe Constraint Lands:
1. All areas which are within the floodway channels,
as defined in the City's Flood Protection
ordinance, Chapter 15.10.
2. All lands with a slope greater than fifty (SO~)R~
percent.
F. Classifications Cumulative. The above classifications
are cumulative in their effect and, if a parcel of land
falls under two +rt-or more classifications, it shall
be subject to the regulations of each classification.
Those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those
portions of the land being developed and not
necessarily to the whole parcel.
18.62.060 Official Maps.
A. The City Council shall adopt official maps denoting the
above identified areas. Substantial amendments of
these maps shall be a Type 3 procedure.
B. Minor amendments of the maps to correct mapping errors
when the amendments are intended to more accurately
reflect the mapping criteria contained in this
ordinance or in the findings of the Council in adopting
an official map may be processed as a Type 1 procedure.
18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands.
For all land use actions which could result in development of the
Floodplain Corridor, the following is required in addition to any
requirements of Chapter 15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Floodplain Corridor lands:
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten
(10) feet outside of floodway channels, as defined
in section 15.10, and the fill shall not exceed
the angle of repose of the material used for fill.
3. The amount of fill in the Floodplain Corridor
shall be kept to a minimum.. Fill and other
material imported from off the lot that could
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9. 1m
Page 9
/707
B.
displace floodwater shall be limited to the
following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary
to build permitted structures on the lot.
~
material. .... ........ ....................
A total of fifty (50t-cubic yards of other
imported fill material, or three hundred
(300) cubic yardG per acre, '..hicheyer in
~reater. TheGe amouRtG are the maximum
cumulative fill that can be imported ORto the
oite, regardleoo of the number of permito
iQ[>ued.
The above limits on fill shall be measured
from April 1989, and shall not exceed the
-
If additIonal fill is necessary beyond the
permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill
materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting
or excavation only to the extent necessary to
create an elevated site for permitted development.
All additional fill material shall be obtained
from the portion of the lot in the Floodplain
Corridor.
Adequate drainage shall be provided for the
stability of the fill.
Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall
be located as close to the outside edge of the
Floodplain Corridor as feasible.
Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek
identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to
section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer.
stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of
Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been
identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood
without any increase in the upstream flood height
elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design
the probability that the culvert will be blocked by
debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected
overflow. Fill for culverting and bridgil1gsl1a11 be
~i~iF~~ ~~~ ~~n~~~:p~e~~~~a~~~*"!~,!"!M'E'~~!~tion
b.
c.
d.
e.
4.
5.
6.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 10
/10il
(A) above. CUlverting or bridging of streams
identified as Riparian Preservation are subject to the
requirements of 18.62.075.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the
standards in Chapter 15.10 to one (1) foot above the
elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter
15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official
maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is
greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they
must be clcvated:I~tqg~nPBg~$~ to an elevation of ten
(10) feet above tnEicrEiEiKcnannel on Ashland, Bear or
Neil Creek; to five +&r-feet above the creek channel on
all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050(B); and three ~feet above the stream
channel on all other drainage ways identified on the
official maps.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that
the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one ~
foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted
in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever
height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist,
then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten
(10) feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or
Neil Creek; to five +&r-feet above the creek channel on
all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050(B); and three ~feet above the stream
iiiiiii!~iiiitiil"i'liliillllji,tiiitil~~:!!':~~ll
be certified to the city by an engineer or surveyor
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
structure.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be
placed on other than Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the
case where development is permitted in the Floodplain
corridor area, then development shall be limited to
that area which would have the shallowest flooding.
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the
Floodplain Corridor shall locate all residential
structures outside the Corridor land, unless fifty
+50%) peroent or more of the lot is within the
Floodplain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for
existing lots that have more than fifty (50%) peroent
of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located
on that portion of the floodplain corridor that is two
+rt-feet or less below the flood elevations on the
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 11
! 7oe;
official maps, but in no case closer than t".lcmty (20)
feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek.
Construction shall be subject to the requirements in
paragraph D above.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion
ofXloodplain Corridor lands that are t\:o (2) feet
~qq!i\l;!\ll[i;t!!or less belm.. ~llfjgy@the flood elevations on
EheoflT6ial maps adopted Tn section 18.62.060. Second
story construction may be cantilevered over the
floodplain corridor for a distance of t".:cnty (20t feet
if the clearance from finished grade is at least ten
(10) feet in height, and is supported by pillars that
will have minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters.
The finished floor elevation may not be more than two
~feet below the flood corridor elevations.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots
created from lots which contain Floodplain Corridor
land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s)
which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to
accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone,
unless the action is for open space or conservation
purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect
is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger
than the minimum size permitted in the zoning
ordinance.
I. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for newQRE
lli,iWsIeIDng rcsidcntial structures or additions ......
Iocated'~within the Floodplain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage,
parking, and similar uses are permitted for
residential structures but must be floOd-proofed
to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
3. Development of habitablc basemcnts af mristing
non residcntial structurcD that are at or below
the flood elevations containcd in the official
maps shall be permitted in the Ashland Historic
IntercDt Arca, as defincd in the AShland
ComprchcnDivc rlan.
~. No ne.. habitable basements lO",lOr than two (2) feet
bclm,' the floodplain corridor clc.rations shall be
permi ttcd on any mdsting or nC\l nen rCDidential
Dtructure outside the historic interest area.
5. Habitable bascmcnto ohall not be uDed for slccping
quarters.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 12
/71'0
J. storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other
hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in
Floodplain Corridor lands.
K. Fences constructed within WeiKy (2ot feet of any
Riparian Preservation creek designated by this
ordinance shall be liaited to wire or electric fence,
or similar fence that will not collect debris or
obstruct flood waters but not includ wire mesh or
chain link fencin .
L. ec s an s ruc ures 0 er an buildings, if
constructed on Floodplain Corridor Lands and at or
below the levels specified in paragraph (C) and (D) of
the section, shall be flood-proofed to the standards
contained in Chapter 15.10.
M. Local streets and utility connections to developments
in and adjacent to the Floodplain Corridor shall be
located outside of the Floodplain Corridor, except for
c:ossing the Corridor
18.62.075 Develooment Standards for Rioarian Preservation lands.
A. All development in areas indicated for Riparian
Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(8), shall
comply with the following standards:
Physical and Envirownental CoostraiDIs {)rdlng...... Revision
. Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1m
Page 13
/7 ((
1.
3.
Development shall be subject to all Development
Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands
(18.62.070)
Any ~ :p~:~es af piae, a~[, fir, madfaae, yew,
or D~a- -~- over six f6t-inches DBH shall be
retained to the greatest extent feasible.
Fill and CUlverting shall be permitted only for
streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall
be at right angles to the creek channel to the
greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a
minimum.
The general topography of Riparian Preservation
lands shall be retained.
2.
4.
Physical and EnvironmentaI CoasIraiDts OrdinalV"(' ReYisioo
Hillside Staudards
Staff Draft 1.1 April '. 1m
Page 14
11 (~
Physical and Enriroaunental Constraints Ordina...... Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1997
Page 15
1113
Physical and Environmental Comtraints Qrdina...... Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1m
Page 16
11/'(
\5'
Maxltnwn
Cui Slope
~
I
Slacked Rock
Of MQ~
Wall
3' Minimum .
T.,_e
Wlcllh
20'
Maximum
All Slope
Height.
Requited
E,oslon Conttol
Netllng
Physical and EnviroDll1ental Constraints OrdinA...... Revision
Hillside SIaIIdards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1m
Page 17
/1 f'!)
Reduce Effective Visual Bulk
By Utilizing Stepped
Foundations
.e
:*~:;:;;:::
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordina....., Revision
HilJBide Standatds
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1m
Page 18
/11(,
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
StaIT Draft 1.1 April 9, 1m
Page 19
/1/1
A. All aC7elepmeRt which remsvee vege~a~ieR SF dioturso
topsail and leavee the dist~bed sail at a elope af
fifty (50\) persent aF mare shall samply ~ith the
fello~ift~ ataRsaraol
Physical and EnvirolllDelltaI Constraints QrdilUlnce Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1m
Page 20
1118
II.
1. ARy eKposea sail shall Be re7e~e~a~ea iR a maRRcr
te reestablish a vegetati~e aammunity within a enc
(1) year periea fra. iSBHanae ef a eer~ifiaate af
Occupanoy. If irrigatien is Ret pre~idea, then
~he el*asea seil ~s~ Be plaR~ea with speeies
~~ieh eaR Burvive yi~kaut irri~atieR.
2. TJcgetati ve cever, reale, ElF}. SF oelY/cnt.ienal
maoonry, er ether permanent eB~cr maot he
maintaincd ift perpetH1ty OR areao whieh have hceB
clist.urbed.
3. These reetriotioRs shall Rot apply to areas af
expesed hearaale ......h108 fSuhihit. Be croaieR
136'EeRtial.
to the following standards:
1. All roof drainage must be collected, controlled
and directed either by underground pipe or
concrete or asphalt gutter to a City street or
storm drain or a natural water course. ~"
:Y.: .....:.,.~
2. A I" ra1nage rom 1veways, par ing areas and
other impervious surfaces must be collected,
controlled and directed to a City street or storm
drain by under round i e or concrete or asphalt
tter.
3.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordi....nre Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1m
Page 21
111,/
C. cuts aft~ Fills.
1. All suts, ~ra~iR~ er fills shall sSRfer. te
Chap~er 79 af the YRiferm Bailding Cede.
2. In aaditieft, any auto anater fillo qrcatcr than
t~o huft~re~ fifty (259) s~eis yards must ee
designc~ ey aR eR~iReer te so~ly with UBC Chapter
70. Cuoh outs aR~/or fills shall ee ~esigRe~ iR
suoh a maftRer that they ~ill ee staele for the ~BC
iRteftde~.
3. If the exoavatioR is Rot a city street or a p~elie
right of way, the eft~ifteer ahall ~eelare to the
city, after the s~t aft~/or fill is somplcte~, that
it ~aa eonstructed te plana ana meeta all
stanaaras aet farth iR the plans appra~cd.
4. NothiRg iR this sestioR ahall aeridge the city's
ri(ffflt te iRDflcet -ver)[ in prog-rcoo or ill ita
ee~lctca otatc, ta m~(~ apprspriate mcaour~meRto
aRa tests ta determine if the aut ana fill ~ao
made aeeerdinfJ te plan, ana te re~irc alterationo
prior to fiftal approval ef the out aRd/or fill.
Physical and Environmental Constraints QrdilUllnce Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1m
Page 22
/1;21)
-~::~
Physical and Environmental Coostrainls ()rdina...... Rerision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1m
Page 23
/1)-(
~t
Tree l'reservation
Guideline
T
,
,
",".~..._.-
(': -.-...-tl.wl_
Physical and EnviromnenW Constraints ()rdinA...... Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9. 1m
Page 24
/1~::l--
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordina...... Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draftl.l April 9, 1997
Page 25
I 1;23
Deciduous
Tree Planting
Guideline
J" UIIkIf Kq1r
'''''-'''TI'WIIIi
.......lJrf/rIfTlWb
l!rwbk r".9.MdlJ.Jb0_
C.,.,tWnt~.4tnr
.'fhtHJJ&J..JJtIffU
1"':.~ u/lbcll4Jl
AAwtJ.v;,Nll'ru
O...,.,.F-..
s...,r.ItJ'Of'ft.wWl."
c;....IT_
F,..'t:~F",.TI-'
.""'TfW(M.~(~
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints Qrdina...... Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1m
Page 26
/1;2+
ff"ktlli1i&~<f'''''''''''''W^".'''''~
(dF_i~"i~'_ ,".,..ftfJ
Physical and Environmental Constraints Qrdl.......... Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9. 1m
Page 27
/125'
~~ ' :~b.~~~~.'.:~.,~~...':~.:~:.:<<.~..'.~~~~~~ '..1W0:X~>, .:tt~ "~'".";~'~~..::\,'-~~'>,v.-";'-:'- "~..:.'~'.1~. ~>~~:'."...".":.'
li...;;;~:w ,,~mj%~~~~t~l#bh~~~~~~
.'B
Pbysical and Environmental Constraints OrdinAna' Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9, 1997
Page 28
/1Zb
nl.
x':'}
~.
Fl.
Any ~evelopment or p~rtiti~ is proposed ~
Erasl. vo aRa Ellope Fal.lw;e .,.... ,.' nds must be shown
on a master plan at the time. e l.nal plan or plat is
filed. All development must comply with the master
plan. Any improvements necessary for the
implementation of the master plan (e.g., storm drains,
gutters, etc.), which involve two (2) or more parcels
of land must be constructed by the applicant prior to
any development occurring on the parcels.
All structures on Erosive aRa Ellapo Failur~
Lands shall have foundations which have been . eSl.gned
Man en ineer or architect ..
- ..~;:w . ",W-U . " . ::'<.
"II ne", y' c~ea..or . 0 s modified by a lot line
adjustment.must include a bUi:Mdin env~~_on all lots
that contal.ns a buildable are ,....' ~y~ of
sufficient size to accommodate ' .'e u.se's p'eFin"f"ff"&i*"in
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordina...... Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1m
Page 29
/1;27
the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line
adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes.
~, ,@.>>Jll:a?t'9Je.0J.ii~!~Jl~i%~tI::;$
iilli..."""",......:,,,_......wi'W.."'."",..'>$,,. . ,
_n~~'Wi~~~~t1P~/: '.
18.62.090
A.
Development Standards for Wildfire Lands.
Requirements for SUbdivisions, Performance Standards
Developments, or Partitions.
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be
required with the submission of any application
for an outline plan approval of a Performance
Standards Development, preliminary plat of a
subdivision, or application to partition land
which contained areas designated Wildfire Hazard
areas.
2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan to the Fire Chief
within 3 days of the receipt of a completed
application. The Fire Chief shall review the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan, and submit a written
report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days
before the scheduled hearing. The Fire Chief's
report shall be a part of the record of the
Planning Action.
Physical and Enviromnental Comtraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.1 April 9. 1m
Page 30
11;20'
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall include
the following items:
a. An analysis of the fire hazards on the site
from wildfire, as influenced by existing
vegetation and topography.
b. A map showing the areas that are to be
cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased
vegetation.
c. A map of the areas that are to be thinned to
reduce the interlocking canopy of trees.
d. A tree management plan showing the location
of all trees that are to be preserved and
removed on each lot. In the case of heavily
forested parcels, only trees scheduled for
removal shall be shown.
e. The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel
Breaks that are required to be installed
around each structure, as required by
18.62.090 B.
f. Roads and driveways sufficient for emergency
vehicle access and fire suppression
activities, including the slope of all roads
and driveways within the Wildfire Lands area.
4. criterion for Approval. The hearing authority
shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan
when, in addition to the findings required by this
chapter, the additional finding is made that the
wildfire hazards present on the property have been
reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the
need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number
of trees and plants for erosion prevention,
wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.
5. The hearing authority may require, through the
imposition of conditions attached to the approval,
the following requirements as deemed appropriate
for the development of the property:
a. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to
be thinned and a formal plan for such
thinning.
b. Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce
fuel load.
c. Removal of all dead and dying trees.
d. Relocation of structures and roads to reduce
the risks of wildfire and improve the chances
of successful fire suppression.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be
implemented during the public improvements
required of a subdivision or Performance standards
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints Ordinal>('<'! Revision
Hillside Standards
StafTDraft 1.1 April 9,1991
Page 31
/ 1;2-1
Development, and shall be considered part of the
subdivider's obligations for land development.
The Plan shall be implemented prior to the
issuance of any building permit for structures to
be located on lots created by partitions and for
subdivisions or Performance Standards developments
not requiring public improvements. The Fire
Chief, or designee, shall inspect and approve the
implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control
Plan, and the Plan shall not be considered fully
implemented until the Fire Chief has given written
notice to the Staff Advisor that the Plan was
completed as approved by the hearing authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards
Developments, provisions for the maintenance of
the Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be
included in the covenants, conditions and
restrictions for the development, and the city of
Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of such
covenants, restrictions, and conditions.
8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner
shall be responsible for maintaining the property
in accord with the requirements of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan approved by the
hearing authority.
B. Requirements for construction of all structures.
1. All new construction and any construction
expanding the size of an existing structure, shall
have a "fuel break" as defined below.
2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free
of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-
burning species sUfficiently thinned so that there
is no interlocking canopy of this type of
vegetation. Where necessary for erosion control or
aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted
in slow-burning species. Establishment of a fuel
break does not involve stripping the ground of all
native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks" may include
structures, and shall not limit distance between
structures and residences beyond that required by
other sections of this title.
3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be
installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum
of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is
less, in all directions around structures,
excluding fences, on the property. The goal
within this area is to remove ground cover that
will produce flame lengths in excess of one foot.
Physical and EnviroomeotaI CoustraiDts Ord;......... Revision
Hillside SIaDdards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1997
Page 32
/13(J
Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet
for each 10% increase in slope over 10%. Adjacent
property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the
development of primary fuel breaks.
4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will
be installed, maintained and shall extend a
minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break
where surrounding landscape is owned and under the
control of the property owner during construction.
The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce
fuels so that the overall intensity of any
wildfire is reduced through fuels control.
5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed
with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as
determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty
Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the
Wildfire Lands area for which at least 50% of the
rOOfing area requires re-roofing shall be done
under approval of a zoning permit. No structure
shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden
shingles, shakes, wOod-product material or other
combustible rOOfing material, as defined in the
City's building code.
C. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope
Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control
measures outlined in Section 18.62.080.
D. Implementation.
1. For land which have been Subdivided and required
to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of
the Plan shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of construction with combustible
materials.
2. For all other structures, the vegetation control
requirements of section (B) above shall be
complied with before the commencement of
construction with combustible materials on the
lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991)
3. As of November 1, 1994, existing residences in
subdivisions developed outside of the Wildfire
Lands Zone, but later included due to amendments
to the zone boundaries shall be exempt from the
requirements of this zone, with the exception of
section 18.62.090 B.5. above. All new residences
shall comply with all standards for new
construction in section 18.62.090 B.
4. Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire
lands zone prior to November 1, 1994, but later
included as part of the zone boundary amendment,
Physic:al and Enviroomeota1 ComtraiDts ()rdinA...... Revision
Hillaide StaDdards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', tm
Page 33
/13(
shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire
Prevention and Control Plans outlined in section
18.62.090 A." (Ord 2747, 1994)
18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to
development, grading, filling, or vegetation removal
and, whenever possible, alternative development should
be considered.
B. Development of floodways is not permitted except for
bridges and road crossings. Such crossings shall be
designed to pass the one hundred (100) year flood
without raising the upstream flood height more than six
6 inches.
C. action
shall be allowed only when the following study has been
accomplished. An engineering geologic study approved
by the City's Public Works Director and Planning
Director establishes that the site is stable for the
proposed use and development. The study shall include
the following:
1. Index map.
2. Project description to include location,
topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of
previous work and discussion of field exploration
methods.
3. site geology, based on a surficial survey, to
include site geologic maps, description of bedrock
and surficial materials, including artificial
fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc., and
structural data including bedding, jointing and
shear zones, soil depth and soil structure.
4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions
that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or
that may be affected by on-site development.
5. Suitability of site for proposed development from
a geologic standpoint.
6. specific recommendations for cut slope stability,
seepage and drainage control or other design
criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist
to establish whether an area to be affected by the
proposed development is stable, additional studies
and supportive data shall include cross-sections
showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with
Pbyskal uad Enviroumeotal Constrainlll Qrdlna...... llerisioo
Hillside SlaDdards
Staff Draft 1.1 April !I. 1997
Page 34
11~A
subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test
and references.
8. Signature and registration number of the engineer
and/or geologist.
9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to
evaluate the site.
18.62.110 Densitv Transfer. Density may be transferred out of
unbuildable areas to buildable areas of a lot provided the
following standards are met:
A. Partitions and subdivisions involving density transfer
shall be processed under Performance Standards, Chapter
18.88 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
B. A map shall be submitted showing the net buildable area
to which the density will be transferred.
C. A covenant shall be recorded limiting development on
the area from which density is transferred.
D. Density may not be transferred from one ownership to
another but only within the lot(s) owned by the same
person.
E. Density may be transferred only on contiguous lots
under common ownership.
F. The density of the buildable area may not be increased
to more than two (2) times the permitted density of the
underlying zone. Fractional units are to be rounded
down to the next whole number. (Ord. 2528, 1989)
Physical and Environmental CousIrainIs Ordi_...... Revision
Hillside SIaDdards
Staff Draft 1.1 April', 1m
Page 35
(733
l'bysical and En'riroJJlJleDtal Constraints ()rdinm...... Rerision
Hillside StaDdatds
swr Draft 1.1 April', 1m
Page 36
113'f
\
~c--;.J
0_~~_u
~
,Ii", ~ {
- --_J__" /
....~~._-
----f.:_,_"
~
\
-\- liT -
\ I
,
~~> ~
+ -
-
'"
-
v K
1(/\ ~ ,.
,- <l\
'0 T;-
~
L " ~
~
!L 113 ~
Chapter 18.62
PHYSICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
sections:
18.62.010
18.62.020
18.62.030
18.62.040
18.62.050
18.62.060
18.62.070
18.62.100
Purpose and Intent.
Regulations.
Definitions.
Approval and Permit Required.
Land Classifications.
Official Maps.
Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor
Lands.
Development Standards for Riparian Preserve Lands.
Development Standards for Erooive and elope
~:~~~~~!!~'I'~'!d~~~~sfor wildfire Lands. (Ord
2747, 1994)
Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
18.62.075
18.62.080
18.62.090
18.62.010 Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Chapter is to
provide for safe, orderly and beneficial development of districts
characterized by diversity of physiographic conditions; to limit
alteration of topography and reduce encroachment upon, or
alteration of, any natural environment and; to provide for
sensitive development in areas that are constrained by various
natural features. Physiographic conditions can be considered to
include, but are not limited to: Slope of the land, natural
drainage ways, wetlands, soil characteristics, potential
landslide areas, and natural and wildlife habitats.
18.62.020 Requlations. The type of regulation applicable to he
land depends upon the classification in which the land is placed,
as provided in section 18.62.050. If those regulations conflict
with other regulations of the city of Ashland's Municipal Code,
the more stringent of the two regulations shall govern.
18.62.030 Definitions. The following terms are hereby defined
as they apply to this Chapter:
A. Architect - An architect licensed by the State of
Oregon.
!'lIt'!!
-
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1. 0 June 13, 1996
Page 1
113("
sM.@ilm2(~9t$}tin
...."....................wJjC'...w..................w..
:;:::~:
"', '11 II ,t;,. ""'" W'" 'w '>' g . ' ..,~ II It 4'
WHS)te~~) J>',,,+:\iI'$';&,,,,.g\;~aM ~g:$i,~'Qffi'lteent'u~:.,,) ,'S...;1;?p,e ~ '. ..Q,Q229"s
~~: ',::,:'" '.....d ,'''~'.;.'v":t''v,,,:.~,,,~*...,,&;..' :-"t::::::~!C':';:;"'-:;*~Wit::::'>'%.:*oh"~':(::"v":,~,,, "1_:tt':U' +-,;.: ~ ~:'I;;;:;'
::t;:;pe.~~c~onve~~$Qn;t:FJ!Q:,. ::;',l~\gp~k.~~~:~~1!'t~:e~t~t~..:: >".. <;L: ^' ~S, ~:t.i+I;le
bQ'ne.Qrtit<~jr'(e.~ ':<<'~i.)''', i':,:e.fi..'flt\nll+~:tS')\m~);S,. aceJltll:1(Qf!
;<''''"''~\lt<<w'^''''IA~F&\t&,<< ,",qib/""'t.3,..'J;;hcl>\P<<~1h",~;.;~",,), ',.,' ",,,,,,.,' .
\1;"",."",,,11', O"","''i'''U'act..O O..u4fuJ:d"ie"lK,,,,,fii"~ga,,,..~'%ee;,,, i" "an....,"~ "I s
bBe<a;li:a~". b't;{tlif~";';P.aji;6ii;j{h1fi<.iitBjf~lti;;&if/i.ibriks.: ' , "
,.....<..w .. ""........' >>."..,.....,:;:..c......~~..,.,~ ,.-...""......w ':-.:-. ,...~*~...>.....w..v.w........~.,~... ..3.
B@. Buildable area - That portion of an existing or
proposed lot that is free of building restrictions.
For the purpose of this ordinance, a buildable area
cannot contain any setback areas, easements, and
similar building restrictions, and cannot contain any
land that is identified as Floodplain Corridor Lands,
or any land that is greater than~w~~~ slope.
C. Cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils,
usually originating from parent rock which contains
significant quantities of minerals which weather to
clay. Cohesive soils have a Plasticity Index of ten
(10) or more, based on laboratory testing by AASHTO, or
a site-specific scientific analysis of a particular
soil material.
D. Development - Alteration of the land surface by:
1. Grading, filling, cutting or other earth-moving
activity involving more than fifty (50+ cubic
yards on any lot;
2. The removal of three or more living trees of over
six f6t-inches diameter at breast height (DBH), or
the removal of five percent (5\) of the total
number of living (or dead trees) over six +6+
inches DBH, whichever is greater, on any lot
_r
3. Coristruct~i6n~of a building, road, driveway,
parking area, or other structure;
4. Culverting of any stream.
E. Engineer - A registered professional engineer licensed
by the state of Oregon.
F. Engineering Geologist - A registered professional
engineering geologist licensed by the state of Oregon.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1. 0 June 13, 1996
Page 2
/737
G. Floodway Channel - The floodway channel as defined in
the Flood Insurance study for Ashland, Oregon,
published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on
December 1, 1980.
!1M
-
H};.
Gully - A drainage incision, commonly caused by
erosion, which does not experience regular or seasonal
stream flow, but does act as a channel for runoff
during periods of high rainfall.
~
~~~/~
~
,.~ ~~N.I'\TUfZ.Al.. .caIl"...ADIii!
~ GUT '" {; FINI$HeD c:Sl<:.,ADS
d",,,, $j \. JI~~'//(!#$$//~/f/!ll~~"'ik2#'$
"" ~"""I7.!-~...I,
II ~:,~~/~'\~ ,.....
C-lJT A>JD FIL-L- <::e:?S$ $",,~TCON
~#.
Non-cohesive Soils - Residual or transported soils
containing no or very little clay, usually from
crystalline granitic parent rock. Non-cohesive soils
have a Plasticity Index of less than ten (10), based on
laboratory testing by AASHTO, or a published scientific
analysis of a particular soil type.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 3
/138'
J.
N@
K.
18.62.040
A.
B.
Riparian -
That area
associated with
a natural water
course
including its
wildlife and
vegetation.
G~...r>5ii oc... 5LOPit ~--)
(\ "J.-~ ~~..,..-
~p..rl~ ." .".. 10 ~.."
0/<1 6- -- I v.~"'Ic.A\....
'l-~ .",.... PI~"'''''N<':'~ (v)
-- ..- -.- ~
.,.--;
~ .4C F.PT ---- .~
I ....O~I~.......T....t- D~"'''''''''''''::'," I
(~) ,
"
.~:<~
wildfire -
vegetation,
brush fire.
Fire caused by combustion of native
commonly referred to as forest fire or
Approval and Permit Required.
A Type I Physical Constraints Review Permit is required
for any development, as defined in 18.62.030(C), in
areas identified as Floodplain Corridor Land, Riparian
Preserve, Erooi7c ana 8lopc FuilurcttW~~~W~g land, or
Severe Constraint land. .'.".',','.,'..'.".,,__,,______,__w,w
If a development is part of a site Review, Performance
Standards Development, Conditional Use Permit,
Subdivision, Partition, or other Planning Action, then
the Review shall be conducted simultaneously with the
Planning Action and no additional fee shall be charged.
C. If a development is exclusive of any other Planning
Action, as noted in Subsection B, then the Physical
Constraints Review shall be processed as a Staff
Permit.
D. Plans Required. The following plans shall be required
for any development requiring a Physical Constraints
Review:
1. A site plan containing the following:
a. Project name.
b. Vicinity map.
c. Scale (the scale shall be at least one ~
inch equals fifty (50t feet or larger).
d. North arrow.
e. Date.
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1. 0 J one 13, 1996
Page 4
1131
f. street names and locations of all existing
and proposed streets within or on the
boundary of the proposed development.
g. Lot layout with dimensions for all lot lines.
h. Location and use of all proposed and existing
buildings, fences and structures within the
proposed development. Indicate which
buildings are to remain and which are to be
removed.
i. Location and size of all public utilities
affected by the proposed development.
j. Location of drainage ways or public utility
easements in and adjacent to the proposed
development.
k. A topographic map of the site at a contour
interval of five f5+feet or less.
1. Location of all parking areas and spaces,
ingress and egress on the site, and on-site
circulation.
m. Locations of all existing natural features
boulders, etc. In forested areas, it is
necessary to identify only those trees which
will be affected or removed by the proposed
development. Indicate any contemplated
modifications to a natural feature.
n. The proposed method of erosion control, water
runoff control, and tree protection for the
development.
o. Building envelopes for all existing and
proposed new parcels that contain only
H;~t';filifi.tf.~ii~J~"~~7;l*J1P;~tii~iil,lljililill.iil.
~
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 5
114-0
2. Additional plans and studies as required in
sections 18.62.070, 18.62.080, 18.62.090 and
18.62.100 of this Chapter.
E. criteria for approval. A Physical Constraints Review
Permit shall be issued by the Staff Advisor when the
Applicant demonstrates the following:
1. That the development will not cause damage or
hazard to persons or property upon or adjacent to
the area of development.
2. That the applicant has considered the potential
hazards that the development may create and
implemented rcaoonablc measures to mitigate the
potential hazards caused by the development.
3. That the applicant has taken all reasonable steps
to reduce the adverse impact on the environment.
Irreversible actions shall be considered more
seriously than reversible actions. The Staff
Advisor or Planning commission shall consider the
existing development of the surrounding area, and
the maximum permitted development permitted by the
Land Use Ordinance.
4. That the development is in compliance with the
requirements of this chapter and all other
applicable city Ordinances and Codes. (Ord. 2775,
1996)
F. The Staff Advisor or Planning commission has the power
to amend plans to include any or all of the following
conditions if it is deemed necessary to mitigate any
potential negative impact caused by the development:
1. Require the retention of trees, rocks, ponds,
water courses and other natural features.
2. Require plan revision or modification to mitigate
possible negative or irreversible effect upon the
topography or natural features that the proposed
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 6
/14-1
1IIIIIIIIIIII1iEtiffi~n11l1;1~n;~~ggffi~~gfi
;to@tihe
....................
G. The Staff Advisor or Planning commission may deny the
Physical and Environmental Constraints Review Permit
if, in its opinion:
1. The proposed development will have a detrimental
effect on the lands regulated and protected by
this Chapter, or if inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Where it appears that the proposal is part of a
more extensive development that would require a
master site plan, or other Planning Action. In
this case, approval is to be postponed until a
complete planning application has been processed.
18.62.050 Land Classifications. The following factors shall be
used to determine the classifications of various lands and their
constraints to building and development on them:
A. Floodplain Corridor Lands - Lands with potential
stream flow and flood hazard. The following lands are
classified as Floodplain Corridor lands:
1. All land contained within the 100 year floodplain
as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
in maps adopted by Chapter 15.10 of the Ashland
Municipal Code.
2. All land within the area defined as Floodplain
Corridor land in maps adopted by the Council as
provided for in section 18.62.060.
3. All lands which have physical or historical
evidence of flooding in the historical past.
4. All areas within b."CRty (20+ feet (horizontal
distance) of any creek designated for Riparian
Preservation in 18.62.050(B) and depicted as such
on maps adopted by the Council as provided for in
section 18.62.060.
5. All areas within ten (10) feet (horizontal
distance) of any drainage channel depicted on maps
adopted by the Council but not designated as
Riparian Preservation.
B. Riparian Preservation - The following Floodplain
Corridor Lands are also designated for Riparian
Preservation for the purposes of this Section and as
listed on the Physical and Environmental Constraints
Overlay Maps: Tolman, Hamilton, Clay, Bear, Kitchen,
Ashland, Neil and Wrights Creeks.
Physical and EnviromnentaI Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1. 0 June 13, 1996
Page 7
/1 +::2-
C. Erosive and elopc Failurd6~$~!#wJ:1~ Lands - Lands with
potential erosion hazards;'Erooi;J-c Lal'ldo and Clope
~
1. All areas defTiied"as'croaiol'l al'ld slopc failure
!!~~'~~i~~~~~sh~~et~esi~~:i~~lf~~~~t~:;~fs@~Verlay
percent or greater. "
D. Wildfire Lands - Lands with potential of wildfire.
The following lands are classified as wildfire Lands:
1. All areas defined as wildfire lands on the
Physical Constraints Overlay map.
E. Severe Constraint Lands - Lands with severe
development characteristics which generally limit
normal development. The following lands are classified
as Severe Constraint Lands:
1. All areas which are within the floodway channels,
as defined in the City's Flood Protection
Ordinance, Chapter 15.10.
2. All lands with a slope greater than fifty (50%t
percent.
F. Classifications Cumulative. The above classifications
are cumulative in their effect and, if a parcel of land
falls under two ~or more classifications, it shall
be subject to the regulations of each classification.
Those restrictions applied shall pertain only to those
portions of the land being developed and not
necessarily to the whole parcel.
18.62.060 Official Maps.
A. The city Council shall adopt official maps denoting the
above identified areas. Substantial amendments of
these maps shall be a Type 3 procedure.
B. Minor amendments of the maps to correct mapping errors
when the amendments are intended to more accurately
reflect the mapping criteria contained in this
ordinance or in the findings of the Council in adopting
an official map may be processed as a Type 1 procedure.
18.62.070 Development Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands.
For all land use actions which could result in development of the
Floodplain Corridor, the fOllowing is required in addition to any
requirements of Chapter 15.10:
A. Standards for fill in Floodplain Corridor lands:
Physical and Enviromnental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 8
1143
1. Fill shall be designed as required by the Uniform
Building Code, Chapter 70, where applicable.
2. The toe of the fill shall be kept at least ten
(10) feet outside of floodway channels, as defined
in section 15.10.
3. The amount of fill in the Floodplain Corridor
shall be kept to a minimum. Fill and other
material imported from off the lot that could
displace floodwater shall be limited to the
following:
a. Poured concrete and other materials necessary
to build permitted structures on the lot.
b. Aggregate base and paving materials.
c. Plants and other landscaping material.
d. A total of fifty (SOt-cubic yards of other
imported fill material, or three hundred
+300+ cubic yards per acre, whichever is
greater. These amounts are the maximum
cumulative fill that can be imported onto the
site, regardless of the number of permits
issued.
e. The above limits on fill shall be measured
from April 1989, and shall not exceed the
above amounts.
4. If additional fill is necessary beyond the
permitted amounts in (3) above, then fill
materials must be obtained on the lot from cutting
or excavation only to the extent necessary to
create an elevated site for permitted development.
All additional fill material shall be obtained
from the portion of the lot in the Floodplain
Corridor.
5. Adequate drainage shall be provided for the
stability of the fill.
6. Fill to raise elevations for a building site shall
be located as close to the outside edge of the
Floodplain Corridor as feasible.
B. Culverting or bridging of any waterway or creek
identified on the official maps adopted pursuant to
section 18.62.060 must be designed by an engineer.
stream crossings shall be designed to the standards of
Chapter 15.10, or where no floodway has been
identified, to pass a one hundred (100) year flood
without any increase in the upstream flood height
elevation. The engineer shall consider in the design
the probability that the culvert will be blocked by
debris in a severe flood, and accommodate expected
overflow. Fill for culverting and bridging shall be
Physical and Enviromnental Constmints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Dmft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 9
II ~'I
kept to the minimum necessary, but is exempt from the
limitations in section (A) above. Culverting or
bridging of streams identified as Riparian Preservation
are subject to the requirements of 18.62.075.
C. Non-residential structures shall be flood-proof to the
standards in Chapter 15.10 to one (1) foot above the
elevation contained in the maps adopted by chapter
15.10, or up to the elevation contained in the official
maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever height is
greater. Where no specific elevations exist, then they
7~~f ~:e~I~~~;~~I!g!'!!lg!~'n;~la~nei:~~~~~~ ~~a~e~r
Neil Creek; to five f5t-feet above the creek channel on
all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050(B); and three ~feet above the stream
channel on all other drainage ways identified on the
official maps.
D. All residential structures shall be elevated so that
the lowest habitable floor shall be raised to one ~
foot above the elevation contained in the maps adopted
in chapter 15.10, or to the elevation contained in the
official maps adopted by section 18.62.060, whichever
height is greater. Where no specific elevations exist,
then they must be constructed at an elevation of ten
(10) feet above the creek channel on Ashland, Bear, or
Neil Creek; to five f5t-feet above the creek channel on
all other Riparian Preserve creeks defined in section
18.62.050(B); and three ~feet above the stream
channel on all other drainage ways identified on the
official maps. The elevation of the finished lowest
habitable floor shall be certified to the city by an
engineer or surveyor prior to issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for the structure.
E. To the maximum extent feasible, structures shall be
placed on other than Floodplain Corridor Lands. In the
case where development is permitted in the Floodplain
corridor area, then development shall be limited to
that area which would have the shallowest flooding.
F. Existing lots with buildable land outside the
Floodplain Corridor shall locate all residential
structures outside the Corridor land, unless fifty
+50%) pcrccHt or more of the lot is within the
Floodplain Corridor. For residential uses proposed for
existing lots that have more than fifty (50%) perccnt
of the lot in Corridor land, structures may be located
on that portion of the floodplain corridor that is two
~feet or less below the flood elevations on the
official maps, but in no case closer than t\lcnty (20)
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 10
/ 7 't~
feet to the channel of a Riparian Preservation Creek.
Construction shall be subject to the requirements in
paragraph D above.
G. New non-residential uses may be located on that portion
of Floodplain Corridor lands that are two (2) feet or
less below the flood elevations on the official maps
adopted in section 18.62.060. Second story
construction may be cantilevered over the floodplain
corridor for a distance of bKnty (20t feet if the
clearance from finished grade is at least ten (10) feet
in height, and is supported by pillars that will have
minimal impact on the flow of floodwaters. The
finished floor elevation may not be more than two +rt
feet below the flood corridor elevations.
H. All lots modified by lot line adjustments, or new lots
created from lots which contain Floodplain Corridor
land must contain a building envelope on all lot(s)
which contain(s) buildable area of a sufficient size to
accommodate the uses permitted in the underling zone,
unless the action is for open space or conservation
purposes. This section shall apply even if the effect
is to prohibit further division of lots that are larger
than the minimum size permitted in the zoning
ordinance.
I. Basements.
1. Habitable basements are not permitted for new
residential structures or additions located within
the Floodplain Corridor.
2. Non-habitable basements, used for storage,
parking, and similar uses are permitted for
residential structures but must be flood-proofed
to the standards of Chapter 15.10.
3. Development of habitable basements of existing
non-residential structures that are at or below
the flood elevations contained in the official
maps shall be permitted in the Ashland Historic
Interest Area, as defined in the Ashland
Comprehensive Plan.
4. No new habitable basements lower than two +rt-feet
below the floodplain corridor elevations shall be
permitted on any existing or new non-residential
structure outside the historic interest area.
5. Habitable basements shall not be used for sleeping
quarters.
J. Storage of petroleum products, pesticides, or other
hazardous or toxic chemicals is not permitted in
Floodplain Corridor lands.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1. 0 June 13. 1996
Page 11
/1 '-t~
K.
L.
M.
18.62.075
A.
Fences constructed within t~eRty (20t feet of any
Riparian Preservation Creek designated by this
ordinance shall be limited to wire or electric fence,
or similar fence that would not collect debris or
obstruct flood waters, but not including wire mesh or
~
constructed on Floodplain Corridor Lands and at or
below the levels specified in paragraph (C) and (D) of
the section, shall be flood-proofed to the standards
contained in Chapter 15.10.
Local streets and utility connections to developments
in and adjacent to the Floodplain Corridor shall be
located outside of the Floodplain Corridor, except for
crossing the Corridor in the shortest possible
distance.
Development Standards for Riparian Preservation lands.
All development in areas indicated for Riparian
Preservation, as defined in section 18.62.050(B), shall
comply with the following standards:
1. Development shall be subject to all Development
Standards for Floodplain Corridor Lands
(18.62.070)
2. Any species of pine, oak, fir, madrone, yew, or
Douglas Fir over six f6+-inches DBH shall be
retained to the greatest extent feasible.
3. Fill and Culverting shall be permitted only for
streets, access, or utilities. The crossing shall
be at right angles to the creek channel to the
greatest extent possible. Fill shall be kept to a
minimum.
4. The general topography of Riparian Preservation
lands shall be retained.
18.62.080 Development Standards for Eroaive aHa elope Failure
ft~l~st~~Lands.
~:-
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1. 0 JUDe 13, 1996
Page 12
( 1 tf-7
111111111111111111111111111111111111111n~i
lilllii'lilllllllllllllllllf;11111111\lllIlllilll~11111
11111111,i'llltl'illiilltiii"lllllllllll1lll~
-
1I11111'11111111~.
..........j'llillfj111IrlllllJlllllll~m~~~
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 13
/l'-1-f
20'
Maximum
All Slop.
Height
15'
Maxlmllm
Cut Slope
Height
3' Mlnlmllm
Terrace
Wlcl1h
~/)
""'fll ~ -
_ii111T:11~
rt,@i1' ~
."::ii'IIIIIII~;ffi*
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1. 0 June 13, 1996
Page 14
/7'-19
Reduce Effective Visual Bulk
By Utilizing Stepped
Foundations
~
~rtffittjfjfr; ',' tn'rmj..I?'~'1W.' .:lf$@;lla;}W\j,wm'*'1I!\Itl'~M!.9nli!tin~~t,w
'l)ffflw, 'lNfiTsf"!l1 ' !l1t'rt'lld.'fillffiowil"fi'fitldN
11~,;lilli%iilll"rib1lk1;";,;;<<,,, , ';""",LL,,,,;;,d;K:gg',,:if8gE~H.5E~
:.:.;.:.;.:.;.,.:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.;.:.;.:-:-:.'."
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 15
I 7 :;-0
11,.,llllllIll~'I~~ng,iiilifiliji~,~~i~~HE~B~~
11I111;llllllllllll$1.'~I~gUlnl;;~~n!;w.S~ij~gti'\11~gm*~Q
.'
.~
~
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 16
( '151
~~~
t1l\~~aJ#$j$I$fia;)!w
:.:.:.:.:.:~.:.:~.:.:.:.:<.;.:.:.:.'.'.-'-
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 17
115~
C.
tilttlltiJ'lilllll~1!!:!!!'!f!!!:'~!!!!~~V~~~~~~:~y
to the following standards:
1. All roof drainage must be collected, controlled
and directed either by underground pipe or
concrete or asphalt gutter to a city street or
storm drain or a natural water course. AW~
Ilii:":"::~',",.' ,,',II'i~~,,:wi''''O,wI1ItIIIIIIIIIIIlRn@
Ktr"drafn'kge "f!omwlrlVew'ays":""pa'rking areas and
other impervious surfaces must be collected,
controlled and directed to a city street or storm
~
~~~,~~ as "~ ,~~^;]! K"~I~l'tie1iI~e~5;!l,~,!~ld, must be
d'dif"~. 'tlMfj"d'>'rtgj"'ufi'ffi'wu'd d b
iii~;~~i~i~iiir'6'~~"jt!p~E'1i!j{~ljjilii~iiove y
B.
3.
CutG
1.
2.
3.
3. These restrictiono shall not apply to areas of
eKpOGea l3earaolt ,,'hieh elchil3it no erooion
potential.
2.
L
and FiIIG.
All cutG, ~raain~ or fills shall sonform to
Chapter 79 of the Uniform Builain~ Code.
In adaitian, any euts ana/ar fillo ~reater than
twa hundrea fifty (259) subis yaras must be
desi~ned by an en~ineer to campI:,' \lith UBC Chapter
70. Such eutG ana/or fillG shall be desi~ned in
Guoh a manner tHat tHey ^ill be stable for the UGe
intenaed.
If tHe euoavation is not a city street or a publio
ri~ht of ^ay, the en~ineer SHall aeclare to the
City, after the eut ana/or fill is completed, that
it was construotea ta pIano and meets all
stanaaras Bet forth in the plans approved.
Nothin~ in thiG seotian Ghall abrid~e the City'a
riqht to inGpeot worl( in pro~reaG arin ita
oompletea state, ta make apprapriate meaGurementG
ana tests to determine if tHe But and fill ....ao
made aocorain~ to plan, and ta re~uire alterationG
prier to final approyal of the out and/or fill.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 18
(1'53.
111~illllll1lllf.II\ltlllll"llllIltI;lIllllgw~'91*ng
3J~~ :)~},' *~u v""d:<:. iBk1.$,r ,<<~ "If' ','~ ,~-Y 'ID1J!r~Efs~T<<-neatar
~ki' <\< ",1tl "&1<f> ' '~tl'at'tt.t,),KH'
~,~~n:, ,,,,;a:M< 'H'" " JIM, "'i"~"M;\ ,/
itffam~m ,"< ,~, ~ 'jt:j% , ';>>~lt~~'i4li'%Y"~J1.::"~
'" ...._, :<:,'>;~~> ;.;.,~ '''-''>> '" w. ~, " .. y. " '" ",..:~q *f.:~, . B;.R ". ,
.. ""Oi<'" "'" "w> '" "'",,'^"'" '~.M '.ii'"' M """...,'"'''' "'"'>iw''' >"'''''''''''' ......
iIl\V"!P',,,,9t>YW~~.. lW'+Utl;, v,~~A,.;~~.,":R4]i';;t.1;~~li""'M"iw.a..",on
, 'f," ,,''''M*'''=~'%rfl.., """'l;''''~fr~\'''''^'lili'i''''''1'{'''ji;ffii+Vii'''" """N" ''''
o ,J~ll~Jl~l'ill",!i;!~ f'!'ll"~;!""i" "Ucn~, ,~,,''4'"''''~'''<'''' J;l~JIlQ,"JJlta;."e
, '"'" ""~''"'''R...1it;",", ,B;,;;;".,F""",l<",c"'''.", ~)'''',..1ii,''''''''''Mu.,','.A... '';' r",".",,;.o, ",",
eX'f~~"'"t~;eXf~JiffilWf~~~9lb0"'V<w,l,) A~~)lM,'flfY.ni")\'I!'P"i:A'W~.. "ti,'ltOpO'se",
;tiq BE(i~~,lil~D:nJ?~~}t,,~~~jiih9:YJi.ji~e :~s~: e;J;eyatlionli: sNaI I be
P"')t;o' 'vi"I1's""f{'"
:...:;::::::;\;;~::::;l;)};::.b;~:;df~
Wtw;%wrm'it$!!W1<'eal,l;.@1\tHttM":\li!;itF't#~ifg$titaarlMBgflEgE
::::,'..;f..&:::'~%:,~;':"";':~''''' :M:.~ ~_,".?i......,..:::'M."~~*:1-:~i~i~!h~<':}<"":"<')""""""b'...."y{....y........
It!IIIBl'lt.hG~fi.~;Mg~:I~I<<t;;Bttlmltlm!p;!;ngng
Iltrll;~*,~II"i.lllllt11111;llilllllllll
'''1l!lltll;IIIIIIIE#
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 19
115'f
illlllil."11111111111111111111In;;1~8~ffi~
~
ii....~...?-<<::::<.<:Iiif:""'.::.x:
1~;I~'pt\]!1
'J'ree Preservation
Guideline
,
,
4" minimum knee heighl
", . I
~
'A~~ul J' Pru(cclitll\
f..... Arca - Haud E..'tC3\'atc
0'111)' - No I kny
EqUipment or Parldng
,,,,~,,,,,"...,,",.!-
c:~.....-.e.~.l_J
;r~IIIIIIIEI'IIII~
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 20
1155
indicated on the grading plans, as approved by the
city, and landsoape professional if required. If
grading or construction is approved within the
dripline, a landsoape professional may be required
to be present during grading' operations, and shall
have authority to require proteotive measures t.o
protect the roots.
d. Changes in soil hydrology and site drainage
within tree protection areas shall be avoided.
Excessive site run-off shall be directed to
appropriate sto.rm drain facilities to protect
trees designated tor preservation.
e. Should encroachment into a ,tree protection
area occur which'causes irreparable damage to
trees"the project plan shall be reviSed to
chomPleln,Sthatadfdilthe lObSS~ "ll:!1l4erd'" nOf circums1;'bat;.cl':'St
sa, 'e eve 'oper' e re ~eve' 0 respons~ ~ ~ y
for compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance.
5. Tree Removal. DevelopmEmtsha,ll be designed to
preserye then,aXilnuJnofn\,lrilJ:;;e;ro.ftl;ees on a site.
When justified by findiligsoffact,the hearing
authority may approve thEi.i",m6italof trees for one or
more of the following conditions:'
a. ,The tree is located within the building
envelo),!e. .
h..:rhi;'itree is located within a 'proposed street,
qriveway, or parking area~
c. The tree is; ;located within a water, sewer, or
other public utility, Ei.asemerit.
~~ofe~~:o~~let~Sb~e~:~:~~i~df;~:s~~~d~~al~
~~~i~;i~~e:g:i~:~a~et~t;*1:~~~1~oi:~~~.~~~~c.2.
e.Thetree,is ;located wIthin or adjacent to
areas of puts dr fills that ared,Mmed injurious
or dangerous to the tree.
6. Tree Replacement. '..' Trees, approved for removal,
with the a~ception of traas ramovad because they were
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 21
d;....'...,.."'.,g~l1+l\%1iijggn:lii...j;i1iigili$n~)l;;1jIp~......Mrid*d~fj1iidf..6hiit
1111~111~11~~IIII~lilllllllllll~~lllillill~ll~
$p~;tr~$~9ffingffiB1!w~EF~~l?+~nwffing9i%E~ffiif~i ' ,",,"
iff
M~tnt;1iin1iingg\&$
iiiilpXl:t9~lii#fj
tiliis$$nWl!lifp~
fihliit..'.'.,"',s,"',.,"'"
1111111111111~y
9qtj$~ii
g~~~J;lii&
i1iiB~~Bgm~np
ti!iilii~ssnajj:t;6a
iilliii;lil~~II..
1Pplii~sftbialPIq])e""'"
wW@fitn~n~..'..".,..,
fllirsEtjjllk~
~II~II~I~%
11~111~lllilln...' kiiidV...',..'.......
~11
21t
tn!
2
;l.
4
4
Deciduous
Tree Planting
Guideline
;".\fIlIJ,K"/H
6""-mmf'nmk
.\'/(Ik, 0,,/1' If"( ''Icy I.~
('f\.:J/;k1"oSiJHd()"Ji.<()"f1
Clllkllj/.<',ll'/wlflll,t(.~rr.,
..iJKH:"'&'.~.'J"""_f
1htSlZcu/fc"vlJ:f,,1f
.J.J(lIInIIS!i'd,i/~ /('
(~(rl'h1ifl Jfi>,,>,-
S,~I Tn(' 0/ {('kll"'''1.11
Chl~,,(JT,,:,'d
Ft..~ 'I"r/up F"'I'/T"",l.
.'<d7'r.','(}nSl/llnd(;mund
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 22
. ,~.1 ,<
11'11'~llliIl1111;1Iilili"llllllllllllllll~
q~
iWid
.._-_._._...,.,._..'_._._._.,._._._._......w..,.....,..............
.............................
..........................
Coniferous
Tree Planting
Guideline
r Muldl K~I-'t
tl~N_IJ"lId_
Si..-".tA<.51.'"'' (i,,'J' I[
'~/i/j"a!)J,'Jo
S/.J...J()...I(,'......,
1''''lJIj1Jr...l,..,~ 1",'k.?!
1JMO.S~fJfUwl.&.!l
M()WI((!;(J}!,Ir:l;>-'o
CtW.''''Jl;';~r
5..1;'1'OfR,~It.I,.,.'1
,111;,.,,",,,,1..-,,1
11111111111111111111111111\111111111111
liliiillilllil'~:~~]rljlflliilltiJliill!li
illliiillii.l'illlll_I;llllllIllwfi@~
1.ltlllll~I'Y::;>""$:':':~,llv"+I'II,llllllll~
IIt;'iIIfIIIIllil\i~g~I:,>"N;"'''';i;;;1L;:ltI111111~~~i
ilillllilllllllllillllllllilr.'ihl~11ie~i%lI~l1J$lB
111111111111111111111111111111\11111111111111115
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 23
/15?
Ilifiilllllllltlllllllllllllllllllll,llilllillill
1IIIIIIi'lllllllllllllll1lilllll;:lM~~BE$
-
111111I1i\IIIIIIII~:"~:,::~IIIIIIIIIIIE~~~n
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 24
/15'1
./
p~ .--:;:
,,\\.-\.-~\::--;.G~
..--(. ~
"""----<\l\'-OP ,
~
......----
'?eIVlflTTED ~....--::
~
~
~
~
~~J~'
~A\.-
['I"'1'vI ~
b~""'O
~1L..L..~I1JE..
~<.1IL.~WG.
HEI(;,tj"r
e!
NOT
'PER,M,rrED
-----
Sl-pe...--
I ~'.~etCtlr
---- ~~(.'
~
--"
A"
~~r~ "
~A1>
I'-'-=~~'l
r:= ~j
i~ _____.
e:-=:=~iF~:1
\
I
~~
-L_j
--"
...--
/},
~
./
---
...-
...-
---"
/'
~
~
",\OP~-{
,,\\-y,,~
" ,.
~\.'O
d
/
./'
",'<\\..
t<~~~""'O~
1'/......' 8U'l-PINC Jh=I<:HT
/'loT INC.RJ:ASEI> THROU~H
/HE USE OF Fiu.
-----
--------
~ -----
j\~~tfT'
-----~\.~.
-----
~ ------ ~ 0"'601' 1(".F SloP/!
(.t)(TPf 1ii~ HIU-S I'O~
-----
30'
tllAxI
liT.
;{O'
A"
rll<~ ~
?
-----
~
/'
-
Jl,NIIII"'....
STEI'6ACr
",'
!1~o
BE).
Be.
f'{j.
-
Any development or partitioning which is proposed 4fl
EroGive and Clope Failure R~~$~%~~illLands must be shown
on a master plan at the time.'fhe.".lInal plan or plat is
filed. All development must comply with the master
plan. Any improvements necessary for the
implementation of the master plan (e.g., storm drains,
gutters, etc.), which involve two ~or more parcels
of land must be constructed by the applicant prior to
any development occurring on the parcels.
All structures in Erosive and Slope Failure Lands shall
have foundations which have been designed by an
engineer or architect.
All newly created lots or lots modified by a lot line
adjustment must include a buildingenyelopeonall lots
that contains a buildable arearn!~~m*iggnml~~*~WWR~ of
sufficient size to accommodate"'€he'iises'permU:tecr'in
the underlying zone, unless the division or lot line
adjustment is for open space or conservation purposes.
Il1lillltI1iiiillllllllii:::,:,::lililiiliiill
1IIIIiill'IIIIII('IIIIIII.lllll1llltlllllllllllll~
mffiH~mllllllllllllttllllllllllllllllllllllll;111111in~
1IIIiiiliil'llilltIIJii.I.llit'lllllti9,I~~
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 25
/161
18.62.090 Development standards for Wildfire Lands.
A. Requirements for Subdivisions, Performance Standards
Developments, or Partitions.
1. A Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be
required with the submission of any application
for an outline plan approval of a Performance
Standards Development, preliminary plat of a
subdivision, or application to partition land
which contained areas designated wildfire Hazard
areas.
2. The Staff Advisor shall forward the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan to the Fire Chief
within 3 days of the receipt of a completed
application. The Fire Chief shall review the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan, and submit a written
report to the Staff Advisor no less than 7 days
before the scheduled hearing. The Fire Chief's
report shall be a part of the record of the
Planning Action.
3. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall include
the following items:
a. An analysis of the fire hazards on the site
from wildfire, as influenced by existing
vegetation and topography.
b. A map showing the areas that are to be
cleared of dead, dying, or severely diseased
vegetation.
c. A map of the areas that are to be thinned to
reduce the interlocking canopy of trees.
d. A tree management plan showing the location
of all trees that are to be preserved and
removed on each lot. In the case of heavily
forested parcels, only trees scheduled for
removal shall be shown.
e. The areas of Primary and Secondary Fuel
Breaks that are required to be installed
around each structure, as required by
18.62.090 B.
f. Roads and driveways sufficient for emergency
vehicle access and fire suppression
activities, including the slope of all roads
and driveways within the Wildfire Lands area.
4. Criterion for Approval. The hearing authority
shall approve the Fire Prevention and Control Plan
when, in addition to the findings required by this
chapter, the additional finding is made that the
wildfire hazards present on the property have been
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 26
11~^
reduced to a reasonable degree, balanced with the
need to preserve and/or plant a sufficient number
of trees and plants for erOS1on prevention,
wildlife habitat, and aesthetics.
5. The hearing authority may require, through the
imposition of conditions attached to the approval,
the following requirements as deemed appropriate
for the development of the property:
a. Delineation of areas of heavy vegetation to
be thinned and a formal plan for such
thinning.
b. Clearing of sufficient vegetation to reduce
fuel load.
c. Removal of all dead and dying trees.
d. Relocation of structures and roads to reduce
the risks of wildfire and improve the chances
of successful fire suppression.
6. The Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be
implemented during the public improvements
required of a subdivision or Performance Standards
Development, and shall be considered part of the
subdivider's obligations for land development.
The Plan shall be implemented prior to the
issuance of any building permit for structures to
be located on lots created by partitions and for
subdivisions or Performance Standards developments
not requiring public improvements. The Fire
Chief, or designee, shall inspect and approve the
implementation of the Fire Prevention and Control
Plan, and the Plan shall not be considered fully
implemented until the Fire Chief has given written
notice to the Staff Advisor that the Plan was
completed as approved by the hearing authority.
7. In subdivisions or Performance Standards
Developments, provisions for the maintenance of
the Fire Prevention and Control Plan shall be
included in the covenants, conditions and
restrictions for the development, and the City of
Ashland shall be named as a beneficiary of such
covenants, restrictions, and conditions.
8. On lots created by partitions, the property owner
shall be responsible for maintaining the property
in accord with the requirements of the Fire
Prevention and Control Plan approved by the
hearing authority.
B. Requirements for construction of all structures.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 27
1163
1. All new construction and any construction
expanding the size of an existing structure, shall
have a "fuel break" as defined below.
2. A "fuel break" is defined as an area which is free
of dead or dying vegetation, and has native, fast-
burning species sufficiently thinned so that there
is no interlocking canopy of this type of
vegetation. Where necessary for erosion control or
aesthetic purposes, the fuel break may be planted
in slow-burning species. Establishment of a fuel
break does not involve stripping the ground of all
native vegetation. "Fuel Breaks" may include
structures, and shall not limit distance between
structures and residences beyond that required by
other sections of this title.
3. Primary Fuel Break - A primary fuel break will be
installed, maintained and shall extend a minimum
of 30 feet, or to the property line, whichever is
less, in all directions around structures,
excluding fences, on the property. The goal
within this area is to remove ground cover that
will produce flame lengths in excess of one foot.
Such a fuel break shall be increased by ten feet
for each 10% increase in slope over 10%. Adjacent
property owners are encouraged to cooperate on the
development of primary fuel breaks.
4. Secondary Fuel Break - A secondary fuel break will
be installed, maintained and shall extend a
minimum of 100 feet beyond the primary fuel break
where surrounding landscape is owned and under the
control of the property owner during construction.
The goal of the secondary fuel break is to reduce
fuels so that the overall intensity of any
wildfire is reduced through fuels control.
5. All structures shall be constructed or re-roofed
with Class B or better non-wood roof coverings, as
determined by the Oregon Structural Specialty
Code. All re-roofing of existing structures in the
Wildfire Lands area for which at least 50% of the
roofing area requires re-roofing shall be done
under approval of a zoning permit. No structure
shall be constructed or re-roofed with wooden
shingles, shakes, wood-product material or other
combustible roofing material, as defined in the
city's building code.
C. Fuel breaks in areas which are also Erosive or Slope
Failure Lands shall be included in the erosion control
measures outlined in section 18.62.080.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 28
/161
D. Implementation.
1. For land which have been subdivided and required
to comply with A. (6) above, all requirements of
the Plan shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of construction with combustible
materials.
2. For all other structures, the vegetation control
requirements of section (B) above shall be
complied with before the commencement of
construction with combustible materials on the
lot. (Ord. 2657, 1991)
3. As of November 1, 1994, existing residences in
subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire
Lands Zone, but later included due to amendments
to the zone boundaries shall be exempt from the
requirements of this zone, with the exception of
section 18.62.090 B.S. above. All new residences
shall comply with all standards for new
construction in section 18.62.090 B.
4. Subdivisions developed outside of the wildfire
lands zone prior to November 1, 1994, but later
included as part of the zone boundary amendment,
shall not be required to prepare or implement Fire
Prevention and Control Plans outlined in section
18.62.090 A." (Ord 2747, 1994)
18.62.100 Development Standards for Severe Constraint Lands.
A. Severe Constraint Lands are extremely sensitive to
development, grading, filling, or vegetation removal
and, whenever possible, alternative development should
be considered.
B. Development of floodways is not permitted except for
bridges and road crossings. Such crossings shall be
designed to pass the one hundred (100) year flood
without raising the upstream flood height more than six
(6) inches.
C. Development of land or approval for a planning action
shall be allowed only when the following study has been
accomplished. An engineering geologic study approved
by the City's Public Works Director and Planning
Director establishes that the site is stable for the
proposed use and development. The study shall include
the following:
1. Index map.
2. Project description to include location,
topography, drainage, vegetation, discussion of
previous work and discussion of field exploration
methods.
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 29
11~-S-
3. site geology, based on a surficial survey, to
include site geologic maps, description of bedrock
and surficial materials, including artificial
fill, locations of any faults, folds, etc., and
structural data including bedding, jointing and
shear zones, soil depth and soil structure.
4. Discussion of any off-site geologic conditions
that may pose a potential hazard to the site, or
that may be affected by on-site development.
5. Suitability of site for proposed development from
a geologic standpoint.
6. Specific recommendations for cut slope stability,
seepage and drainage control or other design
criteria to mitigate geologic hazards.
7. If deemed necessary by the engineer or geologist
to establish whether an area to be affected by the
proposed development is stable, additional studies
and supportive data shall include cross-sections
showing subsurface structure, graphic logs with
subsurface exploration, results of laboratory test
and references.
8. Signature and registration number of the engineer
and/or geologist.
9. Additional information or analyses as necessary to
evaluate the site.
18.62.110 Densitv Transfer. Density may be transferred out of
unbuildable areas to buildable areas of a lot provided the
following standards are met:
A. Partitions and subdivisions involving density transfer
shall be processed under Performance standards, Chapter
18.88 of the Ashland Municipal Code.
B. A map shall be submitted showing the net buildable area
to which the density will be transferred.
C. A covenant shall be recorded limiting development on
the area from which density is transferred.
D. Density may not be transferred from one ownership to
another but only within the lot(s) owned by the same
person.
E. Density may be transferred only on contiguous lots
under common ownership.
F. The density of the buildable area may not be increased
to more than two (2) times the permitted density of the
underlying zone. Fractional units are to be rounded
down to the next whole number. (Ord. 2528, 1989)
;1;;;!ll;III~;llIllltllllllllllllllllllllllllltllllll'lliilIBM~ili
Physical and Environmental Constraints Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 30
!1C::,C:.
are
Physical and Environmental Constraint. Ordinance Revision
Hillside Standards
Staff Draft 1.0 June 13, 1996
Page 31
((?:, 7
"
\
y--)" (
I /
,<".~'- -
-',
\A
"
(
\
\
,\.....1-;----""--
1 ~
;
"
cm"l".oIT5
+ ;J:=
-
-
fA
V -
K
h~ )v ,..
10 cl\
1-& ~
Ur' ~
!
:!L
I ..., f, f a--.