Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4855 Alq ORDINANCE NO. 4855 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT HILLSIDEIHILLTOP PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION, ESTABLISH A ' HILLSIDEIHILLTOP OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING BOUNDARY AND MAP, AND APPROVING THE HILLSIDE/HILLTOP OVERLAY DISTRICT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AS A GUIDE WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville values its unique Hillside/Hilltops; and, WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is committed to having appropriate and desirable development occur on the Hillside/Hilltops; and, WHEREAS, developments that are compatible and harmonious with the Hillside/Hilltops, do not have a negative effect upon the City; and, WHEREAS, the Hillside/Hilltop Best Management Practices Manual will provide a guide for the development on the City's Hillside/Hilltops; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville determines that its Hillside/Hilltops need additional protection and preservation enhancements to lessen grading, drainage, and stormwater problems and to preserve the Fayetteville' s beauty, clean water and clean air. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1 . That Chapter 161 : Zoning Districts is amended by inserting Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in sections; § 161 .07 RSF-4, § 161 . 13 RMF — 24, and § 161 . 15 R-0, a copy of which marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 1 Section 2. That Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection is amended to include Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in section § 167.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3 . That Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land is amended to include Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in sections § 169.02, § 169.03, § 169.04, § 169.06, § . 169.07, § 169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 4. That Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control is amended to include Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in sections § 170.01 , § 170.36, § 170.05, § 170. 10, a copy of which marked Exhibit "D" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 5 . That Chapter 172: Parking and Loading is amended to include Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in section § 172.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "E" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 6. That Chapter 173 : Building Regulations is amended to include Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations in section § 173 .02, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "P" is attached hereto and made a part hereof: Section 7. That Chapter 151 : Definitions are amended by adding the following definitions: T Cistern. (Stormwater) Roof water management devices that provide retention storage volume in above or underground storage tanks. They are typically used for water supply. Cisterns are generally larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10,000 gallons. On-lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an opportunity for water conservation and the possibility of reducing water utility costs. Green Roof. (Stormwater) Elevated roof surfaces that are entirely covered with a thin soil and vegetation layer. Height. (Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) Building height shall be measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. Hillside/Hilltop Development Manual. (Zoning) The best management practices document that supplements the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District and illustrates desirable Hillside/Hilltop development practices. Hillside/Hilhop Overlay District. (Zoning) Lands located within the City that generally have slopes in excess of 15 %. The Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District is shown on the City's official zoning map. The development regulations in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District supercede the underlying zoning district. 2 Hilltop. Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) Land located above the Hilltop line which contains less than 15% slope and is completely surrounded by Hillside/Hilltop < 15% slope. Historic grade. (Zoning) The natural grade of the land prior to any development. Parking Pad. (Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) • Parking areas for multi-family residential, residential office, and commercial use in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Permeable Pavers. (Stormwater) A solid surface that allows natural drainage and migration of water into the earth by permittirig water to drain through the surface itself or through spaces between the pavers. Plinth. (Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) A foundation or base, usually on the upslope side of the Hillside/Hilltop, on which a house is located. Most often a plinth is constructed by erecting a retaining wall at the street with backfill creating a level building pad for the home. Rain Barrels. (Stormwater) A stormwater containment vessel that captures runoff generated by impervious surfaces such as roofs. Rain barrels usually include a hole at the top to allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. By holding and reusing rainwater, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve potable water. Rain Garden. (Stormwater) an attractive landscaping feature planted with perennial native plants. It is a bowl-shaped garden, designed to absorb stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces such as roofs and parking lots. Section 8. That the Hillside/Hilltop map attached as Exhibit "G" is adopted to delineate the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District in which the regulations found in the preceding Exhibits are applicable. Section 9. Severability. In accordance with § 150. 13 of the U.D.C., if any section, part, word or phrase of this ordinance shall be determined to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions, section, and language of this ordinance. ,grrunrnrrr PASSED and APPROVED this 18th day of April, 2006. \1 Y 0 •Gp ; FAYETTEVILLE • APPROVE ATTEST: yu,.9,QKANSP.Jam ; G �9 TONrr ,,, By: By: &WdU2 DAN COODY, Mayor SONDRA SMITH, rty Clerk 3 EXHIBIT "A" To be inserted in Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations: §161.07. District RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4 units/acre. (D) Bulk and area regulations. Single-family Two-family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 ft. 80 ft. width Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. dwelling unit Hillside/Hilltop 60 ft. 70 ft. Overlay District Lot minimum width Hillside/Hilltop 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. Overlay District ft. Lot area minimum Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. dwelling unit (E) Setback requirements. Single Family Dwellings FRONT SIDE REAR 25 ft. 8 ft. 20 ft. HHOD Front HHOD Side HHOD Rear 15 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. §161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi-Family — Twenty-Four Units Per Acre (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 25 ft. 8 ft. 25 ft. HHOD HHOD HHOD Single Single Single Family Front Family Side Family Rear 15 ft. 8 ft. 15 ft. HHOD Two HHOD Two HHOD :R:e wo Family Front FamilySide Famil ar 15 ft. 8 ft. 15 ft. 4 HHOD Two HHOD Two HHOD Two Family Front Family Side Family Rear 15 ft. 8 ft. 15 ft. HHOD Multi HHOD Multi HHOD Multi Family Front Family Side Family Rear 15 ft. 8 ft. 15 ft. Cross reference(s)--Variance; Ch. 156. (F) Height regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side boundary line an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet except for the HHOD. Within the HHOD the maximum building height is 60 ft. as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure, allowing 3 stories on the uphill side and 4 stories on the downhill side of the building. If the building is placed on a graded pad, then the height of the building is reduced, allowing a maximum of 3 stories as measured from the historic grade, pre-development §161.15 District R-O, Residential Office (E) Setback regulations. Front 30 ft. Front, if parking is allowed 50 ft. between the right-of-way and the building Front, in the Hillside/Hilltop 15 ft. Overlay District Side 10 ft. Side, when contiguous to a 15 ft. residential district Side, in the Hillside/Hilltop 8 ft Overlay District Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public 10 ft. alley Rear, in the Hillside/Hilltop 15 ft. Overlay District (F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum height limits in R-O Districts except for the HHOD, provided, however, that any building that exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back with any boundary line of any RSF or RMF District an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. In the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District the maximum building height is 60 ft. as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure allowing 3 stories on the uphill side and 4 stories on the downhill side of the building. If the building is placed on a 5 EXHIBIT "B" To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection: §167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (A)Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed subdivisions, and large scale developments required by other chapters of the Unified Development Code to go through the city's permitting process. Persons seeking to build one single-family dwelling unit, or duplex, are specifically exempt from the provisions of this section except when the land is located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District; then all the provisions of this ordinance shall apply. Planned Zoning Districts should meet the percent minimum tree canopy based upon their primary use, but may be allowed a lesser tree canopy requirement as part of the overall Master Plan approved by the City Council. (5) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Undeveloped land located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation plan with the preliminary plat or site plan. Single and two family residential development shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining a building permit. There shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal until a tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measures at the site inspected and approved. (C) Canopy area. In all new Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments, lands located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, Industrial and Commercial Developments, and all other improvements listed above, trees shall be preserved as outlined in Table 1 under Percent Minimum Canopy, unless the Applicant has been approved for On-Site Mitigation or Off-Site Alternatives as set forth in subsections I. & J. below. The square foot percentage of canopy area required for preservation in new development is based on the total area of the property for which the Applicant is seeking approval, less the right- of-way and park land dedications. An Applicant shall not be required to plant trees in order to reach the Percent Minimum Canopy requirement on land where less than the minimum exists prior to development, unless trees have been removed. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements ZONING DESIGNATIONS PERCENT MINIMUM CANOPY RA, Residential Agriculture 25% RSF-.5, Single-family 25% Residential — One Half Unit per Acre RSF-1 , Single-family Residential 25% — One Unit per Acre 7 RSF-2, Single-family Residential 20% — Two Units per Acre RSF-4, Single-family Residential 25% — Four Units per Acre RSF-7, Single-family Residential 20% , — Seven Units per Acre R-O, Residential —Office 20% RT- 12, Two and Three-family 20% Residential RMF-6, Multi-family Residential 20% — Six Units per Acre RMF- 12, Multi-family 20% Residential — Twelve Units per Acre RMF- 18, Multi-family 20% Residential — Eighteen Units per Acre RMF-24, Multi-family 20% Residential — Twenty-Four Units per Acre RMF-40,Multi-family 20% Residential — Forty Units per Acre C- 1 , Neighborhood Commercial 20% C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial 15% C-3, Central Business 15% Commercial C-4, Downtown 10% I- 1 , Heavy Commercial and 15% Light Industrial I-2, General Industrial 15% P- 1 , Institutional 25% All residential zoning districts and C-1 districts within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall have their percent minimum canopy requirements increased by 5% to a total requirement of either 30% or 25%. (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non-Residential Subdivisions. (3) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Individual parcels or lots located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District boundary shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation plan as set forth in 167.04 (H)(3) indicating the location of the structure and the preservation of the minimum tree canopy requirement. (a) Developers shall have the option of doing cluster development, such as a PZD, 8 open space instead of being required on the individual lots. The open space set aside during cluster development shall be placed in a permanent easement or land trust with all future development rights removed from the property. (I) Request for on-site mitigation (c) Tree removal due to the grading work done to create tie backs for roads in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall be mitigated by reforesting a minimum of 25% of the tie backs pursuant to the landscape manual. (d) Planting trees in non-canopy areas in order to reach the minimum percent canopy requirements for the site is not allowed in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. (L) Continuing preservation and protection under approved tree preservation plans. (1 ) In order to ensure that an applicant's heirs, successors, assigns, or any subsequent purchasers of the subject property are put on notice as to the existence and extent of an approved tree preservation plan, tree preservation areas shall be clearly depicted on the easement plats for large scale developments and the final plats for nonresidential subdivisions. This shall be accompanied by a narrative statement describing the nature of the protection afforded, and bearing the signature of the landscape administrator. Lots in residential subdivisions are expressly exempt from these requirements. If it is impractical to include the actual depiction of the canopy to be preserved on the easement plat, or final plat itself, a note cross referencing an accompanying document shall suffice. 9 EXHIBIT "C" To be inserted in Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land: §169.02 General Requirements (D) Restoration. Land shall be revegetated and restored as close as practically possible to its original conditions so far as to minimize runoff and erosion. are concerned. Previously forested areas shall follow the City's Landscape Manual for mitigation of forested areas. §169.03 Permits Required/Exceptions (A) Permit required. No grading, filling, excavation, or land alteration of any kind shall take place without first obtaining: (4) A grading permit is required by the City for any development occurring within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District boundaries. If a parcel of land is divided by the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District boundary, then only that portion of land lying within the boundary is subject to the requirements of this chapter. (B) Exceptions where no grading permit is required. Grading permits are not required for the following: (4) Single-family/duplex. Construction of one single-family residence, or duplex not located within the 100 year flood plain, the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, or on a slope 15 % or greater. (C) Grading permit application and approval. No grading permit shall be issued until the grading plan, endorsed by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer, is approved by the City Engineer. A separate permit shall be required for each site; it may cover both excavations and fills. Grading permits may be issued jointly for parcels of land that are contiguous, so long as erosion control measures are in place until project completion. Any application for a required grading permit under this chapter shall be submitted concurrently with the application and calculations for a drainage permit if such a drainage permit is required by § 170.03 ., coordination with Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection is required. §169.04 Minimal Erosion Control Requirements If exempt under § 169.02, If exempt under 169.03, a grading permit is not required. However, exempt as well as non-exempt activities shall be subject to the following minimal erosion and sedimentation control measures. (A)Natural vegetation. The potential for soil loss shall be minimized by retaining natural vegetation wherever possible. Development in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District should 10 comply with the recommendations of the Hillside/Hilltop Best Management Practices Manual with regard to the retention of natural vegetation on Hillside/Hilltops. (B) Stabilization. All graded and otherwise disturbed areas shall be stabilized within 15 days immediately after the grading or disturbance has been completed. Stabilization methods such as baled straw, filter fabric, ditch checks, diversion ditches, brush barriers, sediment basins, matting, mulches, grasses and groundcover shall be used. (D) Excavation material. Excavation material shall not be deposited in or so near streams and other stormwater drainage systems where it may be washed downstream by high water or runoff. All excavation material shall be stabilized immediately with erosion control measures. §169.06 Land Alteration Requirements (C) Cut or fill slopes. ( 1 ) Finish grade. Cut or fill slopes shall have a finish grade no steeper than 33% (3 .00 horizontal to 1 vertical), when approved by the City Engineer. Land located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District may have cut or fill slopes with a finish grade no steeper than 50% (2.00 horizontal to 1 vertical) with approval of the City Engineer. (4) Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for purposes of assessing safety, stability, and drainage problems: (See illustrations). Setbacks from property lines may be filled or cut if a grading plan is submitted jointly by the owners of both properties. (e) Public rights-of-way. Cuts adjacent to public rights-of-way shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet, excluding driveways or access roads. (F) Erosion and sedimentation control. (c) 15% to 20% grade: The slope shall be covered with landscape fabric and planted with groundcover as set forth in (b) above. (d) More than 20% grade: Any finish grade over 20% shall be stabilized with retaining walls, cribbing, terraces, landscape fabric, vegetation, or riprap. If riprap is used the slope's stability and erodibility must be equivalent to or better than its predevelopment state. (e) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Revegetation of lands within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall be planted immediately after the physical alteration of the land with complete and uniform ground cover. Sod, erosion fabric, herbaceous groundcover (in wooded areas), and/or a hydroseed with warm season grasses is required. Re-vegetation requirements shall be met prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Cut and Fill tie-back slopes shall be re-vegetated with appropriate tree species to achieve a minimum of 25% tree canopy at maturity. 11 In §169.06 (G) Undisturbed land requirements. After the table add the following: In the development of Large Scale Developments and lots within the Hillside Overlay District, the minimum amount of undisturbed land shall equal the percent minimum tree canopy pursuant to §167.04 (C). Planned Zoning Districts shall show undisturbed areas, but may be approved by the City Council with lesser percentages of undisturbed area than required above. §169.07 Grading Plan Specifications (A) Grading plan. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan as follows: (2) Existing grades. Existing grades shall be shown with dashed line contours and proposed grades with solid line contours. Grading plans shall be required to show both the proposed grade and the undisturbed area. Contour intervals shall be a maximum of two feet. Spot elevations shall be indicated. §169.08 Grading Plan Submittal (B) Final grading plan. . No subdivision may be finalized, nor large scale development plat approved before a final grading plan has been submitted to the City Engineer and approved. The final grading plan and the final plat of land located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall have the following plat note stating: "Property and lot owners of lands located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District are strongly encouraged to have a geotechnical analysis of their property prior to any development in order to identify potential geological hazards and determine appropriate techniques to mitigate against hazards such as the swelling and shrinking of soils, slumping, Hillside/Hilltop creep, and seeps." 12 EXHIBIT "D" To be inserted in Chapter] 70 Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control: §170.01 Intent (A) Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Fayetteville by: (5) Requiring that erosion control measures are implemented and function on a lot-by-lot basis. (6) Encouraging the use of storm water best management practices to reduce runoff. These measures would include permeable pavers, green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and rain barrels for irrigation use. §170.05 Permit Application A storm water management, drainage, and erosion control permit application shall be submitted to the City Engineer using appropriate forms as provided by the city. An applicant may apply jointly for contiguous parcels or subdivisions as long as the erosion control measures are in place until project completion. A permit application shall contain sufficient information and plans to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the project complies with the requirements of this chapter. The specific items to be submitted for a permit application shall be in the form and follow the procedures as described in the Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 1 , Drainage Report Checklist. Submittal information and plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: §170.10 Environmentally Sensitive Mitigation Methods for Storm Water Management (A) Environmentally conscious measures to reduce the amount of storm water generated by development shall be encouraged, especially in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Methods may include but, are not limited to, rain gardens, permeable pavement, green roofs, cisterns for the collection and redistribution of storm water for irrigating purposes, etc. 13 EXHIBIT "E" To be inserted in Chapterl 72: Parking and Loading: §172.04 Parking Lot Design StandardsError! Bookmark not defined. (E). Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads in Multi -Family, Office, and Commercial Development. Parking pads shall be separated by a minimum undisturbed area of 15 feet between parking pads. Streets and access drives are permitted to cross this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance. (3) Maximum number of spaces per parking lot for multi family and office use. Parking pads shall have a maximum of 30 spaces per pad. (4) Parking lot location with multi family and office structures. When the building is located adjacent to the street the parking shall be located in the rear. When the multi -family structure is located off of the street, a minimum of 35' of undisturbed area shall separate the building from the street. (5) Developers of multi -family, office, and commercial uses in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District are encouraged to refer to the Hillside/Hilltop Best Management Practices Manual for guidance and direction in the design of their project. 14 4 EXHIBIT "F" \1 To be inserted in section 173: Building Regulations: §173.02 Fire Prevention Code/Building Code (B) Amendments, additions, and deletions to the Building Code. The Building Code shall be amended as follows: (2) Footings and Foundations. Building, structures, and parts thereof shall be designed and constructed in accordance with strength design, load and resistance factor design, allowable stress design, empirical design, or conventional construction methods, as permitted by the applicable material chapters of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code and this section. 15 NORTHWEST ARKANSAS EDITION Benton County Daily Record P. O. BOX 1607 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 PHONE: 479-571-6415 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Maria Attaway, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: Ordinance 4855 Was inserted in the Regular Editions: May 13, 2006 Publication Charge: $988.79 Subscribed and lworrnn ,to before me This)'31ay of Notary Public 014O& �C Sharlene D. Williams Notary Public My Commission Expires: State of Arkansas My Commission Expires October 18, 2014 **NOTE** Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent. RECEIVED MAY 1 8 2006 GITY OF EMvex'sa4GEE 1 •'I NANCE NO. 4835 ORDINANCE AMEND - TITLE XV: UNIFIED ELOPMENT CODE OF CITY OF FAYET. ettMle IIE TO AMEND VARI-'-- ARKANSAS SECTIONS OF THE Y IE IN ORDER TO .EMENT HILLSIDE/HILLTOP PVE LAY DDS R AND INGPROTECTION. U. 1ANDM A , AND1APPROVING OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING 015- 1ABE BEST GEMENT PRGTHE SIM NUAL AS A OVERLAY DIS :T BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AS A GUIDE the City of Fayetteville values its unique HiilsideMliltops: and, the City of Fayetteville Is committed to having appropriate and elopment occur on the HillsldeMilaops: and developments that are compatible and harmonious with the s, do not have a negative effect upon the City, and the HillsitleMllltop Best Management Practices Manual wilt le for the development on the Citys HillsldeMlllrops; and the City of Fayetteville determines that its Hillside/Hilltops al protection and preservation enhancements to lessen grad - and stormwater problems and to preserve the Fayetteville9 welm nn/ -Is,- d. MOW. THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That Chapter 161: Zoning Districts Is amended by inserting HillsideMilltop Overlay District regulations In sections; § 161.07 RSF-4, § 161.13 RMF -24, and § 161.15 R -O, a copy of which'marked Exhibit'Ais attached hereto and made a pad hereof. Section 2. That Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection Is amended to include Hillside/Hilltop Ohedey District regulations in section § 167.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit'B' is attached hereto and made a pan here - Section 3. Thai Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land is amended to Include Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations In sections § 169.02, § 169.03, § 169.04, § 169.06. § 169.07, § 169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit' C' is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 4, That Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage. and Erosion Control is amended to Include Hillslde/Hilitop Overlay District regu- lations In sections § 170.01, § 170.36, § 170.05, § 170,10, a copy of which marked Exhibit D" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 5. That Chapter 172 Parking and Loading is amended to Include Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District regulations In section § 172.04. a copy of which marked Exhibit 'E' is attached hereto and made apart hereof. Section 6. That Chapter 173: Building Regulations is amended to include HillsideJHilttop Overlay District regulations In section § 173.02, a copy of which is marked Exhibit'F' Is attached hereto and made a part hereof: Section 7. That Chapter 151: Definitions are amended by adding the fol- lowing definitions: Cistern. (Starmvater) Roof water management devices that provide reten- tion storage volumein above or underground storage tanks. They are typ- ically used for water supply. Cisterns we generally larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10.000 gallons. On - lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an opportunity for water conservation and the possibility of reducing water Wilily costs. Green Roof. (Stormwater) Elevated roof surfaces that em entirely covered with a thin soil and vegetation layer. Height. (Hi1191CIONIMop Overlay District) Building height shall be measured iron the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to develop - area 70 ft. 8.000 sq. ft. 80 ft. IC -2, Thoroughfare Commercial 15% 12.000 sq. ft. C-3, Central Business Commercial 15% C-4, Downtown 10% Land area per dwelling unit 8.000 sq. ft. 6.000 sq. ft. Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District Let mnimun width 60 f. lot Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District Lot area minimum 8,000 sq. ft. 12,ODO sq. fl. Land area per dwelling unit 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. ((ROM Setback requirements. Single Family SIDE REAR 25 ft. 8ft. 20 ft. HHOD Front, HHOD Side HHOD Rear is ft. 5IL 15 ft. §161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family - Twnty- FotM Units Par Acre (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 25 X. r aft. 25f1. HHOD Single HHOD Single HHOD Single Family Front Featly Side Family Rear 15 ft. Oft. 15f. HHOD Two HHOD Two HHOD Two Family Front Family Side Family Rear 15 ft. 8ft. 15 R. HHOD Mull HHOD Mufti HHOD Multi Family Front Family Side Family Rear 15 ft. Oft. 15ft. Cross relerence(s)-.Variance, Ch. 156. (F) Height regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side boundary line an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet except for the HHOD. Within the HHOD the maximum building height is 00 ft. as measured from the low- est point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to Me highest point of the structure, allowing 3 stories on the uphill side and 4 sto- ries on the downhill side of the building. If the building Is placed an a grad. ad pad, men the height of the building is reduced, allowing a maximum of 3 stories as measured from the hlstoricgrade pre-devenpment ;I-1. Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial 15% 11-2. General Industrial 15% P-1 Institutional 25% A/ residential zoning districts and C-1 districts within the HillsldeiHiOop Overlay District shall have their percent minimum canopy requirements ncreased by 5% to a total requirement of either 30%a 25%. (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non- Resident/al Subdivisions. (3) HillsideMillop Overlay District. Individual parcels or lots located within the HIIlsidoMillop Overlay District boundary shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation plan as set forth n § 167.04 (HX3) Indicating the location of the structure and the preservation of the minimum tree campy require - men. (a) Developers shall have the option of doing cluster development, such as a PZDI which would encourage more open space and tree preservation areas. In this pattern of development, the tree preservation zone on each lot can be transferred toe larger open space Instead of being required on the Individual lots. The open space set aside during duster development shall be placed in a wed ft ant easement a land trust with all future develop- ment rights removed from the properly. (i) Request for on -site mitigation Ic) Tree removal due to the grading work done to create tie backs for roads In the Hil25% of t hp Overlay District shat be mitigated by reforesting a min- ., Imam of 25% of the tie backs pursuant to the landscape manual. (d) Flaming trees In non -canopy opy areas In ceder to reach me mfninum per- cent canopy requirements for the site is not allowed In the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, (L) Continuing preservation and protection under approvetl tree preserva- tion plans. (1) In order to ensure that an applicant's heirs, successors, assigns, or any subsequent purchasers of the subject property are put on notice as to the ical alteration of the land with complete and uniform ground cover. Sod, erd- slon fabric. herbaceous groundcover (in wooded areas), and/or a hydroseed with warm season grasses is required. Re -vegetation require- ments shall be mat prior to the Issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Cut and Fill tie -back slopes shall be re -vegetated with appropriate tree species to achieve a minimum of 25% tree canopy at maturity in 0780.08 (G) Undisturbed land requirements. After the table add the following: In the development of Large Scale Developments and lots within the Hillside Overlay District, the minimum amount of undisturbed land shall equal the percent minimum tree canopy pursuant to §167.04 (C). Planned Zoning Districts shall show undisturbed areas, but may be approved by the City Council with lesser percentages of undisturbed area than required above. §169.07 Grading Plan SpecHigatlons (A) Grading plan. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan as follows: (2) Existing grades. Existing grades shall be shown with dashed line con- tours and proposed grades with solid line contours. Grading plans shall be required to show both the proposed grade and the undisturbed area. Contour intervals shall be a maximum of two foot. Spot elevations shall be Imitated. §169.08 Grading Plan Submittal (B) Final grading plan. No subdivision may be finalized, nor large scale development plat approved before a final grading plan has been submitted to the City Engineer and approved. The final grading plan and the final plat of land located within the Hillside(Hiiltop Overlay District shall have re fol- lowing plat note stating: 'Property and lot owners of lands located within the gicat hazards and determine appropriate techniq azards such as the swelling and shrinking of sots, creep, and seeps.' existence am extent of an approved tree preservation plan, tree preserve- EXHIBIT lion areas shall be clearly depicted on the easement plats for large scale to be inserted in Chapter170 Slamwater Management Drainage e developments and the final plate for nonresidential subdivisions. This shall Eros/on Catrot beaccompanletl by a narrative statement describing the nature of the pro- §170 07 I _ — 31.15 District R-0, Residential OBia section afforded, and bearing the signature of the landscape administrator. Setback regulations. Lots in residential subdivisions are expressly exempt from these require - it 30 ft. merits, If it is impractical to include the actual depiction of the canopy to be 1L if parking is allowed between the right-of-way preserved on the easement plat, a final plat Itself, a we cross referencing the building 50 ft. an acconnanvin0 document shall suffice. From, in the Hillslde/lllop Overlay District 15 ft. Side 10 h. Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft. Side, in the HillsideMilltop Overlay District 8 ft Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public alley 10 ft. Rear, in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District 15 ft. (F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum height limits In R-0 Districts except for the HHOD, provided, however, that any building that exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back with any boundary rime of any RSF or RMF District an additional distance of one foot for each foot Of height In excess of 20 few. In the Hillslde/Hilhop Overlay District the maxk mm building height is 60 ft. as measured from the lowest point of the struc- ture at the historic grade. prior to development, to the highest point of the structure allowing 3 Stories on the uphill side and 4 stories on the downhill side of the building. If the building is placed on a graded pad then the height of the building is reduced allowing a maximum of 3 stories as meas- ured from me historic grade, pre -development. HO, to the highest Cold d the simcture. If the structure Is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic EXHIBIT'B' grade. To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection: HiitsideMiiltop Development Manual. (Zoning) The best management prat- §167.04 Thai PMOs Ntlon And Protaetlon During tires document that supplements the HlISIdeMllltop Overlay District and Dwelop,Wnt Illustrates desirable Hillside/Hilltop development practices. (A)Applicability. The provi Hillside4lillmp Overlay District. (Zoning) Lands located within the City that divisions, and large some shown on me Citys official zoning map. The development regulations in 3 HOsideMilltOP Overlay District supersede the underlying zoning district. Stop. HillsideMilltop Overlay District) Land located above the Hilltop line 17th contains less than 15% slope and Is completely surrounded by IlsldeiHilltop c 15% slope. stoic grade. (Zoning) The natural grade of the land prior to any develop- snt. irking Pad. (Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District) Parking areas for multi -family ;Identlel., residential office, and commercial use in the Hills{eMtlltop !able Pavers. (Stormwater) A solid surface that allows natural ge and migration of water Into the earth by permitting water to drain h the surface Itself or through spaces between the pavers. (HillsldeMifop Overlay District) A foundation or base, usually on the 1e side of the Hillside/Hilltop, on which a house is located. Most often his constructed by erecting a retaining wall at the street with backfili ng a level building pad for the home. lands. (Stormweter) A wommvater containment vessel that captures generated by Impervious surfaces such as roofs. Rain barrels usual - ode a hole at Me top to allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an over- ipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. By holding and reusing ter, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve e water. 3arden. (Stormwater) an attractive landscaping feature planted with 11x1 native plants. It is a bowl -shaped garden, assigned to absorb voter runoff from impervious surfaces such as mots and parking fats. no. That the Hillside/Hilltop map attached as Exhibit'G' is adopted ineate the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District in which the regulations in the preceding Exhibits are applicable. n 9. Severxbulty. In accordance with §150.13 of the U.D.C.. it any 1. pan, word or phrase of this ordinance shall be determined to be . Illegal or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity remaining provisions, section, and language of this ordinance, ED ant APPROVED this 18th day of April, 2006. 3VED: ATTEST: By GOODY, Mayor $ONOIIA SMITH. City Clem EJH/IBIT'A' Zoning Regulations: Residential Single Family - 4 and area regulations. Single-family. Two-family dwellings dwellings Code to uld one 1 shall apply to proposed snb rired by other chapters of the he city's permitting process. dwelling unit, or duplex, are Is located will the HillsideMilltop Overlay District; then all the provisions of this ordinance shall apply. Planned Zoning Districts should meet the per- cent minimum tree canopy based upon their primary use, but may be allowed a lesser tree canopy requirement as pad of the overall Master Plan approved by the City Council. (5) HillsideMilltop Overlay District. Undeveloped land located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation plan with the preliminary plot or site plan. Single and two family resldengal development shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation and site plan at the lime of obtaining a building permit. There shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal until a tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protec- don measures at the site Inspected and approved. (C) Canopy area. In all new Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments, lands located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District, Industrial and Commercial Developments, and all other improvements listed above, trees shall be presented as outlined in Table I under Percent.Minlnum Canopy, unless the Applicant has been approved for On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives as set forth in subsections I. & J. below. The square feet per- centage of canopy area required for preservation in new development is based on the total area of the property -'for which the Applicant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way -'and park land dedications. An Applicant shall not be required to plant trees in most to reach the Percent Minimum Canopy requirement on land where less than the minimum exists prior to development, unless trees have been removed. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements PERCENT MINIMUM - ZONING DEStONATIONS CANOPY M. Residential Agriculture 25% RSF-.5, Single-family Residential - One Half Unit per Acre /t5% RSF-1, Single-family Residential - One Unit per Acre 25% RSF-2, Single-family Residential - Two Units per Acre RSF-4, Single-family Residential - Four Units per Acre -� 25% RSF-7, Single-family Residential - Seven Units per Acre , 20% R -O, Residential -Office 20% RT-12, Two and Three-family Residential 29%'' RMF-6, Multi -family Residential - Six Units per Acre 2696 RMF-12, Multi -family Residential - Twelve Units per Acre 20% RMF-18. Multi -family Residential - Eighteen Units per Acre . 20% RMF-24, MuttNam'y Residential -Twenty-Four Units per Acre ' 20% RMF-40,Muitl-famiy Residential - Forty Units per Acre 20% C-1, Neighborhood Commercial 20% (A) Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enter the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City Fayetteville by: (5) Requiring that erosion control measures are implemented and fund on a mtby-lot basis. (6) Encouraging the use of slam water best management practices EXHIBIT'C To be Inserted in Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land: §169.02 General Rpulnmsnts (0) Restoration. Land shall be revegetated end restated as close as prac- tically possible to its original conditions so far as to minimize runoff and ero- sion, are concerned. Previously forested areas shall follow the City's Landscape Manual ter mitigation of forested areas, ..mlla RequlradlExceptlons quired. No grading, filling, excavation, a land alteration 01 any ce place without first obtaining: ) permit is required by the City for any development occurring nside/Hiinop Overlay District boundaries. If a parcel of land is re Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District boundary, then Drily that por- ying within the boundary Is subject to the requirements of this ns where no grading permit is required Grading permits are for the following: miry/duplex Construction of one_sing(e-nmly residence, or located within the 100 year flood plain, the HillsdeMilltop Overlay District, or on a slope 15 % or greater. (C) Grading pemt application and approval. No grading permit shall be issued until the grading plan, endorsed by a registered architect, land- scape architect, or engineer, is approved by the City Engineer. A separate permit shall be required for each site: A may cover both excavations and fits. Grading permits may be Issued jointly for parcels of land that are con- tiguous, so long as erosion control measures are in place until project cam plemn. Any application for a required grading permit under this chapter shall be submitted concurrently with the application and calculations for a drainage permit If such a drainage permit is required by §170.03., coordi- nation with Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection Is required. §169.04 Minimal Erosion Control Requlraments If exempt under §169.02. If exempt under 169.03, a grading permit is not required. However, exempt as well as nonexempt activities than be subject to the following mnImal erosion and sedimentation control measures. (A) Natural vegetation. The paential for soil loss shall be minimized by retaining natural vegetation wherever possible. Development in the HillsideMilmp Overlay District should comply with the recommendations of the HSside/Hilltop Best Management Practices Manual with regard to the retention of natural vegetation on Hillsidelliilftops. (B) Stabilization. All graded and Otherwise disturbed areas shall be stabi- lized within 15 days irrrrlediately after the grading Or disturbance has been completed. Stabilization methods such as baled straw, filter fabric, ditch checks, diversion ditches, brush barriers, sediment basins, matting, mulches, grasses and groundcover shall be used. (D) Excavation material. Excavation material shall not be deposited in or so now streams and other stomavater drainage systems where ft may be washed downstream by high water or wnoff. All excavation material shall be stabilized Immediately with erosion control measures. §169.06 Land Alteration Rsqulnmsms (C) Cut or fill slopes. (1) Finish grade. Cul or fill slopes shall have a finish grade n steeper than 33% (3.00 horizontal to 1 vertical), when approved by the City Engineer. Land located within the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District may have cut or fill slopes with a finish grade no steeper than 50% (2.0) horizontal to 1 verti- cal) with approve) of the City Engineer. (4) Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall be reviewed by_Ma_City Engineer for purposes of assessing safety, stability end-tlrainaga problems: (See Illustrations). Setbacks from property lines flay be or filled cut 8 a grading plan is submitted jointly by the owners of M,A ..u.-.. of q - Cuts adjacent to public rightsof-way shall be set - (c), 15% to 20Wbfede: The slope shall be covered with landscape fabric and planted with groundcover as set forth in (b) above. (d) More than 20% grade: My finish grade over 20% shall be stabilized m retaining Mats, cribbing, terraces, landscape fabric, vegetation. or riprap. If riprap is used the slope's stability am credibility must be equiva- lent to or better than Its predevelopment state. (e) Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District Revegetation of lands within the reduce runoff. These measures would include permeable pavers, grs roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and rein barrels for irrigation use. §170.05 Permit Application A storm water management, drainage, and erosion control permit appb ton shall be submitted to the City Engineer using appropriate forms asp vided by the city. An applicant may apply jointly for contiguous parcels subdivisions as long as me erosion control measures are in place until pi act completion. A permit application shall contain sufficient information a plans to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the project comp) with the requirements of this chapter. The specific Items to be submitted a permit application shall be in the form and follow the procedures described in the Drainage Criteria Manual. Section 1. Drainage Rep Checklist. Submittal information and plans shall Include, but not be limit to the followng: §170.10 Emlra a as &By Sensitive Mitigation Methods I St...... Water Managennnt (A) Environmentally conscious measures to reduce the amount of std ,water generated by development shall be encouraged, especially in I Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Methods may Include but, areTrot limited min gardens, permeable pavement, green roofs, cisterns for the collect and redistribution of storm water for irrigating purposes, etc. EXHIBIT'E' To be Inserted In Chapter172.. Parking and Loading: §172.04 Perking Lot Design Standards (E). HillsdeMilttop Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads In Multi -Family, Office, and Caronen Development. Parking pads shall be separated bye minimum undistum area of 15 feet between parking pads. Streets and access drives are p mined to cress this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes, Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance, (3) Maximum number of spaces per parting Per to multi -family and office use. Parking pads shall have a maximum of 30 spaces per pad. (4) Parking lot location with multi -family and office structures. When the building is located adjacent to the street the parking shall be located in the rear. When the multi -family structure is located off of the street, a minirum of 35' of undisturbed area shall separate the building from the street. (5) Developers of multi -family, office, and commercial uses in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District are encouraged to refer tome Hil5idefliutop Best Management Practices Manual for guidance and direction In the design of their project. EXHIBIT'F To be inserted in entrain 173: Building Regulations: §173.02 Fir. P eventIon Code/BufMing Code (B) Amendments, additions, and deletions to the Building Code. Building Code shall be amended as follows: (2) Footings and Foundations. Bulding, structures, and parts thereof shall be designed and constrt In accordance with strength design, lad and resistance factor de allowable stress design, empirical design, or conventional corstu methods, as permitted by the applicable material chapters of the Arica Fire Prevention Code and this section. layeStIle T ^ w� ARKANSAS« THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS RECEIVED DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE APR 24 2(106 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE To: From: Date: Subject: Sondra Smith, Dan Coody, April 24, 2006 Mayoral_Veto of Provisions Pursuant to my authority as Mayor of the City of Fayetteville, I hereby exercise the Mayor's power to veto subsection (b) Design requirements for buildings located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District of Ordinance No. 4855 otherwise known as the Hillside/Hilltop Ordinance. The attached memo to the Fayetteville City Council dated April 21, 2006 outlines my reasons for this veto. Please cause this exercise of the veto power of the Mayor to be laid before the next regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Council as required by law. Thank you for your assistance. I FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS Departmental Correspondence TO: FROM: Fayettevi e City Dan DATE: April21, 2006 SUBJECT: Mayoral Veto of isions On March 3, 2006 you received a memorandum from City Attorney Kit Williams and me that proposed various amendments and clarifications to the Hillside/Hilltop Ordinance that would, "make the ordinance more legally defensible, clear up ambiguities, encourage PZD development on hillsides, and remove restrictions on homeowners (not home builders)" (memo attached). On Tuesday April I8, 2006 Council passed the Hillside/Hilltop Ordinance which is overall a very good ordinance that takes significant steps to preserve and protect our natural resources. However, there are a couple of provisions which are contrary to the public interest and therefore require me to exercise my veto power to strike language out of two of these provisions. First, I must veto a part of Exhibit "F" adopted by Section 6 of the Ordinance. I veto the proposed new subsection (b) Design requirements for buildings located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District A review of two maps provided to you prior to passage of the ordinance (both attached) shows two things. First, there is a large portion of our City that has poor soil suitability, and the poor soil is not restricted to our hillsides and hilltops. Further, our research on local foundation problems indicates that foundation problems are also not limited to hillsides and hilltops. If the Council intends to address soil suitability and increase requirements for foundations, the City Council should examine and address these issues citywide. It is in the public interest to take a citywide rather than localized review of the current problem and provide a measured response after careful analysis. Vetoed Language §173.02 (B)(2)(b) Design requirementsfor buildings located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. A builder of a single family residence, duplex or other residential, commercial or institutional structure not within a preliminary plat or large scale development that has conducted a Geo Technical analysis ofthe soil and subsoils shall conduct his own Geo Technical analysis ofthe soils and subsoils and if necessary have the foundation plans designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or architect. Accessory structures are exempt from this foundation requirement. One of the most valuable aspects of the new ordinance is the extension of the tree preservation requirements to home construction. However, Council should note that the unnecessary tree damage and removal during the construction process is a citywide issue, and our efforts to protect trees during construction should not be limited to hillsides/hilltops. While I fully support the change in the ordinance to apply tree preservation requirements to house construction, I do not support the provision that extends these restrictions to individual homeowners. This restriction is not needed, and it is not in the public interest. When we look around our community, we see trees everywhere not because of tree preservation zones on homeowners' lots, but because our homeowners have voluntarily planted, enjoyed and nurtured their trees for decades. To hold homeowners accountable to a tree preservation policy when those homeowners are not presenting a problem for the City is ci— overstepping our role as a municipal government and is overly restrictive, and ultimately unfair, to homeowners. Therefore, I veto the following sections of Exhibit "B" ofthe ordinance: § 167.04 (F)(3)(b) and § 167.04 (L). Vetoed Full Section §167.04 (F)(3)(b) Property owners of parcels or lots located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall have the ability to do selective thinning, without the use of off road equipment, of up to 15% of the tree preservation zone as long as it does not disrupt the overhead tree canopy. No removal of significant trees, as defined by the Landscape Manual, within the tree preservation zone is allowed. Vetoed Language in strikethrough §167.04 (L) In order to ensure that an applicant's heirs, successors, assigns, or any subsequent purchasers ofthe subject property are put on notice as to the existence and extent ofan approved tree preservation plan, tree preservation areas shall be clearly depicted on the easement plats for large scale developments and thefinal platsfor nonresidential subdivisions. This shall be accompanied by a narrative statement describing the nature iftheprotection afforded, and bearing the signature ofthe landscape administrator. Lots in residential subdivisions are expressly exempt from these requirements . If it is impractical to include the actual depiction of the canopy to be preserves on the easement plat, or final plat itself a note cross referencing an accompanying document shall suffice. The veto for §167.04 (L) only removed the "unless they are located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District" language. Therefore the remainder of §167.04 (L) remains in full force and effect. I strongly reiterate our earlier recommendation to the City Council that it adopt the language we proposed on March 3, 2006, to replace the now vetoed § 167.04 (FX3)(b). This proposed language will ensure claritythat the tree preservation area remains viable and protected until the homeowner receives a certificate of occupancy. Recommended Language §167.04 (F)(3)(b) Once the City issues a certificate of occupancy to the home owner, individual lot tree preservation areas are not binding upon such homeowner. However, the permanent tree easements establishedfor cluster development shall remain enforceable by the City. I have signed the Hillside/Hilltop Preservation and Protection Ordinance with the veto sections removed. 1[ 1 — • }Ilia.:x J • i aF 4 i J Q C I iiths S .7 1 r xmnn •YNb I ' .KY(YQA .a.Cib. tl .1 1 1 lsAE� � - � v 1 •- _I_ J � I R�� g b.T 1.�.4'4�1 ��'S z.]I,FA4i x��Qp •.'- p • . � nx . • 1 mo+ �[��g 1 1 �'IVVV 111 \ ; L 1 t C f .� �• M ��[ Y•.,MI, - / g �1� .•OM 1 � r� 1 .INJ i, f 1 �� .YI�1b �.• pL1-f I. . (Rn f` 1 - t • � .. / .1 / y__'Yj 1•.8 •. 1�1 e� i 1. 11�� 1� i -•Mls •I _O A• Z'i �R ;IyYla 1_ `mod Illi. •\- C1.f 1 f � �Ig[p11. • •/ 1♦• iI L. , 1 ♦ l / g --.Llu Ir l At ( 1' •••J � u M 1 __• pE •�. i Sr a g i �i ru..q 1 � / •. •I I 6 i E� 1� KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: City Council THROUGH: Mayor FROM: Kit William DATE: March 3, 201 RE: Possible amendments to Hillside Ordinance Attached please find the Hillside Ordinance with possible amendments that would make the ordinance more legally defensible, clear up ambiguities, encourage PZD development on hillsides, and remove restrictions on home buyers (not home builders). Proposed Amendments and Clarifications (1) Title and Whereas Clauses Amended to make consistent and clear that the Hillside Best Practices Manual is a GUIDE (like the 2020 Plan) rather than an ordinance requirement. (2) Hillside Overlay District definition Although "Hilltop" had been defined in the ordinance, it was never again mentioned throughout the ordinance. "Hilltop" was not included within the definition of "Hillside Overlay District". I do not think any regulation of hilltops exists as the ordinance is currently written. Since I am concerned that a Court could reject treating and regulating relatively level land as if it were steep simply because it is near or above steep land, the lack of "Hilltop" regulation in the current ordinance is a legal plus. However, I know the intent of the Planning Commission (on a 5 to 4 vote) and the Ordinance Review Committee was to regulate "Hilltops". Therefore, I have redrafted Hillside Overlay District definition to include "the adjoining land uphill from the 15% slope that contains at least 8% slope as shown on the Hillside Overlay District map." This language mirrors the language further in the definition that would allow an owner of a parcel within the Hillside Overlay District with an average slope of less than 8% to opt out of the District. However, if the developer or builder wanted to take advantage of the reduced street widths, right of ways, setbacks, lot widths, bulk and area requirements, etc. of the Hillside Ordinance, the developer/builder could not exempt the less than 8% slope land from the District. The new definition of Hillside Overlay district clearly requires that a land owner with fairly level land must abide by all terms of the ordinance or not to receive any of its beneficial aspects. This voluntary inclusion by the landowner/developer in order to use more appropriate (and less expensive) hillside development practices removes the legal problems of forcing an owner of relatively level lands to follow all hillside regulations. When the remainder of the ordinance and exhibits refer to lands within the Hillside Overlay District, any land which has been exempted by its owner because it is less than 8% slope shall be excluded from the District and from all provisions of the Hillside Ordinance and must meet all normal development requirements. (3) Height limitations (Exhibit "A") Valid points have been made about the need to protect adjoining homes from exceedingly tall residential structures. RSF-4 currently has NO height limitation at all. However,. legal considerations favor making height restrictions uniform throughout the city. No matter whether one lives in the valley or on a hill, an eighty foot house next door could block the view, sunlight, air flow and lessen the enjoyment of the home. Although the Hillside Ordinance had proposed a 60 foot height limitation, that appears too high in many residential situations. I propose a height limitation of 42 feet for residential developments city wide (not including C-3 and C-4 or the Downtown District). Because taller residential buildings could be appropriate in some areas (existing nearby tall buildings, large lots where the tall building could be set back to lessen impact on neighboring structures, etc.), the height restriction could be increased through a conditional use. That way the neighbors could express their opinions and appropriate conditions could be placed to protect neighbors' interests, I also placed a "grandfathering" sentence in so that no existing tall building would be considered a nonconforming use. (4) Tree Preservation & Protection, Chapter 167 of the U.D.C. (Exhibit "B") (A) Applicability. This original section was the "great compromise" reached by the Tree Ordinance Committee between the developers/home builders and the preservationists. The compromise was to exempt a person building "one single-family dwelling unit or duplex, ... from the provisions of this section." Of course, the City Council is not legally bound to honor any previous compromise or agreement if they wish to revise this ordinance. However, the newly proposed language leaves an enterprising home builder a way to finesse the Tree Ordinance. 2 Let's look at the development that created great controversy and litigation against the City in 2002. That developer bulldozed all the trees off two adjoining half acre lots in preparation to build twelve duplexes. (RMF-24 zoning) Because he was treating the two lots as one, Tim Conklin required he go forward as a large scale development (one acre or more development). He was eventually denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He would likely have won his appeal and been granted the right to build those duplexes, but he dropped his appeal prior to trial. Because the two lots have been "developed" as that term is broadly defined in the U.D.C., a developer would not have to do a tree preservation plan on one of those half acre lots as long as he chose to build more than one duplex or house. As it now reads, only if he chooses to build a single home or duplex would he have to abide by the tree preservation ordinance. I have redrafted this to close that unintended loophole and to exclude land exempt from the Hillside District. Because of the numerous advantages of developing according to the Hillside District's reduced setbacks, lot widths, street right of ways, I doubt that many developers will choose to opt out of the Hillside District even if the land if fairly level. (1) Hillside Overlay District Also in Exhibit B is what appears to be the new subsection (A) (1) Hillside Overlay District. Apparently it replaces the old (A) (1) since the old language is not reprinted as in the introductory language of (A) immediately above. If so, we have just removed the applicability of the Tree Ordinance to subdivisions and large scale developments in all non -hillside locations. This has been remedied by simply renumbering this paragraph "(5)". With all the litigation I must do, I simply have not had enough time to go through the Planning Department's proposed Hillside Ordinance revision's of the U.D.C. line by line prior to its submission to the City Council to ensure we do not create unintended consequences that could be confusing or even damaging. I urge the City Council continue to undertake a very careful review of every proposed change. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements Rather than a blanket 30% level for all Hillside Overlay District land, I recommend a uniform increase of 5% for all districts within the Hillside Overlay District. This would mean that most residential single family zones would be increased to 30%, multifamily to 25% and C-2 to 20%. By increasing all districts by 5%, the City protects significantly more trees, but still recognizes legitimate distinctions between single family, multifamily and commercial zones. (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions 3. Hillside Overlay District. The following sentence was removed from subsection (a): "Pending approval, the proposed pattern of development shall be required to minimize the view of the new development from the valley below with the preservation of tree cover." I have concerns about Constitutional Equal Protection arguments if this ordinance favors persons in the valleys over persons on hillsides for purely aesthetic, "viewing" purposes. Increasing tree canopy requirements and requiring even single home builders to preserve tree canopy in the Hillside District is properly supported by drainage and stormwater concerns. This additional tree canopy will improve aesthetics without favoring citizens in the valley over citizens on the hills. The sentence that was suggested to be removed is not really necessary and could cause legal problems. (b) (Single family home owners) Although home builders should have to preserve tree canopy, once the home has been finished and its owner has received the Certificate of Occupancy, the home owners should pretty much be allowed to manage their home's yard as they desire without having to come to City Hall for permission. Grading on 15% slopes (even in someone's backyard) would still require permits, but a homeowner could cut down brush and trees without City Hall approval. PZD tree easements in common greenspace areas would remain permanently enforceable by the City. §169.06 (1) Request for on -site mitigation. We added "with appropriate tree species" to subsection (C) and removed it from § 169.06 (F) Erosion and Sedimentation control. 5. Physical Alteration of Land (Exhibit "C") This proposed amendment makes the City's Landscape Manual and Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual mandatory. It is probably preferable to use "should" rather than "shall" at least initially. If these manuals are ignored with bad development results, then the City Council would have good reasons for amending this to make these manuals mandatory. Therefore, the proposed amendment changes "shall" in §169.02 (D) and 169.04 (A) and (D) to "should". Only one of the "shall"s in (F) should be changed to "should". The second "shall" requiring meeting all revegetation requirements prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy should remain. Similarly the third "shall" regarding replanting trees in Cut and Fill tie -back slopes should also remain. No change in current ordinance and table had been proposed so these were removed. New requirements for minimum undisturbed land in the Hillside Overlay District for Large Scale Developments and lot development were stated by sentence rather than by the revised table and called for matching the minimum required tree canopy of each zoning district in the Hillside Overlay District. §169.08 Grading Plan submitted needs to have "Hillside Overlay District" added before "shall" in the new language. 6. Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control (Exhibit "D") The newly proposed permit requirements for one single family or duplex construction was removed as unnecessary and very costly on advice of the City Engineer. 7. Building Regulations (Exhibit "F") §173.02 (B) (2) (b) Design requirements for buildings located within the Hillside Overlay District. Since there is no (ii), there should be no (i) subsection. The proposed language should be replaced with the following: "Developers of preliminary plats and large scale developments shall conduct a geotechnical analysis of the soils and subsoils of their property to determine if a typical spread footing foundation is warranted based on the type of soil present on site. If not, a notation on the final plat or easement plat shall be placed requiring all future structures within the development have foundation plans designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or Architect. Unoccupied, single story buildings less than 120 square feet are exempt from any foundation requirements". This requirement allows more efficient use of engineering analysis time as street construction normally requires some geotechnical analysis. If the developer's engineer discovers the "bad soil" conditions where normal foundations would be problematic, a properly engineered foundation would then be required. In those areas without the problem soils, unnecessary (and expensive) engineered foundations would not be required. Conclusion There remains the major issue of whether a PZD must follow these new requirements, especially increased tree preservation areas and land disturbance areas. PZDs normally can vary many development criteria, but they have been held to the strictest tree preservation standards. Since the City Council must approve all terms and conditions of any PZD, allowing PZDs to vary all development requirements (including preserving tree canopy and avoiding ground disturbance) would allow the City Council to look at all aspects of a PZD to determine whether it should be approved as a desirable project. F7 This would be especially important to the SouthPass project since much of its cleared, flat land will be designated as the City's Community Park while much of its residential development must therefore, be relegated to forested hillside. No one suggests that development rules or the Tree Ordinance be disregarded, but minimum percentages (30% for residential development on the Hillside District) might be lessened in light of this new project with hundreds of acres of park land, extensive trails, etc. If you wish to give yourself the power to approve a PZD even if it does not strictly meet the Hillside District's requirements, I will draft such language. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT HILLSIDE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION, ESTABLISH A HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING BOUNDARY AND MAP, AND APPROVING THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AS A GUIDE WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville values its unique hillsides; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is committed to having appropriate and desirable development occur on the hillsides; and WHEREAS, developments that are compatible and harmonious with the hillsides, do not have a negative effect upon the City; and WHEREAS, the hillside best management practices manual will provide a guide for the development on the City's hillsides. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That Chapter 161: Zoning Districts is amended by inserting Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections; §161.07 RSF-4, §161.13 RMF — 24, and §161.15 R -O, a copy of which marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §167.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3: That Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections §169.02, §169.03, §169.04, §169.06, §169.07, §169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 4: That Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections §170.01, §170.36, §170.05, §170.10, a copy of which marked Exhibit "D" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 5: That Chapter 172: Parking and Loading is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §172.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "E" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 6: That Chapter 173: Building Regulations is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §173.02, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "F" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 7: That Chapter 151: Definitions are amended by adding the following definitions: Cistern. (Stormwater) Roof water management devices that provide retention storage volume in above or underground storage tanks. They are typically used for water supply. Cisterns are generally larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10,000 gallons. On -lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an opportunity for water conservation and the possibility of reducing water utility costs. Green Roof. (Stormwater) Elevated roof surfaces that are entirely covered with a thin soil and vegetation layer. Height. (Hillside Overlay District) Building height shall be measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. Hillside Development Manual. (Zoning) The best management practices document that supplements the Hillside Overlay District and illustrates desirable hillside development practices. Hillside Overlay District. (Zoning) Lands located within the City that generally have slopes in excess of 15 % and the adjoining land uphill from the 15% slope that contains at least 8% slope as shown on the Hillside Overlay District map. Parcels located within the Hillside Overlay District with an average slope less than 8% may be exempted by the owner by submitting a written request and a survey acceptable and to be approved by the Engineering Division certifying that the parcel has an average slope of less than 8%. This parcel shall then be shown on the Hillside Overlay District map as removed and exempt. None of the reduced right of way, setbacks, lot width, or other development reductions of the Hillside Overlay District shall be available to an exempted parcel. The development regulations in the Hillside Overlay District supersede the underlying zoning district. Historic grade. (Zoning) The natural grade of the land prior to any development. Parking Pad. (Hillside Overlay District) Parking areas for multi -family residential, residential office, and commercial use in the Hillside Overlay District. Permeable Pavers. (Stormwater) A solid surface that allows natural drainage and migration of water into the earth by permitting water to drain through the surface itself or through spaces between the pavers. Flint!:. (Hillside Overlay District) A foundation or base, usually on the upslope side of the hillside, on which a house is located. Most often a plinth is constructed by erecting a retaining wall at the street with backfill creating a level building pad for the home. Rain Barrels. (Stormwater) A stormwater containment vessel that captures runoff generated by impervious surfaces such as roofs. Rain barrels usually include a hole at the top to allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. By holding and reusing rainwater, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve potable water. Rain Garden. (Stormwater) an attractive landscaping feature planted with perennial native plants. It is a bowl -shaped garden, designed to absorb stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces such as roofs and parking lots. PASSED and APPROVED this 7'" day of March, 2006. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" To be inserted in Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations: §161.07 District RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4 units/acre. (D) Bulk and area regulations. Single- Two-family family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 ft. 80 ft. width Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. dwelling unit HOD Lot 60 ft. 70 ft. minimum width HOD Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. dwelling unit ft. (E) Setback requirements. Single Family Dwellings FRONT SIDE REAR 25 ft. 8 ft. 20 ft. HOD Front HOD Side HOD Rear 15 ft. 5ft, 15 ft. (G) Height. Structures are limited to a building height of 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. §161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family — Twenty -Four Units Per Acre (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 25 ft. 811. 25 ft. HOD Single Family Front HOD Single Family Side HOD Single Family Rear 15 ft. 8ft. 15 ft. Cross reference(s)--Variance, Ch. 156. (F) Height regulations. The maximum building height is 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. §161.15 District R -O, Residential Office (E) Setback regulations. Front 30 ft. Front, if parking is allowed between the right-of-way and the building 50 ft. Front, in HOD 15 ft. Side 10 ft. Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft. Side, in HOD 8 ft Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public alley 10 ft. Rear, in HOD 15 ft. (F) Height. Structures are limited to a building height of 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. EXHIBIT "B" To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection: §167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (A) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed subdivisions, and large scale developments required by other chapters of the Unified Development Code to go through the city's permitting process. If a builder of single family dwellings or duplexes is not otherwise required to file a Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development, that development is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the development is on land or parcels within the Hillside Overlay District in which case an abbreviated tree preservation plan set forth in §167.04 (H) (3) shall apply. (5) Hillside Overlay District. Undeveloped, land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation plan with the Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development site plan. Single and two family residential development shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining a building permit. There shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal until a tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measures at the site inspected and approved. (C) Canopy area, In all new Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments, lands located within the Hillside Overlay District, Industrial and Commercial Developments, and all other improvements listed above, trees shall be preserved as outlined in Table I under Percent Minimum Canopy, unless the Applicant has been approved for On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives as set forth in subsections I. & J. below. The square foot percentage of canopy area required for preservation in new development is based on the total area of the property for which the Applicant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way and park land dedications. An Applicant shall not be required to plant trees in order to reach the Percent Minimum Canopy requirement on land where less than the minimum exists prior to development, unless trees have been removed. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements ZONING DESIGNATIONS PERCENT MINIMUM CANOPY Tree canopy Hillside Overlay District— All requirements Zoning Designations are increased by 5% for all districts RA, Residential Agriculture 25% RSF-.5, Single-family 25% Residential — One Half Unit per Acre RSF-1, Single-family 25% Residential — One Unit per Acre RSF-2, Single-family 20% Residential — Two Units per Acre RSF-4, Single-family 25% Residential — Four Units per Acre RSF-7, Single-family 20% Residential — Seven Units per Acre R -O, Residential —Office 20% RT-12, Two and Three-family 20% Residential RMF-6, Multi -family 20% Residential — Six Units per Acre RMF-12, Multi -family 20% Residential — Twelve Units per Acre RMF-18, Multi -family 20% Residential — Eighteen Units per Acre RMF-24, Multi -family 20% Residential — Twenty -Four Units per Acre RMF-40,Multi-family 20% Residential — Forty Units per Acre C-1, Neighborhood 20% Commercial C•2, Thoroughfare Commercial 15% C-3, Central Business 15% Commercial C-4, Downtown 10% I-i, Heavy Commercial and 15% Light Industrial I-2, General Industrial 15% P -I, Institutional 25% PZD, Planned Zoning Districts Most restrictive shall apply (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions. (3) Hillside Overlay District Individual parcels or lots located within the Hillside Overlay District boundary shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation plan as set forth in §167/04 (H) (3) indicating the location of the structure and the preservation of the minimum tree canopy requirement. (a) Developers shall have the option of doing cluster development, such as a PZD, which would encourage more open space and tree preservation areas. In this pattern of development, the tree preservation zone on each lot can be transferred to a larger open space instead of being required on the individual lots. The open space set aside during cluster development shall be placed in a permanent easement or land trust with all future development rights removed from the property. (b) Once the City issues a certificate of occupancy to the home owner, individual lot tree preservation areas are not binding upon such home owner. However, the permanent tree easements established for cluster development shall remain enforceable by the City. (I) Request for on -site mitigation (c) Tree removal due to the grading work done to create tie backs for roads in the Hillside shall be mitigated by reforesting a minimum of 25% of the tie backs with appropriate tree species pursuant to the landscape manual. (d) Planting trees in non -canopy areas in order to reach the minimum percent canopy requirements for the site is not allowed in the Hillside Overlay District. EXHIBIT "C" To be inserted in Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land.• §169.02 General Requirements (D)Restoration. Land shall be revegetated and restored as close as practically possible to its original conditions to minimize runoff and erosion. Previously forested areas should follow the City's Landscape Manual for mitigation of forested areas. §169.03 Permits Required/Exceptions (A)Permit required. No grading, filling, excavation, or land alteration of any kind shall take place without first obtaining: (4) A grading permit is required by the City for any development occurring within the Hillside Overlay District boundaries. If a parcel of land is divided by the Hillside Overlay District boundary, then only that portion of land lying within the boundary is subject to the requirements of this chapter. (B) Exceptions where no grading permit is required. Grading permits are not required for the following: (4) Single-family/duplex. Construction of one single-family residence, or duplex not located within the 100 year flood plain, the Hillside Overlay District, or on a slope 15 % or greater. (C) Grading permit application and approval. No grading permit shall be issued until the grading plan, endorsed by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer, is approved by the City Engineer. Grading permits may be issued jointly for parcels of land that are contiguous, so long as erosion control measures are in place until project completion. Any application for a required grading permit under this chapter shall be submitted concurrently with the application and calculations for a drainage permit if such a drainage permit is required by §170.03., coordination with Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection is required. §169.04 Minimal Erosion Control Requirements If exempt under 169.03, a grading permit is not required. However, exempt as well as non- exempt activities shall be subject to the following minimal erosion and sedimentation control measures. (A)Natural vegetation. The potential for soil loss shall be minimized by retaining natural vegetation wherever possible. Development in the Hillside Overlay District should comply with the recommendations of the Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual with regard to the retention of natural vegetation on Hillsides. (B) Stabilization. All graded and otherwise disturbed areas shall be stabilized immediately after the grading or disturbance has been completed. Stabilization methods such as baled straw, filter fabric, ditch checks, diversion ditches, brush barriers, sediment basins, matting, mulches, grasses and groundcover shall be used. (D)Excavation material. Excavation material shall not be deposited in or so near streams and other stormwater drainage systems that it may be washed downstream by high water or runoff. All excavation material shall be stabilized immediately with erosion control measures. §169.06 Land Alteration Requirements (C) Cut or fill slopes. (1) Finish grade. Cut or fill slopes shall have a finish grade no steeper than 33% (3.00 horizontal to l vertical), when approved by the City Engineer. Land located within the Hillside Overlay District may have cut or fill slopes with a finish grade no steeper than 50% (2.00 horizontal to I vertical) with approval of the City Engineer. (4) Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for purposes of assessing safety, stability, and drainage problems: (See illustrations). Setbacks from property lines may be filled or cut if a grading plan is submitted jointly by the owners of both properties. (F) Erosion and sedimentation control. (e) Hillside Overlay District. Revegetation of lands within the Hillside Overlay District should be planted immediately after the physical alteration of the land with complete and uniform ground cover. Sod, erosion fabric, herbaceous groundcover (in wooded areas), and/or a hydroseed with warm season grasses is required. Re -vegetation requirements shall be met prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Cut and Fill tic -back slopes shall be re -vegetated. In §169.06 (G) Undisturbed land requirements, after the table add the "In the development of Large Scale Developments and lots within the Hillside Overlay District, the minimum amount of undistu3hw1 1and shall equal the percent minimum tree canopy pursuant to flble 1 0 §167.04 (C)." §169.07 Grading Plan Specifications (A)Grading plan. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan as follows: (2) Existing grades. Existing grades shall be shown with dashed line contours and proposed grades with solid line contours. Grading plans shall be required to show both the proposed grade and the undisturbed area. Contour intervals shall be a maximum of two feet. Spot elevations shall be indicated. 10 §169.08 Grading Plan Submittal (B) Final grading plan. No subdivision may be finalized, nor large scale development plat approved before a final grading plan has been submitted to the City Engineer and approved. The final grading plan and the final plat of land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall have the following plat note stating: "Property and lot owners of lands located within the Hillside Overlay District are strongly encouraged to have a geotechnical analysis of their property prior to any development in order to identify potential geological hazards and determine appropriate techniques to mitigate against hazards such as the swelling and shrinking of soils, slumping, hillside creep, and seeps." Ii EXHIBIT "D" To be inserted in Chapter] 70 Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control: §170:01 Intent (A)Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Fayetteville by: (5) Requiring that erosion control measures are implemented and function on a lot -by - lot basis. (6) Encouraging the use of storm water best management practices to reduce runoff. These measures would include permeable pavers, green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and rain barrels for irrigation use. §170.05 Permit Application A storm water management, drainage, and erosion control permit application shall be submitted to the City Engineer using appropriate forms as provided by the city. An applicant may apply jointly for contiguous parcels or subdivisions as long as the erosion control measures are in place until project completion. A permit application shall contain sufficient information and plans to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the project complies with the requirements of this chapter. The specific items to be submitted for a permit application shall be in the form and follow the procedures as described in the Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 1, Drainage Report Checklist. Submittal information and plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: §170.10 Environmentally Sensitive Mitigation Methods for Storm water Management (A) Environmentally conscious measures to reduce the amount of storm water generated by development shall be encouraged, especially in the Hillside Overlay District. Methods may include but, are not limited to, rain gardens, permeable pavement, green roofs, cisterns for the collection and redistribution of storm water for irrigating purposes, etc. 12 EXHIBIT "E" To be inserted in Chapter] 72: Parking and Loading: §172.04 Parking Lot Design Standards (E). Hillside Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads in Multi -Family, Office, and Commercial Development Parking pads shall be separated by a minimum undisturbed area of 15 feet between parking pads. Streets and access drives are permitted to cross this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance. (3) Maximum number of spaces per parking lot for multi family and office use. Parking pads shall have a maximum of 30 spaces per pad. (4) Parking lot location with multi family and office structures. When the building is located adjacent to the street the parking shall be located in the rear. When the multi- family structure is located off of the street, a minimum of 35' of undisturbed area shall separate the building from the street. (5) Developers of multi -family, office, and commercial uses in the Hillside Overlay District arc encouraged to refer to the Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual for guidance and direction in the design of their project. 13 EXHIBIT "F" To be inserted in section 173: Building Regulations: §173.02 Fire Prevention Code/Building Code (B)Amendments, additions, and deletions to the Building Code. The Building Code shall be amended as follows: (2) Footings and Foundations. Building, structures, and parts thereof shall be designed and constructed in accordance with strength design, load and resistance factor design, allowable stress design, empirical design, or conventional construction methods, as permitted by the applicable material chapters of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code and this section. (b) Design requirements for buildings located within the Hillside Overlay District. Developers of preliminary plats and large scale developments shall conduct a geotechnical analysis of the soils and subsoils of their property to determine if a typical spread footing foundation is warranted based on the type of soil present on site. If not, a notation on the final plat or easement plat shall be placed requiring all future structures within the development have foundation ans-designed approved and seallerofessim a ineer or Architect. noccupied single stor] to73. building 'less than 120 square feet re exempt from any foundation requirements. 14 Robert and Marion Wyckoff 1109 Eastwood Drive Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: 443-1777 April 23, 2006 Aldermen City of Fayetteville Fayetteville, Arkansas We are writing to urge that you join your colleague Brenda Thiel in voting to override Dan Coody's veto of portions of the new hillside ordinance. We are outraged that he would attempt to negate the hard work of so many people by deleting some of the most important provisions of the ordinance. Fayetteville is a beautiful and progressive city, but sometimes it seems like an uphill battle to keep it that way. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, / / iJ/3Cri ��/ Robert and Mari n Wyckoff RECEIVED APR24 4 2006 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Adopted Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District City Council May 2, 2006 Terrain Model with Slope Greeter Man 15.6 -"-'- -' i > 6 Y Y� ... 3; •_.... as r,, in r.wtxr Nowt with 2003 Tree Canopy Overlay ). r �F. t.J b . s°►#�. ` �a' sue, rea''`r 4 '� mm„re "tom. '� ',. •4 a o1 r[ a' tgt'ee Rn I:. 2 Existing Adopted HOD 50 feet + 25 ue (100 feet) 33 feet + 15 ue (63 feet) -37 feet ROW Reduction 40 feet +25 ue (90 feet) 27 feet + 15 ue (57 feet) - 33 feet ROW Reduction Reduced Right of Way and Street Pavement Cross Sections ai C♦ J r ♦ 1� I RSF-4 Adopted Existing Adopted Setbacks Front 25 ft 15 ft -loft Side Bit 5ft -3ft Rear 20 ft 15 ft - 5 ft Lot Width 70 Ft 60 ft -10 ft Height None 45 ft* Separate Ord. RMF-24 Amendments Existing Setbacks Front 251t Rear 25 ft Height 20 ft + 1 (Side) Adopted 15f1 15ft -10 ft -loft 60 ft 3 stories uphill 4 Stories downhill R -O Amendments Existing Adopted Setbacks Front 30/50 ft 15 ft -loft Side 15 R/10 ft 8 ft -7/2 ft Rear 25 ft alley 15 ft -10 ft Height 20 ft + 1 (Side) 60 ft 3 stories uphill 4 stories downhill ,l J 1 Y I •vii � '�)"I�S '+Ykk } it, JL. ___ ___ . r ik • Increased Tree Pre'se?vation and' Protection During Design and Construction 1 p \" n • t -: 'HE :I 1: • F�.+i :'t .r. dc's ♦ti LYs.!1.1 ifR, r ~�'fL'!,\. • 1 Tree Ordinance Existing Adopted RSF-4 25% 30% +5 RMF-24 20% 25 % +5 R -O 20% 25 % +5 C-1 20% 25% +5 PZD Determined By City Council Based on PZD Approval 1 0 t9w e Grading Ord. Avg. Grade Minimum Undisturbed Area Subdivision Existing Slope Min. Undisturbed Area 10-15% 40% 15-20% 50% >20% 60%/0 • In the development of large scale development and lots within the Hillside Overlay District, the minimum amount of undisturbed land shall equal the percent minimum tree canopy pursuant to 167.04 (C). Planned zoning districts shall show undisturbed area, but may be approved by the City Council with lesser percentages of undisturbed area than required above. Grading Ord. All development in the Hillside Overlay District is required to have a grading permit Existing Cut and Fill Slope 3:1 Proposed Cut and Fill Slope with City Engineer Approval 2:1 13 15 16 i f �� I 1 ::-H to __ FwIClbn R0EMu rrrwr�.� u..r P.i 4.4r1 ,, .t Gwndofion RaENm •a h l • • : •• a �.1 7' .s, x, ., Fo wwe aquae... 'L ^'� .m Nne.n �wmM wneY.. ' %' • .., - L IN • G; I Jr n I jig FounWigR n OClsms ' j - I � 6: n.✓ i . ♦.ILA e O • f 55 . K wse.xeoo.nq a FdF ��J � • a•ay.,w•.r 19 Count of Foundation Problems by Soil Class 350 300 --._.. ... ------- 250 200 150 1001 50f --o LLp U LNLIO owm 1 (9 Q1O0OQ<QQpO�pp 00800 Ea0000 0 `�Qo $NU NN LLC�$Q�CJFZNJ U6 WJ�$LLWNWN p20] Foonatlon Problems G✓.•.•TI�Yr.vv 229 (32.4%) Inside Hillside Overlay District• 457 (66.6%) Outside Hillside Overlay District 686 total •• , r #t: :;y 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 11 •3• 41 « ...._.r --I. 1 'Y F,ln_ C,.w6 . . ., , 2 3 Foundation Problems by Year Constructed 21 Building Permits vs. Foundation Repairs 1998 thru 2005 (Based on Limited Data) 1 & 2 Family Dwellings Foundation Repairs Year Constructed Summary of Recent Data of Geotechnical Reports and Engineered Foundations • Strong correlation based on soil class and foundation failure • Weak correlation based on slope and foundation failure (X. a e� evi le Y ARKANSAS Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual Table of Contents I. Background and Introduction II. Concerns Expressed During Public Input Sessions III. Existing Conditions Regulatory Codes • - Zoning Slope Soils and Geologic Conditions Tree Canopy 1 1 3 • 4- 4 7 91 IV. Best Practices A. Land Development • Hillside Overlay District • Right of Way Design / Roadway Grading • Location of Utilities • Street Layout / Community Pattern • Hillside Street Cross Sections • Tree Preservation and Protection • Cluster Development • Lot Frontage and Orientation B. Lot • • Development Site Planning Home Placement and Building Setbacks Tree Preservation Measuring Building Height - Parking Physical Alteration of Land / Grading Erosion Control Methods V. Bibliography of Sources and Resources 12 12 14 15 15 17 19 21 22 22 22 23 31 34 — 35 37 37 43 I. Background and Introduction The Fayetteville City Council adopted Resolution Number 130-02 in August of 2002, requesting that the Planning Commission conduct a rezoning study and zoning map amendment for those areas shown as R-2 (Medium Density Residential, RMF-24) that have 15% or greater slope. A Hillside Task Force was developed and comprised of Planning Commission Members. The Hillside Task Force examined studies conducted by staff on the existing development patterns of Mt: Sequoyah; adopted hillside ordinances from other cities, and recommendations proposed by Planning Staff. Unable to reach consensus on a hillside development ordinance and boundary map, the Hillside Task Force was disbanded in the fall of 2004. In 2005, a new Hillside Task Force was developed comprised of members of the City Council and the Planning Commission. A series of meetings occurred that provided the Task Force with a background of past ordinance proposals and ongoing public input. Ultimately, a recommendation and ordinance was developed by Planning Staff and the Task Force. Due to on -going discussions and concerns expressed by both the development community and the public as a whole, Staff proposed that a consultant familiar with steep slope development be hired to assist City Staff in developing a hillside development ordinance. In March of 2005; the Fayetteville City Council authorized a contract with Design Workshop of Asheville, North Carolina to assist the City in the drafting of a Hillside Development Ordinance and Best Management Practices Manual. This Best Management Practices Manual is designed to illustrate best development practices that are deemed as appropriate for development on our steeply sloped and heavily forested hillsides. This manual, in conjunction with the City Ordinances that have been amended such as: Chapter 161 - Zoning, Chapter 167 — Tree Preservation, Chapter 169 — Physical Alteration of Land, Chapter 170 - Stormwater, Drainage, and Erosion, and Chapter 172 - Parking, will be the implementing and regulating documents guiding all development that falls within the Hillside Development Overlay District. II. Concerns Expressed During Public Input Sessions City Staff and Design Workshop held two public input working sessions in June and July of 2005. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 1 4/28/2006 During the first work session in June we conducted a meeting with the members of the Hillside Task Force, interested developers, and an open public input meeting. These work sessions focused on gathering input and feedback regarding existing conditions and the future of Fayetteville's hillsides. The following topics were discussed in order to: 1. Identify issues and concerns based on the current and future development of Fayetteville's hillsides. Confirm the existing environmental, development, zoning and regulatory conditions. 3: Discuss best practices of development seen in the City or region. 4. Discuss the visual preference for hillside areas in and around Fayetteville. 5. Gain feedback regarding current development trends and best current practices. 6. Find common ground between all parties. 7. Discuss the proposed Unified Development Code revisions. During the second work session in July of 2005 we again conducted meetings with the Hillside Task Force, interested developers, and a general public input meeting. These work sessions focused on: 1. Confirming the project approach. 2. Reviewing the information gathered in the first work sessions. 3. Developing a process for establishing recommendations. 4. Reviewing the existing codes regarding development. 5. Drafting Best Practices guidelines to be used in the manual. 6. Reviewing recommended changes to the development code. Summary of Concerns with Development on Hillsides as Expressed by the Public. Density: ■ Infill of inconsistent housing types / increased density in established neighborhoods ■ Do not use downzoning as a tool for preserving trees Storm water / Infrastructure: ■ Drainage ditch design, adequate capacity, and proper location ■ Need additional storm water regulations along with better enforcement ■ Inadequate or outdated infrastructure in older neighborhoods ■ Utility companies to allow for design flexibility Tree Preservation: ■ Preserve the natural character of the hillsides K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 2 4/28/2006 O O C C O O tl C 0 C x _ a 0 Q E❑ P, C 2 9 y � O O ai .2 cs"d' C C U A cd •n.l is �+ 0 C ti O C W .1 +: O Q F. C', _ r 1 wAO w h~ H • tl a It ■ F O 0 Ct A Y p U C `. Cl) - ti a vi Y a CoC N 'i. b N •.fir y N O N tYtl Oo p" o O O cCd 'n N T y a p �., • 02 ar O Q p O p c5 Y°a�313 H O N �,,, O O cd U U p O Fr as aY� > U O 0 C: 0 0 N 00 N M Ct N^ YO r. L :C b y r v a aJi . v ^no 7 ro abi v ti 0 o 0 a≥ o U O U c C U O y q coD •N " n m o Y 7 3 no 41 b o w c u> y v C N ❑ U� cu b o> y Y W N a y dq o .^.. C d" .- U ,O s. O 'b .O •• 99 Y O Y U N . ." bF..� .- Y Y O �' O .p c .N 'i, L' o ir' C O y w y .Y y a C'�..Y N b G s U o •� C U K CD O ^ rn N O E y y y rn y '.-� s. W �, O C no N .b Cb �" �' c N U •�^' ca N K ca °F,° b .� U' ° N U .� O `O • H Q ti ro p i a 3 a> ° _° a b w° v b ti 0 3 u ti a Cl C C ° at C 'o Y " C 1O N O.d O.2 �U G C N d b y a'C •aO '�-• b O U C C 'b C ^C �' ?. o a y o c °' y a > g c i c •� a ,o O lat 0 Ct O ti'a o v 3 y i °" y NC7Fw Ua, c a� a U 'O .� •b �-' ]U FC OQ Fbb U ¢A �� UQ _T y U F QUA °' • w -� N 1 M a O O N W N W iIIRIIffl, I 2 O� "k oo O D o� ;_ a I, . I ' p �� �' ; NRm YJJ^� i,2, Yy ' 4aYW LLON LL041 2p Z x3' � ES y = 9� hiHP ® o N �rM v1 0 o N. � F- O, '.0' o °0 v t o a DO m: fV r LLU. JIt 0 w� r 20 OO o N Q G 2 O n 2 GrRx W ti 3 0� SLL 60' 2 as o U� �L w.f. J G ox 00 r2' Q y a . N K ' cif 2 ' m Nep~ Y�� WWW '- ® .N. LL L f V LLmN Zy 0xa LL'~J '7 C U r �r 283G: wFU O �w mm Nmb, F&OO 00 v a1 U° v F Cl o Q N o I o m •1 i~ O C kd a a O ! x . O b •'r b � Existing RMF-24 Single Family Existing RMF-24 Two Family RMF 24 SINGLE FAMILY " TWO FAMILY RMF 24 _ - - .- - (_ MIN EACH LOT; 0,000 6Q 6f (00 WIDTH X 100 LENGTH) OOTUACKO; FRONT26 BACK 26 SIDE 8 HOUSE SIZE c 2,200 SOFT HOUSE SIZE SETBACKS INCREASE WHEN HEIGHT EXCEEDS 20 FT ci 1 Acre b MIN €ACH LOT = 7,00000 FT (60 WIDTH X 116 L€NGTH) BBTDACKO; PRONT 26 BACK 26 SIDE B HOUSE SIZE =2,934 SQ FT HOUSE SIZE SETBACKS INCREASE WHEN HEIGHT EXCEEDS 20 FT 1 Acre Existing RMF —243+ Family RMF 24 MULTI (3+) FAMILY MIN EAOH LOT= 0,000 00 FT (@0 WIDTH K 100 LENGTH) 68TBACKO; FRONT 20 BACK 25 SIDE 8 HOUSE SIZE: 3,700 SOFT HOUSE SIZE SETBACKS INCREASE WHEN HEIGHT EXCEEDS 20 FT I Acre K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-1 8-06.doc Page 6 4/28/2006 • Existing Slopes: Understanding the topography of the City allows us to clearly delineate where the hillsides exist and which hillsides are most sensitive to development. The perception is that the hillsides are a constant and consistent slope when viewed from afar. On the contrary, hillsides have diverse landforms; some areas are flatter and some are steeper. There are also flat hilltops as opposed to peaks or ridges in many cases. It is important to analyze the hillside topography in order to understand and illustrate the diversity of hillsides so that the City, the public, and developers know which areas require more scrutiny and which hillsides allow more development freedom. The map following indicates the areas of the hillsides where the slopes greater than 15% occur. Areas that are yellow indicate slopes that are moderately sensitive with slopes between 10-15%. Areas that are green are less than 10% slope. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\I-Iillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 7 4/28/2006 Terrain Model Illustrating the Hillside Areas in Fayetteville. (City ofFayetteville 2005) Terrain Model I Z f •fit` 'q i .�. ".\r y I 1, n. 4f' <1 _ _ 'E `V .. AS.i r jj ,d r. atY hits 4/28/2006 Geologic Hazards: Based on a 2001 report by King published in the Journal of Arkansas Academy of Science, much of the Fayetteville area is located on shale strata containing swelling clays. These clays weather rapidly and form expansive soils. These soils swell and shrink depending on the variation of moisture content within the clay. The nature of these soils with their swelling and shrinking can cause heaving, cracking, water seepage and rotting of wood building components. They also cause subsidence in paving areas, excessive runoff after rain events, down -slope creep and the slumping of steep slopes. Although there are many solutions to these problems, they can be very costly to install and remediate after construction. Often the cost of remediation for foundation problems post - construction can exceed 10-25% of the assessed value of the home. The detrimental effects of construction on hazardous soils can be mitigated by property owners' access to a detailed geotechnical report conducted on the building lot. A geotechnical report will give lot owners and builders an understanding of the soil conditions as they relate to the specific property. Mitigation of soil inadequacies can then be explored, which may entail a need for engineered foundations, slip foundations, or other methods or construction techniques that will ensure that structures are built in an appropriate manner. Expansive Soil hazards in the Fayetteville Quadrangle: 1. Lower Fayetteville Shale: Located mostly on the flatter or slightly sloped hillsides, this soil covers an expansive (45.5%) area of the Fayetteville Quadrangle. The weathered clay horizon of this unit ranges from 0 m to 10 m thick and rests on top of the un-weathered shale. Adverse effects associated with construction on the lower Fayetteville shale are dJerential subsidence ofpavements resulting in extreme cracking and unevenness, cracking of foundations and retaining walls, cracking of concrete floors, cracking of concrete driveways, separation of concrete floor seams, rotting of wooden floors and other wooden components of houses, various breaks in masonry above the foundation, runofffrom heavy rain fall, seeps emerging from paved areas, seeps emerging in houses between concrete floor seams, and corrosion of buried pipes. With the expansion and contraction of the lower Fayetteville Shale clays, even areas with very gentle slopes display evidence of creep. (King, 2001). 2. Upper Fayetteville Shale: Located primarily on moderately steep slopes. The upper Fayetteville _ Shale has a much smaller aerial extent (4.7%) than the lower Fayetteville Shale. This soil is susceptible to creep and slumping. The area of contact between the Upper Fayetteville Shale and the Wedington Member is also the location of frequent springs and seeps. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 9 4/28/2006 3. Woolsey Dye: Located on moderate slopes. Hazards are cracking, creep, and slumping. This soil weathers into a soft gummy clay. The area of contact between the Woolsey Dye and the Brentwood Member is the location of frequent springs and seeps. 4. Trace Creek Member: This soil is a black, organic rich shale at the base of the Atoka Formation. The Trace Creek Member has an outcrop extent of 1% in the Fayetteville Quadrangle. The only inhabited area on the Trace Creek Member in the City of Fayetteville is a residential neighborhood on Mount Sequoyah. On exposure, the Trace Creek --Member weathers quickly -into expandable clay subject to slumping. (King, 2001). Conclusions: Paleozoic shale strata are exposed over more than 50% of the Fayetteville Quadrangle. These shale units are known to weather to expansive soils, creating numerous problems for construction. Damage to structures associated with expansion and contraction of weathered clays within these units costs hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to and unsuspecting public. Many of these costs (particularly those related to repair of damaged home or business foundations) are not protected by homeowners' or businesses' insurance. Detailed mapping of these clay -rich strata provides an aid to identifying and mitigating these potential hazards. Knowledge of the areal distribution of hazardous stratigraphy in the Fayetteville Quadrangle may reduce the overall costs of mitigation through incorporation of appropriate engineering solutions during construction yielding improved building design, better building quality, and lowered building repair costs. Thus, geologic mapping of the Fayetteville Quadrangle is relevant and valuable to city planners and developers. (King, 2001). Individual lot owners in the Hillside Overlay District are encouraged to have a footing and foundation plan designed by an Arkansas registered engineer. An engineered solution utilizing proper methods and techniques for mitigating hazardous soils is the property owners' best insurance against future foundation failure. A detailed soils map is available at the City of Fayetteville Planning Office located at 125 W. Mountain St. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 10 4/28/2006 • Tree Canopy: Currently, the undeveloped hillsides in Fayetteville are predominantly covered with trees, and are visually perceived to be predominantly tree covered. This tree cover is highly visible because the hillsides rise three to four hundred feet above the surrounding area and are very visible from many areas within the city. Any tree cover that is removed for development is usually visible and typically brings attention to the project and the development process. Tree cover removal may disrupt the natural ecosystems, change the hydrologic characteristics of the hillsides, and potentially increase the impacts of erosion and soil instability. The following map illustrates the distribution of existing tree canopy, indicated in green. Tree Canopy Cover for the City of Fayetteville, AR. (City of Fayetteville 2003) K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\1-lillside Development BMP Final 4-1 8-06.doc Page 11 4/28/2006 IV. Best Practices A. Subdivision Development • Hillside Overlay District: The Hillside Overlay District has been delineated by analyzing multiple layers of information. Through this analysis, the Hillside Overlay District area has been defined based on analysis of steep slopes, areas of high visibility, location of existing tree canopy, and geologic conditions. The review and testing of the current City codes confirm that many of the current codes are not compatible with creating a responsible development pattern on the hillsides. Since the current codes were created to guide development on flatter ground, the identified Hillside Overlay District provides a more appropriate set of criteria that better responds to the patterns and practices of hillside development. A Hillside Overlay District map was generated using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS).This map was created using a mathematical model developed by the Information Technology Department. A detailed map of the Hillside Overlay Districts is available at the City of Fayetteville Planning Department, 125 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, AR. 72701. 479-575-8267.The following map is for representative purposes only and should not be used as a guide —---for-specific properties located within the City. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 12 4/28/2006 Hillside Overlay District Map (City of Fayetteville. 2006) K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 13 4/28/2006 • Right of Way Design and Road Grading: The primary goal for the design of street right-of-way within the Hillside Overlay District is to minimize its width in order to minimize the amount of grading disturbance and tree removal while still accommodating utility locations, vehicular and pedestrian movements, and / or parking. Streets located within the Hillside Overlay District should have the right-of-way determined as back of curb to back of curb, or back of sidewalk to back of curb. These right-of-ways should be comprised of the following components: 1. All streets should be either 22 or 24 feet back of curb to back of curb. 2. Minimum sidewalk width of 5 feet. 3. Sidewalks located only on one side in steeper more constrained areas. 4. Storm drainage with on street storm drains in areas with sidewalks. 5. Drainage swales in areas, on uphill side, where sidewalks do not exist. 6. Building setbacks measured from back of curb / back of sidewalk (ROW). 7. Water, sewer, and storm -water utilities located within the ROW and they are encouraged to be located under the roadway. These two diagrams illustrate the amount of disturbance in the right-of-way which can be minimized with a retaining wall or plinth located on the upslope side of the street. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 14 4/28/2006 • Location of Utilities: zu 1 - (&o—idrdKli r 20% SLOPE Illustration of a 1:1 tieback slope greatly reducing the amount of disturbance. Roadway Grading: Steeper tie -back slopes and roads created in all cut, rather than a cut -fill balance, promote better screening by preserving the trees on the downhill side and utilizing less compaction of fill material. It is the intent to accommodate utilities in a manner that is sensitive to the environmental constraints in the hillside overlay district. Utilities should be installed within a 15 foot utility easement measured from back of curb or back of sidewalk (right-of-way). Water and Sewer service should be located under the street. No utilities or easements should be allowed on the rear of lots. • Community Pattern: The revised Unified Development Code contains guidelines that encourage the following specific design parameters that help create a -development -pattern -- that responds better to hillside development. ■ Encourage streets to be parallel to the slope. ■ Lot depth should be oriented to the slope and not the street. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 15 4/28/2006 • Homes should be designed so that the structure retains or takes up slope. • Discourage "pad grading" and minimize site grading. S Reduced front building setbacks encourage structures to locate near the street. ■ Visual screening through the use of tree preservation. Diagram Illustrating Community Pattern (City ofFayettevi/le 2005) • Hillside Street Cross — Sections: The City has adopted two street cross - sections for use within the Hillside Overlay District. These cross -sections are the result of numerous meetings between Planning and Engineering Staff, Developers, and Utility Companies. These cross sections have been developed in an effort to minimize hillside disturbance while meeting the requirements for utility separation and convenience for future utility service and repair. A variety of appropriate street cross sections should be allowed within the Hillside Overlay District with approval of the-P.lanning Commission...___.__.. Developers and engineers are encouraged to design street cross sections that should minimize land disturbance while providing adequate vehicular access. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 16 4/28/2006 Local streets in the Hillside Overlay District (HOD) may use the following street cross-section. Designed to carry limited traffic through the neighborhood, these local streets have 9.5 foot travel lanes with an overall back of curb to back of curb dimension of 22 feet. The addition of a 5 foot sidewalk adjacent to the street produces an overall right-of-way dimension of 27 feet. The narrow overall right-of-way dimension reduces the grading necessary to locate a street in the right-of-way. Utilities are located within a 15 foot utility easement located on both sides of the street. Utilities located on the upslope slide of the street are water, gas, and storm -drainage. Down -slope utilities are sewer, telephone, cable, and electricity. By locating the utilities underground and at the street, developers avoid the removal of tree canopy for utility easements located on the rear of the lots. Utilities are encouraged to locate as close to the right-of-way as possible to minimize disturbance within the utility easements. 5. . .t- 22' TO 5 1 i-4CROWN oLi VARIES 1� VARIES /` 38' wit CR DRMHAGE 22'•BTB STREETS 8SE PIPE NW K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\}-lillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 17 4/28/2006 Collector streets in the Hillside Overlay District (HOD) may use the following street cross-section. Designed to collect traffic from the neighborhood and disperse it to minor arterials, collector streets in the HOD have 12.5 foot travel lanes with an overall back of curb to back of curb dimension of 28 feet. The addition of a 5 foot sidewalk adjacent to the street, required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, produces an overall right-of-way dimension of 33 feet. The narrow overall right-of-way dimension reduces the grading necessary to locate a street in the right-of-way. Utilities are located within a 15 foot utility easement located on both sides of the street. Utilities located on the upslope slide of the street are water, gas, and storm -drainage. Down -slope utilities are sewer, telephone, cable, and electricity. By locating the utilities underground and at the street, developers avoid the removal of tree canopy for utility easements located on the rear of the lots. Utilities are encouraged to locate as close to the right-of-way as possible to minimize disturbance within the utility easements. I 0E• - 33' R/W B T0B 5' L6, r6CR0WN .. -.... :.. • 42' M1N VARIES VARIES 1B' 36' Alit q2• oL 1B' aPs r PIP t8' . 4' PIP[ 6" PIPE III 7 C ELEC VRAINACE 28' BIB STREETS a PIPE PIPE, NR K:\lilillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 18 4/28/2006 • Tree Preservation — Subdivision Development: It is the intent of the revised guidelines to preserve tree canopy on hillsides and ridgelines. The purpose of the tree preservation guidelines is for new development to accomplish the following: Encourage tree preservation areas on the rear of lots so that they will screen the home -site from the valley view - shed. Distribute tree preservation and undisturbed area throughout the entire community not just in un- developable or unseen areas. Allow selective thinning to enhance view potential. Locate tree preservation in areas on ridgelines to preserve ridge profiles and screen hilltop development. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 19 4/28/2006 Only the existing tree canopy area within the Hillside Overlay District is subject to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. During subdivision platting (lot development) the developer must leave a minimum of 60% of the subdivision area undisturbed. A total of 40% of the subdivision area may be disturbed for road construction and utility placement. • An official City map clearly delineates the Hillside Overlay District. Summary of Tree Preservation Recommendations for Subdivision Development: All new construction and development in the Hillside Overlay District, including single and two family residences, should comply with the Tree Preservation Ordinance which requires site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation plan with the preliminary plat or site plan. Single and two family residential structures should submit a tree preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining a building permit. There should be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal until a tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measures at the site are inspected and approved. Root Mtn. viewed from 1-540 looking north. K:\Iiillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 20 4/28/2006 • Cluster Development: Cluster development is an option that allows flexibility in lot size with development located in areas with the least amount of slope. A developer in the Hillside Overlay District may request through the PZD process a cluster development project. Cluster development patterns should be utilized to: ■ Developers who request development rights vested through the Planned Zoning District ordinance are encouraged to use the Hillside Best Management Practices Manual in order to guide their development. ■ Encourage development to occur in areas and on lands with less slope. ■ Encourage more open space and tree preservation. • Facilitate the transfer of the tree preservation requirements for single lots to a larger contiguous open space adjacent to the development. ■ Minimize the view of development from the valley below with the preservation of tree cover within the public open spaces. Undisturbed Curvlinear a Riparian Streets`` � Area K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 21 4/28/2006 Clustered Development Lot Frontage and Orientation: In order to accommodate hillside development and still retain the existing zoning and density, the zoning code will be amended in regards to lot width requirements. The study of the existing zoning code concluded the following: Allow width and depth to respond better to existing grade to enhance tree preservation and create less site disturbance by slightly reducing the lot width requirement and increasing the lot depth. Narrowed Frontage Increased Depth Allow deeper side of lots to run perpendicular to grade regardless of street orientation. Lot Orientation with the Grade Encourage developers and builders to retain the tree canopy on the downhill side of the lot. Tree Canopy Preservation on the Downhill Side With approval, allow flexibility in lot width and tree preservation to facilitate creative hillside development. Flexibility in Lot Design with Approval B. Lot Development • Site Planning: Due to the unique constraints of constructing homes on hillsides, a great deal of site planning should be conducted prior to construction. Ultimately, it is the goal of this overlay district to minimize the amount of disturbance on hillsides; property owners should be encouraged to choose appropriate architecture and home plans that will complement and work in K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 22 4/28/2006 conjunction with the slope. Home plans purchased in a pattern book are typically designed without regard to slope and therefore their use should be minimized and discouraged. In general, this Hillside Best Management Practices Manual encourages the following recommendations with regard to home site planning: ■ Encourage streets to be located parallel to the slope. ■ Lot depth should be oriented perpendicular to the slope and not the street. ■ Homes should be designed so that they take up the grade with the foundation (walk -out basements and stem -walls) ■ Pad grading should be discouraged by implementing height limitations measured from the historic grade. ■ Front Setbacks will be reduced to allow structures to locate closer to the street. ■ Visual screening should be . encouraged with the use of tree preservation on the rear of the lot. • Home Placement and Building Setbacks: It is encouraged when grading a home site that the structure of the home be used to retain grade by having multiple stories or a "walk -out" lower floor. The following example illustrates the 127 feet of disturbance necessary to locate a 2,400 sq. ft. single story home on a graded pad. wr wr wr - we va. cur 127 feet of Disturbance By simply taking up the grade with an excavated foundation and walk -out first floor the amount of disturbance is reduced to 79 feet in the following illustration. 79 feet of Disturbance Down -slope Home Placement: Fayetteville has numerous examples of residential hillside development that uses appropriate construction methods to take up grade or minimize the impact of residences on the down -slope side of the street. Home placed on piers or stilts in order to minimize disturbance associated with pad development. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 23 4/28/2006 • .![_,- 'v;.Y� , ie i�'T!. rr- ., fl� !.-�-f • - v i. ♦ t 1. y' Vil. �. - . ii , [ � I ' Y T� 'T / II / //"I I ♦/' I I' I I I at I fr 1 i I 1 1 1 1 / I w p 1- Upslope Home Placement: Fayetteville has numerous examples of upslope hillside development that uses appropriate construction methods to take up grade or minimize the impact of residences on the slope. Homes located on the upslope side of the street can take up grade by excavating the foundation into the hillside, or by setting the home on a plinth. The following are Fayetteville examples of appropriate upslope home site design and placement. retaining wall here in front takes up about 6 feet ofgrade at the street. The tie -back slope shown here is attractively landscaped at the sidewalk Existing hillside development in Fayetteville addresses residence parking in many sensitive ways. Both, upslope and down -slope homes often locate the garage in the basement or the lowest level of the home. Detached garages and on -street parking are also commonly used as a functional means to accommodate vehicles. grade and hides the car storage downstairs. Both of these photos illustrate the functionality of placing the garage in the basement or foundation of the home. visible from the street. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 25 4/28/2006 Parking adjacent to the street. Detached garages are commonly used in the historic areas of the city. Utilizing a detached garage allows the home owner to place it in a location that minimizes site disturbance. Located adjacent to the street they can be "cut" into the hillside. The following photos illustrate the flexibility in the placement and design of detached garages. Garage cut into the slope at the street grade. The functionality of a detached garage lends itself to creating interesting outdoor spaces. Hardscape elements, such as paths, steps, and natural stone retaining walls, along with plant materials, can link the outbuildings to the main structure. down -slope side. This detached garage has a functional second story space. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 26 4/28/2006 Terrain — Adaptive Architecture: By building with the slope the tree canopy is preserved and site disturbance is minimized. The following diagram illustrates this point, and the picture to the right demonstrates an example here in Fayetteville. Terrain -Adaptive Architecture Structure steps down the slope and minin¢es distubance. eruoes and Luaer Lbnaopnp Mcul 9Ms: So4tavn for Cerw0Van dfl swkns f991 minimizes disturbance. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 27 4/28/2006 Home placement on the down -slope side of the street can be achieved with minimal site disturbance by taking up the grade with the structure. Reduced front building setbacks also reduce disturbance by permitting the home to be placed close to the street. Coss Section of a Downhill Home Unit design takes up grade within the building and provides easy on -street access. &and" and Loser Devebpvp DRAM Stlm: So aaons Mr Dn op" and Bu om toot An up -slope example of a home that takes up grade in the foundation of the structure. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 28 4/28/2006 Home placement on the upslope side of the street can achieve minimal disturbance by excavating the lowest floor of the dwelling into the slope. The reduction in the front building setback allows the home to be sited close to the street with the tree canopy preserved upslope. Cross Section of an Uphill Home Cut into Brandes and Loner Deve!o i g DHicult Soles Solutws for Developers and Builders. 199 Note the side loaded garages located under the second story of this home. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 29 4/28/2006 With terrain adaptive architecture located on both the upslope and down slope sides of the street a uniform street pattern can then develop as shown in the example below. Home site placement should also take into consideration the orientation of the slope of the roof of the home. Generally, the slope of the roof should go with the direction of the hillside slope. This minimizes the visibility of the structure from below, and with natural colored roofing materials it can help the structure actually blend into the hillside. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 30 4/28/2006 • Building Setbacks: An integral element of the Hillside Overlay District regulations is the reduction in the front building setback dimension. Land located within the Hillside Overlay District should have a minimum front building setback of 15 feet which will also be used as a utility easement. The reduced front setback will allow, and hopefully encourage, builders and lot owners to locate structures close to the street. Side setbacks will be reduced to 5 feet. Ultimately, this will reduce the amount of disturbance on a lot. from the back of the curb. MM IL I - This home is setback approxUnai from the back of curb. • Tree Preservation: All land located within the Hillside Overlay District is required to meet the provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance regardless of lot size. At the time of development, a tree preservation plan must be submitted and meet the approval of the Landscape Administrator. Lots in the Hillside Overlay District should be required to preserve a minimum of 30% of the existing tree canopy. The preservation of trees at the rear of lots is optimal, and should be encouraged on the lot, because it will screen the development from the valley below. The reduction in the lot width requirement allows the developer to plat lots with increased depth. These longer and skinnier lots, along with street located utilities, enable lot owners and builders to preserve tree canopy in the rear of the lot. For example, a 10,000 sq. ft. lot can have a street width of 60 feet and a depth of 166 feet. If the lot consisted of 100% tree canopy, the lot owner could meet the 30% tree canopy preservation by leaving the 46' at the rear of the lot undisturbed. sew• The Tree Preservation Area is shown above highlighted in green (46). K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 31 4/28/2006 With the streets located parallel to the slope the tree canopy that is preserved will screen the homes as viewed from below. The buildable area of the lot is not affected due to the reduction in the front building setback line. Ultimately, the overall development pattern should look something like this: K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 32 4/28/2006 When tree preservation is accomplished in the building zone, lot owners and builders can preserve a substantially larger portion of the overall tree canopy on the hillside as illustrated below. The area highlighted in green (46') is the minimum required tree canopy preservation (30% of the lot), and the slightly faded trees are additional canopy that is preserved due to careful site design. The final build -out in the following example illustrates a minimum of 92 feet of undisturbed tree canopy located on the rear of these lots. 92' Undistrubed Area K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 33 4/28/2006 Home placement on the upslope side of the street can achieve minimal disturbance by excavating the lowest floor of the dwelling into the slope. The reduction in the front building setback allows the home to be sited close to the street with the tree canopy preserved upslope. Cross Section of an Uphill Home Cut into Brandes and Loner Deve!o i g DHicult Soles Solutws for Developers and Builders. 199 Note the side loaded garages located under the second story of this home. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 29 4/28/2006 With terrain adaptive architecture located on both the upslope and down slope sides of the street a uniform street pattern can then develop as shown in the example below. Home site placement should also take into consideration the orientation of the slope of the roof of the home. Generally, the slope of the roof should go with the direction of the hillside slope. This minimizes the visibility of the structure from below, and with natural colored roofing materials it can help the structure actually blend into the hillside. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 30 4/28/2006 • Building Setbacks: An integral element of the Hillside Overlay District regulations is the reduction in the front building setback dimension. Land located within the Hillside Overlay District should have a minimum front building setback of 15 feet which will also be used as a utility easement. The reduced front setback will allow, and hopefully encourage, builders and lot owners to locate structures close to the street. Side setbacks will be reduced to 5 feet. Ultimately, this will reduce the amount of disturbance on a lot. from the back of the curb. MM IL I - This home is setback approxUnai from the back of curb. • Tree Preservation: All land located within the Hillside Overlay District is required to meet the provisions of the Tree Preservation Ordinance regardless of lot size. At the time of development, a tree preservation plan must be submitted and meet the approval of the Landscape Administrator. Lots in the Hillside Overlay District should be required to preserve a minimum of 30% of the existing tree canopy. The preservation of trees at the rear of lots is optimal, and should be encouraged on the lot, because it will screen the development from the valley below. The reduction in the lot width requirement allows the developer to plat lots with increased depth. These longer and skinnier lots, along with street located utilities, enable lot owners and builders to preserve tree canopy in the rear of the lot. For example, a 10,000 sq. ft. lot can have a street width of 60 feet and a depth of 166 feet. If the lot consisted of 100% tree canopy, the lot owner could meet the 30% tree canopy preservation by leaving the 46' at the rear of the lot undisturbed. sew• The Tree Preservation Area is shown above highlighted in green (46). K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 31 4/28/2006 With the streets located parallel to the slope the tree canopy that is preserved will screen the homes as viewed from below. The buildable area of the lot is not affected due to the reduction in the front building setback line. Ultimately, the overall development pattern should look something like this: K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 32 4/28/2006 When tree preservation is accomplished in the building zone, lot owners and builders can preserve a substantially larger portion of the overall tree canopy on the hillside as illustrated below. The area highlighted in green (46') is the minimum required tree canopy preservation (30% of the lot), and the slightly faded trees are additional canopy that is preserved due to careful site design. The final build -out in the following example illustrates a minimum of 92 feet of undisturbed tree canopy located on the rear of these lots. 92' Undistrubed Area K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 33 4/28/2006 • Measuring Building Height: Measuring building height on hillside has always been left to interpretation. As a best practice to discourage pad development, buildings should be measured from the lowest point of the structure, prior to development, at the historic grade to the highest point of the structure. Building height should follow the following guidelines: ■ A maximum building height of 60 feet is allowed for single-family and two-family structures. ■ A maximum building height of 60 feet for 3+ story multi -family development. ■ Homes set into the grade can achieve 4 stories on the down -slope side of the street and 3 stories on the upslope side due to the lot not being padded. ■ If padded, then the height of the building is reduced and measured from the historic (pre -development) grade with a maximum of two stories. The following illustration shows how building heights will be measured in the Hillside Overlay District. Building height should be measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 34 4/28/2006 • Parking: Parking for residents living in hillside developments creates challenges that are not encountered with flat land development. Steeply sloped lots can make traditional front-end loaded garages impractical. Historically, developed areas of Fayetteville utilized practical methods for the parking of vehicles. On -Street Parking: In many residential areas of the City, on -street parking is used as the primary parking for residents. Homes that are built on traditionally sized lots (50' wide) have little room to run a driveway to one side of the dwelling. Parking for down -slope homes is usually on or adjacent to the street. Parking areas parallel and adjacent to the street are used effectively on narrow streets to remove the parked vehicle from the traffic lane. intersection in Eureka Springs. Note the on -street parking. Parking adjacent to the curb on the down - slope side of the street. Off -Street Parking: Off-street parking can be accommodated with an 18 foot setback from the street or sidewalk for head -in parking. Tucked -under garages are an efficient parking solution for both up - slope and down -slope homes. Finally, detached garages allow for interesting lot and landscape layouts. Multi -Family Residential Parking: Parking for multi -family residential units are encouraged to be located in the lowest floor of the structure in order to reduce tree canopy removal for surface parking areas. Surface parking should be encouraged to step down the hillside with 60' wide parking areas running parallel to the slope, grade transition areas, and undisturbed tree canopy preservation areas located in between parking pads. The cross section provided on the next page should be used as a guide for developers of Multi -family Residential and Commercial properties. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 35 4/28/2006 W0 PARRP10 LOT IRtt VRESERVAIION DOWNNLL Tcrr PRCSCRVATION LONG u 'T y/{Aj1{yf o' S0pe LI ALDNO CNVCLO'E a _ ,DmFl ea' n� waa, D r w+l. n_oa p-0. • -N.YRn 0 r rota AMww into eaRp £I I F Fltfam giriwM*awte p y@KtD Cross section illustrating multi -family and commercial parking lot, street, and structure layout to minimize disturbance and tree canopy removal. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 36 4/28/2006 • Physical Alteration of Land - Grading Ordinance: ■ Grading Recommendations: Single-family and two-family lots within the Hillside Overlay District will be required to obtain a grading permit. All new development, regardless of size should comply with the grading ordinance. If a parcel of land is bisected by the Hillside Overlay District boundary line, only those areas that fall within the Hillside Overlay District will be required to comply. Site plan approval is required for any development located within the Hillside Overlay District prior to any development activity. Builders are allowed to file jointly on contiguous parcels or subdivisions as long as erosion control and protective measures are in place until project completion. A minimum of 25% of the slope tie- backs for roads and residential lots should be re -vegetated pursuant to the landscape manual. • Erosion Control Methods and Green Storm -water Alternatives: Reducing storm -water runoff during construction: A substantial amount of storm -water erosion occurs during the construction phase. At a minimum all new development projects in the Hillside Overlay District should follow the following guidelines: Minimize exposure to denuded soil from rain water and snow melt by establishing vegetation as soon as possible. 2. Sediment collection devices such as basins, inlet filters, and perimeter silt fences should be used to minimize soil erosion. The retention of vegetative buffers adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas or stream corridors is encouraged. 4. Equipment and hazardous materials should be stored correctly to prevent contamination from leakages. Fayetteville. Reducing Storm -Water Runoff after Construction: Site planning considerations prior to development can greatly reduce the K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 37 4/28/2006 amount of storm -water problems post - development. The following guidelines encourage storm -water best practices: 1. Reduce impervious surfaces that prevent rain water from soaking into the ground. 2. Retain the natural landscape in order to soak up, store, and evaporate storm water. 3. Detain and infiltrate storm water to allow it to soak into the ground or release more slowly into the storm water systems. 4. Remove the pollutants before they have a chance to enter the storm water system. Storm water detention basin in Fayetteville. ■ Green Storm Water Alternatives: Green storm water alternatives are designed to utilize best management practices that avoid: 1. Increasing runoff volume and speed which may lead to flooding and erosion. 2. Decreasing the ability of water to recharge into the ground. 3. Increasing storm water runoff temperatures through the overuse of impervious surfaces. 4. Increasing the amounts of pollutants from motor oil, fertilizers and pesticides, and sediments entering natural water systems. This split driveway with a grass median reduces the amount of impervious pavement surface. The following site design options provide alternatives to conventional storm water practices. Best management practices that detain, retain, and filter runoff before it enters the natural water system are the following: K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 38 4/28/2006 1. Direct rooftop runoff to bio-retention areas, vegetative swales, soakage trenches, dry wells, and French drains for dispersal. Vegetative Swale Planting Soil Hydroseed Subgrade Should be Similar to Native Sods Swale Bed 2 to 10 feet Anti - Erosion Mesh Vegetative swale with eventual ground infiltration of storm water. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 39 4/28/2006 Concrete Lip to the Edge of the Pavement Structue Vegetative Swale with Filtration and Outflow Hydroseed _ I Swale Bed 2 to 10 feet - Y _J Planting Soil Sand Backfill Gravel Drain Rock Concrete Lip to the Edge of the Pavement Structue Filter Fabric Perforated PVC Pipe to Storm Water Outflow Vegetative swale with a sand filtration layer to designed to capture pollutants from storm water before being drained off -site. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-I8-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 40 4/28/2006 Bio-swale located in Seattle Washington. Bio-swales are an effective storm water best management tool for areas in the Hillside Overlay District with minimal slope, usually near the toe of the slope or in riparian areas. The use of plant material is highly effective in reducing the amount of pollutants eventually entering the stream and river systems. Careful site considerations include: slope, soil mitigation, and appropriate vegetative materials. 2. Encourage the use of rain barrels or cisterns for the collection of storm water for later irrigation purposes. 3. Utilize subsurface infiltration practices such as sand filters and vegetated infiltration basins to retain and filter storm water runoff. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 41 4/28/2006 4. Provide storm water treatment in parking lots by using bio- retention areas and filter strips or bio-swales. 5. Encourage the use of pervious pavers for driveways and patios. ` F S f I.. _I/I I. - An example ofpervious pavers used in a sidewalk application. Pervious pavers are especially effective in moderate vehicular traffic areas such as driveways and parking areas. Their use is highly recommended for home site design. They can be used to attractively construct patios, sidewalks, and driveways. Interlocking pervious pavers with sand joints.. S U. If surface parking for multi -family residential development are proposed in the Hillside Overlay District, it is strongly recommended that a Hybrid Parking Lot design is utilized in order to maximize storm water filtration. A Hybrid Parking Lot is constructed with hard surface, concrete or asphalt travel lanes, and pervious parking stalls. Used in conjunction with a bio-swale to collect run-off, they are highly effective in filtering and absorbing storm water. K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 42 4/28/2006 5. Bibliography of Sources and Resources - This Hillside Best Management Practices Manual was compiled with materials gathered from various sources and •- _ _ _ - individuals. The following sources contributed to this __________ ___ manual: - - - Design Workshop.14 South Pack Square, Suite 405 _ - " Asheville, North Carolina. 828-225-6901 American Planning Association, Robert Olshansky, "Planning for Hillside Development". PAS Report Number An example of a "Hybrid Parking Lot'. 466. 1996. impervious aisle permeablesw1h Diagram of a "Hybrid Parking Lot". King and Boss, "Geologic Hazards Associated with Shale Strata and Swelling Clays within Fayetteville Quadrangle, Washington County, Arkansas". Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 55, 2001. H2 Engineering. Street Cross -Sections. Fayetteville, Arkansas K:\Hillside-Hilltop Ordinance Adopted By CC 4-18-06\Hillside Development BMP Final 4-18-06.doc Page 43 4/28/2006 P From: Susan Thomas To: bthiel@cox.net; Cook', 'Kyle; ferrell, bobby; Jordan, Lioneld; Lucas, Shirley; Marr, Don; Rhoads, Robert K. Date: 4.21.06 5:06PM Subject: Mayoral Veto Please find three items attached: 1. Memo to Council from Mayor Coody re: vetoing of three provisions of the hillside ordinance 2. March 3, 2006 memo from Kit Williams and Mayor Coody to Council 3. One map of soil suitability and one map pinpointing locations of foundation problems. Copies of all three items have already been placed in your boxes. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks. Susan B. Thomas, Ph.D. Public Information and Policy Advisor City of Fayetteville 113 W. Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 479-575-8330 CC: Conklin, Tim; Dumas, Gary; Olson, Leif; Pate, Jeremy; Smith, Sondra KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY a �--/ DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY L ` — : DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: City Council THROUGH: Mayor FROM: Kit William; DATE: March 3, 201 RE: Possible amendments to Hillside Ordinance Attached please find the Hillside Ordinance with possible amendments that would make the ordinance more legally defensible, clear up ambiguities, encourage PZD development on hillsides, and remove restrictions on home buyers (not home builders). Proposed Amendments and Clarifications (1) Title and Whereas Clauses Amended to make consistent and clear that the Hillside Best Practices Manual is a GUIDE (like the 2020 Plan) rather than an ordinance requirement. (2) Hillside Overlay District definition Although "Hilltop" had been defined in the ordinance, it was never again mentioned throughout the ordinance. "Hilltop" was not included within the definition of "Hillside Overlay District". I do not think any regulation of hilltops exists as the ordinance is currently written. Since I am concerned that a Court could reject treating and regulating relatively level land as if it were steep simply because it is near, or above steep land, the lack of "Hilltop" regulation in the current ordinance is a legal plus. However, I know the intent of the Planning Commission (on a 5 to 4 vote) and the Ordinance Review Committee was to regulate "Hilltops". Therefore, I have redrafted Hillside Overlay District definition to include "the adjoining land uphill from the 15% slope that contains at least 8% slope as shown on the Hillside Overlay District map." This language mirrors the language further in the definition that would allow an owner of a parcel within the Hillside Overlay District with an average slope of less than 8% to opt out of the District. However, if the developer or builder wanted to take advantage of the reduced street widths, right of ways, setbacks, lot widths, bulk and area requirements, etc. of the Hillside Ordinance, the developer/builder could not exempt the less than 8% slope land from the District. The new definition of Hillside Overlay district clearly requires that a land owner with fairly level land must abide by all terms of the ordinance or not to receive any of its beneficial aspects. This voluntary inclusion by the landowner/developer in order to use more appropriate (and less expensive) hillside development practices removes the legal problems of forcing an owner of relatively level lands to follow all hillside regulations. When the remainder of the ordinance and exhibits refer to lands within the Hillside Overlay District, any land which has been exempted by its owner because it is less than 8% slope shall be excluded from the District and from all provisions of the Hillside Ordinance and must meet all normal development requirements. (3) Height limitations (Exhibit "A') Valid points have been made about the need to protect adjoining homes from exceedingly tall residential structures. RSF-4 currently has NO height limitation at all. However, legal considerations favor making height restrictions uniform throughout the city. No matter whether one lives in the valley or on a hill, an eighty foot house next door could block the view, sunlight, air flow and lessen the enjoyment of the home. Although the Hillside Ordinance had proposed a 60 foot height limitation, that appears too high in many residential situations. I propose a height limitation of 42 feet for residential developments city wide (not including C-3 and C-4 or the Downtown District). Because taller residential buildings could be appropriate .in some areas (existing nearby tall buildings, large lots where the tall building could be set back to lessen impact on neighboring structures, etc.), the height restriction could be increased through a conditional use. That way the neighbors could express their opinions and , appropriate conditions could be placed to protect neighbors' interests. I also placed a "grandfathering" sentence. in so that no existing tall building would be considered a nonconforming use. (4) Tree Preservation & Protection, Chapter 167 of the U.D.C. (Exhibit "B") (A) Applicability. This original section was the "great compromise" reached by the Tree Ordinance Committee between the developers/home builders and the preservationists. The compromise was to exempt a person building "one single-family dwelling unit or duplex, ... from the provisions of this section." Of course, the City Council is not legally bound to honor any previous compromise or agreement if they wish to revise this ordinance. However, the newly proposed language leaves an enterprising home builder a way to finesse the Tree Ordinance. 2 Let's look at the development that created great controversy and litigation against the City in 2002. That developer bulldozed all the trees off two adjoining half acre lots in preparation to build twelve duplexes. (RMF-24 zoning) Because he was treating the two lots as one, Tim Conklin required he go forward as a large scale development (one acre or more development). He was eventually denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He would likely have won his appeal and been granted the right to build those duplexes, but he dropped his appeal prior to trial. Because the two lots have been "developed" as that term is broadly defined in the U.D.C., a developer would not have to do a tree preservation plan on one of those half acre lots as long as he chose to build more than one duplex or house. As it now reads, only if he chooses to build a single home or duplex would he have to abide by the tree preservation ordinance. I have redrafted this to close that unintended loophole and to exclude land exempt from the Hillside District. Because of the numerous advantages of developing according to the Hillside District's reduced setbacks, lot widths, street right of ways, I doubt that many developers will choose to opt out of the Hillside District even if the land if fairly level. (1) Hillside Overlay District Also in Exhibit B is what appears to be the new subsection (A) (1) Hillside Overlay District. Apparently it replaces the old (A) (1) since the old language is not reprinted as in the introductory language of (A) immediately above. If so, we have just removed the applicability of the Tree Ordinance to subdivisions and large scale developments in all non -hillside locations. This has been remedied by simply renumbering this paragraph "(5)". With all the litigation I must do, I simply have not had enough time to go through the Planning Department's proposed Hillside Ordinance revision's of the U.D.C. line by line prior to its submission to the City Council to ensure we do not create unintended consequences that could be confusing or even damaging. I urge the City Council continue to undertake a very careful review of every proposed change. Table I Minimum Canopy Requirements Rather than a blanket 30% level for all Hillside Overlay District land, I recommend a uniform increase of 5% for all districts within the Hillside Overlay District. This would mean that most residential single family zones would be increased to 30%, multifamily to 25% and C-2 to 20%. By increasing all "districts by 5%, the City protects significantly more trees, but still recognizes legitimate distinctions between single family, multifamily and commercial zones. 3 (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions 3. Hillside Overlay District. The following sentence was removed from subsection (a): "Pending approval, the proposed pattern of development shall be required to minimize the view of the new development from the valley below with the preservation of tree cover." I have concerns about Constitutional Equal Protection arguments if this ordinance favors persons in the valleys over persons on hillsides for purely aesthetic, "viewing" purposes. Increasing tree canopy requirements and requiring even single home builders to preserve tree canopy in the Hillside District is properly supported by drainage and stormwater concerns. This additional tree canopy will improve aesthetics without favoring citizens in the valley over citizens on the hills. The sentence that was suggested to be removed is not really necessary and could cause legal problems. (b) (Single family home owners) Although home builders should have to preserve tree canopy, once the home has been finished and its owner has received the Certificate of Occupancy, the home owners should pretty much be allowed to manage their home's yard as they desire without having to come to City Hall for permission. Grading on 15% slopes (even in someone's backyard) would still require permits, but a homeowner could cut down brush and trees without City Hail approval. PZD tree easements in common greenspace areas would remain permanently enforceable by the City. §169.06 (1) Request for on -site mitigation: We added "with appropriate tree species" to subsection (C) and removed it from § 169.06 (F) Erosion and Sedimentation control. 5. Physical Alteration of Land (Exhibit "C") This proposed amendment makes the City's Landscape Manual and Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual mandatory. It is probably preferable to use "should" rather than "shall" at least initially. If these manuals are ignored with bad development results, then the City Council would have good reasons for amending this to make these manuals mandatory. Therefore, the proposed amendment changes "shall" in §169.02 (D) and 169.04 (A) and (D) to "should". Only one of the "shall"s in (F) should be changed to "should". The second "shall" requiring meeting all revegetation requirements prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy should remain. Similarly the third "shall" regarding replanting trees in Cut and Fill tie -back slopes should also remain, No change in current ordinance and table had been proposed so these were removed. New requirements for minimum undisturbed land in the Hillside Overlay District for Large Scale Developments and lot development were stated by sentence rather than by the revised table and called for matching the minimum required tree canopy of each zoning district in the Hillside Overlay District. §169.08 Grading Plan submitted needs to have "Hillside Overlay District" added before "shall" in the new language. 6. Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control (Exhibit "D") The newly proposed permit requirements for one single family or duplex construction was removed as unnecessary and very costly on advice of the City Engineer. 7. Building Regulations (Exhibit "F') §173.02 (B) (2) (b) Design requirements for buildings located within the Hillside Overlay District. Since there is no (ii), there should be no (i) subsection. The proposed language should be replaced with the following: "Developers of preliminary plats and large scale developments shall conduct a geotechnical analysis of the soils and subsoils of their property to determine if a typical spread footing foundation is warranted based on the type of soil present on site. If not, a notation on the final plat or easement plat shall be placed requiring all future structures within the development have foundation plans designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or Architect. Unoccupied, single story buildings less than 120 square feet are exempt from any foundation requirements". This requirement allows more efficient use construction normally requires some geotechnical discovers the "bad soil" conditions where normal properly engineered foundation would then be r problem soils, unnecessary (and expensive) en required. Conclusion of engineering analysis time as street analysis. If the developer's engineer foundations would be problematic, a squired. In those areas without the ;ineered foundations would not be There remains the major issue of whether a PZD must follow these new requirements, especially increased tree preservation areas and land disturbance areas. PZDs normally can vary many development criteria, but they have been held to the strictest tree preservation standards. Since the City Council must approve all terms and conditions of any PZD, allowing PZDs to vary all development requirements (including preserving tree canopy and avoiding ground disturbance) would allow the City Council to look at all aspects of a PZD to determine whether it should be approved as a desirable project. This would be especially important to the SouthPass project since much of its cleared, flat land will be designated as the City's Community Park while much of its residential development must therefore, be relegated to forested hillside. No one suggests that development rules or the Tree Ordinance be disregarded, but minimum percentages (30% for residential development on the Hillside District) might be lessened in light of this new project with hundreds of acres of park land, extensive trails, etc. If you wish to give yourself the power to approve a PZD even if it does not strictly meet the Hillside District's requirements, I will draft such language. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT HILLSIDE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION, ESTABLISH A HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING BOUNDARY AND MAP, AND APPROVING THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AS A GUIDE WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville values its unique hillsides; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is committed to having appropriate and desirable development occur on the hillsides; and WHEREAS, developments that are compatible and harmonious with the hillsides, do not have a negative effect upon the City; and WHEREAS, the hillside best management practices -manual will provide a guide for the development on the City's hillsides. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That Chapter 161: Zoning Districts is amended by inserting Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections; §161.07 RSF-4, §161.13 RMF — 24, and §161.15 R -O, a copy of which marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §167.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3: That Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections §169.02, §169.03, §169.04, §169.06, §169.07, §169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 4: That Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections §170.01, §170.36, §170.05, §170.10, a copy of which marked Exhibit "D" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 5: That Chapter 172: Parking and Loading is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section § 172.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "E" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 6: That Chapter 173: Building Regulations is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §173.02, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "F" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 7: That Chapter 151: Definitions are amended by adding the following definitions: Cistern. (Stormwater) Roof water management devices that provide retention storage volume in above or underground storage tanks. They are typically used for water supply. Cisterns are generally larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10,000 gallons. On -lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an opportunity for water conservation and the possibility of reducing water utility costs. Green Roof. (Stormwater) Elevated roof surfaces that are entirely covered with a thin soil and vegetation layer. Height. (Hillside Overlay District) Building height shall be measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. Hillside Development Manual. (Zoning) The best management practices document that supplements the Hillside Overlay District and illustrates desirable hillside development practices. Hillside Overlay District. (Zoning) Lands located within the City that generally have slopes in excess of 15 % and the adjoining land uphill from the 15% slope that contains at least 8% slope as shown on the Hillside Overlay District map. Parcels located within the Hillside Overlay District with an average slope less than 8% may be exempted by the owner by submitting a written request and a survey acceptable and to be approved by the Engineering Division certifying that the parcel has an average slope of less than 8%. This parcel shall then be shown on the Hillside Overlay District map as removed and exempt. None of the reduced right of way, setbacks, lot width, or other development reductions of the Hillside Overlay District shall be available to an exempted parcel. The development regulations in the Hillside Overlay District supercede the underlying zoning district. Historic grade. (Zoning) The natural grade of the land prior to any development. Parking Pad. (Hillside Overlay District) Parking areas for multi -family residential, residential office, and commercial use in the Hillside Overlay District. Permeable Pavers. (Stormwater) A solid surface that allows natural drainage and migration of water into the earth by permitting water to drain through the surface itself or through spaces between the pavers. Plinth. (Hillside Overlay District) A foundation or base, usually on the upslope side of the hillside, on which a house is located. Most often a plinth is constructed by erecting a retaining wall at the street with backfill creating a level building pad for the home. Rain Barrels. (Stormwater) A stormwater containment vessel that captures runoff generated by impervious surfaces such as roofs. Rain barrels usually include a hole at the top to allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. By holding and reusing rainwater, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve potable water. Rain Garden. (Stormwater) an attractive landscaping feature planted with perennial native plants. It is a bowl -shaped garden, designed to absorb stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces such as roofs and parking lots. PASSED and APPROVED this 7'h day of March, 2006. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A"• To be inserted in Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations: §161.07 District RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4 units/acre. (D) Bulk and area regulations. Single- Two-family family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 ft. 80 ft. width Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. dwelling unit HOD Lot 60 ft. 70 ft. minimum width HOD Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. '6,000 sq. dwelling unit ft. (E) Setback requirements. Single Family Dwellings FRONT SIDE REAR 25 ft. 8ft. 20 ft. HOD Front HOD Side HOD Rear 15 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. (G) Height. Structures are limited to a building height of 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. §161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family — Twenty -Four Units Per Acre (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 25 ft. 811. 25 ft. HOD Single Family Front HOD Single Family Side HOD Single Family Rear 15 ft. 8ft. 15 ft. Cross reference(s)--Variance, Ch. 156. (F) Height regulations. The maximum building height is 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. §161.15 District R -O, Residential Office (E) Setback regulations. Front 3011, Front, if parking is allowed between the right-of-way and the building 50 ft. Front, in HOD 15 ft. Side 10 ft. Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft. Side, in HOD 8 ft Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public alley 10 ft. Rear, in HOD 15 ft. (F) Height. Structures are limited to a building height of 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. EXHIBIT "B" To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection: §167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (A)Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed subdivisions, and large scale developments required by other chapters of the Unified Development Code to go through the city's permitting process. If a builder of single family dwellings or duplexes is not otherwise required to file a Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development, that development is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the development is on land or parcels within the Hillside Overlay District in which case an abbreviated tree preservation plan set forth in §167.04 (H) (3) shall apply. (5) Hillside Overlay District. Undeveloped, land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation plan with the Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development site plan. Single and two family residential development shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining a building permit. There shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal until a tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measures at the site inspected and approved. (C) Canopy area. In all new Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments, lands located within the Hillside Overlay District, Industrial and Commercial Developments, and all other improvements listed above, trees shall be preserved as outlined in Table 1 under Percent Minimum Canopy, unless the Applicant has been approved for On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives as set forth in subsections I. & J. below. The square foot percentage of canopy area required for preservation in new development is based on the total area of the property for which the Applicant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way and park land dedications. An Applicant shall not be required to plant trees in order to reach the Percent Minimum Canopy requirement on land where less than the minimum exists prior to development, unless trees have been removed. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements ZONING DESIGNATIONS PERCENT MINIMUM CANOPY Tree canopy Hillside Overlay District — All requirements Zoning Designations are increased by 5% for all districts RA, Residential Agriculture 25% RSF-.5, Single-family 25% Residential = One Half Unit per Acre RSF-1, Single-family 25% Residential — One Unit per Acre RSF-2, Single-family 20% Residential — Two Units per Acre RSF-4, Single-family 25% Residential — Four Units per Acre RSF-7, Single-family 20% Residential — Seven Units per Acre R -O, Residential —Office 20% RT-12, Two and Three-family 20% Residential RMF-6, Multi -family 20% Residential — Six Units per Acre RMF-12, Multi -family 20% Residential — Twelve Units per Acre RMF-18, Multi -family 20% Residential — Eighteen Units per Acre RMF-24, Multi -family 20% Residential — Twenty -Four Units per Acre RMF-40,Multi-family 20% Residential — Forty Units per Acre C-1, Neighborhood 20% Commercial C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial 15% C-3, Central Business 15% Commercial C-4, Downtown 10% I-1, Heavy Commercial and 15% Light Industrial I-2, General Industrial 15% P -I, Institutional 25% PZD, Planned Zoning Districts Most restrictive shall apply (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions. (3) Hillside Overlay District. Individual parcels or lots located within the Hillside Overlay District boundary shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation plan as set forth in §167/04 (H) (3) indicating the location of the structure and the preservation of the minimum tree canopy requirement. (a) Developers shall have the option of doing cluster development, such as a PZD, which would encourage more open space and tree preservation areas. In this pattern of development, the tree preservation zone on each lot can be transferred to a larger open space• instead of being required on the individual lots. The open space set aside during cluster development shall be placed in a permanent easement or land trust with all future development rights removed from the property. (b) Once the City issues a certificate of occupancy to the home owner, individual lot tree preservation areas are not binding upon such home owner. However, the permanent tree easements established for cluster development shall remain enforceable by the City. (i) Request for on -site mitigation (c) Tree removal due to the grading work done to create tie backs for roads in the Hillside shall be mitigated by reforesting a minimum of 25% of the tie backs with appropriate tree species pursuant to the landscape manual. (d) Planting trees in non -canopy areas in order to reach the minimum percent canopy requirements for the site is not allowed in the Hillside Overlay District. EXHIBIT "C" To be inserted in Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land: §169.02 General Requirements (D) Restoration. Land shall be revegetated and restored as close as practically possible to its original conditions to minimize runoff and erosion. Previously forested areas should follow the City's Landscape Manual for mitigation of forested areas. §169.03 Permits Required/Exceptions (A)Permit required. No grading, filling, excavation, or land alteration of any kind shall take place without first obtaining: (4) A grading permit is required by the City for any development occurring within the Hillside Overlay District boundaries. If a parcel of land is divided by the Hillside Overlay District boundary, then only that portion of land lying within the boundary is subject to the requirements of this chapter. (H) Exceptions where no grading permit is required Grading permits are not required for the following: (4) Single-family/duplex. Construction of one single-family residence, or duplex not located within the 100 year flood plain, the Hillside Overlay District, or on a slope 15 % or greater. (C) Grading permit application and approval. No grading permit shall be issued until the grading plan, endorsed by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer, is approved by the City Engineer. Grading permits may be issued jointly for parcels of land that are contiguous, so long as erosion control measures are in place until project completion. Any application for a required grading permit under this chapter shall be submitted concurrently with the application and calculations for a drainage permit if such a drainage permit is required by §170.03., coordination with Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection is required. §169.04 Minimal Erosion Control Requirements If exempt under 169.03, a grading permit is not required. However, exempt as well as non- exempt activities shall be subject to the following minimal erosion and sedimentation control measures. (A)Natural vegetation. The potential for soil loss shall be minimized by retaining natural vegetation wherever possible. Development in the Hillside Overlay District should comply with the recommendations of the Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual with regard to the retention of natural vegetation on Hillsides. (B) Stabilization. All graded and otherwise disturbed areas shall be stabilized immediately after the grading or disturbance has been completed. Stabilization methods such as baled straw, filter fabric, ditch checks, diversion ditches, brush barriers, sediment basins, matting, mulches, grasses and groundcover shall be used. (D)Excavation material. Excavation material shall not be deposited in or so near streams and other stormwater drainage systems that it may be washed downstream by high water or runoff. All excavation material shall be stabilized immediately with erosion control measures. §169.06 Land Alteration Requirements (C) Cut or flll slopes. (1) Finish grade. Cut or fill slopes shall have a finish grade no steeper than 33% (3.00 horizontal to 1 vertical), when approved by the City Engineer. Land located within the Hillside Overlay District may have cut or fill slopes with a finish grade no steeper than 50% (2.00 horizontal to I vertical) with approval of the City Engineer. (4) Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for purposes of assessing safety, stability, and drainage problems: (See illustrations). Setbacks from property lines may be filled or cut if a grading plan is submitted jointly by the owners of both properties. (F) Erosion and sedimentation control. (e) Hillside Overlay District. Revegetation of lands within the Hillside Overlay District should be planted immediately after the physical alteration of the land. with complete and uniform ground cover. Sod, erosion fabric, herbaceous groundcover (in wooded areas), and/or a hydroseed with warm season grasses is required. Re -vegetation requirements shall be met prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Cut and Fill tie -back slopes shall be re -vegetated. In §169.06 (G) Undisturbed land requirements, after the table add the "In the development of Large Scale Developments and lots within the Hillside Overlay District, the minimum amount of undistur c shall equal the percent minimum tree canopy pursuant to able 1 o §167.04 (C)." §169.07 Grading Plan Specifications (A)Gradingplan. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan as follows: (2) Existing grades. Existing grades shall be shown with dashed line contours and proposed grades with solid line contours. Grading plans shall be required to show both the proposed grade and the undisturbed area. Contour intervals shall be a maximum of two feet. Spot elevations shall be indicated. 10 §169.08 Grading Plan Submittal (B) Final grading plan. No subdivision may be finalized, nor large scale development plat approved before a final grading plan has been submitted to the City Engineer and approved. The final grading plan and the final plat of land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall have the following plat note stating: "Property and lot owners of lands located within the Hillside Overlay District are strongly encouraged to have a geotechnical analysis of their property prior to any development in order to identify potential geological hazards and determine appropriate techniques to mitigate against hazards such as the swelling and shrinking of soils, slumping, hillside creep, and seeps." 11 EXHIBIT "D" To be inserted in Chapter] 70 Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control: §170:01 Intent (A)Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Fayetteville by: (5) Requiring that erosion control measures are implemented and function on a lot -by - lot basis. (6) Encouraging the use of storm water best management practices to reduce runoff. These measures would include permeable pavers, green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and rain barrels for irrigation use. §170.05 Permit Application A storm water management, drainage, and erosion control permit application shall be submitted to the City Engineer using appropriate forms as provided by the city. An applicant may apply jointly for contiguous parcels or subdivisions as long as the erosion control measures are in place until project completion. A permit application shall contain sufficient information and plans to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the project complies with the requirements of this chapter. The specific items to be submitted for a permit application shall be in the form and follow the procedures as described in the Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 1, Drainage Report Checklist. Submittal information and plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: §170.10 Environmentally Sensitive Mitigation Methods for Storm water Management (A) Environmentally conscious measures to reduce the amount of storm water generated by development shall be encouraged, especially in the Hillside Overlay District, Methods may include but, are not limited to, rain gardens, permeable pavement, green roofs, cisterns for the collection and redistribution of storm water for irrigating purposes, etc. 12 EXHIBIT "E" To be inserted in Chapter172: Parking and Loading: §172.04 Parking Lot Design Standards (E). Hillside Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads in Multi -Family, Office, and Commercial Development. Parking pads shall be separated by a minimum undisturbed area of 15 feet between parking pads. Streets and access drives are permitted to cross this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance. (3) Maximum number of spaces per parking lot for multi family and office use. Parking pads shall have a maximum of 30 spaces per pad. (4) Parking lot location with multi family and office structures. When the building is located adjacent to the street the parking shall be located in the rear. When the multi- family structure is located off of the street, a minimum of 35' of undisturbed area shall separate the building from the street. (5) Developers of multi -family, office, and commercial uses in the Hillside Overlay District are encouraged to refer to the Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual for guidance and direction in the design of their project. 13 EXHIBIT "F" To be inserted in section 173: Building Regulations: §173.02 Fire Prevention Code/Building Code (B)Amendments, additions, and deletions to the Building Code. The Building Code shall be amended as follows: (2) Footings and Foundations. Building, structures, and parts thereof shall be designed and constructed in accordance with strength design, load and resistance factor design, allowable stress design, empirical design, or conventional construction methods, as permitted by the applicable material chapters of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code and this section. (b) Design requirements for buildings located within the Hillside Overlay District. Developers of preliminary plats and large scale developments shall conduct a geotechnical analysis of the soils and subsoils of their property to determine if a typical spread footing foundation is warranted based on the type of soil present on site. If not, a notation on the final plat or easement plat shall be placed requiring all future structures within the development have foundation aus-designed, approved and seals rof ineer or Architect. €inccupied, single building less than 120 square feet re exempt from any foundation requirements. 14 ♦. f LV C"� t'V i.. V4j Y�MPxyt, bp.A'Q�. H'/Ti��lf Yi •L:5f YYYA' � Y.( )��y ��♦ 1' � yyyA}U t' 4'[ Tyb , sir dA�iA a�.SQ��law�'i -jc '':vt 'i e� [ D a qe F Iui��1 tlll �.p 4��y�Wr1e' b nl � ® t? •Y a:7 nil p bi 1 P"� �,"iii •.� \['N�. Y • ..�ef®. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS. - Departmental Correspondence TO: Fayettevi a City Gounci FROM: Dan C t3 (� DATE: April21, 2066 SUBJECT: Mayoral Veto of HillsideJHillto inane Provisions On -March 3, 2006 you received a memorandum froth City Attorney Kit Williams and'me that proposed various amendments and clarifications to the Hillside/Hilltop Ordinance that would, "make the ordinance more legally defensible, clear up ambiguities, encourage PZD development on hillsides, and remove restrictions on homeowners (not .home builders)" (memo attached). On Tuesday .April 18, 2006 Council .passed the Hillside/Hilltop Ordinance which is overall a very good ordinance that takes; significant steps to preserve and protect our.natural resources. However, there area couple of -provisions which are contrary to%the public interest and therefore requireme to:exercise my veto power to•stAke language out of two of these provisions: First, I must veto a part of'Exhibit "F" adopted by Section 6 of the Ordinance. I veto the proposed new subsection (b) Design requirements for.buildingslocated in the Hillside/Hilltop OverlayDistrict. A review of two maps provided to you prior to passage of the ordinance (both attached)shows two things: First, there is a large portion of our City that has poor.soil suitability, and the;poorsoil is -not -restricted to our hillsides:and ,hilltops. Further;our research on local foundation problems. indicates that foundation problems -are also not limited to hillsides and hilltops. If the Council intends to address soil suitability and increase requirements for foundations, the City Council should examine and address these issues.citywide. It.is-in the.public interest to take•a citywide rather' than localized.review of tlie.current problem;and;provide-a measured response after careful analysis. Vetoed Language §173.02 (B)(2)(b) Design requirementsfor buildings.located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. A. builder of a single family residence, duplex or other residential, commercial or institutional structure not within a preliminary plat or large. scale development. that has conducted a Geo Technical analysis of the soil and subsoils shall -conduct his bwn-Geo Technical analysis of the soils and subsoils and if necessary have the foundation plans -designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or architect. Accessory structures are exempt from this foundation requirement. One of the most valuable aspects of the new ordinance is -the extension of the tree preservation requ cements to home construction. However, ................. t the unneces..............ay aremoval during. the construction process is a citywide issue,. and our efforts to protect trees during construction should: not be limited to hillsides/hilltops. While I fully support the change in the ordinance to apply tree preservation requirements to. house construction, [do not.support the provision that extends these restrictions to individual homeowners. This restriction is not needed, and, it is not in the public interest. When we look around our community, we see treeseverywhere not because of tree preservation zones onhomeowners' lots, but -because our homeowners have voluntarily planted, enjoyed and nurtured'their trees for decades. To hold homeowners accountableto.a tree preservation policy when those homeowners are not presenting a problem.for the City is overstepping our role as a municipal government and is overly restrictive, and ultimately unfair, to homeowners. Therefore, I veto the following sections of Exhibit "B" of the ordinance: § 167.04 (F)(3)(b) and §167.04 (L), Vetoed Full Section §167.04 (F)(3)(b) Property owners ofparcels or lots located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall have the ability to do selective thinning, without the use of off -road equipment, of up to 15% of the tree preservation zone as long as it does not disrupt the overhead tree canopy. No removal of significant trees, as defined by the Landscape Manual, within the tree preservation zone is allowed. Vetoed Language in striketh rough §167.04 (L) In order to ensure that an applicant's heirs, successors, assigns, or any subsequent purchasers ofthe subject property are put on notice as to the existence and extent of alt approved tree preservation plan, tree preservation areas shall be clearly depicted on the easement plats for large scale developments and the final plats for nonresidential subdivisions. This shall be accompanied by a narrative statement describing the nature fthe protection afforded, and bearing the signature ofthe landscape administrator. Lots in residential subdivisions are expressly exempt from these requirements . If it is impractical to include the actual depiction of the canopy to be preserves on the easement plat, orfinal plat itself, a note cross referencing an accompanying document shall suffice. The veto for §167.04 (L) only removed the "unless they are located in the Iillside/Hilltop Overlay District" language. Therefore the remainder of §167.04 (L) remains in full force and effect. I strongly reiterate our earlier recommendation to the City Council that it adopt the language we proposed on March 3, 2006, to replace the now vetoed § 167.04 (F)(3)(b). This proposed language will ensure clarity that the tree preservation area remains viable and protected until the homeowner receives a certificate of occupancy. Recommended Language §167.04 (F)(3)(b) Once the City issues a certificate of occupancy to the home owner, individual lot tree preservation areas are not binding upon such homeowner. However, the permanent tree easements established for cluster development shall remain enforceable by the City. I have signed the Hillside/Hilltop Preservation and Protection Ordinance with the veto sections removed. FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS Departmental Correspondence TO: Fayettevii e City CCou FROM:. Dan CCb C DATE: April 21, 2006 SUBJECT: Mayoral Veto of HillsideiHilltoti-Ordinance Provisions On March 3, 2006 you' received a niemoranduni from City Attorney Kit W illiams and:me that proposed various amendments and clarifications. to the Hillside/Hilltop Ordinance that would, "make the ordinance more legally defensible, clear up ambiguities, encourage PZD.development on hillsides, and remove restrictions on homeowners (not. -home builders)" (memo attached). On Tuesday April .18, 20O6 Council passed the HillsidelHilltop Ordinance which is overall a very good ordinance that takes. significant steps to preserve and protect our.natural resources. However, there are a couple of provisions which are contrary to the public interest and therefore ,require me to exercise my veto power tostrike language out of two of these provisions. First, I must veto apart of Exhibit "F" adopted by Section 6' of the Ordinance. I veto the proposed new subsection (b) Design S4uiremeitfor.bui1dingSocated.in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. Areviewof two maps provided to you prior to passage of the ordinance (both attached) shows two things. First, there is a large portion of our City that has;pobrsoil suitability, and the poor, soil.is nbt.restricted to our. hillsides and hilltops. Further; our research on local foundation problems indicates -that foundation problems are also not limited to hillsides,and hilltop's. If the,Council intends to address soil suitability and increase requirements for foundations, the.City Council.should examine and address these issues'citywide. •It.is in the.public.interest to take a citywide rather than localized'. review of the current problem -and provide a measuredresponse after careful analysis. Vetoed Language §173.O2 (B)(2)(6) Design requirements for located in: the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District. A. builder ofa. single family residence, duplex or other residential, commercial or institutional structure not within a preliminary. plat or large scale developmentthat has conducted a Geo Technical.analysis of the soil andsubsoils shall conduct his own.Geo Technical analysis of the soils and: subsoils and if necessary have the foundation plans designed; approved and sealed by a professional engineer or architect. Accessory structures are exempt from this foundation requirement. One of the most valuable aspects:of the new otdinance'is the extension of the tree preservation requirements to home construction.. However, :Council should. note that the unnecessary tree damage and removal during the construction process is a citywide issue, and ourefforts to protecttrees during construction should not be limited to hillsides/hilltops. While I fully support the change in the ordinance to apply tree preservation requirements to:house construction, I -do not support the provision that extends these restrictions to individual homeowners. This restriction is not needed, and it is not in the public.. interest. When we look around our community, we see trees everywhere not because oftree.preservationzones on homeowners' lots; but because our homeowners have voluntarily planted, enjoyed and.nurtured'their trees for. decades.. To hold homeowners accountable-to:a tree preservation policy when thoseliomeowners are not presenting a problem:for the City is J overstepping our role as a municipal government and is overly restrictive, and ultimately unfair, to homeowners. Therefore, I veto the following sections of Exhibit "B" of the ordinance: § 167.04 (F)(3)(b) and § 167.04 (L). Vetoed Full Section §167.04 (F)(3)'b) Property owners ofparcels or lots located in the Hillside/Hilltop Overlay District shall have the ability to do selective thinning, without the use ofoff-road equipment, of up to 15% of the tree preservation zone as long as it does not disrupt the overhead tree canopy. No removal of significant trees, as defined by the Landscape Manual, within the tree preservation zone is allowed. Vetoed Language in strihethrough §167.04 (L) In order to ensure that an applicant's heirs, successors, assigns, or any subsequent purchasers of the subject property are put on notice as to the existence and extent of an approved tree preservation plan, tree preservation areas shall be clearly depicted on the easement plats for large scale developments and thefinal plats for nonresidential subdivisions. This shall be accompanied by a narrative statement describing the nature if the protection afforded, and bearing the signature of the landscape administrator. Lots in residential subdivisions are expressly exempt from these requirements unlcs they arc located itt tha HillsidcVHilltap Overlay District. If it is impractical to include the actual depiction of the canopy to be preserves on the easement plat, or final plat itself, a note cross referencing an accompanying document shall suffice. The veto for §167.04 (L) only removed the "unless they are located in the I-Iillside/Hilltop Overlay District" language. Therefore the remainder of §167.04 (L) remains in full force and effect. I strongly reiterate our earlier recommendation to the City Council that it adopt the language we proposed on March 3, 2006, to replace the now vetoed § 167.04 (F)(3)(b). This proposed language will ensure clarity that the tree preservation area remains viable and protected until the homeowner receives a certificate of occupancy. Recommended Language §167.04 (F)(3)(b) Once the City issues a certificate of occupancy to the home owner, individual lot tree preservation areas are not binding upon such homeowner. However, the permanent tree easements established for cluster development shall remain enforceable by the City. I have signed the Hillside/Hilltop Preservation and Protection Ordinance with the veto sections removed. N rI J r -. w ilt.$AB C. J • • SS City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form �( • City Council Agenda Items / ,l/1p drd or Contracts 7 -Feb -06 City Council Meeting Date Leif Olson Submitted By Planning Operations Division Department Action Required: 05-1841, 05-1842, 05-1879 (Hillside Overlay District): Submitted by Planning Staff. The Hillside Overlay District ted by an official Hillside Overlay District Map, a Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual, and '.ments to the City's Unified Development Code. Cost of this reauest n/a Account Number n/a Project Number Budgeted Item Category/Project Budget n/a Funds Used to Date n/a $ Remaining Balance Budget Adjustment Attached EJ The7(' jrector Date I' 2J •Oto City Attorney Fihance and -internal Service Director Date Mayor 6 Date Program Category / Project Name n/a Program I Project Category n/Name n/a � Fund Name Previous Ordinance or Resolution # n/a Original Contract Date: n/a Original Contract Number: n/a 7 6/wJ t/o rJ / o6 rrl l µM zz(� on 'Mc VT2O d r4ddi.15 /02 16 City Council Meeting of February 7, 2006 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Tim Conklin, Planning and Development Services Gary Dumas, Director of Operations From: Leif Olson, Long Range Planner Date: January 18, 2006 Subject: ADM 05-1841, 05-1842, and 05-1879. Hillside Overlay District Map, Best Management Practices Manual, and Unified Development Code Amendments: RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council Ordinance Review Committee recommend approval of the proposed Hillside Overlay District Map, Best Management Practices Manual, and Unified Development Code Amendments. BACKGROUND The Fayetteville City Council adopted Resolution Number 130-02 in August of 2002, requesting that the Planning Commission conduct a rezoning study and zoning map amendment for those areas shown as R-2 (Medium Density Residential, RMF-24) that have 15% or greater slope. A Hillside Task Force was developed and comprised of Planning Commission Members. The Hillside Task Force examined studies conducted by staff on the existing development patterns of Mt. Sequoyah, adopted hillside ordinances from other cities, and recommendations proposed by Planning Staff. With Planning Commissioner terms expiring and unable to reach consensus on a hillside development ordinance and boundary map, the first Hillside Task Force was disbanded in the fall of 2004. In 2005, a new Hillside Task Force was developed comprised of members of the City Council and the Planning Commission. A series of meetings occurred that provided the Task Force with a background of past ordinance proposals and ongoing public input. Ultimately, a recommendation and ordinance was developed by Planning Staff and the Hillside Task Force. . Due to on -going discussions and concerns expressed by both the development community and the public as a whole, Staff proposed that a consultant familiar with steep slope development be hired to assist City Staff in developing a hillside development ordinance. r City Council Meeting of February 7, 2006 Agenda Item Number In March of 2005, the Fayetteville City Council authorized a contract with Design Workshop of Asheville, North Carolina to assist the City in the drafting of a Hillside Development Ordinance and, Best Management Practices Manual. The Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual is designed to illustrate best development practices that are deemed appropriate for development on our steeply sloped and heavily forested hillsides. This manual, in conjunction with the Unified Development Code Ordinance amendments to: Chapter 151 — Definitions, Chapter 161 - Zoning, Chapter 167 — Tree Preservation, Chapter 169 — Physical Alteration of Land, Chapter 170 - Stormwater, Drainage, and Erosion, and Chapter 172 - Parking, and Chapter 173 — Building Regulations will be the implementing and regulating documents guiding all development that falls within the Hillside Overlay District. This item was heard at the regular Planning Commission meeting of December 12, 2005, at which the eight members voted to forward this item to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. BUDGET IMPACT None. FAYETTEVIL THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS KTT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY, DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. ClT Ai TO: 1DS Coody, Mayor +'City Council 1 M LEGAL DEPARTMENT CC: Tim Conklin, Planning & Development Management Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney ( i1� DATE: April 4, 2006 RE: Amended Hillside Preservation and Protection Ordinance Amendments Made During March Meeting The City Council made only a few changes to the proposed Hillside Ordinance during its March meeting. I have tried to incorporate these changes into the Ordinance handed out with this memo. The first change was to clarify that the Hillside Best Management Practices Manual was not mandatory, but a guide. Accordingly, the Title of the Ordinance was changed. Also § 169.04 (A) changed "shall" to "should comply with the recommendations of the Hillside Best Management Practices Manual ...." The second change would allow the City Council to approve a Planned Zoning District even if it does not meet the minimum requirements for tree canopy preservation or undisturbed land area. This is a change from current law which generally mandates compliance with these type of requirements. In Exhibit "B" §167.04 Tree. Preservation and Protection During Development, the following sentence is added: "Planned Zoning Districts should meet the percent minimum tree canopy. based upon their primary use, but may be allowed a lesser tree canopy requirement as part of the overall Master Plan approved by the City Council." 4, Reference to a PZD having to meet the "most restrictive" standard has been removed from Table 1. In the Physical Alteration of Land Chapter (Exhibit "C"), § 169.06 (G) was changed by adding "through preliminary plats" to the first sentence. Another sentence was added below the table as follows: "Planned Zoning Districts shall show undisturbed areas, but may be approved by the City Council with lesser percentages of undisturbed areas than on the above table." By these changes, I tried to follow through with the City Council's decision on March 7, 2006 to give itself the power to approve a PZD even if it did not comply with all minimum requirements of normally developed land within the U.D.C. If I have misunderstood the thrust of the Amendment you passed, please remove or change the language I have used. The final change is the verbatim language of Alderman Man as reported in the Minutes and approved by a seven to one vote. It requires geotechnical analysis of the soil and subsoils by a builder if the structure is not within a preliminary plat or large scale development which has already conducted its own geotechnical analysis. This is in Exhibit "F" and is the very last wording of this last exhibit to the ordinance. Amendments Not Made During March Meeting That Still May Be Considered (1) Hillside Overlay District Definition. (a) Will the City Council allow "opt -out" provisions for the owner whose land is fairly. level (less than 8% grade)? (b) Will "Hilltops" be included? (c) Will Hillsides be extended beyond the 15% slope up the slope until the land is fairly level (less than 8% slope)? (2) Height limitations. (a) Will hillsides allow taller buildings than elsewhere? (b) Will height limitations be uniform throughout the City for same residential zoning districts? (c) Will the City Council change the manner of measuring a building's height? (3) Application of Tree Preservation, Grading Requirement, etc. to single family home builders ... and owners? (a) Shouldn't §167/04 (A) (1) be renumbered to (5) so that subdivisions and large scale developments outside the Hillside Preservation District still must comply with the Tree Ordinance? (b) Should a single family house building be required to "submit a tree preservationplan and a site plan," or an "abbreviated tree preservation plan" pursuant to § 167.04 (H) (3)? (c) Should all zoning districts be required to preserve 30% tree canopy so that commercial zones must double their required canopy? (d) Should home owners within the Hillside District be forbidden from cutting down trees on their own property if such tree is a "significant tree" or if more than 15% of the tree preservation zone (4.5% of the lot) is affected? §167.04 (F)(3)(b) (e) Should house construction or other development "be required to minimize the view of new development from the valley below?" {§167.04 (F)(3)(a)} (4) Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control (Exhibit "D") (a) Should the City Council follow the City Engineer's advice that a single family house or duplex should NOT have to obtain an expensive drainage permit? {§170.03 (D)(1)} (5) Issues, raised by developers' attorney, Heartsill Ragon (a) Should the City Council make any amendments suggested by Heartsill Ragon? (6) Map (a) The map is not ready. Therefore this zoning ordinance must NOT be passed. The law requires both a map and language for a zoning ordinance. Therefore, eventually this ordinance should be tabled until the map can be finished. City Council Meeting Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 13 of 59 Mayor Coody: The way I understand the that Council wants to do this, let's just use the foundation right now, I don't think it would require much more staff for us to get, like when you submit your building plans, there would be a foundation plan with a stamp on it for the Building Department to just make sure that it is there. I think that wouldn't require us to any more staff to just add one page to the document to be looked at. Is that right Tim? Tim Conklin, Planning and Program Development Director: Yes, it would be a stamped plan. We would be relying on the professional engineer's license that he has designed it, studied it, and designed it appropriately. Alderman Marr: To make one comment on that. I don't have the chart but there where 128 of the 3,400 permits. So I think the A about in terms of what we are seeing is not at the scale of our toll Mayor Coody: Does that answer you question, Tom, Tom Terminella: I think so, for the most part>4f because we create all this work, somebody admintstr far as the current issue, having that as a guide and single element in it, I would support that. Thank you. ejexact numbers that were on iee number that we are talking errmits. 1t ie. to be sensitive to that issue review it andhapprove it. As Iry documenttto follow ever Mayor Coody: Alright, thank you Tom:'Who else woukPi( eto address us on this issue? Alright we will bring it back to the Council then. _So this is ju't:cleean-up language, dose this need to be done as an amendment? 1" Kit Williams: Oh yes. Mayor Coody: Alfighf'so youwant to amend this to make that read as a guide? Alright we have a motion in the second, shalltthe_motion pass?j j" Alderman Marrmoved to end the ordi amnance under the title and whereas clauses that �' the Hillside Best Practices Manual is used as a guide like the 2020 Plan rather than an ordin_ Hake requirementAldan erm"Ferrell seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. .�4 . (*) c�A-y •' SH crj +tl coy5" t. „ N ',. # Mayor Cood✓hat's the next one? Anyone? Alderman Marr: Ikdoon' know if I am going to make an amendment, but I sure would like to have the entire Council -debate these items. The Hillside Overlay District definition that the City Attorney offered last ght, I think that the language was that, lands located within the City that generally have slopes in excess of 15% and the adjoining land uphill from the 15% slope that contains at lease 8% of slope is shown Hillside Overlay map, which is different than what the taskforce discussed. The taskforce discussed 15% in any land surrounded by a 15% grade which included the hilltops in the map that Tim showed in the presentation. What this would do it would take out anything less than 8% above the 15% or in essence the hilltops and the shoulders or benches that fell below 8%. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfavetteville.org City Council Meeting Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 32 of 59 Kit Williams: What this motion would do is say that the PZD process would not necessarily have to comply with certain requirements that are now in it, like the tree preservation, which now much have the most restricted zone. This would allow the PZD to be looked at as a whole so that when you talk about minimum land disturbance or minimum tree canopy, they would not necessarily have to meet those minimums if they were satisfactory otherwise to the City Council. Alderman Marr: And if they are not then they would turn it down and it shouldn't be used as a way of circumventing the ordinance, but there should be some greater benefit to the PZD design. John Nock: This is one that I think is a very good plausible design ofporiunity for the City to be able to review at every level process, from the staff, to the planning commission, to the City Council and multiple public opportunities to review the process.I hin big fan of the PZD, there are those that may not feel as comfortable as I do about the Planned Zone,Development process. I believe ultimately it is a tool for better design for communities that are forward thinking that see the opportunities for what you do today and howd'it will affect you tomorrow. I appreciate this consideration I think it is a good thing for Fayettville. 4..✓ Mayor Coody: Anyone else have any comments or A citizen asks the City Council the restricted to 10 acres? Mayor Coody: No, I think it can be small, isn't Tim Conklin: That's Alderman Marr m Overlay protection passed unanimous) Reynolds This ordinance was left on meeting. vir 4 of how small�a PZD can be; one lot or is it allow the PZD process in the Hillside I the motion. Upon roll call the motion until the April 4, 2006 City Council meeting. Upon roll call the motion to table passed second reading and tabled to the April 4, 2006 City Council RZN 06-1868 Chambers: An ordinance rezoning that property described in rezoning petition RZN 06-1868 for approximately .20 acres located at 347 North Willow Avenue from RSF-4 Residential Single -Family, 4 units per acre to RSF-8, Residential Single -Family, 8 units per acre. This ordinance was left on the Second Reading at the February 7, 2006 City Council Meeting. This ordinance was left on the Second Reading and Tabled at the February 21, 2006 City Council Meeting to the March 7, 2006 City Council Meeting. 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayettevi lie. org City Council Meeting Minutes March 7, 2006 Page 10 of 59 Technical analysis of the soils and subsoil's and if necessary have the foundation plans designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or architect. I was kind of add-libing the last bit, I hadn't written all that out. Is that the essence that you wanted? Okay I can work on the final language and try to make it flow better but if that is your general attempt then that's what I can do. Mayor Coody: Alright, we have a motion in the second on the amendment. Is there any other discussion on this from the Council? Shall the amendment pass? Alderman Marr moved to amend the ordinance as follows: A builder of a single family residence, duplex or other residential, commercial or institutional structure not within a preliminary plat or large scale development that has conducted d Geo Technical analysis of the soil and subsoil's shall conduct his own Geo Technicanalysis'of the soils and subsoil's and if necessary have the foundation plans designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or architect. Alderman Thiel seconded themotion. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-1. Alderman Thiel, Cook, Marr, Rhoad/s,'Lucas Jordan and�Reynolds voting yes. Alderman Ferrell voting no. / a Alderman Thiel: Well I think that we should go ahead, unle€fibs me one wants to do one of these more controversial ones, I think that we should go Aead and do some of the clean up that Kit referred to at the end of his memo. I(Soe of those were jug ord changes weren't they? I think any of those that are not changes to the meaning and intent of the ordinance, I would make an amendment that those changes are made.x Mayor Coody: Which ones would those be, Alderman Thiel: Alderman Lucas: There�wasonerabout the manual being a guide. a recommendation from the Ordinance Review Committee that anvrreference tomlie"manual beina.is a AldermYWMarr: Let me`make a syab at it. I would like to move that we amend to make it consistenty(l ar under thetitleand whereas clauses that the Hillside Best Practice Manual is used as a guid'e,ike,the 2020 jPl1an rather than an ordinance requirement. Alderman Ferrell: Mayor Coody: We have a motion and a second on this amendment. Is there anyone that would like to address the amendment before us right now? Tom McKinney: Thank you Mr. Mayor. This is something that until last night, I didn't realize or I would have asked to discuss it last night at the Ordinance Review Committee meeting. Number one you all are talking about making a requirement that would cancel out number five on page four where it talked about the proposed amendment to make the City's landscape, manual and Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices manual mandatory. Am I 113 West Mountain 72701 (479) 521-7700 (479) 575-8257 (Fax) accessfayetteville.org 5 3-7-0G ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT HILLSIDE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION, ESTABLISH A HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING BOUNDARY AND MAP, AND APPROVING THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT EST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AS A GUIDE WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville values its unique hillsides; and, WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is committed to having appropriate and desirable development occur on the hillsides; and, WHEREAS, developments that are compatible and harmonious with the hillsides, do not have a negative effect upon the City; and, WHEREAS, the Hillside Best Management Practices Manual will provide a guide for the development on the City's hillsides; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That Chapter 161: Zoning Districts is amended by inserting Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections; § 161.07 RSF-4, § 161.13 RMF — 24, and § 161.15 R -O, a copy of which marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section § 167.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3. That Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections § 169.02, §169.03, §169.04, § 169.06, § 169.07, §169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 4. That Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections §170.01, § 170.36, § 170.05, §170.10, a copy of which marked Exhibit "D" is attached hereto and made a part hereof Section 5. That Chapter 172: Parking and Loading is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section § 172.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "E" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 6. That Chapter 173: Building Regulations is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section § 173.02, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "F" is attached hereto and made a part hereof: Section 7. That Chapter 151: Definitions are amended by adding the following definitions: Cistern. (Stormwater) Roof water management devices that provide retention storage volume in above or underground storage tanks. They are typically used for water supply. Cisterns are generally larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10,000 gallons. On -lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an opportunity for water conservation and the possibility of reducing water utility costs. Green Roof. (Stormwater) Elevated roof surfaces that are entirely covered with a thin soil and vegetation layer. Height. (Hillside Overlay District) Building height shall be measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. Hillside Development Manual. (Zoning) The best management practices document that supplements the Hillside Overlay District and illustrates desirable hillside develo m t practices. p en Hillside Overlay District. (Zoning) Lands located within the City that generally have slopes in excess of 15 %. The Hillside Overlay District is shown on the City's official zoning map. The development regulations in the Hillside Overlay District supercede the underlying zoning district. Hilltop. Hillside Overlay District) Land located above the Hilltop line which contains less than 15% slope and is completely surrounded by hillside < 15% slope. Historic grade. (Zoning) The natural grade of the land prior to any development. Parking Pad. (Hillside Overlay District) Parking areas for multi -family residential, residential office, and commercial use in the Hillside Overlay District. Permeable Pavers. (Stormwater) A solid surface that allows natural drainage and migration of water into the earth by permitting water to drain through the surface itself or through spaces between the pavers. Plinth. (Hillside Overlay District) A foundation or base, usually on the upslope side of the hillside, on which a house is located. Most often a plinth is constructed by erecting a retaining wall at the street with backfill creating a level building pad for the home. Rain Barrels. (Stormwater) A stormwater containment vessel that captures runoff generated by impervious surfaces such as roofs. Rain barrels usually include a hole at the top to allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. By holding and reusing rainwater, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve potable water. Rain Garden. (Stormwater) an attractive landscaping feature planted with perennial native plants. It is a bowl -shaped garden, designed to absorb stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces such as roofs and parking lots. PASSED and APPROVED this 18`h day of April, 2006. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" To be inserted in Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations: §161.07 Distict RSF-4, Residential Single Family — 4 units/acre. (D) Bulk and area regulations. Single- Two-family family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 ft. 80 ft. width Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. dwelling unit Hillside 60 ft. 70 ft. Overlay District Lot minimum width Hillside 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. Overlay ft. District Lot area minimum Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. dwelling unit ft. (E) Setback requirements. Single Family Dwellings FRONT SIDE REAR 25 ft. 8 ft. 20 ft. HOD Front HOD Side HOD Rear 15 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. (G) Height. None (G) Height. Structures are limited to a building height of 60' as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. §161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family — Twenty -Four Units Per Acre (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 25 ft. 8ft. 25 ft. HOD Single Family Front HOD Single Family Side HOD Single Family Rear 15 ft. 8ft. 15 ft. HOD Two Family Front HOD Family Two Side HOD Family Two Rear 15ft. 8ft. 15 ft. HOD Multi Family Front HOD Family Multi Side HOD Family Multi Rear 15 ft. 8ft. 15 ft. Cross reference(s)--Variance, Ch. 156. (F) Height regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any side boundary line an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. (F) Height regulations. The maximum building height is 60 ft. as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure, allowing 3 stories on the uphill side and 4 stories on the downhill side of the building. If the building is placed on a graded pad, then the height of the building is reduced, allowing a maximum of 3 stories as measured from the historic grade, pre -development §161.15 District R -O, Residential Office (E) Setback regulations. Front 30 ft. Front, if parking is allowed 50 ft. between the right-of-way and the building Front, in the Hillside Overlay 15 ft. District Side 10 ft. Side, when contiguous to a 15 ft. residential district Side, in the Hillside Overlay 8 ft District Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public 10 ft. alley Rear, in the Hillside Overlay 15 ft. District (F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum height limits in R -O Districts, provided, however, that any building that exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back with any boundary line of any RSF or RMF District an additional distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. In the Hillside Overlay District the maximum building height is 60 ft. as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure allowing 3 stories on the uphill side and 4 stories on the downhill side of the building. If the building is placed on a graded pad then the height of the building is reduced allowing a maximum of 3 stories as measured from the historic grade, pre -development. EXHIBIT "B" To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection: §167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (A) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed subdivisions, and large scale developments required by other chapters of the Unified Development Code to go through the city's permitting process. Persons seeking to build one single-family dwelling unit, or duplex, are specifically exempt from the provisions of this section except when the land is located within the Hillside Overla District then all the rovisions of this ordinance shall app! Planned Zoning Districts should meet the percent minimum tree canopy ase upon heir primary use, but may be allowed a lesser tree canopy requirement as part of the overall Master Plan approved by the City Council. (1) Hillside Overlay District. Undeveloped land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation plan with the preliminary plat or site plan. Single and two family residential development shall submit a tree preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining a building permit. There shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal until a tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measures at the site inspected and approved. (C) Canopy area. In all new Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments, lands located within the Hillside Overlay District, Industrial and Commercial Developments, and all other improvements listed above, trees shall be preserved as outlined in Table 1 under Percent Minimum Canopy, unless the Applicant has been approved for On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives as set forth in subsections I. & J. below. The square foot percentage of canopy area required for preservation in new development is based on the total area of the property for which the Applicant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way and park land dedications. An Applicant shall not be required to plant trees in order to reach the Percent Minimum Canopy requirement on land where less than the minimum exists prior to development, unless trees have been removed. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements ZONING DESIGNATIONS PERCENT MINIMUM CANOPY Hillside Overlay District — All Zoning Designations 30% RA, Residential Agriculture 25% RSF-.5, Single-family Residential 25% — One Half Unit per Acre RSF-1, Single-family Residential 25% — One Unit per Acre RSF-2, Single-family Residential 20% — Two Units per Acre RSF-4, Single-family Residential 25% — Four Units per Acre RSF-7, Single-family Residential 20% — Seven Units per Acre R -O, Residential —Office 20% RT-12, Two and Three-family 20% Residential RMF-6, Multi -family Residential 20% — Six Units per Acre RMF-12, Multi -family 20% Residential — Twelve Units per Acre RMF- 18, Multi -family 20% Residential — Eighteen Units per Acre RMF-24, Multi -family 20% Residential — Twenty -Four Units per Acre RMF-40,Multi-family Residential 20% — Forty Units per Acre C-1, Neighborhood Commercial 20% C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial 15% C-3, Central Business 15% Commercial C-4, Downtown 10% I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light 15% Industrial I-2, General Industrial 15% P-1, Institutional 25% (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions. (3) Hillside Overlay District Individual parcels or lots located within the Hillside Overlay District boundary shall submit a tree preservation plan indicating the location of the structure and the preservation of the minimum tree canopy requirement. (a). Developers shall have the option of doing cluster development, such as a PZD, which would encourage more open space and tree preservation areas. In this pattern of development, the tree preservation zone on each lot can be transferred to a larger open space instead of being required on the individual lots. Pending approval, the proposed pattern of development shall be required to minimize the view of the new development from the valley below with the preservation of tree cover. The open space set aside during cluster development shall be placed in a permanent easement or land trust with all future development rights removed from the property. (b) Property owners of parcels or lots located in the Hillside Overlay District shall have the ability to do selective thinning, without the use of off -road equipment, of up to 15% of the tree preservation zone as long as it does not disrupt the overhead tree canopy. No removal of significant trees, as defined by the Landscape Manual, is allowed. (I) Request for on -site mitigation (c) Tree removal due to the grading work done to create tie backs for roads in the Hillside Overlay District shall be mitigated by reforesting a minimum of 25% of the tie backs pursuant to the landscape manual. (d) Planting trees in non -canopy areas in order to reach the minimum percent canopy requirements for the site is not allowed in the Hillside Overlay District. (L) Continuing preservation and protection under approved tree preservation plans. (1) In order to ensure that an applicant's heirs, successors, assigns, or any subsequent purchasers of the subject property are put on notice as to the existence and extent of an approved tree preservation plan, tree preservation areas shall be clearly depicted on the easement plats for large scale developments and the final plats for nonresidential subdivisions. This shall be accompanied by a narrative statement describing the nature of the protection afforded, and bearing the signature of the landscape administrator. Lots in residential subdivisions are expressly exempt from these requirements unless they are located in the Hillside Overlay District. If it is impractical to include the actual depiction of the canopy to be preserved on the easement plat, or final plat itself, a note cross referencing an accompanying document shall suffice. EXHIBIT "C" To be inserted in Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land: §169.02 General Requirements (D)Restoration. Land shall be revegetated and restored as close as practically possible to its original conditions so far as to minimize runoff and erosion, are concerned. Previously forested areas shall follow the City's Landscape Manual for mitigation of forested areas. §169.03 Permits Required/Exceptions (A)Permit required. No grading, filling, excavation, or land alteration of any kind shall take place without first obtaining: (4) A grading permit is required by the City for any development occurring within the Hillside Overlay District boundaries. If a parcel of land is divided by the Hillside Overlay District boundary, then only that portion of land lying within the boundary is subject to the requirements of this chapter. (B) Exceptions where no grading permit is required. Grading permits are not required for the following: (4) Single-family/duplex. Construction of one single-family residence, or duplex not located within the 100 year flood plain, the Hillside Overlay District, or on a slope 15 % or greater. (C) Grading permit application and approval. No grading permit shall be issued until the grading plan, endorsed by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer, is approved by the City Engineer. A separate permit shall be required for each site; it may cover both excavations and fills. Grading permits may be issued jointly for parcels of land that are contiguous, so long as erosion control measures are in place until project completion. Any application for a required grading permit under this chapter shall be submitted concurrently with the application and calculations for a drainage permit if such a drainage permit is required by §170.03., coordination with Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection is required. §169.04 Minimal Erosion Control Requirements If exempt under §169.02, If exempt under 169.03, a grading permit is not required. However, exempt as well as non-exempt activities shall be subject to the following minimal erosion and sedimentation control measures. (A)Natural vegetation. The potential for soil loss shall be minimized by retaining natural fc/IAA vegetation wherever possible. Development in the Hillside Overlay District s ould V IS Mgtk' comply with the recommendations of the Hillside Best Management Practices Manual with regard to the retention of natural vegetation on Hillsides. (B) Stabilization. All graded and otherwise disturbed areas shall be stabilized within 15 days immediately after the grading or disturbance has been completed. Stabilization methods such as baled straw, filter fabric, ditch checks, diversion ditches, brush barriers, sediment basins, matting, mulches, grasses and groundcover shall be used. (D)Excavation material. Excavation material shall not be deposited in or so near streams and other stormwater drainage systems where it may be washed downstream by high water or runoff. All excavation material shall be stabilized immediately with erosion control measures. §169.06 Land Alteration Requirements (C) Cut or fill slopes. (1) Finish grade. Cut or fill slopes shall have a finish grade no steeper than 33% (3.00 horizontal to 1 vertical), when approved by the City Engineer. Land located within the Hillside Overlay District may have cut or fill slopes with a finish grade no steeper than 50% (2.00 horizontal to 1 vertical) with approval of the City Engineer. (4) Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for purposes of assessing safety, stability, and drainage problems: (See illustrations). Setbacks from property lines may be filled or cut if a grading plan is submitted jointly by the owners of both properties. (e) Public rights -of -way. Cuts adjacent to public rights -of -way shall be setback a minimum of 25 feet, excluding driveways or access roads. (F) Erosion and sedimentation control. (c) 15% to 20% grade: The slope shall be covered with landscape fabric and planted with groundcover as set forth in (b) above. (d) More than 20% grade: Any finish grade over 20% shall be stabilized with retaining walls, cribbing, terraces, landscape fabric, vegetation, or riprap. If riprap is used the slope's stability and erodibility must be equivalent to or better than its predevelopment state. (e) Hillside Overlay District. Revegetation of lands within the Hillside Overlay District shall be planted immediately after the physical alteration of the land with complete and uniform ground cover. Sod, erosion fabric, herbaceous groundcover (in wooded areas), and/or a hydroseed with warm season grasses is required. Re -vegetation requirements shall be met prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Cut and Fill tie -back slopes shall be re -vegetated with appropriate tree species to achieve a minimum of 25% tree canopy at maturity. 1 t (G) Undisturbed land requirements. In the development of residential subdivisions through preliminary plat and large scale developments, allowable grading of slopes shall be in accordance with this table. Average Grade Minimum Undisturbed Area Subdivision Large Scale 10 to 15 percent 40% 30% 15 to 20 percent 60% 30% > 20 percent 60% 30% Planned Zoning Districts shall show undisturbed areas, but may be approved by the City Council with lesser percentages of undisturbed area than shown on the above table. §169.07 Grading Plan Specifications (A)Gradingplan. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan as follows: (2) Existing grades. Existing grades shall be shown with dashed line contours and proposed grades with solid line contours. Grading plans shall be required to show both the proposed grade and the undisturbed area. Contour intervals shall be a maximum of two feet. Spot elevations shall be indicated. §169.08 Grading Plan Submittal (B)Final grading plan. No subdivision may be finalized, nor large scale development plat approved before a final grading plan has been submitted to the City Engineer and approved. The final grading plan and the final plat of land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall have the following plat note stating: "Property and lot owners of lands located within the Hillside Overlay District are strongly encouraged to have a geotechnical analysis of their property prior to any development in order to identify potential geological hazards and determine appropriate techniques to mitigate against hazards such as the swelling and shrinking of soils, slumping, hillside creep, and seeps." EXHIBIT "D" To be inserted in Chapter 170 Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control: §170.01 Intent (A)Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Fayetteville by: (5) Requiring that erosion control measures are implemented and function on a lot -by - lot basis. (6) Encouraging the use of storm water best management practices to reduce runoff. These measures would include permeable pavers, green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and rain barrels for irrigation use. §170.03 Permits Required (D)Exceptions where no drainage permit is required Drainage permits are not required for the following: (1) Single-family/duplex. One single-family residence or duplex not located within the 100 year flood plain, the Hillside Overlay District, or on a slope 15 % or greater. §170.05 Permit Application A storm water management, drainage, and erosion control permit application shall be submitted to the City Engineer using appropriate forms as provided by the city. An applicant may apply jointly for contiguous parcels or subdivisions as long as the erosion control measures are in place until project completion. A permit application shall contain sufficient information and plans to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the project complies with the requirements of this chapter. The specific items to be submitted for a permit application shall be in the form and follow the procedures as described in the Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 1, Drainage Report Checklist. Submittal information and plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: §170.10 Environmentally Sensitive Mitigation Methods for Storm Water Management (A) Environmentally conscious measures to reduce the amount of storm water generated by development shall be encouraged, especially in the Hillside Overlay District. Methods may include but, are not limited to, rain gardens, permeable pavement, green roofs, cisterns for the collection and redistribution of storm water for irrigating purposes, etc. EXHIBIT "E" To be inserted in Chapter] 72: Parking and Loading: §172.04 Parking Lot Design Standards (E). Hillside Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads in Multi -Family, Office, and Commercial Development. Parking pads shall be separated by a minimum undisturbed area of 15 feet between parking pads. Streets and access drives are permitted to cross this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance. (3) Maximum number of spaces per parking lot for multi family and office use. Parking pads shall have a maximum of 30 spaces per pad. (4) Parking lot location with multi family and office structures. When the building is located adjacent to the street the parking shall be located in the rear. When the multi- family structure is located off of the street, a minimum of 35' of undisturbed area shall separate the building from the street. (5) Developers of multi -family, office, and commercial uses in the Hillside Overlay District are encouraged to refer to the Hillside Best Management Practices Manual for guidance and direction in the design of their project. e EXHIBIT "F" To be inserted in section 173: Building Regulations: §173.02 Fire Prevention Code/Building Code (B)Amendments, additions, and deletions to the Building Code. The Building Code shall be amended as follows: (2) Footings and Foundations. Building, structures, and parts thereof shall be designed and constructed in accordance with strength design, load and resistance factor design, allowable stress design, empirical design, or conventional construction methods, as permitted by the applicable material chapters of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code and this section. (b) Design requirements for buildings located within the Hillside Overlay District. A builder of a single family residence, duplex or other residential, commercial or institutional structure not within a preliminary plat or large scale development that has conducted a Geo Technical analysis of the soil and subsoils shall conduct his own Geo Technical analysis of the soils and subsoils and if necessary have the foundation plans designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or architect. • 1-J'j,cLt fie__, Tracy K, Hoskins Paradigm Development 3155 N. College, Suite 201 Fayetteville, AR 72703 (479) 571-1387 RE: Proposed Hillside Ordinance and Best Management Practices Manual Dear City Council Members, My comments about the new "Hillside Ordinance" are the same today as they were at the very first meeting; "what we are crafting is not a hillside ordinance; this is a "View -shed Ordinance". As a lifelong resident of Fayetteville, the President of an environmentally sensitive development company, and an owner of many acres of property located within the proposed Hillside Overlay Zone, I am opposed to the currently proposed draft of the new Hillside Ordinance. I view the ordinance as a "down - zoning" in disguise. Though not impossible to develop the hillsides as proposed, the criteria suggested limits my ability to develop my properties to their fullest potential and puts me on an unfair playing field with those who own similarly zoned properties in flatter areas. The new ordinance also adds undue expense (hardship) in having to comply with some of the regulations. Extra expenses could include rock or concrete stem/retaining walls, premium priced parking, elevators, unusual and costly drainage/detention, and extra costs associated with compliance of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The notion that "developers can comply with any ordinance if they throw enough money at it" is not acceptable. We experience elevated cost issues with current ordinances. I am specifically opposed to any ordinance that dictates or limits the way I design my houses or other structures. To impose regulations in regard to "which way my roof should drain", or "what colors I am to use" is not acceptable. Individual architectural preferences should be left solely in the hands of the property owner. We should never try to dictate our individual or collective "taste" by ordinance. If the "public" feels some sense of entitlement in regards to view -shed, my property is for sale and the "public" should buy it. I admit that I am not pleased with some folks taste in architecture, however, it's their property; theirs to do with what they will, as long as it causes no harm to the public at large... Personal taste is not something that can be, nor should be, dictated by ordinance. To specifically address some items in the "Best Management Practices Manual"; • Page 2, item 4. Again, this is part of a "View -shed Ordinance" and has nothing to do with protecting hillsides. • Page 2, item 6. Common ground is far from being achieved. • Page 3, "View -shed protection". As stated, this proves the obvious intent of the ordinance. • Page 3 "Do not stifle creativity or require a homogenous product". This ordinance does just that. It regulates height, direction of roof drainage, and suggests particular architectural elements. • Pages 5 and 6 drawings. While this is all fine and well in theory, it potentially will not work in the real world, and the costs could be financially economically unfeasible. • Page 7. Any Hillside ordinance should be restricted to the definition of the term "hillside". Any property that is not of 15% grade or greater should not be included in the "overlay". Grades under 15% around town are not subject to the new ordinance. To include these more gradual slopes, regardless of whether or not they are located "at the foot of', "or "on top of' the hillsides (greater than 15%), puts the property owner at a disadvantage with other property owners and is effectively "down -zoning" the property. f . Page 10. Foundations are to be designed by an engineer. Architects should be allowed to design these foundations as well. • Pages 12 and 13. As stated on page 12, we currently have codes to govern "flatter ground" which are adequate. This ordinance should be limited to 15% or greater. • Page 14, item 1. In some cases, a 20' street should be adequate and should be allowed in extreme terrain situations. Item 2. If we are trying to limit clearing, why are we requiring a five foot sidewalk when a three or four foot sidewalk is adequate? Exactly what is the green space requirement between the sidewalk and the back of curb? • Page 18. Why does the ordinance require the installation of a five foot sidewalk? This paragraph states that it is "required by the Americans with Disabilities Act". As we have been unable to find this regulation, I ask that staff sight this regulation for me. Again, a five foot sidewalk only creates the need for more clearing which is in conflict of the spirit of the ordinance. • Page 19. "Encourage tree preservation areas on the rear of the lots so that they will screen the home -site from the valley view -shed". Is this more of that "perceived ownership"? In many cases, this would be impractical, if not impossible. It should not be left up to Staff to determine the feasibility of this guideline on a case by case basis. Sometimes people create architectural structures because they want them to be seen, and it is their First Amendment right to do so. • Page 21. It states that a Developer who uses the PZD process should use the HBMP to "guide their development". Does this mean the new ordinance is merely a suggestion? Would a hillside development be approved if a Developer declines to implement the HBMP? I don't think so. Is this ordinance mandatory or is it not? This page once again refers to views "from the valley below". • Pages 24 thru 27, pictures. Notice every picture is of a home that has been built for many years. Do we have knowledge of whether or not most all the trees were removed during construction, and time has replaced those trees? • Page 28, picture. Notice in this picture that this house was obviously constructed on a very small lot, the extensive low level landscaping, and that the trees around the house are not mature trees. It is evident any mature existing trees were obviously removed during the construction, if there were any in the first place. • Page 30. Architectural elements such as roof direction or colors should not be mandated by ordinance. • Page 34. If the structure is measured from the lowest elevation of historical grade to the highest point of the structure, why would it matter which side of the road you are on, whether you can build three stories or four stories? The limitation of building height in relation to setbacks and preserved areas are directly in conflict with one another. Building height should not be regulated. • Page 37. The ADEQ and the city Engineering department already have strict rules and regulations in regards to alteration of land and storm water runoff. To include more regulation in the new hillside ordinance is just plain anti -productive. While I agree with the Hillside Ordinance in theory, I disagree with the crafted language. The ordinance should be limited to regulations on engineering, set -backs, street cross -sections, responsible tree mitigation (as current ordinances dictate), re -vegetation, modified sidewalk requirements, modified storm drainage, the individual lot owners' limitations, and responsible construction practices. A proactive step to preserving the hillsides and tree canopy is to minimize grading as much as possible. The City and the utility companies should abandon the idea of wide streets with wide rights -of -way; allowing for narrower street cross -sections will considerably reduce the public's view of hillside developments. The proposed ordinance appropriately addresses this concept. The ordinance should not include any language that limits the architectural control of the property owner. Short of "hack -n -slash" clearing of lots, it should not include any language that limits the structure owner's view of the city or the city's view of the structure. Esthetically challenged, architecturally tasteless buildings protruding through the trees have never really been a problem in Fayetteville. As people drive from Alma to Fayetteville, they are viewing a landscape of mountainous terrain covered with trees and pastures; a beautiful drive. When they top the hill north of Greenland they are greeted by a postcard perfect picture of an awesome city of tree covered hills, with structures protruding through those trees such as Old Main, the Old Courthouse, Reynolds Stadium, and even the Federal building. The drive from Alma to Fayetteville is indeed beautiful, but the view from the top of that final hill at the south gate to the city is awesome. The visible buildings are what make the difference. The opposite of "bad development" is "good development"; not "no development". To me, as written, the proposed Hillside Ordinance and the HBMP suggests the City of Fayetteville would like to discourage the development of its hillsides, hilltops, and foothills, which describes a grand portion of any remaining development property within the city limits. Many would consider this ordinance another message that developing in Fayetteville isn't easy, or is it economical. Sincerely, Tracy K HOSki 4 a I 130' ills t p.r a s. -i S. I S „ 1 I} YI Is r* I 1 (. V •Y A y 1 N - Mai � y w M { r j A_ i� 1 IZ• `�\ fJ i KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY ="" DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY_ DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: February 15, 2006 RE: Hillside Ordinance: History and Legal Concerns EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF FAYETTEVILLE Fayetteville is built in mountainous terrain. Many of our hills have been developed over time into some of our most desirable neighborhoods. Virtually every slope in town boasts houses even if not visible because of the tree canopy. From the crest of Mount Nord to Wilson Park is fairly steep, but also one of the nicest places to raise a family. Mount Sequoyah (or as my mother referred to it "East Mountain") is also pretty well developed except for the southwest corner (which includes my property). Mt. Sequoyah has earned a great reputation as one of Fayetteville's treasures. The narrow roads allowed during the west side development cannot support high density development, but have prevented the scars and major cut and fills that would have resulted from wider roads. Mt. Sequoyah is now largely forested even though most development occurred before the Tree Ordinance or improvements to the grading ordinance. • Most other hills in Fayetteville have also kept their forested appearance even though theirhistoric single family residential development occurred prior to the Tree Ordinance. Fayetteville has earned its "Tree City USA" designation. I MID 90's STIFFENING OF GRADING ORDINANCE TO PRESERVE HILLSIDES A hillside overlay ordinance was considered in the mid -90's when the apartments were built on Markham Hill above Ramey Junior High. The dramatic cut and fill required to level a large area for the apartments and their parking lots caused much concern as did the very long and unbroken three to one slope down the hill to finally reach the historic grade of the hill. Rather than enacting an overlay ordinance, the Fayetteville City Council beefed up the grading ordinance to prevent such large cut and fill projects that were inappropriate for steep hillside development. No such large apartment projects have been built on steep slopes since then. TWENTY FIRST CENTURY ISSUES What brought the hillside question to the forefront again in 2002 was a developer's proposal to build twelve duplexes on an acre lot at the intersection of Fletcher Avenue and Rogers Drive. Because of massive neighborhood opposition at both the Planning Commission and City Council level, the large scale development was denied. The City was sued by the developer whose lawyer publicly claimed his case was so strong it was a "throw down hand." After months of pretrial work (depositions, etc.), the developer finally dismissed his appeal shortly before trial. The primary neighborhood opposition to this development was not just related to traffic safety, but to the density allowed by the RMF-24 zoning. The high density development proposal was incompatible with the existing single family home development nearby, but this incompatibility could not be legally considered without downzoning this land to match the neighboring property's density. I informed the City Council in August of 2002 that "a well reasoned and factually supported decision by the City Council to rezone land on the steep slopes to lesser densities should be constitutional and should not result in a constitutional takings or inverse condemnation of the downzoned land." Initially, some aldermen seemed prepared to use their legislative power to downzone property on hillsides from RMF-24 to RSF-4 to be more compatible with existing neighborhoods and better fit the existing 2 substandard infrastructure. (Any existing apartments would not be rezoned.) This downzoning would be especially appropriate for property served by fairly narrow streets or infrastructure inadequate for high density development. Some developers who owned land on Markham Hill and Mount Sequoyah objected to any downzoning. As you know, the effort to preserve hillsides then changed from reducing high density apartment development to what is now presented as the Hillside Ordinance. During this period, another apartment development was approved and is now being constructed at the dead end of Olive Street despite significant neighborhood objection. Just as with the Rogers/Fletcher proposed development, the RMF-24 zoning on the land prevented compatibility concerns of the families living in homes along Olive Street to be considered. The proposed Hillside Ordinance is supposed to facilitate development of hillsides and to lessen land disturbance, but not to lessen densities. Thus, the Planning Commission and City Council may still see single family neighborhoods protest vainly in an attempt to protect their established single family neighborhood from high density apartment development. LEGAL CONCERNS I was relieved when the 120 foot do not build ridgeline provision was removed from the proposed Hillside Ordinance. This could have been interpreted not as a constitutional lessening of density for valid compatibility, infrastructure, safety and environmental reasons, but as a complete taking of this 120 foot strip of land. That would have meant the taxpayers of Fayetteville would have to buy this 120 foot section along the long undeveloped ridgelines in Fayetteville. Thank you for removing this provision. I remain legally concerned about a few other provisions within this ordinance. First, the inclusion of "hilltop" in the hillside ordinance is very dangerous. What facts can support the requirement for a home builder to prepare a grading plan on fairly level hilltop while exempting a home builder closer to the valley floor building on a 14% slope? Why should the first be required to pay for a geotechnical engineering evaluation for his foundation, but not then require the builder on a 14% slope? Why must a home builder have a tree preservation area and leave 30% of the land undisturbed on his flat mountaintop while the builder on a 14% slope can totally grade his land? If I cannot give actual factual reasons to support this distinction, then the Court could determine this ordinance is arbitrary and thus illegal. Height limitations for similar residential structures should be uniform throughout the City. Being on a "hilltop", hillside or valley makes little difference to your neighbor if you block his view or sunlight. If 60 foot houses block the view on a mountain, they would also block the view in the valley. Another significant issue is inclusion into "hillsides" of relatively flat areas (shoulders, plateaus, etc.) on the sides of some mountains. Just as for hilltops, facts to support hillside regulations on relatively flat or gently sloping areas appear to be lacking. CONCLUSION Reasons such as erosion control can legally support development restrictions on steep slopes. However, just because a relatively level parcel is near a steep slope probably does not justify treating it as if it was steep itself. Unless significant factual justification is presented, fairly level hilltops and shoulders of mountains should not be treated as if they are actually on a 15% grade for restrictive development purposes. n • KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY V C DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council CC: Tim Conklin, Planning & Development Management Director Gary Dumas, Director of Operations FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: February 24, 2006 RE: Memorandum from attorney for Concerned Citizens of Fayetteville, Inc. Heartsill Ragon III of. Gill, Elrod, Ragon, Owen and Sherman, P.A. has provided me the attached Memorandum evidently prepared for his clients here in Fayetteville known as "Concerned Citizens of Fayetteville, Inc. Although I certainly have not extensively researched the law for all of Mr. Ragon'spoints, let me:give a brief analysis/response. 1. Questionable Statutory Authority. Although Mr. Ragon • states that regulation of aesthetics "are not statutorily •authorized," 1 believe -case law has specifically recognized aesthetics as a legitimate interest of a municipality which may form at least a portion of the basis of municipal regulation. For example, the Supreme Court has recognized aesthetics'. as an appropriate support for our Sign Ordinance. Our Commercial Design Ordinance also relies strongly on aesthetics as a support for its requirements. I do not argue that aesthetics alone could support the Hillside Ordinance. There certainly is a limit of what a City can require with only aesthetic considerations as support. Anything supported by aesthetics must actually relate to aesthetics and be shown to have areal impact on the aesthetics of Fayetteville. Similarly, I would be concerned if the aesthetical interests of one group of Fayetteville citizens (for example, valley dwellers) were favored over another group (hillside folk). Uniformity of application and equality of treatment are important constitutional considerations. 2. Inverse condemnation. Now that the 120 foot ridgeline no build zone has been removed, the inverse condemnation risks for the City have greatly diminished. I could envision some potential inverse condemnation claims from the tree canopy requirement for single family home construction if the existing minimum tree canopy was located in the only buildable area of a lot. If this rendered the lot unbuildable, an actual inverse condemnation might have occurred. However the minor increase in tree canopy requirements for large scale developers would likely not be determined to be an inverse condemnation since so much of the lot's value will remain. You remember that I have opined that the potential diminution in value from downzoning hillsides from RMF-24 to RSF-4 would most likely not be deemed an inverse condemnation since much value in the land would remain. This is very similar to a small increase in preserving the required amount of tree canopy. Height limitations currently exist in most zoning . districts.. Unless height limitations were so draconian as to destroy development ability and. the land's worth, reasonable height restrictions are constitutional and will not result in inverse condemnation. . 3. Retroactive Application. • The Hillside Ordinance is not retroactive. The, general rule is that developers with approved Large Scale Developments, Preliminary Plats and regular Planned Zoning Districts have been granted actual development rights which should not be affected by later development ordinances. This general rule. also includes builders with building permits who should not be affected by later development ordinances. 2 • However, a property owner has no development right regardless of the land's zoning until either a LSD, Preliminary Plat, PZD, or building permit has been approved. The Hillside Ordinance is a development, not a zoning ordinance. I see little concern over retroactive applicability arguments. 4. Arbitrary and Inconsistent Application: Equal Protection. I have already sent you a memo expressing my concerns about applying this ordinance to a hillside area that is less than 15% slope just because it is surrounded by 15% slope when a very similar slope is not included because of a very small crack in the surrounding 15% slope. For example, the top of East Rock Street near the Confederate Cemetery is not covered while a very -large and relatively flat shoulder once know as "Poore's Field" is considered"Hillside". This is also true for "Hilltops". When Mount Sequoyah has no "hilltop" because a narrow strip of land of the far north side traverses over less than 15% slope, one must question the rationale. for defining "hilltops. How does this narrow strip of land justify not regulating Mount Sequoyah while South Mountain's (Country Club Hill's) large level top is a "hilltop?" What possible effect. does a narrow. strip on the north have on Mount Sequoyah's East, South and West hilltop areas? . Of equal concern is regulation of relatively level hilltop or hillside areas (requiring engineered foundations, less land disturbance, tree preservation for single family homeowners) while land at the base of hills or elsewhere.with a 14% slope is unregulated. The City Council needs engineering type facts presented that justify these definitions and distinctions to prevent a claim of arbitrariness and unconstitutional inconsistency to succeed. The current UDC restrictions on land disturbance, cut and fill heights, etc. are based upon actual slope steepness levels. These individualized requirements based upon the land actually being developed (rather than the steepness or lack thereof of land that could be far from the developing property) are much more defensible and consistent with the actual site geography. K3 • Applying a broad brush .to uneven land features makes the City's regulation easier for Planning Staff to administer, but less defensible.in.. court and potentially less fair to an owner of fairly level land. surrounded by 15% slope at some distance. I also agree that height restrictions should probably be uniformly established throughout Fayetteville for the same type of zoning district. If proponents wish to restrict height only on hillsides, facts justifying this discriminatory application must be presented to the City Council. 5. Constitutional Vagueness. There is a current problem in this ordinance concerning the Best Practices Manual:. It is not clear whether the practices therein are actually mandatory or mere suggestive. I will draft wording to clarify that this manual is a guide, rather than a development ordinance itself. Of course, the City Council may wish to adopt it asa requirement (like a building code). If so, the. adopting ordinance must be clear that the .Best Practices. Manual must be followed in all instances and has the force of law. I. do not agree with. Mr. Ragon "that a municipality cannot adopt .. practices that are suggestive." Our 2010 and 2020 Land,. Use Plans are guides (suggestions) about future land uses and development.. A city's land use plan has long been recognized and sanctioned by the Arkansas Supreme Court. • "A land use plan is meant to be just that — a plan. It is not legally binding on the City." Taylor City.of Little Rock, 583 S.W. 2d 72, 73 (1979). 4 CONCLUSION The Hillside Ordinance marks a significant change in portions of our development ordinances. With the• clear legal warning from Mr. Ragon representing Concerned Citizens of Fayetteville, Inc. I recommend a cautious and careful approach to this new ordinance. Just because many citizens and aldermen have spent much time and effort to get this far does not mean that no further work should be done before the Hillside Ordinance is adopted. I have some questions about the application of this ordinance which now applies the Tree Ordinance to single family home owners. Will a home owner's tree preservation areas be in a protected easement as for commercial Large Scale Developments? If a homeowner wishes to cut a dying tree within the 25-30% of his land that is within the tree preservation easement, will the homeowner have to get the City's permission? Can a homeowner substitute a lawn or. a garden for the tree preservation area? • Finally, when enacting this °ordinance to strengthen hill preservation requirements, it will be helpful in any future litigation (that is now being threatened) that city staff or aldermen outline the specific problems in developments thathave occurred since the latest. grading ordinance amendments that this ordinance is designed to cure. Cities are granted much deference by the Courts to solve perceived problems suffered by their citizens. Establishing clear factual problems that have occurred because of the absence of this new regulation willshow the Court: that this is not. an ,arbitrary act, but one focused on existing and recurring problems in the development of steep hillsides. 4 GILL ELROD RADON OwEN & SHERMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS Fountain Plaza 802 S.E. Plaza Ave., Suite 114 Bentonville, Arkansas 72712. 3801 Metropolitan Tower 425.W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Tclephone(501)376-3800 Telecopicr (501) 372-3359 MEMORANDUM TO: Concerned Citizens of Fayetteville, Inc. FROM Heartsill Ragon III DATE: February 21, 2006 RE: Hillside Overlay District and Related Thoughts Thank you for -allowing our fninto provide our insights regarding the enforceability ofethe Hillside Overlay District ordinance (the "HOD"). that .the City of Fayetteville'is considering implementing. Below please find a summary of our thoughts. Questionable Statutory Authorization. We have reviewed the provisions ofstate, law that authorize municipalities to adopt ordinances, zoning classifications andrelated matters. While the statutes clearly allow for the municipal regulation of routine health, safety'and welfare issues, the statutes are somewhat silent about the regulation of "aesthetic" matters, such as tree canopy and view -shed issues. While a number of matters set for .h in the 1-IOD address legitimate questions of public safety, some suggest that the ordinance additionally appears. to regulate questions of aesthetics, which are not statutorily authorized. . 2. Direct or Inverse Condemnation; Governmental Taking. We believe that several of the issues addressed by the HOD,. such as the increasing of tree canopy ratios and height restrictions,s amount to a governmental taking or condemnation of property rights. Both federal and state law clear provide that governmental action amounting to a taking of property or property rights can occur only with the payment to the property owner of fair market consideration. No provisions are included in the HOD to reimburse property owners for these takings. C:\D0QrM NTS ANDSETnNGSVEFFMATFOSUACAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNE1 FLES101(3BMEM0_oVERV1Ew OF LEGAL)SSUES V4I.DOC February 21.2006 (4:25PM1>) -3. Retroactive Applicability.` Federal and state law additionally disfavors the adoption of legislation that has a retroactive impact upon land owner rights and land values. All of the land owners impacted by the proposed HOD acquired their property with the understanding that their. use rights were subject to then -existing zoning. The adoption of the HOD ordinance creates a new set of land use rules that are to be retroactively applied. 4. ArbitraryApplicability Inconsistent Application; Equal Protection. Federal and state law requires that ordinances must be uniformly applied.to all persons that are in similarly situated circumstances. We have,identified a number of provisions of the HOD that seem to provide for an arbitrary and inconsistent application of the regulations therein. For instance, (a) certain areas of the City with specified hillside slopes are covered by the HOD while other areas with similar. hillside slopes are not covered, (b) hilltop regulation in the hillside ordinance appears lobe conceptually inconsistent and arbitrary, and (c) height restrictions for hillside properties appears to be arbitrary if not otherwise applied to non -hillside properties. Constitutional Vagueness. Generally, all aspects of a governmental ordinance must be specific so as to insure consistency of interpretation. The HOD proposal, however, includes a series of "best practices". From a strict constitutional perspective, we believe that a municipality cannot adopt practices that are suggestive. Legislation that is constitutionally vague has been held to be voidable. POSSIBLE NEGATIVE SCENARIO If the City proceeds forward with the adoption of the HOD absent addressing the issues noted above, we are concerned that litigation will surely occur, given the fact that.the property values of a number of the City's residents are certain to immediately and substantially diminish. Given the number of sophisticated and complicated constitutional issues that would be presented, litigation would be extraordinarily expensive, would involve the retention of a number of costly expert witnesses,and would take years to finally resolve. Moreover, the'aggrieved property owners certainly would assert a claim for compensation given the City's taking of their property rights, and this claim would probably result in the inclusion of a substantial contingent liability on the City's financial statement/balance sheet. This contingent • liability might hamper the City's ability to efficiently access the finance markets in connection with • future bond issues and might have a negative impact upon that credit markets rating that the City ,currently realizes. SUGGESTED APPROACH • We strongly suggest that your organization work with the City in an effort to resolve these issues, and consider the following: C�DO[.IR.tENI'S AND SFTFINGSVEFF MATIIISI,OCAL SETFMGS{IEM ORARYINTERNGT F1LFSloIJ(3EU1EM0 OVERVIEW OF LF,GN, ISSUES Y<I DOC Fdauay 21, 2006 (G:25pMj - v _ _ - -1. Request that the city postpone its scheduled second reading of the. HOD that is set. for this • coming Tuesday. 2. Promptly begin the process .of identifying to the City those provisions of the HOD that are the subject of those: constitutional and legislative issues noted herein. 3, Identify a prompt deadline at which.the HOD would be modified and finalized. • 4. Once resolved, support the City in the adoption of a HOD that is'consistent with -the goals of • both the Citys,its residents, and applicable law. This memo. only -summarizes our. thoughts. I can -provide you with more detailed factual and legal support at any time. Please contactme with your thoughts -and comments. C:DO(.'VMENI'SMDSET iINCSUEFF MATHISV.00AL SETI/NG51'f 34POAAY INTERNET FlIISIOLIUFIMEMO_OVERVIEW' OF_U-GAL_ISSUES V41pOC . . Fcbnwy 21, 2006 (4:2M M) THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGALDEPARTMENT TO: City Council THROUGH: Mayor FROM: Kit William DATE:. March 3, 201 RE: Possible amendments to Hillside Ordinance Attached please find the Hillside Ordinance with possible amendments that would make the ordinance more legally defensible, clear up ambiguities, encourage PZD development on hillsides, and remove restrictions on home buyers (not home builders). Proposed Amendments and Clarifications (1) Title and Whereas Clauses Amended to make consistent and clear that the Hillside Best Practices Manual is a GUIDE (like the 2020 Plan) rather than an ordinance requirement. (2) Hillside Overlay District definition Although "Hilltop" had been defined in the ordinance, it was never again mentioned throughout the ordinance. "Hilltop" was not included within the definition of "Hillside Overlay District". I do not think any regulation of hilltops exists as the ordinance is currently written. Since I am concerned that a Court could reject treating and regulating relatively level land as if it were steep simply because it is near or above steep land, the lack of "Hilltop" regulation in the current ordinance is a legal plus. However, I know the intent of the Planning Commission (on a 5 to 4 vote) and the Ordinance Review Committee. was to regulate "Hilltops". Therefore, I have redrafted Hillside Overlay District definition to. include "the adjoining land uphill from the 15% slope that contains at least 8% slope' as shown on the Hillside Overlay District map." This language mirrors the language further in the definition that would allow an owner of a parcel within the Hillside Overlay District with an average slope of less than.8% to opt out of the District. However, if the developer or builder wanted to take advantage of the reduced street widths, right of ways, setbacks, lot widths, bulk and area requirements, etc. of the Hillside Ordinance, the developer/builder could not exempt the less than 8% slope land from the District. The new definition of Hillside Overlay district clearly requires that a land owner with fairly level land must abide by all terms of the ordinance or not to receive any of its beneficial aspects. This voluntary inclusion by the landowner/developer in order to use more appropriate (and less expensive) hillside development practices removes the legal problems of forcing an owner of relatively level lands to follow all hillside regulations. When the remainder of the ordinance and exhibits refer to lands within the Hillside Overlay District, any land which has been exempted by its owner because it is less than 8% slope shall be excluded from the District and from all provisions of the Hillside Ordinance and must meet all normal development requirements. (3) Height limitations (Exhibit "A') Valid points have been made about the need to protect adjoining homes from exceedingly tall residential structures. RSF-4 currently has NO height limitation at all. However, legal considerations favor making height restrictions uniform throughout the city. No matter whether one lives in the valley or on a hill, an eighty foot house next door could block the view, sunlight, air flow and lessen the enjoyment of the home. Although the Hillside Ordinance had proposed a 60 foot height limitation, that appears too high in many residential situations. I propose a height limitation of 42 feet for residential developments city wide (not including C-3 and C-4 or the Downtown District). Because taller residential buildings could be appropriate in some areas (existing nearby tall buildings, large lots where the tall building could be set back to lessen impact on neighboring structures, etc.), the height restriction could be increased through a conditional use. That way the neighbors could express their opinions and appropriate conditions could be placed to protect neighbors' interests. I also placed a "grandfathering" sentence in so that no existing tall building would be considered a nonconforming use. (4) Tree Preservation & Protection, Chapter 167 of the U.D.C. (Exhibit "B') (A) Applicability. This original section was the "great compromise" reached by the Tree Ordinance Committee between the developers/home builders and the preservationists. The compromise was to exempt a person building "one single-family dwelling unit or duplex, ... from the provisions of this section." Of course, the City Council is not legally bound to honor any previous compromise or agreement if they wish to revise this ordinance. However, the newly proposed language leaves an enterprising home builder a way to finesse the Tree Ordinance. 2 Let's look at the development that created great controversy and litigation against the City in 2002. That developer bulldozed all the trees off two adjoining half acre lots in preparation to build twelve duplexes. (RMF-24 zoning) Because he was treating the two lots as one, Tim Conklin required he go forward as a large scale development (one acre or more development). He was eventually denied by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. He would likely have won his appeal and been granted the right to build those duplexes, but he dropped his appeal prior to trial. Because the two lots have been "developed" as that term is broadly defined in the U.D.C., a developer would not have to do a tree preservation plan on one of those half acre lots as long as he chose to build more than one duplex or house. As it now reads, only if he chooses to build a single home or duplex would he have to abide by the tree preservation ordinance. I have redrafted this to close that unintended loophole and to exclude land exempt from the Hillside District. Because of the numerous advantages of developing according to the Hillside District's reduced setbacks, lot widths, street right of ways, I doubt that many developers will choose to opt out of the Hillside District even if the land if fairly level. (1) Hillside Overlay District Also in Exhibit B is what appears to be the new subsection (A) (1) Hillside Overlay District. Apparently it replaces the old (A) (1) since the old language is not reprinted as in the introductory language of (A) immediately above. If so, we have just removed the applicability of the Tree Ordinance to subdivisions and large scale developments in all non -hillside locations. This has been remedied by simply renumbering this paragraph "(5)". With all the litigation I must do, I simply have not had enough time to go through the Planning Department's proposed Hillside Ordinance revision's of the U.D.C. line by line prior to its submission to the City Council to ensure we do not create unintended consequences that could be confusing or even damaging. I urge the City Council continue to undertake a very careful review of every proposed change. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements Rather than a blanket 30% level for all Hillside Overlay District land, I recommend a uniform increase of 5% for all districts within the Hillside Overlay District. This would mean that most residential single family zones would be increased to 30%, multifamily to 25% and C-2 to 20%. By increasing all districts by 5%, the City protects significantly more trees, but still recognizes legitimate distinctions between single family, multifamily and commercial zones. 3 (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions 3. Hillside Overlay District. The following sentence was removed from subsection (a): "Pending approval, the proposed pattern of development shall be required to minimize the view of the new development from the valley below with the preservation of tree cover." I have concerns about Constitutional Equal Protection arguments if this ordinance favors persons in the valleys over persons on hillsides for purely aesthetic, "viewing" purposes. Increasing tree canopy requirements and requiring even single home builders to preserve tree canopy in the Hillside District is properly supported by drainage and stormwater concerns. This additional tree canopy will improve aesthetics without favoring citizens in the valley over citizens on the hills. The sentence that was suggested to be removed is not really necessary and could cause legal problems. (b) (Single family home owners) Although home builders should have to preserve tree canopy, once the home has been finished and its owner has received the Certificate of Occupancy, the home owners should pretty much be allowed to manage their home's yard as they desire without having to come to City Hall for permission. Grading on 15% slopes (even in someone's backyard) would still require permits, but a homeowner could cut down brush and trees without City Hall approval. PZD tree easements in common greenspace areas would remain permanently enforceable by the City. §169.06 (1) Request for on -site mitigation: We added "with appropriate tree species" to subsection (C) and removed it from § 169.06 (F) Erosion and Sedimentation control. 5. Physical Alteration of Land (Exhibit "C") This proposed amendment makes the City's Landscape Manual and Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual mandatory. It is probably preferable to use "should" rather than "shall" at least initially. If these manuals are ignored with bad development results, then the City Council would have good reasons for amending this to make these manuals mandatory. Therefore, the proposed amendment changes "shall" in §169.02 (D) and 169.04 (A) and (D) to "should". Only one of the "shall"s in (F) should be changed to "should". The second "shall" requiring meeting all revegetation requirements prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy should remain. Similarly the third "shall" regarding replanting trees in Cut and Fill tie -back slopes should also remain: No change in current ordinance and table had been proposed so these were removed. New requirements for minimum undisturbed land in the Hillside Overlay District for Large Scale Developments and lot development were stated by sentence rather than by the revised table and called for matching the minimum required tree canopy of each zoning district in the Hillside Overlay District. §169.08 Grading Plan submitted needs to have "Hillside Overlay District" added before "shall" in the new language. 6. Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control (Exhibit "D") The newly proposed permit requirements for one single family or duplex construction was removed as unnecessary and very costly on advice of the City Engineer. 7. Building Regulations (Exhibit "F") §173.02 (B) (2) (b) Design requirements for buildings located within the Hillside Overlay District. Since there is no (ii), there should be no (i) subsection. The proposed language should be replaced with the following: "Developers of preliminary plats d large scale developments shall conduc nical analysis of the soils and4bsoils of their property to determine if a ypical spread.footin foundation is arrante based on the type of soil present on site. If fit, a notation on the final plat or easement plat shall be placed requiring all future ctures within the development have foundation plans designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or Architect. Unoccupied, single story buildings less than 120 square feet are exempt from any foundation requirements". This requirement allows more efficient use of engineering analysis time as street construction normally requires some geotechnical analysis. If the developer's engineer discovers the "bad soil" conditions where normal foundations would be problematic, a properly engineered foundation would then be required. In those areas without the problem soils, unnecessary (and expensive) engineered foundations would not be required. Conclusion There remains the major issue of whether a PZD must follow these new requirements, especially increased tree preservation areas and land disturbance areas. PZDs normally can vary many development criteria, but they have been held to the strictest tree preservation standards. Since the City Council must approve all terms and conditions of any PZD, allowing PZDs to vary all development requirements (including preserving tree canopy and avoiding ground disturbance) would allow the City Council to look at all aspects of a PZD to determine whether it should be approved as a desirable project. 5 This would be• especially important to the SouthPass project since much of its cleared, flat land will be designated as the City's Community Park while much of its residential development must therefore, be relegated to forested hillside. No one suggests that development rules or the Tree Ordinance be disregarded, but minimum percentages (30% for residential development on the Hillside District) might be lessened in light of this new project with hundreds of acres of park land, extensive trails, etc. If you wish to give yourself the power to approve a PZD even if it does not strictly meet the Hillside District's requirements, I will draft such language. 6 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT HILLSIDE PRESERVATION AND • PROTECTION, ESTABLISH A HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING BOUNDARY AND MAP, AND APPROVING THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AS A GUIDE WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville values its unique hillsides; and WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is committed to having appropriate and desirable development occur on the hillsides; and WHEREAS, developments that are compatible and harmonious with the hillsides, do not have a negative effect upon the City; and WHEREAS, the hillside best management practices manual will provide a guide for the development on the City's hillsides. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That Chapter 161: Zoning Districts is amended by inserting Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections; § 161.07 RSF-4, §161.13 RMF — 24, and §161.15 R -O, a copy of which marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §167.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 3: That Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections §169.02, §169.03, §169.04, §169.06, §169.07, §169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 4: That Chapter 170: Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections §170.01, §170.36, §170.05, §170.10, a copy of which marked Exhibit "D" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 5: That Chapter 172: Parking and Loading is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §172.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "E" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 6: That Chapter 173: Building Regulations is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §173.02, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "F" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 7: That Chapter 151: Definitions are amended by adding the following definitions: Cistern. (Stormwater) Roof water management devices that provide retention storage volume in above or underground storage tanks. They are typically used for water supply. Cisterns are generally larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10,000 gallons. On -lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an opportunity for water conservation and the possibility of reducing water utility costs. Green Roof. (Stormwater) Elevated roof surfaces that are entirely covered with a thin soil and vegetation layer. Height. (Hillside Overlay District) Building height shall be measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. Hillside Development ManuaL (Zoning) The best management practices document that supplements the Hillside Overlay District and illustrates desirable hillside development practices. Hillside Overlay District. (Zoning) Lands located within the City that generally have slopes in excess of 15 % and the adjoining land uphill from the 15% slope that contains at least 8% slope as shown on the Hillside Overlay District map. Parcels located within the Hillside Overlay District with an average slope less than 8% may be exempted by the owner by submitting a written request and a survey acceptable and to be approved by the Engineering Division certifying that the parcel has an average slope of less than 8%. This parcel shall then be shown on the Hillside Overlay District map as removed and exempt. None of the reduced right of way, setbacks, lot width, or other development reductions of the Hillside Overlay District shall be available to an exempted parcel. The development regulations in the Hillside Overlay District supercede the underlying zoning district. Historic grade. (Zoning) The natural grade of the land prior to any development. Parking Pad (Hillside Overlay District) Parking areas for multi -family residential, residential office, and commercial use in the Hillside Overlay District. Permeable Pavers. (Stormwater) A solid surface that allows natural drainage and migration of water into the earth by permitting water to drain through the surface itself or through spaces between the pavers. Plinth. (Hillside Overlay District) A foundation or base, usually on the upslope side of the hillside, on which a house is located. Most often a plinth is constructed by erecting a retaining wall at the street with backfill creating a level building pad for the home. Rain Barrels. (Stormwater) A stormwater containment vessel that captures runoff generated by impervious surfaces such as roofs. Rain barrels usually include a hole at the top to allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. By holding and reusing rainwater, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve potable water. Rain Garden. (Stormwater) an attractive landscaping feature planted with perennial native plants. It is a bowl -shaped garden, designed to absorb stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces such as roofs and parking lots. PASSED and APPROVED this 7'h day of March, 2006. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk 3 EXHIBIT "A" To be inserted in Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations: §161.07 District RSF-4, Residential Single Family —4 units/acre. (D) Bulk and area regulations. Single- Two-family family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 ft. 80 ft. width Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. dwelling unit HOD Lot 60 ft. 70 ft. minimum width HOD Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. dwelling unit ft. (E) Setback requirements. Single Family Dwellings FRONT SIDE REAR 25 ft. 8ft. 20 ft. HOD Front HOD Side HOD Rear 15 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. (G) Height. Structures are limited to a building height of 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. 4 Front Side Rear 25 ft. 8 ft. 25 ft. HOD Single Family Front HOD Single Family Side HOD Single Family Rear 15 ft. 8 ft. 15 ft. §161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family — Twenty -Four Units Per Acre (E) Setback requirements. Cross reference(s)--Variance, Ch. 156. (F) Height regulations. The maximum building height is 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. §161.15 District R -O, Residential Office /1 (E) Setback regulations. (F) Height. Structures are limited to a building height of 42 feet as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to the highest point of the structure. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the building is measured from the historic grade. The height of a proposed structure may be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing structures in excess of 42 feet shall be grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming uses. 5 Front 30 ft. Front, if parking is allowed between the right-of-way and the building 50 ft. Front, in HOD 15 ft. Side 10 ft. Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft. Side, in HOD 8 ft Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public alley 10 ft. Rear, in HOD 15 ft. EXHIBIT "B" To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection: §167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (A)Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed subdivisions, and large scale developments required by other chapters of the Unified Development Code to go through the city's permitting process. If a builder of single family dwellings or duplexes is not otherwise required to file a Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development, that development is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the development is on land or parcels within the Hillside Overlay -District in which case an abbreviated tree preservation plan set forth in §167.04 (H) (3) shall apply. (5) Hillside Overlay District. Undeveloped, land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation plan with the Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development site plan. Single and two family residential development shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining a building permit. There shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal until a tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measures at the site inspected and approved. (C) Canopy area. In all new Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments, lands located within the Hillside Overlay District, Industrial and Commercial Developments, and all other improvements listed above, trees shall be preserved as outlined in Table I under Percent Minimum Canopy, unless the Applicant has been approved for On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives as set forth in subsections I. & J. below. The square foot percentage of canopy area required for preservation in new development is based on the total area of the property for which the Applicant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way and park land dedications. An Applicant shall not be required to plant trees in order to reach the Percent Minimum Canopy requirement on land where less than the minimum exists prior to development, unless trees have been removed. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements ZONING DESIGNATIONS PERCENT MINIMUM CANOPY Tree canopy Hillside Overlay District — All requirements Zoning Designations are increased by 5% for all districts RA, Residential Agriculture 25% RSF-.5, Single-family 25% Residential — One Half Unit per Acre RSF-1, Single-family 25% Residential — One Unit per Acre RSF-2, Single-family 20% Residential — Two Units per Acre RSF-4, Single-family 25% Residential — Four Units per Acre. RSF-7, Single-family 20% Residential — Seven Units per Acre R -O, Residential —Office 20% RT-12, Two and Three-family 20% Residential RMF-6, Multi -family 20% Residential — Six Units per Acre RMF-12, Multi -family 20% Residential — Twelve Units per Acre RMF-18, Multi -family 20% Residential — Eighteen Units per Acre RMF-24, Multi -family 20% Residential — Twenty -Four Units per Acre RMF-40,Multi-family 20% Residential — Forty Units per Acre C-1, Neighborhood 20% Commercial C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial 15% C-3, Central Business 15% Commercial C-4, Downtown 10% I-1, Heavy Commercial and 15% Light Industrial I-2, General Industrial 15% P-1, Institutional 25% PZD, Planned Zoning Districts Most restrictive shall apply (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions. (3) Hillside Overlay District. Individual parcels or lots located within the Hillside Overlay District boundary shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation plan as set forth in §167/04 (H) (3) indicating the location of the structure and the preservation of the minimum tree canopy requirement. (a) Developers shall have the option of doing cluster development; such as a PZD, which would encourage more open space and tree preservation areas. In this pattern of development, the tree preservation zone on each lot can be transferred to a larger open space instead of being required on the individual lots. The open space set aside during cluster development shall be placed in a permanent easement or land trust with all future development rights removed from the property. (b) Once the City issues.a certificate of occupancy to the home owner, individual lot tree preservation areas are not binding upon such home owner. However, the permanent tree easements established for cluster development shall remain enforceable by the City. (I) Request for on -site mitigation (c) Tree removal due to the grading work done to create tie backs for roads in the Hillside shall be mitigated by reforesting a minimum of 25% of the tie backs with appropriate tree species pursuant to the landscape manual. (d) Planting trees in non -canopy areas in order to reach the minimum percent canopy requirements for the site is not allowed in the Hillside Overlay District. fl EXHIBIT "C" To be inserted in Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land: §169.02 General Requirements (D)Restoration. Land shall be revegetated and restored as close as practically possible to its original conditions to minimize runoff and erosion. Previously forested areas should follow the City's Landscape Manual for mitigation of forested areas. §169.03 Permits Required/Exceptions (A)Permit required. No grading, filling, excavation, or land alteration of any kind shall take place without first obtaining: (4) A grading permit is required by the City for any development occurring within the Hillside Overlay District boundaries. If a parcel of land is divided by the Hillside Overlay District boundary, then only that portion of land lying within the boundary is subject to the requirements of this chapter. (B) Exceptions where no grading permit is required. Grading permits are not required for the following: (4) Single-family/duplex. Construction of one single-family residence, or duplex not located within the 100 year flood plain, the Hillside Overlay District, or on a slope 15 % or greater: (C) Grading permit application and approval. No grading permit shall be issued until the grading plan, endorsed by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer, is approved by the City Engineer. Grading permits may be issued jointly for parcels of land that are contiguous, so long as erosion control measures are in place until project completion. Any application for a required grading permit under this chapter shall be submitted concurrently with the application and calculations for a drainage permit if such a drainage permit is required by §170.03., coordination with Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection is required. §16904 Minimal Erosion Control Requirements If exempt under 169.03, a grading permit is not required. However, exempt as well as non- exempt, activities shall be subject to the following minimal erosion and sedimentation control measures. (A)Natural vegetation. The potential for soil loss shall be minimized by retaining natural vegetation wherever possible. Development in the Hillside Overlay District should comply with the recommendations of the Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual with regard to the retention of natural vegetation on Hillsides. PJ (B) Stabilization. All graded and otherwise disturbed areas shall be stabilized immediately after the grading or disturbance has been completed. Stabilization methods such as baled straw, filter fabric, ditch checks, diversion ditches, brush barriers, sediment basins, matting, mulches, grasses and groundcover shall be used. (D)Excavation material. Excavation material shall not be deposited in or so near streams and other stormwater drainage systems that it may be washed downstream by high water or runoff. All excavation material shall be stabilized immediately with erosion control measures. §169.06 Land Alteration Requirements (C) Cut or fill slopes. (1) Finish grade. Cut or fill slopes shall have a finish grade no steeper than 33% (3.00 horizontal to I vertical), when approved by the City Engineer. Land located within the Hillside Overlay District may have cut or fill slopes with a finish grade no steeper than 50% (2.00 horizontal to 1 vertical) with approval of the City Engineer. (4) Setback requirements. The following setback requirements shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for purposes of assessing safety, stability, and drainage problems: (See illustrations). Setbacks from property lines may be filled or cut if a grading plan is submitted jointly by the owners of both properties. (F) Erosion and sedimentation control. (e) Hillside Overlay District. Revegetation of lands within the Hillside Overlay District should be planted immediately after the physical alteration of the land with complete and uniform ground cover. Sod, erosion fabric, herbaceous groundcover (in wooded areas), and/or a hydroseed with warm season grasses is required. Re -vegetation requirements shall be met prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Cut and Fill tie -back slopes shall be re -vegetated. In §169.06 (G) Undisturbed land requirements, after the table add the following: "In the development of Large Scale Developments and lots within the Hillside Overlay District, the minimum amount of undisturbed land shall equal the percent minimum tree canopy pursuant to Table 1 of §167.04 (C)." §169.07 Grading Plan Specifications (A) Grading plan. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan as follows: (2) Existing grades. Existing grades shall be shown with dashed line contours and proposed grades with solid line contours. Grading plans shall be required to show both the proposed grade and the undisturbed area. Contour intervals shall be a maximum of two feet. Spot elevations shall be indicated. 10 §169.08 Grading Plan Submittal (B) Final grading plan. No subdivision may be finalized, nor large scale development plat approved before a final grading plan has been submitted to the City Engineer and approved. The final grading plan and the final plat of land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall have the following plat note stating: "Property and lot owners of lands located within the Hillside Overlay District are strongly encouraged to have a geotechnical analysis of their property prior to any development in order to identify potential geological hazards and determine appropriate techniques to mitigate against hazards such as the swelling and shrinking of soils, slumping, hillside creep, and seeps." II EXHIBIT "D" To be inserted in Chapter] 70 Stormwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control: §170.01 Intent (A)Intent. It is the intent of this chapter to protect, maintain, and enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Fayetteville by: (5) Requiring that erosion control measures are implemented and function on a lot -by - lot basis. (6) Encouraging the use of storm water best management practices to reduce runoff. These measures would include permeable pavers, green roofs, rain gardens, cisterns and rain barrels for irrigation use. §170.05 Permit Application A storm water management, drainage, and erosion control permit application shall be submitted to the City Engineer using appropriate forms as provided by the city. An applicant may apply jointly for contiguous parcels or subdivisions as long as the erosion control measures are in place until project completion. A permit application shall contain sufficient information and plans to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the project complies with the requirements of this chapter. The specific items to be submitted for a permit application shall be in the form and follow the procedures as described in the Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 1, Drainage Report Checklist. Submittal information and plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: §170.10 Environmentally Sensitive Mitigation Methods for Storm water Management (A) Environmentally conscious measures to reduce the amount of storm water generated by development shall be encouraged, especially in the Hillside Overlay District. Methods may include but, are not limited to, rain gardens, permeable pavement, green roofs, cisterns for the collection and redistribution of storm water for irrigating purposes, etc. 12 EXHIBIT "E" To be inserted in Chapter172:: Parking and Loading: §172.04 Parking Lot Design Standards (E). Hillside Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads in Multi -Family, Office, and Commercial Development Parking pads shall be separated by a minimum undisturbed area of 15 feet between parking pads. Streets and access drives are permitted to cross this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be encouraged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance. (3) Maximum number of spaces per parking lot for multi family and office use. Parking pads shall have a maximum of 30 spaces per pad. (4) Parking lot location with multi family and office structures. When the building is, located adjacent to the street the parking shall be located in the rear. When the multi- family structure is located off of the street, a minimum of 35' of undisturbed area shall separate the building from the street. (5) Developers of multi -family, office, and commercial uses in the Hillside Overlay District are encouraged to refer to the Hillside Overlay District Best Management Practices Manual for guidance and direction in the design of their project. 13 EXHIBIT "F" To be inserted in section 173: Building Regulations: §173.02 Fire Prevention Code/Building Code (B)Amendments, additions, and deletions to the Building Code. The Building Code shall be amended as follows: (2) Footings and Foundations. Building, structures, and parts thereof shall be designed and constructed in accordance with strength design, load and resistance factor design, allowable stress design, empirical design, or conventional construction methods, as permitted by the applicable material chapters of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code and this section. (b) Design requirements for buildings located within the Hillside Overlay District. Developers of preliminary plats and large scale developments shall conduct a geotechnical analysis of the soils and subsoils of their property to determine if a typical spread footing foundation is warranted based on the type of soil present on site. If not, a notation on the final plat or easement plat shall be placed requiring all future structures within the development have foundation plans designed, approved and sealed by a professional engineer or Architect. Unoccupied, single story buildings less than 120 square feet are exempt from any foundation requirements. 14 • KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY RTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: . Dan ,Coody, Mayor CityCouncil FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: March 14, 2006 DEPARTMENT RE: "Developers'." comments concerning Hillside Ordinance Mr. Heartsill Ragon as attorney for, "Concerned' Citizens of Fayetteville, Inc." sent me the enclosed memo with suggested changes for the Hillside Ordinance. He -did not use the actual Hillside Ordinance currently before the City .Council, but the draft proposed by the Mayor, City Engineer; other staff and me. .. I do not agree with all of his suggestions and see some possible problems, but I wanted to get this to you quickly so you could decide. I do. not think he is correct that our city engineers have suggested that regulation of less than 15% slopes;as not. consistent with drainage concerns. If any alderman wishes'.to discuss these issues or discuss my concerns aboutthe proposed Hillside Ordinance, please call me or just drop by. GILL ELROD RAGON OWEN & SHERMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS,_ 3801 Metropolitan Tower 425 W. Capitol Avenue Unit Rock, Arkansas 7_201 Telephone (501) 376-3800 i clecopier (501) 372-3359 MEMORANDUM TO: Concerned Citizens of Fayetteville, Inc. FROM: llleartsill Ragon, III DATE: March 13, 2006 RE: Comments to Proposed Hillside Ordinance Amendments I am attaching for your review my hand-written- comments to the proposed ordinance amendments. I thought that it mightalso be helpful to provide you withmy thoughts regardring each of the comments. The. numbered paragraphs below correspond to those. circled numbers on the attached. • 1. With regard to height issues, which will be more fully described below, I would suggest that the ordinance provides for measurement to the bottom of a wall of the roofing joists, as opposed tothe top'ofthe roof. This comment will be more fully.explained,in paragraph3, below. 2. With regard to the HOD uphill collars, I propose a. deletion of any regulation of slopes less than 15%. Your engineers aresuggesting that regulation of less -than -15% slopes is not necessarily consistent with engineering science's concerns with" run-off and drainage. Also; in that. the city had earlier proposed a ridgetop preservation zone, but subsequently abandoned this concept, the 8% -to -15% regulation appears to: be a regressive step with inverse condemnation concerns. 3., With regard to height, I believe that we should focus on a limitation of total building levels, as opposed to a limitation based in vertical distance. This is the approach that many of the other cities in the state have taken, and is the approach that is preferred by may land planners. A three story limitation. provides architectural flexibility while maintaining the visual goals ofthe city. A vertical height limitation may become subject to abuse. For instance, a vertical height limitation would encourage the use of flat roofs. Flat roofs create visual and on -going maintenance issues. Finally, in that the hillside ordinance deals predominately with residential issues, I'd propose that all height limitations apply only to the RSF zoning classifications. t CONCDINED CIT¢Etu OF FAYEITE %LI 1 ' O—COADAENtS TOORD I.1ARA OY N DOC Mcrth 13.?006111iSM1) 4. With regard to tree preservation, I suggest that the ordinance provide for the limited removal of trees if. the building site would otherwise be rendered substantively unbuildable, upon a .s7iowing"of goo7'cause:As a condition to suc -`a grant, replacement trees of acceptable size would be required. This comment focuses on the pr'evention'of a restriction that would make alot virtually unbuildable and therefore affect an inverse taking of the property. 5. The hillside ordinance substantially focuses on single family residential development. Within the hillside areas, all other land uses are miniscule. Accordingly, I'm suggesting that we delete from the canopy rule reference to any other designations other than single family residential. 6. With regard to PZD,.I'm also suggesting that the coverage rules be those that are mutually agreed upon, not to exceed 25% coverage. My logic behind this suggestion rests with the fact that a PZD application will be more heavily sciritinized,•reviewed and negotiated between the city and the land owners'and there is no need to trump by ordinance those rules that the city and the land owner might otherwise mutually agree upon. Given the flexibility of drafting a PZD, I believe that the parties can mutually agree upon canopy and other rules that are consistent' with the city's goals. 7. With regard to geolCehijicaf analyses, I have added language that, I think, is reflective of the comments from the Ordinance Review Committee discussions. With regarddo all permitting, if not otherwise addressed, I suggest that batched, tract -wide testing occur, as opposed to specific lot - by -lot testing. My rationale rests in my belief that tract -wide testing will provide the assurance that the public deserves without adding costs to property owners realizedthrough lot -by -lot testing. I'd be happy to discuss these thoughts further with you at any time. 13CONCtfNEOR)1h3L5 OF FAYEF)EVILLEN1E6t0.C'OA16fEN)S TO ORD AWU;-Uf V) OOC Marth U. !OD61I1'16MQ ' ' ' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN ORDER TO ' IMPLEMENT. HILLSIDE PRESERVATION.. AND PROTECTION,. ESTABLISH. A. . HILLSIDE. OVERLAY... DISTRICT ZONING BOUNDARY D. MAP, . AND. APPROVING THE HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MANUAL AS A GUIDE WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville values its unique hillsides; and W• HEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is committedand desirable development occur on the hillsides; and WHEREAS, developments that are compatible and harmonious with the hillsides, do not have a negative effect upon the City; and WHEREAS, the hillside best management practices manual will provide a guide for the development on the City's hillsides. NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section .1: That Chapter 161: Zoning Districts is amended by inserting..Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections; §I61.07.RSF-4, §161.13 RMF — 24, and.§1,61.15 R -O, a copy of which marked Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2: That Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §167.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. • Section 3: That Chapter 169: Physical Alteration of Land is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections §169.02, §169.03, §169.04, §169.06; §169A7, §169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and made a part hereof Section 4: That Chapter 170: Storrnwater Management, Drainage and Erosion Control is amended to iucludc Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections§170.01, §170.36, §170.05, §170.10, a copy of which marked Exhibit "IY" is attached hereto and made a. part hereof. Section 5: That Chapter 172: Parking and Loading is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section § 172.04, a copy of which marked Exhibit "E" is attached ..._....._...._......hereto and.made a.parthereof.._.."_...._........._................_..._..._....._...:......:._..,......._._....._.........._._.......___......__.... Section 6: That Chapter 173: Building Regulations is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section §173.02, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "F" is. attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 7: That Chapter 15.1:• Definitions are amended by adding the following definitions: Cistern. (Stormwater) Roof water management devices that provide retention storage volume in above or underground storage tanks. They are typically used for water supply. Cisterns are generally larger than rain barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10;000 gallons. On -lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides an opportunity for water conservation and the possibility of reducing water utility costs. Green Roof. (Stormwater) Elevated roof surfaces that are entirely covered with a thin soil and vegetation layer. Height (Hillside Overlay District) Building height shall be measured fr tfi the lowest ��'' _ U point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, fo:the 9Hroetw-r. If the structure is located on a graded pad then the height of the..building is measured. from the historic grade. . Hillside Developinent Manual (Zoning) The best management practicesdocument that. supplements the Hillside Overlay District and illustrates desirable hillside development practices. Hillside Overlay District (Zoning) Lands located within the City that ,generally have slopes in excess of 15 % aed. thejka t cal .'t--- .., -. • rr • r rt'.' 1111 1' I '• -'! ..I 1 i I! 1: i'i .. i i 1 1 I•J I 1_ t _1__I_ 1'i 1 1 1: _ 1_.1 .. 1!. 1 I 1 r Nena.oLthex�dused right �s.vA. , ther'development-reduetioirs oC The development regulations in the Hillside Overlay District super -cede the underlying zoning district. Historic grade. (Zoning) The natural grade of the land prior to any development. Parking Pad. (Hillside Overlay District) Parking areas for multi -family residential, residential office, and commercial use in theHillside Overlay District. Permeable Pavers. (Stormwater) A solid surface that allows natural drainage, and migration of water into the earth by permitting water to drain through the.surface itself or through spaces between the pavers. P!rnlh. (Hillside Overlay District) A,foundation or base, usually on the upslope side of the hillside, on which..a..house._is,located.--Most-often a -plinth -is constructed -by -exec ing-a " ""'" retaining wall at the street with backfill creating a level building pad for the. home. Rain, Barrels.(Stormwater) Astorniwater containment: vessel tbat captures runoff generated by impervious surfaces such as roofs. Rain barrels usually include a bole at the top to allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. By holding and reusing rainwater, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve potable water. Rain Garden. (Stormwater) an attractive .landscaping feature. planted with perennial native .plants. It is a .bol-shaped garden, designed to: absorb, stormwater run-off from, impervious surfaces such as roofs and parking lots. PASSEb and APPROVED this 7'" day of March, 2006. 3 EXHIBTI• 00A" To 6e. inserted in.thapter.161:. Zoning.Regulations: _,_......_......................._......... §161.07 District RSF-4; Residential Single Family - 4 units/acre. (D)Bulk and area regulations. Single- Two-family family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 ft. 80 ft. width Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 .sq. minimum ft Land area per . 8;000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq.ft. dwelling unit HOD Lot 60 ft. 70 ft. minimum width HOD Lot area 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. • minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft: 6,000 sq. • dwelling unit ft. (E) Setback requirements. Single Family Dwellings FRONT SIDE . REAR .25. ft. 8 ft. 20 ft• HOD Front HOD Side HOD Rear 15 ft. • S ft:: 15 ft. (G) Height Structuresare limited t1 .. 1 Y. .. : f t t u t 1 JIIUW1: 1 1 I• • I- • 1 •Y . I •1• • • { i II Its 1: t1 �1 w JI • I �' .•l tlll'1 t 1 I1: ljlJ IT1IJnT1 r1I 1.1 tt t tt ,�1•••••• E §161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family- Twenty -Four Units Per Acre _(E) Setback requirements. _ .......... _ _.... __...........-_..... _..........._ ..................... ... . Front Side Rear 25 ft. 811. 25ft. HOD Single Family .Front HOD . Single Family Side HOD Single Family Rear 1511. 8 ft. 15 ft. Cross reference(s)—Variance, Ch. 156. (F) Height regulations. The maximum building height is the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, p highest point of the structure. The height` of .a pr increased by Conditional Use. Any existing gtructur grandfathered in and not considered nonconforming u! §161.15 District 11-O, Residential Office (E) Setback regulations. Front 30 ft. Front, if parking is allowed 50 ft. between the right-of-way and the buildin Front, inHOD . 15 ft. Side . 10 ft. Side, when contiguous. to a. 15 ft residential district Sid in'HOD .. '8 ft Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public loft. alley Rear, in.HOD .. 15 ft. (F)Height. Structures areAtmitcd to a building height lowest;point of the 'structure .at the historic -grade, ' point of the structure. If the structure is-locatedo building is measured from the historic grade. Tht be increased by Conditional Use. Any existing s grandfathered in and not considered nonconformidg ee measured from to'de elopment,. to the d st cture may be tees of 42 feet shall be. feet measured froth the or to develo went, to the'bighest' a graded pad ben the beight of the height of a oposed structure may etures in Bess of 42 feet shall be uses. EXHIBIT "B" To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection: §167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (A)Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed subdivisions, and large scale developments required by other chapters of the Unified Development Code to go through the city's permitting process. If a builder of single family dwellings or duplexes is not otherwise required to file a Preliminary Plat or Large. Scale Development, that development is exempt from the provisions of this Chapter unless the development is on land or parcels within the Hillside Overlay District in which case an abbreviated tree preservation plan set forth in §167.04 (H) (3) shall apply_ (5) Hillside Overlay District. Undeveloped, land located within the Hillside Overiny. District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis report, and tree preservation.plau . with the Preliminary Plat or Large Scale Development site plan. Single nod two` family residential development shall submit an abbreviated. free preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining n building permit. There shall be no land disturbance4 grading, or tree removal until a tree preservation; plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measures at the site inspected and � approved: . j (CJ Canopy area., In it new Subdivisions, Large Scale Developments, lands located within . l3 the Hillside OverJoy District, Industrial and Commercial Developments, and all other, improvements listed hkove, trees shall be preserved as outlined in Table I under Percent Minimum Canopy, unl s the Applicant has been approved for On -Site Mitigation or Off -Site Alternatives as se orth in subsections L & I. below. The square.foot percentage of canopy area required for p servation in new development is based on the tot tea of the property for which the Ap 'cant is seeking approval, less the right-of-way and park land dedications_ An Applicants %1111not be required to:plant trees in order to reachthPercent Minimum Canopy requiren land where Iessthan the minimum exto development, unless trees have einoved. fit, t. Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements • ZONING DESIGNATIONS PERCENT MINIMUM CANOPY Tree canopy • Hillside Overlay District-- All. requirements ZoningDesiguations . are increased by 5% for all districts' RA, Residential Agriculture 25% RSF-S; Single-family 25% Residential — One Half Unit ------_.._--__-._--- RSF-1; Single-family 25% Residential — One Unit per Acre RSF-2, Single-family 20% Residential — Two Units per Acre RSF-4Single-family 25% Residential —'Four Units per Acre . RSF-7, Single-family 20% Residential — Seven Units per Acre R=O, Residential -Office .RI -12, Two and Three-family ResidentialRMF-6, Multi -family . T20% Residential — Six Units per Acre .. RMF-12; Multi -family 20% Residential — Twelve Units per Acre RMF-1.8, Multi -family 20% .. Residential -Eighteen Units er Acre . RMF-24, Multi -family. 20% Residential —Twenty -Four Units r Acre . -: . - RMF-40,Multi-faniily 20W Residential -.Forty Units per .___ 'Acre . C-1, Neighborhood h20% Commercial: C-2;'Thorougfifare.Commerc ii 15% C-3, Central Business 15%u Commercial C 4D,own`town 10% ` . I-1,HeavyCommercial and 15% Lig t -Industrial' I2, Geneial.Industrial ' 150/ P -1, Institutional 50 PZD Planned;ZoningDistricts r rctj ly (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for Proposed Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions- . .....1.1...........11____....._. _ ......1..........._11.1 .....1111_.......__...._._.._ . _1111._. _..................._..._... (3) Hillside Overlay District. Individual parcels or lots located within the Hillside Overlay District boundary shall submit an abbreviated tree preservation plan as set forth in §167/04(0) (3) indicating the location of the structure and the preservation of the minimum tree canopy requirement. (a) Developers shall have the option of doing cluster development, such as.a PZD, which•wonid encourage more open space and tree preservation areas. In t.is„pattern of development, the tree preservation zone on each lot can be • transferred to a larger open space instead of being required on the individual lots. The open space set aside during cluster development shall be placed in a permanent easement or land trust with all future development rightsremoved. from the property. (b) Once the City issues a certificate of occupancy to the home owner, individual lot tree preservation areas are not binding upon such home owner. However, The permanent free easements established for cluster development shall remain enforceable by the City. (1) Request for on=site mitigation. (e),Tree removal due to the'grading work done to create tie backs for..roads. in the Aillsideshall be mitigated by reforesting a minimum of 25% of the tiebacks with appropriate: tree species pursuant to the landscape manual. (d) Planting trees in non -canopy areas in order to reach the minimum percent canopy requirements for the site is not allowed in the Hillside Overlay District, EXMBIT F' ...................._.._..__ « To be inserted in section 173: Building Regulations: §173.02 Fire Prevention Code/Building.Codc (B)Amendments; additions, and deletions to the Building Code. The. Building Code shall be amended as follows: (2) Foalings and Foundations. Building, structures 'andparts thereof shall Ve designed and 4tnsctea in accordance with strength design; load and reslstonce factor desi , allowable stress design, empirical design; or conventional construction. methods, . permitted by the applicable material chapters of tbe.Arkansas Fire Prevention Code nd this section. (b) Design requirements for buildings located within the Hillside Overto°y District. Developers of preliminary pints and large le developments shall conduct a geotechnical analysis of the soils and. subsoil of their property: to determine if a typical footing foundation is based on the type of soil present on t) site. If , a notation on the finalplat or easement plat shall be placed requiring all futur s etnres sVith'ia the development have foundation pious designed,.approved an scale by a professional engineer'or Architect. Unoccupied, single story b. dings l s than. 120` square feet are e$einpt from any foundation requirements. er 14 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO: Dan Coody, Mayor City Council CC: •Ron Petrie, City Engineer FROM: Kit Williams, City Attome� DATE: March 23, 2006 RE: Memorandum from leartsill Ragon III (March 13, 2006) Many of Mr. Ragon's suggestions appear to be policy questions which are not within my province to comment upon. I leave it to the City Engineer to make any comments upon Mr. Ragon's statement: "Your engineers are suggesting that regulation of less -than -15% slopes is not necessarily consistent with engineering science's concerns with run-off and drainage." In relation to his fourth item about tree preservation, and inverse condemnation, a problem could exist if a house lot has only 30% tree canopy meaning that no tree removal should be allowed. However, our Tree Ordinance (§167.04 of the U.D.C.) has provisions that can allow on -site or off -site mitigation (I) and (J) when a builder would have to remove trees to make the lot buildable. This has been done for years with Large Scale Developments. This would become a more frequent problem since tree preservation has not been applied to building a house on a • single lot, but only to developers putting in streets. and utilities or to large. scale developments (more than one acre). The larger the lot, the more feasible it is to move building, driveways, etc. to accommodate tree preservation areas. A home J building lot is much smaller so that moving the house and driveway within that lot to avoid tree loss would be more difficult and maybe impossible. . A fully forested house lot should not be a problem as a builder should be able to plan his construction to preserve 30% tree canopy and undisturbed area. Where the tree coverage is 30% or less, a builder could not pick and chose what trees to save as the ordinance's intent is to preserve the whole 30% if possible. If it were not possible, the builder could still use the on -site or off -site mitigation measures and build successfully on the lot. Thus, I believe that inverse condemnation should not occur based upon tree preservation requirements for residential lots. GILL ELROD RAGON OWEN & SHERMAN, P.A. ATTORNEYS ._................. _. 1...,....._._........ _................ 3801 Metropolitan Tower 425 W. Capitol Avenue Little Roth, Arkansas 72201 Telephone (501) 376-3800 Telecopier (501) 372.3359 MEMORANDUM TO: Concerned Citizens of Fayetteville, Inc. FROM: Heartsill Ragon, III DATE: March 13, 2006 RE: Comments to Proposed Hillside Ordinance Amendments I am attaching for your review my hand-written comments to the proposed ordinance amendments. I thought that it might also be helpful to provide you with my thoughts regardring each of the comments. The numbered paragraphs below correspond to those circled numbers on the attached. 1. With regard to height issues, which will be more fully described below, I would suggest that the ordinance provides for measurement to the bottom of a wall of the roofing joists, as opposed to the top of the roof. This comment will be more fully explained in paragraph 3, below. 2. With regard to the HOD uphill collars, I propose a deletion of any regulation of slopes less than 15%. Your engineers are suggesting that regulation of less -than -15% slopes is not necessarily consistent with engineering science's concerns with run-off and drainage. Also, in that the city had earlier proposed a ridgetop preservation zone, but subsequently abandoned this concept, the 8% -to -15%D regulation appears to be a regressive step with inverse condemnation concerns. 3. With regard to height, I believe that we should focus on a limitation of total building levels, as opposed to a limitation based in vertical distance. This is the approach that many of the other cities in the state have taken, and is the approach that is preferred by may land planners. A three story limitation provides architectural flexibility while maintaining the visual goals ofthe city. A vertical height limitation may become subject to abuse. For instance, a vertical height limitation would encourage the use of flat roofs. Flat roofs create visual and on -going maintenance issues. Finally, in that the hillside ordinance deals predominately with residential issues, I'd propose that all height limitations apply only to the RSF zoning classifications. 1', VCONCERNED QTIZENS Or FAYCTTtY1LLEN1EMO-COMMENTS To OIID MARI:.UP "3 DOC March 11. 8106 (11:16M9) 4. With regard to tree preservation, I suggest that the ordinance provide for the limited removal of trees if the building site would otherwise be rendered substantively unbuildable, upon a showing of good cause: Asa condition to'isuch a giant, -replacement flees of acceptab]e size would be required. This comment focuses on the prevention of a restriction that would make a lot virtually unbuildable and therefore affect an inverse taking of the property. 5. The hillside ordinance substantially focuses on single family residential development. Within the hillside areas, all other land uses are miniscule. Accordingly, I'm suggesting that we delete from the canopy rule reference to any other designations other than single family residential. 6. With regard to PZD, I'm also suggesting that the coverage rules be those that are mutually agreed upon, not to exceed 25% coverage. My logic behind this suggestion rests with the fact that a PZD application will be more heavily scrutinized, reviewed and negotiated between the city and the land owners and there is no need to trump by ordinance those rules that the city and the land owner might otherwise mutually agree upon. Given the flexibility of drafting a PZD, I believe that the parties can mutually agree upon canopy and other rules that are consistent with the city's goals. 7. With regard to geotechnical analyses, I have added language that, l think, is reflective of the comments from the Ordinance Review Committee discussions. With regard to all permitting, if not otherwise addressed, I suggest that batched, tract -wide testing occur, as opposed to specific lot - by -lot testing. My rationale rests in my belief that tract -wide testing will provide the assurance that the public deserves without adding costs to property owners realized through lot -by -lot testing. I'd be happy to discuss these thoughts further with you at any time. tkcoNcrRNEbcrnzThsor FAVETTEYILLEUtEAfO-COMMENTS TO ORD MARA-U? V3 DOC Minh 11.:006 (I IY6AM7 0 0 0 0 ° A N N 00 o CD o bCD ° -- a bcao 9 v ff 5'a I--� pn <D a a0 < c x.770 0 0 a° CD a o a N w CD r+ crs o w o o o H a CCDD a ° N ��°?Cya°$•oX ooK•o O �Q a O pRw w W 'Lf Er 'b N a 0`< o o a°»w 0 7r 0 E a w o "3 0 ^° T I") W x� 0 w CD 0 CD _o w H ro_ 9 0 ya v'n NS�' r. .��. • pZ -OY-' N 'O' a ,0 ^ ,o o A b O a o r o ° CD o o CD o co b o' 0 0 o a E Y. C] o a T w �° @: b ny ,0 o Cn Q. C N W of o° m -• .w CT p m aH U.Y CD Ct CD TJ w I�' O El CCDD Ca0 CDD 0 t N w y CD a< CD < fi 0 wn' 0° a O w_ a o a o ° a trlCn,°T,',n(D w CDs._ott a 0 0 o w o n x0 CD (Y o' o CD J.- T .+. a `� ?» 0 CD c� ° w r I w o m 0 O. < G'. .may X00 CD y CD CDA Cs CD O a w 0Z N CD N N w o= x 7 Yo p G d O CD Y. i�. ,..� ° r fi � a o N CCDD VJ ° < y G O FY n y CD •�. .. `G G O a r. �. ry C° — W (D N. N h w O w a w oa °' w • ° CCD ?. rn ^ oa o c°D ov°ac �* Y. CD act a O .. O -- (p a� n° a�� c°t Xnn�� o�oc��o hi vi Y �• (D yay' 'T,' w N t C U. - < is 5. Go a 7 ° acc o N a, a CD � 0 vi y Y. ° V,c,V, �J'•TJ G... Y' 5. CD M Op 3 r. CD + CD O y ° CD 00 G ..d ,v° CD O R3 ti CD O .7 a G' G O ti ry.7p O '�-' ... C. ❑ .�'. v0, p 0 0. a N y O yO < N • �' w a 0a o Y. o 1 Y. a a I.V.aI V w•r K rr •r% -. N a'r7 U r. °+ �rti (CCD VI r. fy uq �r a ° CD o CD C G w a �' a •0 CD viG O W CD �-' ■ e • • • ■ ■ yy 1�I y A C y moo C^D h k. m rs o o w 0y a z.-._ g.' a° o d '<a N 'a 'C 0�0 y p a• ""'7S R 7 7 G' U+ n .w... a-. y U O E. 0 �E ° w n ao °.e c CD w a "�' w a (ts vi ED '1 W „ ° CD a CD O w CD N. kj Q= w �Ny Ct ? ft o p ry p f�D Mo H N fD Q3 '27 .Oy O �Q�O•� 0'0 O o cL m C- < . a CD ft y r. p o a O a w flct Ct C p''j P' r. n G. CDD O '.7 (D m ° p CD ■ ■ • • • ■ ■ G, O CCDD m .2 a Q n . m O x x C Z ' O Os cs n CDXC a "-n rn o h° CD COO o 3 it -pt ° - c f7 °M ° o o � a A c w -• o cD o C')CDct do ?; z5n CD ° m � a m d ° ° y N �° a N N C N .t ti Cl, a w-. H ■ ii CD CD z O N 04 a "CCD 7 w A A QQ ^ y~y� r. w �' CDD n w ,(wpb �. a■ma■yy n1flN ~ ci C" 0 Fj ° r.9 o or° o ct —o o �. : Cs- - `° p w O ^ a .w H ngLx N n �• ti' `� r. N a N p� QC' a NO N'' 7 O ~ Ca , <O aaCb p -CD CD < (D 1..r. ° CDti ti r. CD xp 50,ZN. O1 _ Ow m _. CDto o N < do o r•%< N a b sda C)��-3 ew,z �¢�Rqb CD no a' H ►. oMw oCDD�o 4R M• q��°o O w " �. 6 �. G a C O .tiy ❑ N .O+ S. 'c3 5' o .G+ ,� N ,D "d w o c O CDas w ti °0 o a F a-. °, _in O g 0b°aco =g' C N 7rxa y < < '�' a s o° Can o° o w p° O5OCl a '? (D a. (D a '<Cl, O b p'b a, 0-,= �' O a <' w• O u N N. CM C vOi 7` C 10 C Cl, 8 O w a• ❑ a -� 00 N. (aD 3 a.--NcEi' r y G °' ` 'b N N .'�•. a. ti "•�• G b 0Q O \ O r. ti x a" a n N NO O b N a. c e+ '+ (D w .y CD 0 - O 0z mzv_ r y iim w m m mo $ m n OD mo Sy S~ mT O .. I'm I'm I'll '1 A N O Z n m m c N '(A �1 To m T mZ�W -I O mNN ~ S x R 0 r I 05 /A CO r� 'A V/ Ln Z F m D N A D i OF I1 .__jam 4 1 C-, t 4 5 — H r a .0 A Q y Y y = C .. 1 d o i d c C - q y u p1 N N 3 U33 �� ac°i°T'no filE ° qvo •3y y63 — o °o 8� t J o4A a y ° h rH rj ii S. C 0 O La I. coo -.CD w e �Csw o 9 N ° ° o coy -•c , r.^Co N CD m pR (gip a C) Q. ti w 'r~' 0• ^.. O (cD CD .° 0 O N CD a• aQ n•1 (OD w ° .�. N F. n .n; .C-. p CD O 'i1 (� O In O n Q. O 7 O w r•� .< �' N 0 N OQ 1y� < (� °y N (D ❑ O rS "'ti N M r+ O Q y w A w e+ O -o n y m m N tio poy () R Opt Co ' �. to w (D C/i 00 S. w G w M o p E. y• CD CD m �. 0° CPD• (D a O caD �f O arq. a• r n O m S• (D m �• .w•' O d 0-t A pi. .7 r-ry (D r(Di, r• N C 0• 7 0 O o T' A Q 44m S• s r'Oi,. �Q N d 4T R ° Oa w' 5 ^ "°'> pr. o N = A y am av ova H v a.=y n (D O v CD a -S.-, m 7 y yw Y7 (D H ai — noa (D CD v x — N act 0 O V 0 -. H N . (!Q C O o 81101 at d •w» Oro m OCO `� to 3 A m o fD y y a w at O `O" A O A P�•' o N O p7 •ai • . N A ry 0 N y O H ((DDa �� O " C (� x 7 p w y b c°D N ? °a ti oc y1 0 C z Op O•' Ar ,., ,a A ti^ u e Z+ 5 s y G y A N �• A ,!S' Gip b p. y Op O �' y a Q ti A, Z y. O• O O •Ati•.. A ,�., S y 'Cf• C O A Op A b ^ y 4 0.A O r' O? A S A `.3 a �. to •��. Q• O O ��,,. n o Ar �^ y O n `A D Z T �. ^0 ^N^. A O y A_ O •� � •�. •.. A ^. � p � b A ? �' ,• ! fo O NO A p0 S O N O a O O1 -• AR7 `. A d d i fl. C C a'o• N. .ewe .��' o m R. vo a 4 m a C w o G o (D (D po -m m o rr . n ^ Op O n ,Z a •.. w w G —• O C y m m S O .. - R `.J �.'b A '•q m y O O (~D Q(q�D C `J IO eC A �(' �; �ba O'a�'C" b C ►•v'• �! ^ ego ��• O A y Imo• V. `� a `V -• aoo y . °. y y y o C n El a<c� �a�v°4ga 5' o �. -. -nib .� 'v a �t-o1 C pni �' cwi nCD `° [] A ft b S. Fu O 1 n•,,, I'lEiliiJ.!{!!1 Et 1 .i1 I Ii;! F!,, In uuI 80 ,t ii it { NR II R II 1 I H {! 1i.1 { I !I}il G;jEi li i i I i{IiI I ! fill, O °, 0p0 a" p O Cvt� o f ob y° x • a N C O V1 to C N G C '� O C O N K7 JC y UQ y o Os o0 Os cM aro con-. a o o o o C C Fn O "' N i N a` N) O U) a m I1R (to5 - -- ° ov°ro� S. Cyc: ?. O ° 0 n O. rn . . U I- 0 Ct O O A g Coa. 1 a 3 1 N yO r 1CDO 'Il y '''1 G o O- A. h O �, aY.�. q5 T aCD M O yy CD h a ("D n 0 r ice-. NO Cam' (D W n CD G ,, - '- 0. D7 d N < CD w cD H w (C ' CD w d T a ti 0 Or 0 V� ' 0 0 O O o'< cD tThCD °» �• co o ri ti �• O `C O rD . 0 N w rD r G NN O a CDD cOD - _ � m Q �t K, p -' O E• -' b K 'OY+0O7 S N -07 O fn O w Gi Ct CD CD Os -q • - CD o G O QT -• ty O .+vq CD C" ry' 1 OI = CD CCD m C,c. +aop CCDD 3 0 5 G C7 C o C OP H y O N. O . a. CD O w a, a7 5O wD cd°D w � � '••" � o Os OCD CDj- CD D 1 o r n o o w b w O f d C 0-12 (D N O O 0 N < N ti N CD r-• O 0 0 N) mrn rn N A N N O O a 1--ZN O .- o o a w n0 CD cD CD C) r-. C) r. Ct . P.F. 0 O CC) O '-"o ., T w 0 ti 04 (D (VtL CD CC`D o b 0 t • - r C O r. c• y ti O - 00 -. 't'6►• _ O MO N o fD N• ^`�J (D C3 M VI l< G K 'rri�f' R (D 0s 0 ;: n:m w e a m co CJ V K w w Cy O `D D7 o n ^ w o O O c m 0w.w�f°r,Od .� ,yy r'h O � O 7 N Oo•rw ". O w C ^ ti r. fD fD CD C O O y vw (D ? g0g w 9 C O w CD o�gf�ax� w Y w y " .. O CD w d w o0 < o<< --o O O N R N O CD O N rO*, fOc D .n N N C' ry O B C < O Vi w < 0 ,aCt W O <— cD • H (D O C eD to A' O •'j a� o�Ct0n v a r CD (D ly -- C) C. �• C c ny CO n] g •t Dl R IGOJ y C f=D �' O O ° T y —: c r. In r... (A r. 0 J y < h O ry / 7f§ a (.0 ) \\( U! } §i7 /§�q t m[ qN° 7 1 § \k k � ? �� g $| [ � %. w a. a Cl S. O_ Ca si 9 -- • ° C� VQy cp R i H ta o o no 00 rLy p 'l7 6x -S. N r 9 7 �•A C.0 a a e c2 r O I '1 a a S. • a y? Cvi. CD C m -'.3 ° V /� lI o a o � a` at � G a a PI• Ppo f° • v) r I tug. N 0 b Y. iIs o• C O-. R3 8 h v, ` E `� a� :y wp G O O O 5~q W A G�. • p o E Q °cCb ypp�. c CD OS CD a 0o8' :°ow'�00 po�ei ES y a ° fag o a a I CD v 00 WO .N'i _.. -. • ■ flo M. co - . a• (ap'*'O .. _.r rs 'L7 .� C. . G OT � o pCs C O. aC i i' pi � �. Ii bcoi00 flu US y �' ooc t o0 0 opo O. O t) - CD Dj p p' flU1 OG� G`• CD b b t. c a o 0 c a p 0 a a b'. o 1,1 I _ � 3 ., " �.�• Cam'..•-• r, �I4A :1 A r ,Viyy�• J 1•• • 1.: ;;* .jam ,r 1 . ^ A z a N I A N N h '1' V. 'tot us etN Iti. O O o a a lY /,•�5' f wN '°o -t. o o CD s r p N N a O r Q FL .. 0 w it N °Qa � Er (amp o a o o y N e j. 0 O Vy 0 -E. O O oc a o 25 pmt F o 3 3 w M O < 7 U O _0 C R. tO -i8.^�' cy "F7p rF5(GyDYY. O •O5O CD a 0 O .. \ Ii § k 0 r Ii' .1 J [fljfliqt y.. •y �. w E. ° F a � � -• � � w b O 1WC O ati on a . crr ro ca. 4,CDvtpwp w o r ° c o Fn g Pa o a afl o ° O e a'� `�qQQ O o �. c r . . �3. a o o Fa ro -n $ g•a� 5P O d a ao ag r o a QQ 0Y� a o ao I,cg�coxoCo C. cao �• O O �. �, �. fir'. b my p' O b w CD w ON ft I. S. a • a SE B8 W S.oa ° 4.>o' (cn C, n so�•� goo a�800y<< 00 Oyu $ o$ Ooh o M• <Oo B p a A Ec a ,, c w % Vic. ` �! x^ a.i �?w°Re d m -n- Pa '4, 02 ' N Y w� \ E• NCI RXaa : • YY Gti, W F Pt as CD w N ." c O Y • AOS CC- �' C ■ m C�7 E. ^' ° "� 0. Pet cb co w s m C f (� o n 6 .•* �' < it o o af°o y N C b 40 U c'a 7 cD ' a co a0• qq . c a d w e S o o .r c 0 C rn act, • p00 R 9 is O A cM nc Vi w � Vl O 0c f r U 1< EFI O 0' 0 0 0 a. 0 ao Di fl TP-sI sat Vi o w as n b cr off. a W N r ^9 y ,y... r. d7 QC �' .•7 ,�. ACT' O ' Q Q °w n. v OQ r UQ Q OQO G QQ —fl . Oo �ao0 8cs� 5vp 0 9� w- o o s CD he y r r a P C CD y• CD CD Co c<o 0 a Q' y0 E - O rn m C g v - a. O CD a a N 0 a) (D 9 ,1 N a N v N n N C C O` T v n w A XW v a. CO O a 0 a 3 CD co C c)) rT CD 0) 5. r► Q / I ( } La c o Mt n S d p N 5'v d O CD inIn QQ x C C •C� goo y7� O ≤o-�'�..� E -arm V CD w N O O a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV: UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CODE IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT HILLSIDE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION, ESTABLISH A HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING BOUNDARY AND MAP, AND ADOPT AND HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHER\the of Fayetteville values its uniquee i1lsides; and,WHERof Fayetteville is comm tted to having appropriate anddesirable develn the hillsides; and, WHERents that are compatibl and harmonious with the hillsides, do not have a negathe City; and, WHEREAS, the hillside the development on the City's hit NOW, THEREFORE BE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, AF Section 1. That Chapter 156: Variances. regulations in section §156.02 a copy of which is hereof. practices manual will provide a guide for BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ed by inserting Hillside Overlay District Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and mad a part Section 2 That Chapter 161: Zoning D/stricts i amended by inserting Hillside Overlay District regulations in sections; §161.07 RSF-4, §16143 RMF — , and §161.15 R -O, a copy of which marked Exhibit "B" is attached hereto and made a pa hereof. Section 3. That Chapter 167: Tree reservation and P'Qtection is amended to include Hillside Overlay District regulations in section § 167.04, a copy of which narked Exhibit "C" is attached hereto and made a part hereof. \ Section 4. That Chapter 169: Ph sical Alteration of Land is mended to include Hillside Overlay Y District regulations in sections § 169.02, 169.03, §169.04, §169.06, § f9.07, §169.08, a copy of which marked Exhibit "D" is attached hereto ad made a part hereof. Section 5. That Chapter 170: to include Hillside Overlay District re, which marked Exhibit "E" is attached Section 6. That Chapter 172: regulations in section § 172.04, a copy hereof: Section 7. That Chapter 173: regulations in section §173.02, a copy hereof: water Management, Drainage § d Erosion Control is amended is in sections §170.01, §17036. §170.05, §170.10, a copy of and made a part hereof g and Loading is amended to inc\herlitlo llside Overlay District ch marked Exhibit "T" is attacheand made a part Regulations is amended to include Hillside Overlay District is marked Exhibit "G" is attached hereto and made a part Y. r IY• AN ORDINANC REGULATIONS, PROVIDE UNIFOI IN RESIDENTIAL AND AMENDING BE IT ORDAINED BY FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: AMENDING CHAPTER BUILDING HEIGHT JGLE-FAMILY .ZON'j [AFTER 156: VARIt ] Section 1. That §§ 161.04 Regulations are hereby repealed, and CITY (F) Height. Structures in this D 45 feet as measured from the lowest poi The height of a proposed structure mi obtaining a variance after hearing by structures that exceed 45 feet in heig� considered nonconforming uses. I/ ZONING CODE, TO DISTRICTS; OF THE CITY OF .08 subsections (F), Height is inserted in their stead: are limited to a building height of the structure at the historic grade. ly be increased above 45 feet by Planning Commission. Existing all be grandfathered in, and not Section 2. That § 156.02 (B) is hereby amended by inserting the following: (5) Building height varianc in residential 'nngle family zoning districts. (a) The Planning Co ission shall habe the authority to grant a variance to allow a proposed stricture to exceed a h 'ght of 45 feet in Residential Single -Family Zoning District in those instances where, owing to special conditions and circumstance, literal enforcement of the building I height restrictions would result in un4tecessary hardship. (b) The Planning Commission may prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards to ensure any variance will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. PASSED and APPROVED this 4w day of April, 2006. APPROVED: DRAFT By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: SONDRA SD EXHIBIT "G" To be inserted in section 173: Building Regulations: §173.02 Fire Prevention Code/Building Code (B) Amendments, additions, nd deletions to the Building Code. The Building Code shall be amended as follows: (2) Footings and Foundation . Building, structures, and arts thereof shall be designed and cons ucted in accordance with strength design, load and resistance factor design, allowable stress design, empirical design, o conventional construction methods as permitted by the applicable material chapters\of the Arkansas Fire Prevention1dode and this section. (b) Design requirements Mr structures constructed within the Hillside Overlay District. (i) Footing and foundation plans shall be esigned and seated by an Arkansas registered professional engineer. / Exception: Un-occupied\ingle story,1fton-masonry buildings less than 120 SF. / 4 Section 8. That Chapter 151: Definitions are amended by adding the following definitions: Cistern. (Stormwater) Roof water management devices that provide retention storage volume in above or undergroun storage tanks. They are typically used for water supply. Cisterns are generally larger than raht barrels, with some underground cisterns having the capacity of 10,000 gallons. On -lot storage with later reuse of stormwater also provides/n opportunity for water conservation and the possibi 'ty of reducing water utility costs. Engineered Foundation. ( ilding Safety) Foundations of strue ores constructed on property located in the Hillside Overlay istrict requires that the foundation be designed by a Arkansas registered professional engineer. Green Roof. (Stormwater) Fle'yated roof surfaces that ar 'entirely covered with a thin soil and vegetation laver. \ Height. (Hillside Overlay District) 1uilding height structure at the historic grade, prior te development, structure is located on a graded pad the \ he height grade. e measured from the lowest point of the highest point of the structure. If the building is measured from the historic Hillside Development Manual. (Zonis) The frest management practices document that supplements the Hillside Overlay District and ' lustrates desirable hillside development practices. Hillside Overlay District (Zoning) Lands Io'taled within the City that generally have slopes in excess of 15 %. The Hillside Overlay Districts shown on the City's official zoning map. The development regulations in the Hillside Overlay DiI rict supercede the underlying zoning district. Hi/ltop. (Hillside Overlay District) Land 1 led have the Hilltop line which contains less than 15% slope and is completely surrounded by hillside < I % slope. historic grade. (Zoning) The natural gr��dde of the Ian riot to any development. Parking Pad. (Hillside Overlay Distr,{ct) Parking areas or multi -family residential, residential office, and commercial use in the Hillside Overlay District. Permeable Pavers. (Stormwater) /A solid surface that allow natural drainage and migration of water into the earth by permitting/ ater to drain through th surface itself or through spaces between the pavers. Plinth. (Hillside Overlay District) A foundation or base, usuatl�v the upslope side of the hillside, on which a house is located. Most often a plinth is constructed\y erecting a retaining wall at the street with backfill creating a lket building pad for the home. Rain Barrels. (Stormwater) A\Stormwater containment vessel that capiqres runoff generated by impervious surfaces such as roofs.'Rain barrels usually include a hole at tlIe top to allow water to flow in, a sealed lid, an overflow pipe or hose, and a spigot to dispense water. th holding and reusing rainwater, rain barrels reduce stormwater runoff from sites and conserve potabl water. Rain Garden. (Stormwater) an attractive landscaping feature planted with"perennial native plants. It is a bowl -shaped garden, designed to absorb stormwater run-off from impervious surfaces such as roofs and parking lots. EXHIBIT "A" To he inserted in Chapter 156: Variances: 156.02 Zoning Regulations Certain variances of the zoning regulations may be applied for as follows: (A) General regulations. Awariance shall not be granted unless and until an ap ilication demonstrates: (1) Special conditions. plat special conditions and circumstances exis which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable ttdher lands, structures, or building in the same district. (2) Deprivation of rights. TlIt literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning regulations would deprive the applicant of riots commonly enjoyed by otlAr properties in the same district under the terms of the zoning regulati ns. / (3) Resulting actions. That the sp'ecial conditions and ircumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (4) No special privileges. That grant' g the varia ce requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by ning, Chapters 160 through 165, to other lands, structures, or building in the same district. (5) Nonconforming uses. No nonconformi use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or non�o forming use of lands, structures, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for th issuance of a variance. (B) Consideration by the Planning Co shall be considered by the Planning (5) Hillside Overlay District. for variances of zoning and development (a) Special conditions. Tile purpose of this sectiapp is to authorize in specific cases such variances from the regulations of the Hillside Overlay District as will not be contrary to the public interest,/where, owing to special co ditions, a literal enforcement of the Design Overlay District regulations would result in nnecessary hardship. (b) Variance requested." A variance from the terms \f the Hillside Overlay District regulations shall not be granted by the Planning Chpmission unless and until the applicant provides from what section a variance is req sted. This shall be submitted along with the large scale development plan. (c) Findings. The Planning Commission shall make the (i) Requirements met. That the requirements of §156.02.(A) have been met by the applicant for a variance. (ii) Minimum variance. That the reasons set forth in the application justify the granting of the variance, and that the variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure. (iii) Harmony with general purpose. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Hillside Overlay District, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. (d) Conditions and so prescribe appropr may EXHIBIT "B" To be inserted in Chapter 161: Zoning Regulations: §161.07 Distict RSF-4, Residential Single Family -4 units/acre. (D) Bulk and area regulations. Single-family Two-family dwellings dwellings Lot minimum 70 ft.` 80 ft. widtfi Lot area 8,000 s' . ft. 12,000 sq. minimum ft. Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. dwelling unit Hillside Overlay 60 ft. 7 ft. District Lot minimum width Hillside Overlay 8,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. District Lot ft. area minimum Land area per 8,000 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft\ dwelling unit (E) Setback requirements. Single Family FRONT SIDE REAR / 25 ft. 8 ft. 20 ft. HOD Front HOD Side HOD Rea' 15 ft: .5 ft. 15 ft. / (G) Height. Structures are limited to a building height of 60' as measu structure at the historic grade, pri r to development, to the highes structure is located on a graded paid then the height of the building .grade. from the lowest point of the point of the structure. If the measured from the historic §161.13 District RMF-24, Residential Multi -Family — Twenty -Four Units (E) Setback requirements. Front Side Rear 25 ft. 8 ft. 25 ft. HOD Single HOD Single HOD Single Family Front Family Side Family Rear 15 ft. 8ft. 15 ft. HOD Family Two Front HOD Family Two Side HOD Family Two Rear 15 ft. 8ft. 15 ft. HOD Family Multi Front HOD Family Multi Sile HOD Family Multi Rear 15ft. 8ft. 15 ft. Cross reference(s)--Variahcce, Ch. 156. Height regulations. Any building which exceeds the height of 20 side boundary line an additional thstnnce of onc foot for coch fooi (F) Height regulations. The maximum building height is 60 ft. as point of the structure at the hist nc grade, prior to developm structure, allowing 3 stories on the uphill side and 4 stories of building. If the building is placed n a graded pad, then the h allowing a maximum of 3 stories a measured from the histd §161.15 District R -O, Residential Office (E) Setback regulations. Front 30 ft. Front, if parking is allowed between the right-of-way and the building 50 ft. Front, in the Hillside Overlay District 15 ft. Side 10 ft. Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft. Side, in the Hillside Overlay District 8 ft Rear, without easement or alley 25 ft. Rear, from center line of public alley 10 ft. Rear, in the Hillside Overlay District 15ft./ eaAred from the lowest t/to the highest point of the he downhill side of the ;ht of the building is reduced, grade, pre -development (F) Height regulations. There shall be no/naximum height limits in R -O Districts, provided, however, that any building that exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back withhny boundary line of any RSF or RMF District an additional distanc/of one foot for each foot of height"jn excess of 20 feet. In the Hillside Overlay District the maxi1tnum building height is 60 ft. as measured from the lowest point of the structure at the historic grade, prior to development, to I'he highest point of the structure allowing 3 stories ontheeuphill side and 4 stories on the downhill'side of the building. If the building is placed on a grad d pad then the height of the building is\\reduced allowing a maximum of 3 stories as measurea,(_rom the historic grade, pre -development. \ EXHIBIT "C" To be inserted in Chapter 167: Tree Preservation and Protection: §167.04 Tree Preservation And Protection During Development (A) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to proposed subdivisiorfs, and large scale developments required by other ch ters of the Unified Development Code too through the city's permitting process. Persons seekih to build one single-family dwelling//unit, or duplex, are specifically exempt from the provisioiIq of this section except when the land is located within the Hillside Overlay District; then all the frovisions of this ordinance shall,>(pply. (1) Hillside Overlay District Undevelop land located within the Hillside Overlay District shall submit a site analysis plan, analysis r port, and tree preservatIon plan with the preliminary plat or site plan. Single and two tmily residential dehlopment shall submit a tree preservation and site plan at the time of obtaining a buildir g permit. There shall be no land disturbance, grading, or tree removal unit a tree preservation plan has been submitted and approved, and the tree protection measure at the site irt/pected and approved. (C) Canopy area. In all new Subdivisions, Large Hillside Overlay District, Industrial and Comn listed above, trees shall be preserved as outlir unless the Applicant has been approved for On - in subsections I. & J. below. The square foot pa in new development is based on the total area c approval, less the right-of-way and park land d plant trees in order to reach the Percent Minima minimum exists prior to development, unless t e Table 1 Minimum Canopy Requirements ZONING DESIGNATIONS PERCENT MINIMUM CANOPY Hillside Overlay District - All Zoning 30% Designations RA. Residential Agriculture 25% RSF-.5. Single-family Residential — One Half Uni 25% per Acre RSF-1. Single-family Residential — One Unit p 25% Acre - RSF-2. Single-family Residential —Two Unit per 20% Acre RSF-4. Single-family Residential — Four U is per 25% Acre RSF-7, Single-family Residential — Seven nits 20% per Acre R -O, Residential —Office I 20% RT-12, Two and Three-family Residential 20% RMF-6, Multi -family Residential — Six Units per 20% Acre RMF-12. Multi -family Residential —Twelve Units 20% per Acre cale evelopments, lands located within the icialtDevelopments, and all other improvements ] r Table I under Percent Minimum Canopy, :efr4itigation or Off -Site Alternatives as set forth nt gge of canopy area required for preservation lihe p) perty for which the Applicant is seeking lication.An Applicant shall not be required to Canopy `equirement on land where less than the have bee removed. RMF-18, Multi -family Residential — Eighteen Units per Acre 20% RMF-24, Multi -family Residential —Twenty-Four Units per Acre 20% RMF-40,Multi-family Residential — Forty Units per Acre 20% C-1, Neighborhood Commercial 20% C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial 15% C-3, Central Business Commercial 15% C-4, Downtown . 10% I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial 15% 1-2, General Industrial 15% P-1, Institutional 25% PZD, Planned Zoning Districts Most restrictive hall apply (F) Tree Preservation Requirements for (3) Hillside Overlay District Individual pa boundary shall submit a tree presen the preservation of the minimum tree Residential and Non -Residential Subdivisions. or lots located within the Hillside Overlay District i plan indicating/he location of the structure and (a). Developers shall have the option i4 doing cluster development, such as a PZD, which would encourage more open space 9 d tree jreservation areas. In this pattern of development, the tree preservation zone on each lot can be transferred to a larger open space instead of being required on the in ividual lots. Pending approval, the proposed pattern of development shall be required 1 tirinimize the view of the new development from the valley below with the preservati n of tree cover. The open space set aside during cluster development shall be p1aced1i1j a permanent easement or land trust with all future development rights removed fro{it t f property. (b) Property owners of parcels or lots located in\the Hillside Overlay District shall have the ability to do selective thinning, withlout the us of off -road equipment, of up to 15% of the tree preservation zone as long as it does not isrupt the overhead tree canopy. No removal of significant trees, as defined by the Lands ape Manual, is allowed. (I) Request for on -site mitigation (c) Tree removal due to the grading work done to create tie acks for roads in the Hillside Overlay District shall be mitigatted by reforesting a mini urn of 25% of the tie backs pursuant to the landscape manual. (d) Planting trees in non-canol{y areas in order to reach the minimum percent canopy requirements for the site isjfiot allowed in the Hillside Overlay District. (L) Continuing preservation and protegtion under approved tree preservation (1) In order to ensure that an aVplicant's heirs, successors, assigns, or anysubsequent purchasers of the subject property are t on notice as to the existence and extent of an approved tree preservation plan; tree preservation areas shall be clearly depicted on the�asement plats for large scale developments and th � final plats for nonresidential subdivisions. Thi shall be accompanied by a narrative statement d scribing the nature of the protection afforded, and bearing the signature of the landscape adminis tor. Lots in residential subdivisions are expressly exempt from these requirements unless thet are located in the Hillside Overlay District. If it is impractical to include the actual depictio -of the canopy to be preserved on the easement plat, or final plat itself, EXHIBIT "D" To be inserted in Chapter 169: Physical Alteration ofLand: §169.02 General Requirements (D) Restoration. Land shall be reveget ed and restored as close as practically p6ssible to its original co iditions ^o far a to minimize runrunoXE and erosion. arc cancer-ned: Previou ly forested areas shall follow the City's Landscape Manual r mitigation of forested areas. §169.03 Permits Required/Exceptions (A) Permit required. No grading, filling, exca lion, or land alteration of any kind shall take place without first obtaining: (4) A grading permit is required by the 41y for any develo ment occurring within the Hillside Overlay District boundaries. If a pare 1 of land is diyded by the Hillside Overlay District boundary, then only that portion of and lying r`lthin the boundary is subject to the requirements of this chapter. / (B) Exceptions where no grading permit is required. (4) Single-family/duplex. Construction of one plain, the Hillside Overlay District, or on a (C) Grading permit application and approval. No endorsed by a registered architect, landscape ar are not required for the following: residence, or duplex except -where -the plain. not located within the 100 year flood 15 % or greater. permit shall be issued until the grading plan, r engineer, is approved by the City Engineer. Grading permits may be issued jointly for pafcels offland that are contiguous, so long as erosion control measures are in place until project completion. Any application for a required grading permit under this chapter shall be submitted ncurrentl with the application and calculations for a drainage permit if such a drainage permit is re uired by § 1 0.03., coordination with Chapter 167. Tree Preservation and Protection is required. §169.04 Minimal Erosion Control Requifements If ^„^.„.,. under § 169 no If exempt under 1169.03, a grading periit is not required. However, exempt as well as non-exempt activities shall be subjett to the following mim al erosion and sedimentation control measures. (A) Natural vegetation. The potential for soil loss shall be minimised by retaining natural vegetation wherever possible. flevelopmenl in the Hillside Overlay listrict shall comply with the recommendations of the Hillside Best Management Practice\ Manual with regard to the retention of natural vegetation do Hillsides. (B) Stabilization. All graded and otherwise disturbed areas shall be stabili ed immediately after the grading or disturbance has been completed. Stabilization methods such as baled straw, filter fabric, ditch checks, diversion ditches, brush barriers, sediment bans, matting, mulches, grasses and groundcover shall be used. (D) Excavation material. Excavation material shall not be deposited in or )so near streams and other stormwater drainage systems that it may be washed downstream by high water or runoff. All excavation material shall be stabilized immediately with erosion control measures. §169.06 Land Alteration Requirements (C) (F) Cut or fill slopes. (1) Finish grade. Cut or fill slopes shall have a finish grade no steeper than 33% (3.00 horizontal to 1 vertical), when approved by the City Engineer. Land located within the Hillside Overlay District may have cut or fill slope with a finish grade no steeper than,+0% (2.00 horizontal to I vertical) with approval of the ity Engineer. (4) Setback requirements. The followings back requirements shall be for purposes of assessing safety, stabilit� and drainage problems: from property lines may be filled or cut 'f a grading plan is sut of both properties. Erosion and sedimentation control. state. (e) Hillside Overlay District. Revegetation shall be planted immediately after the phi uniform ground cover. Sod, erosion fabrh and/or a hydroseed with warm season gr shall be met prior to the issuance of a c slopes shall be re -vegetated with approp i tree canopy at maturity. ed by the City Engineer illustrations). Setbacks jointly by the owners lands with\n the Hillside Overlay District tl alteration of the land with complete and erbaceous gr undcover (in wooded areas), x is required.\e-vegetation requirements icate of occupa cy. Cut and Fill tie -back tree species to a\hieve a minimum of 25% (G) Undisturbed land requirements. In the development of residential subdiMisions and large scale developments, allowable grading of slopes shall a in accordance with this tabile. Average Grade Minimum Undisturbed Are Subdivision Large Scat91 10 to 15 ercent 40% 30% 15 to 20 ercent 60% 30% > 20 percent 60% 30% §169.07 Grading Plan Specifications (A) Grading plan. The applicant shall prepare a grading plan as follows: (2) Existing grades. Existing grades shall be shown with dashed line contours and proposed grades with solid line contours. Grading plans shall be required to show both the proposed grade and the undisturbed area. Contour intervals shall be a maximum of two feet. Spot elevations shall be indicated. §169.08 Grading Plan Submittal (B) Final grading plan. No subdivisio may be finalized, nor large scale development plat approved before a final grading plan has been submitted to the City Engineer and approved. The final grading plan and the final plat of land locoed within the Hillside Overlay District shall have the following plat note stating: "Property ad lot owners of lands located within the Hillside Overlay District are strongly encouraged to have geotechnical analysis of their property prior to any development in order to identify poten aI geological hazards and determine appropriate techniques to mitigate against hazards suck as the swelling and shrinking of soils, slumping, hillside creep, and seeps." EXHIBIT "E" To be inserted in Chapterl 70 §170.01 Intent (A) Intent. It is the intent of this general welfare of the citizens i (5) Requiring that erosion control (6) Encouraging the use of storm measures would include perm barrels for irrigation use. §170.03 Permits Required Management, Drainage and Erosion Control: er to protect, maintain, and enhance the health, safety. and City of Fayetteville by: sures are implemented and function,on a lot -by -lot basis. der best management practices reduce runoff. These �e pavers, green roofs, rain1gardens, cisterns and rain (D) Exceptions where no drainage permit is required. (1) Single-family/duplex. One single-family reside flood plain, the Hillside Overlay District, or on §170.05 Permit Application are not required for the following: duplex not located within the 100 year Pe 15 % or greater. A storm water management, drainage, and erosion cphtrol perm\t application shall be submitted to the City Engineer using appropriate forms as provided by the city. An applicant may apply jointly for contiguous parcels or subdivisions as long as the erosion control measure are in place until project completion. A permit application shall contain sufficient info1mation and plans to allow the City Engineer to determine whether the project complies with the regUirements of this chapter. he specific items to be submitted for a permit application shall be in the form and,/Follow the procedures s described in the Drainage Criteria Manual, Section 1, Drainage Report Checjdist. Submittal informati n and plans shall include, but not be limited to the following: §170.10 Environmentally Sensitiv,'e Mitigation Methods for Storm water Management (A) Environmentally conscious measures to reduce the amount of storm`water generated by development shall be encouraged, especially in the Hillside Overlay District. Methods may include but, are not limited to; rain gardens, permeable pavement, green roofs, cisterns for the collection and redistribution of storm water for irrigating purposes, etc. EXHIBIT "F" To be inserted in Chapter] 72: Parking and Loading: §172.04 Parking Lot Design Standards (E). Hillside Overlay District. (1) Separation of Parking Pads in pads shall be separated by a minin and access drives are permitted to W IfRK Ie' !ti -Family, Office, and Commercial Delopment. Parking undisturbed area of 15 feet between arking pads. Streets s this undisturbed area. (2) Cut and Fill Slopes. Parking pads should be/encou\aged to utilize cut slopes with retaining walls to minimize disturbance. (3) Maximum number of spaces per parking'! for multi -fa ily and office use. Parking pads shall have a maximum of 30 spaces per pad. (4) Parking lot location with multi -family and office structu es. When the building is located adjacent to the street the parking shall be located in the rear. When the multi -family structure is located off of the street, a minimum e135' of undisturbed area\shall separate the building from the street. (5) Developers of multi -family, office, and commercial uses in the Hillside Overlay District are encouraged to refer to the Hillside Best Management Practice Manual for guidance and direction in the design of their project. T Y I IP ,Y { •_ 1••1 I•�It rw _ Imle �r'`lfJf 1 • _ TI x -� lyl/` /n4rt-"��lll t. j) '~r it T Q V �' t rr{j � __ "1 QI (ll 'S. i.� �Nf,(4S),-�l''4" ^„ ty�f Ta I a_�c� -+Y4ii'eH __-_ Ht 6Y I mrn rAAI 5. •i ,nnH. _.11nll t, p^ Tp ( III f J I • _ 1 1 I1 9 : I� .LY � -t Ir •rtY•Yr —fF _ /Yi-. IY -n • L� �o N� I ` U \ , ��17 1 Y,� r.RRIy�'�"--tlla Pte--, . �V ! ti f •—E_' a.'II' >>: t. _ ff4e:n:4d.k. Ise'-'��}`�'- � �_ Y" I: 1'4114Y .,. � ._ mh .�y ' p Roe g 1 1 I LL¢ r I•l. -1 l; f 3i y� i,L� I CA l z I 'v 1� �G ='"R � i M �YF'[ lLl ] i Yj" Ob v ( ,,�,1 Y S LA'. :_,`�' j f nhi( r i l T \/y iG•( �L 1 .. -.lam 1 s / / IY•w / _ ti L1- / �a f olwfl ♦du/ • r �1 I .Lj y4 I :!' IU I 1 / (+� 4 �I .�-rT l TY.�w///I���gV O �. Y.Y COY•O' � j •1 4'1 -T� 1 KlA)♦♦' YI v'J1 1 j--li _ �a•�Sloti } cl i d ` {7 Y p Y * ¢ A ' k FY • • I • I ' J 4 .-.-.n., r { .. -• +l Jul \l; i O O -p o a o CD O O o O. 00 CD C) W CD O CD V, C1 • E a r$ . . , , , , . 3 . . . , . , . . - / , 3 •1© / - \ . / m / / 7\ n nz_.< a /§ °' n o y e / ( \ $ \ / k / / CD C') § $ ) /§'\/) § a & / k '0 \ _ t y A $ / \ e = q / \ § § $'F• d o f $ k y CD / ) 'I \ .-a.E & ; c / CL a / ] \ 0 y & % 0 O 0 No c a ro o p O. . t<ao Y o N N 0 o o MCI • o O o coo D ° o o w o ?° a° . 7y coo ti Y ro° • fD a c r 9° v' ' y x ?. o o N a �. w° '� F wro y o'CD 0 bom ��ro o.. � °� c e M••I cfl N r. o coD o a o �. °G ° = rt re o < cv'ow000ay°��0Z �' v 0 r. M w o H# * o a F w< w o o c c ►r. - a CD a h Y o w Q' '"' H w m ❑. W mrn -ro a ..r W - O a °CCDD(D f° Two i� a o Qr w H � O9'> F C E n� �ro 0f0 d a� ° o= W F w o' O (D g h y. '°Y�. ��. N d On «%. `<< 5 N N z` 0 0 0 F T v �o" ° w a' o qj (D t0 ;� Q. a> O N a• C .O. G " CD G, .a r •• a !�y� n O ��. C O OO N ro W �• a ,rCi by CD aoo T m' a h oc o C o m o O 0 e b w ° +ny e o o. �a� �° a aw ° a w ° o cn o o x a F o 0 .o ro a � o m —C,) a", .w°.. c cao a ° Q5CD CD to T' ro PO a CD O I- C • `03 (DD IS rrT' CD W N°3 C . 'r3' f w rr G. r° W CD2i? rd. O D -rt O E. fD °- a Z ° (D afl • CD COD C y a CD cj M ] nfl CC -°n r. H CD h CC .tfl en ti waQ r• O :• CD a' X' N a c v. CD a flU) so CD C ,..d ,0 CD 0 ,d "ry.17 CD a <fit B CD °05 CD o _•CCD o. it y y , w CD a CD o/ ? it w ] w N`vaD [ �r]D• w -O] oa CCDD ^d R od h `� A 5'CD o• m �' w �•w F o c HR w CD ] c. o o° p 0 o]o o w e y r. ° o w c3 m A C C �? < N o 0o ? w F o �. H] 0 5 C C ?]. O C F n w n O '<C w 0 F CD w -" Ct N a r. C. ^' .,, m o .n '� ] y 0 O ] C S o °o • . S I U U U . bd e m ° o'r3 (A fI r+ o ao - ° -, - ° F ^ o NY (D + n T QR �G P F G tom'♦. (D U G. T c< ❑ ° o ° 'B w cao o m o f y G E CD y. �'° O .G. O (D a (D eD �' Q, O G CD O w ° .. B:. O G7 C x w CDCD w Y o o (aD G F m h cD w v CD CDo Qs < H cCD < m N w w a v2 o ° • O O fD d^ w N o. ". Mn CD (Mo < CD o. fD -. �D a G N o a• .. w C Dn a w • CD drn ro b o • _ CCD n a ►� MCI <� n w o � 2 SII G . (�D tz7 CD e o w a9. ,..,,. w ^ ° aim w 1 .- m o -• .. '. CDD• ��. rii^' ^• `C p; fir• W p C j ^D ( Dfffl —C c. ° F y• GO ^ a d y ° o w ° N' °o s <0eta w v, w b w w m o ti G. h T3 CD w ° C_ N a ti M 1—. rD r. ctCt °ecvS fl cc 0 ° (D ° CD CD .� a? a co ° as ° a 4A w N CJ C] 3 n C. rod ? o �G c Cao Gwp CD my p I liii1-( < Ct U_1 a < Y ,1 eY o IV N iJ fE o n 'V, • ti ao °� C c o'b5 0 CD = ^ <• wz7 a ^v `a° o CD b w w° a 0° w °' o o E Ix a p ,. a a 'c W Q N n a' ^ a fD b faD CD Ct CaD a w ti o o o\ v n o ° n oro `D o w ti• a wy o x r. y , =' CD C .` ° d -� c N r. » CD rr u. K C w❑ `3 Q O 'L3 ,,. O a .-. p 5 O❑< v; p r. v, C w .C' aQ v ° c oc c `tiD _^ as N o o C x° fl a a ^ �j O. b a O r? �. N, ? - IJ r r 1..t O CD r ✓ r. C r. a aG ="R7 �• N .0cn ^' i•; w' a a N C 7 N. G < 0 "w.•' 5 F O N C T•' OO � N O a W Z .y C aQ NO O a CD C)y a oo m �' =• o CD as �, cD ° w N ao w a E § CD 0 Ko7 $9§4f §/ ■z; ®/! i§, q91 __ __m / h§) x Cl) 2222°// .I • 9 4 / \ , �§ }O�\� { « . b. . Cl) JU\ k@ §|%00 ) $ G ni �� �0 �� -=\ 5,,kk rj \ e -< § \ ` \ , .\ . C.',k ) LA ) I 0 S m2 N3 LH Nmimxrl--S Z yN 11 MN (ON -1 W N mm mo v 8 O ZO my Lam N 8 m -1 x m a m m z a I x G) 4 rA LA tt 1111111 q III III il - � I O 0 w N O O ° O Cs-ptCt CD (D N r < ti -``. CD CD < Ct N CD C CCDD a y K V CD O G CCDD 0 0 EJ I • I• CD CD ti CD CD rn [.i 0 0 `< O c�aD CD 7 C "�� p, ry pwl y t° o c• ° n. a0fl i 4 CD 0.O O. y G �• ' • CD it Ct nN ti w p n `G tD "�� N 0 "o ... S a N. = n ?• Y S N N. Q... N ^. o n n 0° 'o o 4g 5 04 °i n a° ° `y w o. o O� O (D O a o r (D .•' o ..., dQ ^I a O O �' N O+ •-+ CD w F Q a o o N n < n o m Co ,a :a ° a° 0" y 0 C CD n I C�D 0 9 b w .<.. Oa I�' • ti^ N N n O O n `� N •Y N '� a w O•.' CD �. p<� a i� y w O`<� a�Cpy o N °• CD o E. p. N -• N w o° 0 '" C+ E pS ' N + R CD K w w O a oti p C M '0 v w w CDN N - zs Q A R M O (7�N".•. p '� wt 'O N O C dry app O w a E N O n ti t 0. ° o y �p pN� cD C •o m w cp a << N n rp C Ate.. •�-. e' R N P. << m �• .n^.. O N W W a p•o: m < o o a< w n mco mb CDCDoo� EA Q.�eFD' a:a.woo (DC,) w a .. M CD N r'• CD 5C"- .» cu C— C w n m W d m O O G S n ate,' 3 w LT A S A O. w EY C) CD ry C W S• 5 O ° W A CDD CD d Z go N ~ .CD '•n7 0 '[S N �j �• R. "s CDv, CD a is �5.0o O 0 5 ". N m' S :• N '�'1 ., r. a'LS •o a CD o UO- rD A a tq w Day = It a C N CD cn T C . CD n C b S H p' >4 S N 'o �. ,^.; A O ••. m p a A �" A O m! Z° b A tw n 'b n n `< CD W CD n C' A. S• `� ti m N c.? CD n° a CD ti a b m R_ z O a ' 'B .•. S N - a• n m m A �' A A �' 3 ^ 3 3 A S F a N 0 0 " c s oac a < g• �° m^o �° oao `a a o ' `o • < o m z • CD • C • ,`'�, k Q R•J `y '� by o'LII! U M10 A? CD a s... m�' .» w ..• cob � O l� A O Z A 7 0 O n' O.��. R. T vwi Q• y° O k N 3• A fD� t a' .» f7 w m p rn o fo o x. m w F a7c co 0'0 It C') ft 1 Sy, IQ M1. b (� ti •M1• m r.; ". N "' M1 p O C a ec % ° • `o M1 y • c � � �. �° � o M1A^. � � �.� A 2 O ��.•. q z fo N A. fo e .. S^ A Z 4 S n. ... J fC l p p S C p (0 — ". N^ A �• .nom, O p O A C a. O „�T b A p S O O c/DO —• C Ns �?�» O. �'O '� �'d O. F^•O.< O p,0., t'•��Ci C ° . rte^. w m R. •A •° 'O fi A Z `�°. - V R v F Z ti S uo - h a C .a v a On' y O ON • ,,• w > C O 0 0 n n b n n a v ors wa * g• ≤• h via on �• 7 `G CD N ." 3y G. y 0 O a 0 z -I MDc O A w .w. fD CD CY ry O w 7 Pt k3 ' .. CCD O ti < 0aW C. ti N as Y. C `G o(DCV CD p' -. CD O O n„l,, Y. ti a N O. CD N H m ry n w 0 n 0 • 0 O • y ° '"' w 9 G 9 ry< o R ° m w x b co a m CD o Y c m x CD, tG �' �• /pyo G CD CD n on a CD O Qs r. f1 CD n a ° r�. Ca i7' Q0 rb p d - N .+ < Y. fl V: v N CD CD `V ^ CD QQ ti CDD N C. 'C G ( J O (D O C f° d ..ton ° -no.an to C CD C �. o G a N G < C. C < VQ oCD CD 'iY �• �G c G y r. -- G o G "to Cv Y • v' G ° � .� o T n 9' • ° CD aQ N CD N .. O to G .Ly �'.. Vn CC 7 - O- U. r Con `G < Co u tCD yo r moo. On Y. h b S. o m v' p ^. o aCt0 < r o CD N H O A O Sh3 m ('• G C ^'h N C3. O n T O C' D• N G CD u C CC ^' .+ G C• y CD G H G. to ti CD . C�' AD G ti CD CD CD n OQ .. CD 'I . .. w. a O Y• • C� C C b C. K .. QQ Cl _ Syy r. o Li ft IrD I l"r C C M CD CD a s 0 - CD 0 N e a ti—'-{ s m .-.fir-i � ?1 L �>._ I�-�-� • � � � �! I ' \�J .. /- + [Y I • j C°. , ilk T � J - - ' `--`,'�.�. �~�/iJ+�_J�"\ III i , `. lh- )/[� ,qua•,. � �1ILi ,_-.� ' /�}-y �.. e { ' { � _ I�' {j:lil' 11111 (i pai'1 tt � iil�! (rI '! i{ilt F i ; i ' i0 PM' 0I •I O . ow roost a�Qa5 < 1 H t..i rn O P� O O P> m T w C d o T V1 F. A Ul X V1 T o N a o a c c -n a fl . a C -O V. T O a• 1.. O V I1 .I rr'l. r i..,. CD(D CD W rt V n- 0 O N 2., CI fD G�ydU' p G. O N T G -• h -. o N a CD o p v CY � 5• Q N , v , C rn v ~ n• � a � N N ^ "+ m z m n a. Ct o• 0 p w Os Oa p -. Cs I-' a X T O = 7 ? M (D v ti a aoa Y. teOr � v \ Iii Pt 0 r LA •� • M C w • • • O K N K V C- G a m a' w eD o°a dam. CD o w c a n A O C -. o, o N m am o a o .. w r CDCD CD a o CD t r /C -* C < n. o •Cc Cry Ioy,wy.• �o < T C/J cr o w vo 5 N a CD b C7 a D w . ,� '. w ❑ 7 < N -. o a ti C y o C h H A o �. £ o o o eD eo eo —. a n v C) o eD w a eD N, CD 0 0 th •o T o a ro o a N o 0. H w C C. d COD OW a0 �^'T O O r. 'M'i N `�• N � 0 Os T O N a O O " Y. 0. O CD . 7 N ry 0 O C O •O K N n O M. O w -. a T CD a COD a LS.CD `1 7. Y' V Y ps C� w —a N i. N CD N N T < O w O. �"1 T N CD C CCpp T o T w G= o en vwi -� O b N y wn 0 t' m O Y. o ,9 10to_. . Yonaoo rn SCt vc Ct •o w Cc a.c o ~ CD n. < T VT) -.- raj M • O T w 0 p ^ H fD p N m ^. Ct CD — w C. QG O O CC) N w•. y O "r0 w N O a w O 0 0 a coy q . w �. - ._. Y. (p T a w v c* O C + O o M N OC O C �(D O Cp A O C < N a - y N O •i fll D 1 d rn .Zl Ph •0) —L— a ° -OO fr n w o 9 `D v ° .N CD P 0 5' o O ' o t� rn n O a a _•-oCD Vl cT ti N - Y• _ !D t' CD O N O w w a p N a w , m a CD O m y: a a w d Ct f -D - o n w a o° Yn 0 x cfl ti� a ww m O o 8 o cn G (D G 5(D Q. ,,5E° a w, o w ry Yn cD e ° O E n w CJ a ap 8. F nPU CD o w n v u n Mn O O vA n w < n (D < Y n ry O t a o w CD Y. CD " _O_c O. a. a w N p N, t3 O .. n• O n a � a n w O In 1•Y' `•• • w rw .r `rY a0 rYo -N N'° �• w Y. ti Y. � cD w CD N ti o ('7D \ • ± (D / - -e2 } 2$§ n -. -. $) -. (\ o 2Ct i ..§ - CC \ C" ( �§ @ / .\ I S - •o - = 5:5 T a bp� B CS G C ti 5: M N cwt yw p r fD ry hj w G 9 T A CD �-i ❑ w .w. b 0� a. C A o w ... Y. o » CY 3 G �' " y 0 N •• w - n. (D O G 9' CDc.CD p�O a o `G�' w p 0 ^• a' 9 A CD ^ w 9 Y. y (' co o O v a0. o - o R a.co Tav o y 'p a a haw a a c CD w w • S � CD � O N � • w ■ ■ 7 ■ ■ 7 b S D C IIIf h7 ..d O .* ,+ C. H N ^t '�" r a r. G r ogN a°g P» w Nw a am w b y 7 CY x O N G n. G O V1 a ° O N dQ (D r~ K C. o w f o CD CD y 7 ?' < G w G. 6. S 0 < C'♦� ^ �_ ♦G y G N at D ft.g!. G .7 CL R R ° CD A N� N 4 S _ i1�.S1_♦ � Sul' �i if� 1 �F.y. y F • yy �.� lY � Il 1 h s X42 t `w 9iC^I yf y • r ��ti - �3? a la.� ti�/y"'»s -,' a �' '� j .� 4. � ��,1r'""`'� _".. 'rN• ' 4 1 H C (C CD CD 5'C.a:b CD (D N N. co o CD � w m o f a c�D o ti a rf CD • r o o p a CDCD N O 0 -O' O p ' C 4. n o .-.a • - �'0G ry~ry �•0oqo ..o a-O QOQ 0oG C) CD a � u' CD N a a o ,j$a o - ] O v. w 0 Q tG ac y CD O 0 Ct a O or m o 0O o h (D '- r »G o ry a r4 Q a. C. G� p a ti O r. .» arc •V C r w - ti ti w O (D wr+t R. W CD rn O O 'Yo O -a D ci ry . CD w a- _1< O-• O N 9 o . ° - ° 9 w (D (D o (D o ° N° p a' .� ry '� a'.. o a �, �. y °r'. w Y m °; o oco y C a. < (CD �. 0 o tiCco cv,Ct ° ° (DO O d (D h °OJ. CD °CD i C. ce c , •^ 0 0 na N CD OO OO � N. '(DO. a N w y C A. C' CD C G i C- ry G N G m OT G p 'O CD tic w (D a' CD - (° (, Co w oG ° A O O ° (CD• °' N �+ C n w' ' w(D '" W a ti M F• ti o w C C O (D o w 0 —'-< r� a x ac w° 3' C CY A ° HOC C ) OQ t ...6 �c .y b_ a'N CDCDC m C G c�D rn • CL C "qQ ry h ti .C. Oy °M troC -.1 C C Co -- -ry -t I, Coo- o m o 5 w a° m I\$ '.71 R3 -O .�'. w (D (D , O _�O' .�`• ' O O w CD y t7 a• CD . .+ CD . O - (D q n CD (D C b —. II �p b aC y Vwi O C 4 va a a c - . !mss. 4 - atF. O 0 .w•. N .. S«% � \����. � m- -f � t a t - \y9<.- y\ \C?J t 0 0 t 0 a 0 w 0 °, w .o w rs �. w a• �' b 'b w .. CD 0 �. Bap w D CD O CD O R *i CCD N O O O O '. 'O w fD CL G 7 N n .O•. O CD CY o CD G o`CD G o �n r G N VCCDD < N N co pGxH o -n 0 CD �r r•C cen— Dta a� a 7 NO fD a n O CD -• D 0 m JL (fl O � � 'U O w as C - 0 O w o ac 4 . ' fa •I',__ y/ S. LW r- .c -'- VIA -Ar - a.. �� r'i1 + J.' _ ill ,: •fY"f=rte �`J �Y -J flEE 1�L 1y� '�.� J. } t a e 1 / { \ 0 o / /� 'I' J0 CDm CD 0 CL Cs Ct \ \ E O y O <D ° ° w CD ao < = a ry r. N n ' s. raw y 4 ... CN y a�(�.'•[sj r`'•' r� L t�r4(( • t, fly.} . % e', '1 y o C' w C. . '� w '6 O OG .•.' n• O A 3 "i'�Fjtuxi''t . 1t r I a:N S O w a - 'a CD 0 GG •o G o ax • - 3 0 •_____m -cc X O. O ^D n ao - II) _ CD D . o w �; CD N N• CD '(D O n Ct • G - D • 0 n 0. w Ct w o 0 N w CD O o lD o v 1 Co ti w w o ti t-< S. o a m • •0 O- iS4,19 o 8 C • <0 H on • >C k a • i b a a • w O C • a CD as O o p, •o a 1".• 7 • O CD 1`•Y^•/^I O r°n'°o N fD • ■ ■ ■ CD .�. Q'Cj Vii ao o Y o a ° �. oQ max• E� 0 0• g QM,CD au o a� ,o a� a y r a G o 0 Y o V . Y am. CD 8 A: CD - 0, w n, ti o ' c Z 7Q Q . I. � -. --o o ,..,, o a c CD f"— O Oct CD ] CD N ^ O C O .y O• w — O �. C N at C C C a C' C- iG -- --. ° c¢c croN ro�p c ° a • �`cb m w a -o • CO Mw, p R Y CD 0 ,�.' ° o DECD �ooaw�Mmrn Q C6 CO"r°o°ro°a°c aD ^ CD 7^.'r c.S. a . 7rn w �o C g °N o ao o co '-I o a P»• .< a v =: �. n as E a o ac `G C. W O C) R A D1 Mt at • • w CD n w Y o o o CCD O f w s•O'< ° N a w F v� • U. b X00 O O F, vw CD o w o o a o w o n xOCD O o m w ° a°o_O'yy� r. w C < n P� Q g o a o' n -' b y �• a a. . ❑ o 6. w CD C7 " o oa w w A A rw'o �t S.o �a C7w 3.° w a5 C7� m �,, C h o -.� E y CD F C ar. _ tv o Om d > • rvr Ct w o❑ y c N 5Ct CD' w trc G(D w o K a c �° a o' C 5' ^ — C -. r o F x o 2. a o oc c .s C CD P fin n CD CDCDC n W n F �• G p y CD CD F �. .•. O n Cs .1 'b 't. I "! F 0 7 p, N�-• CCDD 0 O .'�. c CO C u A CD CT) PD O-&) r o < n T O b w ' o o o n � lrc Ct P a O I-.. m � O O• � h � .FN no - 'to CD O CI • o F CD Va: w O - O n h CD ( C F a d N< o q o o 0 < O a. flyD CD C X < O 3 ° m n QQ CD by ° ^� < CD 9. N h O rn 0 a O t I s1i 1 0 O C ° r� r� o 1 ti o O O CD E fn O` (D w m y N <'-i o o a y r Vl• ✓ rr V1 o o � � o a �° 'C IPI flC < o C top O . o w m o C yO G �• a V ti• a " TV\Y as r•I o ° a CD o is CD a � G 1 at � c Ct � ry Vy w w ao m 111 oc a w N a a (C co b r r. 'Y r. 1 (D f O gCD.Q3 7•� �. w (moo w �' io p' w I_ s A m E..'p `° w h° x a o w a c o c oc arc °< Ct (o �. F4 • (D °Y IJp f"0 V 1 (o w y N a B C o CD c a a` w c a ° ° ° C o m cc CD CD Lrtt o h F .. —• � fD e ^ O N w .+ (p N O G. C' `O O C. O• N - V E . •2 § § 9 (CD CO O I 0 7E -1 0 ) . m g Co ® & A/ &CD \ ) CD CO @ ( ( B'CD ( - \ m - CD \ E CD CD / $ \ I CD \ \ i E -. Cl ( m 2 e ' a @ f 0 3 0 / } I . 7 Ct # L °o \ . CD . . \ to • § • \ / . r � / $ •c•) Cl OmnCD mm # m I. • a�� . C Si IC oI a W a O w 0 7< a w a. b O in w o �/� CD p iii m w ^' CD 0 CD of I` rsoh Q O er A•� 4� _;' '.�„d i_, '.VI[r� Srbr VGI IfIs �3 „cd9IOQdill. ieJ _. r1rcv"� .rraII ireI 0 , _ ,..��11 u 0 � ' f 11 y v 43 �' O r. V=� W , , � �,d'e IC1 f O `y ' g r'Q n�+r �f-rpp°�l 4) O �,� �9: O a O C T ft N C tp n r, O- ama" C O you OGCD e N W C = N N y m N G N w ° K CA a G II° R � w C H ° rl —. an -CD POO � G CD a w — K CD (n CD o < -. OQ P (D w'f ^ w CD m w •P. O ° ° b O N _� 0'o _e gip_.... CD o'CD � CD' S w o N w N CD aast F7 0 L O O C CD ° CD w ° G o' 0 ° -i CD ao CD ti CD O 0-h 2 C ° N a Ct 1 U C C CD to I C It CD °. N Ct w ] ti fl n w o �• w tN x 0 O ° C Ct O C O EWA ..a r• 1 ( ff1 i • 1 1 1 1 I It li i .. .. 1 11111(1 :j • I l j 1-1 ilr. eI i. i• ' I 1/ 1 1• r ••_ i'"G • .. 1 A 1 1 •. Y • 611 ��'• ill 11 � .&i ,i Y M, Ni r I + • 1 1 I t• • - - 1 r • '• • A 1 . 1 1 1 m • .i'•.. . +10. •( • e .. kr jIl 11,1111111.1 ,.. 11 . I I/lily -i, • 1�, J •.. 1 tr 1 t 1 Y 11.11/Tf+N� •jr`°.• •� • �1 •I I 1 I I1i11' •• .: Q` j� 1 1 1 1' 1•1111,4q •1111,4 .. . r• I •I Y I I I J 11 f, ••.• N , +1 I IYII1111)1 ,I ••. h I! 1 ' 1 ii 115' N • I 1 ,j1 71' /.1 111 1111 ,1 / 11. II ,•1 1 1 I 1 11 /)1Y 1j Y!y, .r 111 II! 111 1x11 �11� Y I 1 1 yy I�jjy 1 1 1 1 1{ i i I 1 1111 !' • 1,11 ' 11 r1d1..1,InL • Pt CD R < V� G a't7 N yy tC C•' G. i. G y •_ C O. r. G• CT Vo C CD P� 'C H Q• CD -. QCt •4 CD C -• • -; -. CD fD A7 ? • wb o.w rn c oc .r CD �! ct CD w • . ►� "� vw,V - N •p OOP G ti O N r. w n CD is C) ?. O `n Q. C Cb ui Cn `n O O n C `< Y C' G O �. n7 < ° >O .5D w O -• rn Cy ti CD N CDD /b ? C. CD G A CD N p A. CD 7 N �. o. a O ry i' C3• ��.< to y W wN • O CD Q w O G of, •_T rt ..ice• r �L • � � Z Of , r j�' A .0 t L •?t _ &: r jIHO2L ' DXOIan$ I- C • ' — -42 3 b04(ILTI 1• _ ' N131VONIIN z J • Ob NO? Oft"m �•p!D � NOIIONY1t ( z 1_1 pl W q Im a_ - - - -a - - - - - I Ij f 111 II ON 113MOO A3NIVN II b0 btlY15 - m I,'I r PAR usu ". pL V JHI. f - - - _BD �,IN,----jai- •8• f gf1 �• IIxY,IYY \ W m Dad �yjr �j OU'm� g m r h 3AY*N7 ,i K•<.a Ti m u •ti ¢ + r o { • • 1 u � � � S u 3�V'D03bDm 3AYOp3bD I, li n m O c r• °S. Y MYVM.fl #" ___ g•• Wa 2 ' 4�^/ 3AY ONp • r w ' 1 S Cr ' - — Ob bOWOIOS 3NV3Q i OW yilypd ,_ m 1 •' Y� I' 1 Nl �. 1 K 31YArbd -f 1 - IUD 63�T '•••••• - 1 / 4S 3NJ Olj D^"� b03LbAe N f� ,/rib YJ1 yQ o ON N31Yp bOOf Al13B 2 Q Y ItIC 11 1 -m W. _� -i-1 - 3 : r Vm a R 1 _ tl 3 0 r- j 1 bO Yml3n I z Oy I1d4Os y `• 0/119A. • ♦ ' I ¢ m o J ` A o _ O 1 U 3nv:14 Q 3AY MLm1 Lam b 11 6 rI ONXA)dt a C 1 1/r 1 jXT9W LVMN4 -m.r ldr[- 1 i - •.•.• ' I 1 1 I •j I r 1 'Ii •I —1 - Nl LNM /1 1111\\ bO TVtl • — I 1 u I 3 -4az� 5NV1lON i • I Clarice Pearman - Ord. 4855 4856 4859 4860 & 4861 Page 1 From: Clarice Pearman To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 4.21 .06 3:30PM Subject: Ord. 4855, 4856, 4859, 4860 & 4861 Jeremy, Attached is a copy of the above ordinances passed by City Council, April 18, 2006. Have a good weekend. Thanks. Clarice CC: Audit; GIS I y.,♦ IL d 0 [` I NwRAT1 NI I [ B 91y ... _ I-- .� . • • BjlCKYXJNG I I: g7 Ii pANNPyE S.tN PYE i _ 1 i al iM .LVE iJ 1 DOS E.......F ya I }` 1 M1p1 NOLL" 4 • D I 2- -I _• !`♦Lf^ll y roTN PYE " j 1-y m ; —1 ' 1 I.1. t LYE AVE 0 R) E1 _ { REAT9 DR i • a'—�14 r�r � `O •�.I. PGPPIE PD OFF 1 VELMADR I if� 4_Ut 1 wtfTrMM P e4EM PD g Lr- Isy a` a RYRrtEOR 1 am 2: AV ' �ELgIEME 3r - I lV. yl I /. ____ E VENIN VE IRIWiEN l 1 IDRTEP RD EEMIE EOLOyDN RD R Y.E 1 I • N S 1 I • yM, a Y ;•i dAND AVE. I._. I . I lsy+w.� --I �. 0 1 7AN AVE WIIF ST A P is n i y MORNINGRD)E s GGNGAN ~0 " < �DAPueoAve • r. MLIAVE H m INVERETTAVE 8 T Y' WtEDG AYE REGGA p� - a • / LOCUSTAVE 8'110 AGE x � C SDNNYLN PEG IN PN � • 1 --- 11- I GFE Yi--S yN __0 � rw R II T p AMI / o € ANTAGE DR T V m Y w I 411 y Sm /t7 • • i E '�s 'II 01 D 11 J s a 0 5 oldRo4a 0 GARIAHD ZN)M RD I 1 MRUNO ZION RD Fw L. a e I I i q I SOATE EII ! I uius oR 1 • £k$ S • I.. $ `1 FURLONG I 1\1 MtDNIOHTOfl _ I '.7. - r•� �` r _ _ V qii '�`�`7 ! 91171;3.'≤ i i/ = �`1rlruuy^�'1N' T -17!1E a! f ` a '1.prry rll .�,I pit'7 rL\.filIlY -}`. •`fir —+•r r •••• . kti A • zI•:b4. -�� Ir 1 r ___rr<�Irriw a 41 1 4 .I I I O • 4 --A II - - • . ~i '� r r C O ii v CD CD CD