Ohio Balanced Growth Program - Best Local Land Use Practices
City of Toledo Technical Assistance
Code Review FINAL 11-6-14
SOURCES REVIEWED:
1.
City of Toledo Municipal Code (Abbreviation: TMC)
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Ohio/toledo/toledomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.ht
m$3.0$vid=amlegal:toledo_oh
Part 9 – Streets, Utilities, and Public Service Code
·
Ch. 901 – Complete Streets Policy
·
Ch. 917 – Trees
·
Ch. 941 – Storm Water Discharge Control
·
Ch. 943 – Storm Water Management Program
Part 11 – Planning & Zoning Code
·
Ch. 1107 – Parking, Loading and Access
·
Ch. 1108 – Landscaping and Screening
·
Ch. 1110 – Flood Control Regulations
·
Ch. 1111.0800 – Site plan review
Part 12 – Community Development
Part 13 – Building codes
 Residential Code of Ohio
 Ohio Plumbing Code
 Ohio Building Code
2.
City of Toledo, Subdivision Regulations, 2009 (Abbreviation: SR)
http://toledo.oh.gov/media/9901/Subdivision-Regulations-Toledo.pdf
3.
City of Toledo, Storm Water Credit Manual, January 2001 (Abbreviation: SWC)
http://toledo.oh.gov/media/35521/Storm-Water-Credit-Manual.pdf
4.
City of Toledo, Infrastructure Design and Construction Requirements, May 2014 (Abbreviation:
ID)
http://toledo.oh.gov/media/118008/Infrastructure-Requirements-2014.pdf
5.
City of Toledo, Zoning Maps (not yet reviewed as of 9/1/14)
6.
TMACOG Storm Water Management Standards Manual, 2008 (Abbreviation: SWM)
http://www.tmacog.org/Environment/TMACOG_Stormwater_Standards_Manual_.pdf
7.
University of Michigan Storm water Solutions Final Report, December 2013 (attached pdf)
1
RESOURCES AND EXAMPLES:
1.
Stream setbacks in headwater streams, which could mitigate flooding effects to downstream
communities such as Toledo, may be a topic for discussion with the County. Several counties in Ohio
have stream setback requirements that are applicable unless the local community has more stringent
requirements. A summary of County regulations addressing stream and wetlands setbacks in Ohio:
http://www.crwp.org/files/Riparian_Wetland_Regulation_summary_November2013.pdf
2.
Licking County, Ohio includes a 75 foot stream buffer requirement in their floodplain regulations.
These provisions might be applicable to individual city flood damage reduction regulations as well.
http://www.lcounty.com/planning/floodplain/PDF/adopted%20fdpr%20-%20effective%208-122012.pdf
3.
The Chagrin River Watershed Partners has a model stormwater regulation that is recommended
by the Ohio EPA; provisions are generic and can be tailored to individual situations. They also have
recently updated models for other codes, including off-street parking, flood damage reduction
regulations, and illicit discharge elimination which might be of interest.
http://www.crwp.org/index.php/member-services/model-regulations
4.
The Ohio Balanced Growth Program web site includes a recommended alternative tree
preservation approach which is more developer-friendly and leads to more knowledge of site trees (and
better decisions) than the standard required tree survey. At CSU, we are in the process of developing a
new model tree preservation regulation that incorporates these recommendations, and should have
something available for use by June 2015.
http://balancedgrowth.ohio.gov/Portals/0/BG%20Documents/BLLUP%20Final%20Public%20Review
%2010_15_12/Chapter%2010%20Tree%20and%20Woodland%20Protection.pdf
5.
The Ohio Balanced Growth Program also has information about recommended practices for
natural areas management, which could include bioswale plantings, vacant lots, natural meadows in
common and private open space, and protected vegetative buffers along stream corridors and elsewhere.
Example codes include remedies for invasive and noxious weeds, as well as other maintenance problems
that could arise, providing a mechanism for expert advice, and allowing the City to intervene where
appropriate after proper notice and time period for the property owner to remedy the problem.
http://balancedgrowth.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=kV4P0P0vGSk%3d&tabid=144
PLEASE NOTE
This review is provided by the Ohio Balanced Growth Program as a service to communities in the Lake
Erie Watershed in Ohio. It is intended to be a broad review of major issues and trends related to the
City’s codes and regulations, and does not constitute a detailed planning or engineering review. The
purpose is to identify areas for discussion and exploration in possible future code updates.
2
OVERALL COMMENTS
1)
Overall, compact development, progressive parking lot design, and provisions for bioretention are
well provided.
2)
Stormwater requirements for design, design criteria, and BMPs are not clear; ID refers to
Stormwater Management Manual, which is probably outdated and appears to use an inconsistent range
of sources. Recommend to review City standards, refer to CRWP model and ODNR’s Rainwater and Land
Development Manual, and consider an update. Considering the number of different criteria and
standards necessary to meet Ohio EPA requirements, and the fact that these criteria change regularly, it
could be a major project to keep region-specific standards up to date. It is recommended that the City
review their stormwater regulations and the ODNR Rainwater and Land Development Manual in light of
Ohio EPA requirements, and refer to them wherever possible, along with NOAA Atlas 14, which has
regional data which is kept up to date ongoing. The Ohio EPA has been recommending that many
localities in Ohio use the Chagrin River Watershed Partners’ (CRWP) model stormwater regulation as a
base. The City’s stormwater standards can then be specific adaptations, exceptions or adjustments to
those statewide and regional standards. This should reduce the amount of work needed to keep
standards up to date, and also provide consistency with state requirements.
3)
Stream setbacks could be revisited, recognizing that upper watershed streams are of greater
concern than urban mainstems. Required widths should be standardized with current methods, mapped
to determine applicability, and drafted to include floodplain and wetlands to the extent practicable.
4)
Consider beefing up floodplain regulations to provide more freeboard, avoid the need for
compensatory storage, and make development in the floodplain (or practical expanded area beyond
floodway) a conditional use subject to review.
5)
An overall review of maintenance and management requirements, and requirements for
Homeowner’s Associations, along with provisions for City intervention in cases of unresolved problems
(with due notice) should be done, with attention to applicability to stormwater BMPs, open space areas,
and other commonly owned private facilities.
6)
Consider applicability of some practices which may be useful in some situations: common access
drives in minor subdivisions, conservation development, tree/woodland protection, and natural areas
management
7) In general, provisions for BMPs and site design practices do not appear to encumber the development
process significantly more than for standard development. Consider incentives where appropriate to
encourage implementation of recommended practices. In particular, finding ways to streamline review
processes can be very helpful in encouraging developers to implement the desired practices – even better
if it can be easier to implement them than to take the standard route.
3
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Please see the BLLUP “Checklist for Code Review” for a guide to recommended standards and comments.
Recommendations or next steps are indicated in italics.
Recommended Standard
DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
STREET DESIGN
Min Pavement 24-26 ft,
20-50 home residential
streets w/pkg;
20 ft w/o pkg.
Pervious pavement
permitted for parking
lanes, alleys
Current Toledo
Standard
Toledo Comments/Recommendations
Source
Boulevard 21 ft
Local 27 ft
Collector 31 ft
SR 507
Not found; permitted in
private parking lots.
City pilot projects have
pervious pavements in
sidewalks, driveway
aprons, and some street
gutter areas.
Permit 20 mph design
speeds on lower-level
streets < 50 homes
Private streets provide
design speed flexibility
if desired.
SR 516
Permit private streets
Yes, with discretion of
Plan Commission;
Specified minimum
width;
section/construction/st
orm water must match
public standards;
design flexibility for
geometry (except cul de
sacs and intersections)
SR 516
Consider reducing minimum widths for
lower-level local streets.
Recognize City concern about
maintenance, long-term durability. We
have heard a wide range of comments
on the maintenance and long-term life
of pervious pavements, from very little
maintenance and no freeze/thaw
issues, to weekly vacuuming and annual
review/repair for areas sustaining
freeze/thaw impacts. This will require
specific research going forward to
confirm “lessons learned” and draw
some overall conclusions.
Research maintenance/durability
information for similar climates/
situations.
Slower speeds require less grading and
pavement overall. Recommend
considering reduced design speeds on
private roads where it would result in
less impact to the site.
No further recommendation
4
Require street design to
accommodate
ingress/egress during
floods
Allow for development of
green/shared street
concepts
RIGHTS OF WAY
60’ ROW rural, 40’
urban/suburban
Roads must be above
flood elevation, and all
lots must have access to
roads that are
Complete Streets policy
TMC
1110.0
6
(d)(9)
TMC
901
60’ minor street, 20’
alley
SR 504
Curb and gutter required
based on engineering
analysis, not necessarily
universal
Curb cuts allowed for
storm water management
system entrance
Required on all streets
Storm water mgmt. BMPs
permitted within ROW
Permitted in “frontage
greenbelt” only (on
private lot frontages);
City retains right to
require
construction/repair of
roadside drainage
CUL DE SACS AND
TURNAROUNDS
12 to 20 feet minimum
pavement width (to island
or center)
Landscaped island
permitted
Use of landscaped island
for storm water
management permitted
Pavement slope toward
island permitted
Alternative turnarounds
permitted
Not found
27’ loop roads, 33’ cul
de sac, total 53’ radius
with island, ROW 60’
yes
No further recommendations.
Adding stormwater management would
put BMPs in public ROW – recommend
discuss places where this could be
appropriate
Study street section design to consider
40’ ROW in lower-level streets in new
compact development areas
SR 514 Consider locations where curb and
gutter is not necessary – especially lowdensity areas where stormwater is
handled thru surface BMPs
While not specifically allowed, curb cuts
are present in City pilot bioswale
projects and are clearly permitted
where needed. No further
recommendations; when bioswale “best
practices” are fully understood, attention
will need to be paid to adjusting street
construction codes to provide
appropriate standards.
TMC
City provides BMPs needed for street
1108,
drainage in the right-of-way. Private
TMC
property owners must locate their
932, SR required BMPs on their private
406
property.
SR 508
SR 508
Consider narrowing pavement
requirements with larger islands, same
overall radius
No further recommendations
Not found
Consider clarifying
Not found
Consider clarifying
Not found
Consider where this might be
appropriate
5
LOT DESIGN
Front yards required to
drain positively to storm
water infrastructure
Downspouts required to
be disconnected,
discharging away from
foundation into storm
water treatment
If disconnection not
required, standards
included for appropriate
disconnection
STORMWATER RUNOFF
REQUIREMENTS
Post-construction SWM
required for disturbances
over 1 acre
Rainfall data analysis
required to use NOAA
Atlas 14 to determine
volume
SW runoff requirements
address water quality,
flood control AND peak
rate of discharge
Effective design criteria in
place for SW BMPS by
referral to separate design
manual, preferably ODNR
Rainwater and Land
Development
Redevelopment projects
also required to provide
post-construction SWM
and water quality
treatment for sites over 1
acre
Established design criteria
for swales to provide
stormwater quality
treatment (i.e. dry swales,
biofilters, grass swales)
(i.e. by referral to separate
manual)
Yes
Ohio
Buildin
g Code
No further recommendations
Not found
Consider adding this
Not found
Consider including standards for
disconnection
SWPPP required for
sites over 1 acre; in IR,
for sites over 2500 SF.
No; instead SWM refers
to Medina runoff
coefficients for 25-yr,
24 hr storm detention
capacity
Yes
TMC
941, IR
II
IR IV;
SWM
No further recommendations
SWM
Yes
SWM
Separate design manual SWM may not
be as up to date and consistent as ODNR
manual. See General Comment #2
above.
See General Comment #2 above
Yes, for projects over
2500 SF; 20%
allowance for
redevelopment projects
“does not apply”
IR IV
See General Comment #2 above
Yes, in SWM, not sure of
source
SWM
See General Comment #2 above
See General Comment #2 above
6
Requirement that
Must meet capacity of
stormwater on new
existing storm sewer
development be managed
to meet estimated predevelopment levels for
quantity, quality, and peak
flow
Open channels identified
Not found
as preferred to piped
solutions
CLEARING AND GRADING
Limits of clearing and
grading required to be
minimized
Limits of clearing and
grading required to be
shown on submitted plans
Limits of clearing and
grading required to be
clearly marked prior to
construction
Sensitive features required
to be clearly marked prior
to construction (i.e. trees
to be preserved, stream
and wetland setbacks,
steep slopes)
ADMINISTRATION AND
REVIEW
Pre-Application stage
included – concept sketch
plan and review from key
departments
IR IV
Consider stronger requirements
Consider adding language
Not found
These provisions are identified in
Rainwater and Land Development
Manual as a best practice (Chapters 1
and 2), but are not standards per se. It
would be best for the City to include
specific language addressing these
issues.
Consider adding language.
Not found
Consider adding language
Not found
Consider adding language
Not found
Consider adding language
Preliminary drawing
SR 308,
and pre-application
309
conference optional and
recommended
Consider recommending preparation of
a concept drawing for the preapplication conference that would allow
all parties to discuss specific options for
stormwater, site design, and other
conditions. This assists the developer by
allowing specific input before extensive
time/funds have been spent on
consultant/site design.
7
If Homeowners
Association (HOA)
maintaining common
facilities, minimum
provisions for HOAs:
mandatory membership,
passing w/ ea. Sale,
adequate fees for mtce,
adequate fees for capital
improvements, local
community review of
covenants/restrictions
Stormwater BMPs
required to be on
easements held by
community, or in
commonly owned open
space when maintained
privately.
Stormwater BMPs
required to be maintained
by a stormwater utility,
local govt, or adequately
equipped/set up HOA
If private management
(HOA or other), provide a
maintenance agreement
giving local govt
mechanism for remedying
problems upon due notice
25 foot access easement
required to all BMPs
Provisions for
maintenance and
inspection required
PARKING LOT DESIGN
QUANTITY OF SPACES
Ratios based on local
demand data
Provisions for
responsibility to shift to
individual homeowners
if HOA not formed or
disbanded
Not found; IR only
refers to pipe
easements
SR 900
IR II
Consider strengthening HOA
requirements, and specifying
process/criteria for acceptance of HOAs
as management agents.
In addition, consider strengthening
requirements for ALL property owners to
properly maintain their systems, and
provide authority for the City to
intervene and remedy problems, upon
proper notice and opportunity for
compliance.
Consider further discussion about long
term maintenance of BMPs and
situations that would benefit from
required easements and/or location of
BMPs in commonly owned areas.
Not found
See notes regarding HOAs and private
BMPs in this section.
Not found
See notes regarding HOAs in this section;
this is an important provision that
belongs both in subdivision regulations
and in covenants and restrictions.
20 feet on one side of
streams and ditches
only; 10 foot minimum
utility easements
Broad requirements for
maintenance
SR 406
Consider appropriate places where this
requirement would be beneficial
TMC
941
Consider strengthening requirements
Code provides wide
flexibility for many
different situations, and
ability of applicant to
request adjustments
1107
No further recommendations
8
If not local demand data, in
line with range of current
practices as illustrated in
APA documentation
(American Planning
Association)
Ratios set as maximum or
range (not minimums)
Shared parking permitted
Shared parking agreement
required
Parking requirements
reduced in mass transitaccessible areas
Parking requirements
reduced if bike parking
provided
Bike parking required
Land banking permitted
for later expansion if
needed
In-lieu parking or fee in
designated parking
districts
PARKING LOT LAYOUT
9 x 18 foot minimum stall
width
In lots over 100 spaces,
minimum 20% for
compact cars
Overhangs permitted to be
landscaped
Diagonal one-way layouts
permitted and encouraged
Drive land width
requirements based on
parking angle
Pervious materials
permitted
Incentives to developers
for structured or tiered
parking instead of surface
lots
Code appears to be
generally in line with
APA examples.
1107
No further recommendations
TMC
1107
TMC
1107
TMC
1107
Yes, flexibility in Central TMC
Business District (CBD) 1107
No further recommendations
Yes, flexibility in Central TMC
Business District
1107
No further recommendations
Yes, 10% required
TMC
1107
TMC
1107
No further recommendations
TMC
1107
No further recommendations
TMC
1107
TMC
1107
No further recommendations
TMC
1107
No further recommendations
TMC
1107
TMC
1107
No further recommendations
TMC
1107
TMC
1107
No further recommendations
Code addresses both
mins and maximums
Yes, with Planning
Director approval
Yes
Permitted for
elderly/disabled areas
only
Not found; but some
districts require no
parking
9 x 18 is standard
Not found
Yes, wheelstops
required to protect
planting
Yes, permitted
Yes
yes
Not found
No further recommendations
No further recommendations
No further recommendations
Consider other situations where this may
be a benefit
Consider adding provisions
No further recommendations
Parking waived in many situations;
Consider where this may be useful
9
PARKING LOT STORM
WATER MANAGEMENT
10% minimum parking lot
area to be landscaped
20 square feet per
space, plus perimeter
landscape requirements
= >10% landscaping
Yes, permitted. All
surface water must
drain toward the
interior of the lot, and a
connection to an outlet
must be provided.
TMC
1108
No further recommendations
TMC
1108,
1107.1
906,
No further recommendations. Additional
clarifying language could be added to
encourage bioretention as part of the
parking lot drainage system.
Mounding not required in
landscaped areas
Not found
TMC
1108
Curb cuts permitted to
allow entrance to
landscaped areas
MINOR SUBDIVISIONS
IF community has places
where lot splits along
frontage can occur…
Appropriate lot sizes
demonstrated via access
management and
infrastructure needs
analysis
Common access drives
permitted
Flag lots minimized
Yes
TMC
1108
Consider specific language to encourage
use of landscape areas for BMPs, and
discourage mounding
No further recommendations
Yes, rarely
SR
302-5
May not be applicable in the City.
Not found
SR
302-5
Consider appropriateness in areas where
it would apply
Not found
SR
302-5
SR 405
Consider where this could be useful
SR
302-5
Consider including requirement if access
drives permitted
TMC
1110
TMC
1110,
SR 403
No further recommendations
Stormwater management
BMPS in landscaped areas
permitted and encouraged
Common access drive
management/access
agreement required
FLOOD DAMAGE
REDUCTION
REGULATIONS
Floodplain regulation
adopted
Development conditional
use in the floodPLAIN
Not found specifically;
lot proportions
specified discourage
bowling-alley lots
Not found
Yes
Development in
floodWAY must have
special permit, must
“preserve or mitigate”
floodways “to the
extent consistent with
No further recommendations
Consider more stringent requirements
10
Lowest floor required to
be at least 2 feet above
Base Flood Elevation
(BFE) or Highest Natural
Adjacent Grade (HNAG) as
applicable
Development required to
be designed to avoid need
for compensatory storage
(no fill in the 100-year
floodplain)
If fill permitted in the 100year floodplain, this is
minimized and
compensatory storage
required
Commercial applicants in
flood zone required to
demonstrate adequate
materials
storage/protection in case
of flood
STREAM AND WETLAND
PROTECTION
SETBACK WIDTH AND
APPLICATION
Setback required along
streams and rivers
Setback required around
wetlands to remain
Setback widths based on
research and map analysis
Community maintains
map illustrating setbacks
If wetlands along the
stream frontage, setback
the reasonable use of
land”
One foot above is
required
TMC
1110
Consider more stringent requirements
Compensatory storage
is required
TMC
1110
Consider stronger language and/or
incentives to encourage avoidant design
Compensatory storage
is required; no increase
in BFE is permitted
without certification
that alternatives not
feasible
Not found
TMC
1110
No further recommendations.
Possibl
e ID
append
ix
III.g.2
Consider including language. Illicit
discharge requirements in ID checklist
could be strengthened in the text to
include flood scenario, or provisions
could be added to flood damage
reduction regulations.
“Clear Zone”12 feet
only, extends to edge of
floodway where the
latter is larger;
maximum 25 feet from
ordinary high water
mark; stormwater regs
discourage
development within 40
feet of OHWM “to extent
practical”
Not found
TMC
1110,
IR IV,
SWM
Note A: Consider more stringent code for
lower-level (headwater) streams where
they exist; mainstems in urban areas are
less of an issue; clarify language on
width
See note A above
Not found
See note A above
Not found
See note A above
Not found
See note A above
11
width is required to
expand to accommodate
them
Setback is required to
expand to include 100year floodplain where
appropriate
Analysis-based setback
width reduced only for
specific hardship
prevalent across a district
PERMITTED ACTIVITY IN
SETBACK
Construction of any kind
prohibited (pavements,
foundations, walls, fences,
stormwater facilities,
wastewater facilities)
Landscaping provisions
encourage native
vegetation and trees
ADMINISTRATION AND
MONITORING
Code includes required
monitoring provisions
Variances provided, with
clear criteria
Penalties provided for
noncompliance
Abandonment provision
included – grandfathering
expires after six months’
non-habitation of property
Grandfathered
encroachments required
to be removed if more
than 50% (substantially)
damaged
FLEXIBLE SUBDIVISION
DESIGN
Not found
See note A above
Not found
See note A above
Current “Clear Zone”
prohibits structures
“that would inhibit
maintenance access”
but does not prohibit
pavement, storm
drainage, wastewater
treatment, etc.
Not found
TMC
1110
Consider adding this language
Not found
Variance criteria
provided in flood
damage reduction
regulations, focused on
reducing flood damage
See flood damage
reduction regulations
Not found
Not found
See note A above
See note A above
TMC
1110.1
000,
1110.1
100
1110.1
104
No further recommendations
No further recommendations
See note A above
See note A above
Opportunities for flexible design of light
industrial and office parks exist in some
areas; residential is less applicable.
Recommendations:
12
Note B. No further recommendations
for residential PUDs. Continue to
consider any opportunities that may
come up for residential PUDs with
higher open space and resource
protection standards.
Note C. Consider applicability in
commercial/office/light industrial area,
particularly where streams and water
resources are present and higher open
space standards would result in benefit.
Note D. In
commercial/industrial/office areas,
flexible development density provisions
are replaced by flexibility in
requirements for lot coverage and floor
area ratio.
APPLICABILITY
Are there sites of more
than 20 acres which would
benefit from new/
restored/ protected
natural area?
DENSITY AND LOT SIZES
Lot size flexibility
provided to accommodate
open space
Neutral density with
underlying zoning is the
required baseline density
Density calculation
approximates underlying
zoning
If density bonuses are
Possible in
industrial/office areas.
Current PUD code
provides flexibility but
has lower standards
than recommended for
conservation
development. SR states
“concentrated
residential lots and
consolidated open
space areas are
encouraged.” TMC also
has “cluster housing”
provisions which
provide lot size
flexibility down to 25%
of underlying zoning.
PUD and cluster
housing codes both are
based on neutral
density
Not found
No bonuses permitted?
See notes B through D above.
TMC
1103,
SR 404
See notes B through D above
TMC
1103,
1104
See notes B through D above
See notes B through D above
See notes B through D above
13
permitted, maximum 1020%
OPEN SPACE
REQUIREMENTS
PUD code requires at least
40% open space
Permanent protection of
open space required
(conservation easement,
deed restrictions, zoning
provisions, 75% HOA
voter approval of sale, or
combination)
Quality open space
defined, fragmentation
discouraged
Limits on improved area,
active recreation in
dedicated open space
RESOURCE PROTECTION
Goals of PUD include
impervious surface
reduction, undisturbed
land conservation,
watershed land
restoration
Demonstration of
analysis/prioritization of
site features required
Protection of floodplains,
stream setbacks, drinking
water sources, wetland
setbacks mandatory for
protection within required
open space
ADMINISTRATION AND
REVIEW
Code is by-right
(permitted use) through
adoption of map
amendment at time of
zoning language adoption
Review process the same
or streamlined compared
to conventional
PUD 15% open space;
cluster housing no
requirement; PUD has
max 40% coverage
requirement
Not found
TMC
1103,
1104
See notes B through D above
See notes B through D above
Not found
See notes B through D above
Not found
See notes B through D above
Not found
See notes B through D above
Not found
See notes B through D above
Not found
See notes B through D above
Not clear for PUD
and/or cluster housing
See notes B through D above
PUD and cluster
housing appear to be
the same
See notes B through D above
14
development
Code includes incentives
for PUDs (reduced
pavement requirements
etc)
Minimum provisions for
HOAs required –
mandatory membership,
passing with each sale,
adequate maintenance
fees, adequate capital
improvement fees, local
community review of
covenants/restrictions,
provisions in
covenants/restrictions
giving community
authority to remedy
problems upon due notice
COMPACT
DEVELOPMENT
APPLICABILITY
Are there places in the
community that would
benefit from creation of
walkable mixed use
neighborhoods?
Is a compact development
code(s) in place?
DENSITY AND DESIGN
Minimum 6 to 8 units per
acre required
Design guidelines in place
to support intent of code
Reasonable lot sizes and
home sizes, more
flexibility desirable
STORM WATER RUNOFF
Incentives, alternatives,
and reduced requirements
to encourage infill and
redevelopment in
No incentives found
See notes B through D above
Cluster housing
includes open space
maintenance broad
protection
TMC
1104
See notes B through D above
Yes, appear to have
been identified
TMC
1102,
1103
No further recommendations
Compact densities and
provisions provided for
in Central Business
District (CBD), RM
12/24/36, RS 6/9, RD,
CN, CM, CS, CD, CO, and
overlays
TMC
1102,
1103
No further recommendations
Provided for as noted
above
TMC
1102,
1103
TMC
1109
TMC
1102,
1103
No further recommendations
TMC
1108
Consider other ways to incent use of new
BMPs in redevelopment areas, and to
incent redevelopment in general
Design guidelines are in
place
Appear to be
“reasonable”
Urban commercial
districts have reduced
landscaping
requirements
No further recommendations
15
compact/urban
environments
TREE AND WOODLAND
PROTECTION
APPLICABILITY
Are there trees/woodland
areas in the community
that are worthy of
protection?
PRE-DESIGN STAGE
Pre-design broad
assessment by a certified
professional required
Yes a few, in
underdeveloped
industrial/commercial
areas
Consider tree protection in underutilized
areas, particularly in blocks along
stream corridors and where high-quality
trees exist (see pre-design stage notes
below)
Not found
Detailed survey of all trees
over a certain size on a
property NOT required
Yes, required over 4”
diameter
Code includes provisions
for prioritizing tree
preservation based on
health, species, location,
construction tolerance
DESIGN STAGE
Design required to reflect
high priority trees and
woodland areas
designated by pre-design
assessment
Selected detailed survey
required for designated
trees to be preserved
Incentives provided in
flexible design criteria to
encourage tree/woodland
protection
CONSTRUCTION STAGE
Tree protection during
construction includes
marking, drip line
protection (at least),
prohibition of activities
including compaction,
vehicle parking,
pruning/cutting, trunk
damage, root damage
Not found
Note E. Consider a different approach
utilizing site review by qualified
professional; see references at beginning
of this document
See note E. Detailed survey can be costly
to developers and does not usually
provide information to support good
decisions about priorities for
preservation.
See note E.
Not found
See note E.
Survey of all trees
required
See note E.
Not found
See note E.
Protection language
included,
pruning/cutting/tree
damage not specified
TMC
1108.0
407
TMC
1108
Consider expanding protection language
per references in Note E.
16
ADMINISTRATION
Monitoring required
during and after
construction
Penalties required for tree
removal/destruction prior
to, during, after
construction
STEEP SLOPE
PROTECTION
APPLICABILITY
Are steep slopes present in
the community which are
subject to potential
development?
Steep slope thresholds
based on community’s
engineering analysis of
vulnerability of slopes to
erosion/slippage
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Special engineering
requirements for
vulnerable slopes
Stream setback code
which widens to
accommodate steep slopes
along streams
NATURAL AREAS
ESTABLISHMENT AND
MANAGEMENT
Not specified
Consider expanding language per
references in note E.
Not found
Consider applicability and
appropriateness/usefulness of penalties
Yes along streams
Confirm applicability.
15% threshold
specified, source not
clear
Consider locations where specific
analysis could be useful
Requirement for
applicant to provide
“appropriate
engineering measures”
Not found
APPLICABILITY
Does community have a
Not found
mowing ordinance in place
which requires mowed
lawn to a certain height?
SR 403
Consider more specific language
Discuss as part of stream setback
considerations
These provisions and model code
language can be used to address native
plantings in storm water BMPs, and
removal of invasive species on private
property.
1108
Note F. Consider application of property
landscape maintenance requirements,
which would include some more specific
standards for proper maintenance, and
would provide remedies in cases of
noncompliance. These should be flexible
enough to allow natural
areas/meadows, while prohibiting
noxious and invasive weeds, and permit
City intervention if needed upon proper
notice and opportunity to comply.
Consider applicability in common private
and public open space areas, greenbelt
17
Does community have a
regulation which exempts
natural landscape areas
from mowing
requirements?
CODE PROVISIONS
A variety of landscapes are
permitted including
natural meadows, shrub
meadows, successional
landscapes, ponds,
wetlands, young
woodlands
Weeds and
noxious/invasive
conditions clearly
identified in code
Expert opinion provided
for in cases of complaint or
concern
Community review body
provided for to administer
code, hear and resolve
problems
Community is addressing
need for education of
homeowners and
neighbors
Code provides community
with authority to remedy
problems upon due notice
OVERALL
CONSIDERATIONS AND
INCENTIVES
Compliance with
watershed-friendly
provisions overall creates
more flexibility and
predictability for
developers
Other incentives are in
place to encourage
property owners and
developers to conserve
land through stream
setbacks, conservation
Not found
areas that are privately maintained, and
private lots, perhaps vacant lots
.See note F
Not found
See note F
Not found
See note F
Not found
See note F
Not found
See note F
Not found
See note F
Not found
See note F
See overall comments
above
See overall comments
above
18
easements, conservation
development, etc.
Provisions are consistent
with surrounding
communities where
possible and as
appropriate
See overall comments
above
19