Other Plans & Studies

Other Plans & Studies Preferred Directions Report: Sevier County and Municipalities Hillsides and Ridges Study, August 2007 - Saratoga Associates, New York Summary Strategies Hillside Overlay District Approach The first step is to identify the significant aesthetic and scenic resources likely to be visible from development. The second is to identify elevations above the valley for each community where development is likely to be more visible by virtue of that elevation. When development is proposed in an area above a certain elevation and visible from those identified resources, additional review and design strategies and protective measures would be employed. Critical Slope Floating Zone Approach The second set of strategies involves the consideration of a Critical Slope Floating Zone that would involve the additional review of development proposed on slopes in excess of fifteen percent to avoid or limit potential adverse impacts associated with development on steep slopes. Similar to the Hillside Overlay District approach, development proposed in a Critical Slope Floating Zone would be subject to review requirements that might include site and design standards and confirmation that impacts on critical resources in the area are avoided or mitigated. Frequently Asked Questions

• I heard that the recommendations would prevent development over certain elevations. Is that true?

o No. Above certain elevations, the goal is to use improved development standards and not to prevent development.

• I heard that the recommendations would prevent development on very steep slopes. Is that

true? o Slopes over 60 percent are generally unsuitable for nearly all forms of development. It

is recommended that this be the upper limit on which very low-density development may occur. Heightened development standards will be used for developments on slopes over 15 percent.

• Will the rules prevent all new hillside development from being visible?

o No. While communities should strongly encourage applicants to screen as much of their development from significant public resources, the complete screening of new development is not the goal of these recommendations. The recommendations propose a standard for measuring how visible new development may be. This standard is called “Visually Subordinate.” This means that new buildings and roads shouldn’t be the defining feature of a hillside. Visually subordinate means that if someone tried, they could pick out individual buildings on a hillside.

Recommendations

• No project shall result in an undue adverse impact on the region’s significant and unique natural and scenic resources.

• Any approved project shall mitigate adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable.

• “Visually subordinate” shall be the standard for assessing visual impacts of proposed development within scenic regions.

• Density shall decrease as slopes increase. • Project approval shall take into consideration both positive and negative impacts.

Preliminary list of Environmental and Public Resources of Concern

1. Surface Soils and Geology 2. Water Resources 3. Air Resources 4. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 5. Transportation and Access 6. Land Use, Zoning, and the Master Plan 7. Water Supply 8. Sewage Treatment 9. Utilities 10. Solid Waste Disposal 11. Community Services

Landscape Architects, Architects, ©Copyright All Rights Reserved Saratoga Associates #2007-006.10M Engineers and Planners, P.C.

PREFERRED DIRECTIONS REPORT

SEVIER COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITIES HILLSIDES AND RIDGES STUDY Sevier County, Tennessee August 31, 2007

SEVIER COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITIES – HILLSIDES AND RIDGES STUDY PREFERRED DIRECTIONS REPORT August 31, 2007

i

Preferred Directions Report Sevier County and Municipalities Hillsides and Ridges Study TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................................I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................................II

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ................................................................................................ VI

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT BACKGROUND .......................................2 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY ................................................................................................................2

1.2 CASE STUDY OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................4

1.3 SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL LAND USE RULES .......................................................................5

1.4 CONDITIONS AND RISKS INHERENT TO STEEP SLOPES ..........................................................6

SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................13 2.1 FIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLES..................................................................................................13

2.2 ESTABLISH ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC RESOURCES OF CONCERN................................15

2.3 STANDARDS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR SITES IMPACTING RESOURCES OF CONCERN ...........................................................................................................................18

2.4 ESTABLISH SCENIC AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCES OF SIGNIFICANCE..................................28

2.5 STANDARDS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR ACHIEVING VISUALLY SUBORDINATE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................................................29

2.6 MITIGATING ADVERSE IMPACTS.........................................................................................41

2.7 CHANGES TO SUBDIVISION/PUD RULES ............................................................................45

2.8 ENHANCED SITE PLAN REVIEW ..........................................................................................46

2.9 ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS.............................................................................................50

2.10 MOVING FORWARD ............................................................................................................53

SECTION 3 ..................................................................................................................................57

3.1 IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................................................................................57

APPENDICES (UNDER SEPARATE COVER)

A. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS B. MUNICIPAL LAND USE RULE ANALYSIS


ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In early 2007, Sevier County and its municipalities commissioned the Hillsides and Ridges Study. The Study examined with the public the issues surrounding development on the regions hillsides and ridgelines. Recommendations have been developed for the practical and effective management of hillside ridgeline development as outlined within this Report – “Preferred Directions.” Any numerical figures identified in this Report are recommended and are not intended to be construed as absolute. The report contains the following sections:

> An FAQ section to address possible questions that the public may have > A brief history of the project > A discussion of risks inherent to steep slopes > Recommended standards for hillside development > Recommendations for implementation of standards

Saratoga Associates worked closely with a Working Committee made up of planning officials from each participating community. A Case Study analysis was conducted of several communities that have chosen to regulate hillsides and ridges. The Case Studies identified useful techniques other communities have used successfully along with potential pitfalls in rules and approaches that should be avoided. An analysis of the local land use regulations of each involved community was also conducted. In general, the analysis determined that the existing local regulations do not provide a comprehensive framework to adequately review development on hillsides and steep slopes. By July, public comments from all meetings were compiled and used as a framework for an “Emerging Concepts Report.” The report outlined a preliminary set of recommended standards for hillside and ridgeline development. Public feedback was obtained at additional public and stakeholder meetings in July, which helped refine the Emerging Concepts into this Report – “Preferred Directions.” This Report represents a “Tool Box” of relevant techniques each community could use towards properly addressing inappropriate hillside and ridgeline development. Hillside Overlay District Approach It is recommended that each community and the County consider implementing rules that would protect the region’s scenic and aesthetic resources. This Report outlines several measures and strategies to protect the hillsides and ridgelines from inappropriate development. These strategies include limits on vegetative clearing, design standards, and detailed review procedures. To

Existing local regulations do not provide a comprehensive framework to adequately review development on hillsides and steep slopes.


iii

ensure that development does not adversely impact aesthetic and scenic resources, a Hillside Overlay District could be established. The first step is to identify the significant aesthetic and scenic resources likely to be visible from development. The second is to identify elevations above the valley for each community where development is likely to be more visible by virtue of that elevation. When development is proposed in an area above a certain elevation and visible from those identified resources, additional review and design strategies and protective measures would be employed. Critical Slope Floating Zone Approach The second set of strategies involves the consideration of a Critical Slope Floating Zone that would involve the additional review of development proposed on slopes in excess of fifteen percent to avoid or limit potential adverse impacts associated with development on steep slopes. Similar to the Hillside Overlay District approach, development proposed in a Critical Slope Floating Zone would be subject to review requirements that might include site and design standards and confirmation that impacts on critical resources in the area are avoided or mitigated. Initial Implementation Strategies

The recommendations outlined in this report can be implemented any number of ways. Specifically, they do not have to be implemented all at once, and in fact, portions of the recommendations can be incorporated into local land use regulations. Communities would not be required to implement all of the recommendations to see meaningful progress in protecting the area’s hillsides and ridgelines.

> Conduct Workshop with Local Elected Officials

A Workshop with elected officials from each City and the County has been requested to clarify the recommendations developed in this Report and to answer any questions about them. The intent of the Workshop is to help familiarize local elected officials with the Report and to help settle concerns not already addressed in the report.

> Hillside and Slope Development Design Guidelines Manual

Sevier County and each City should collectively prepare a “Guidebook” that details the many design and mitigation measures recommended in this Report. Such a “Guidebook” should be provided to all applicants proposing development on the Region’s sensitive hillside and slope resources. The applicants should be strongly encouraged to consider the design and mitigation techniques and the planning commissions for each community and the County should also refer to the document when reviewing such projects.

Communities would not be required to implement all of the recommendations for there to be effective and meaningful progress for protecting the area’s hillsides and ridgelines.


iv

Critical Path Implementation Strategies

Phase I 1A. Establish an Implementation Working Committee/Focus Groups

It is recommended that a Working Committee be established and convened for the purpose of providing guidance and feedback during the development of any local laws/rules developed to implement recommendations made in this Report. The Working Committee may either exist as a continuation of the existing Working Committee or a continuation of the Stakeholder Group, both

established for this study. The existing Working Committee consists of city and county planners and provided ongoing guidance and feedback in the development of this report. Such committee, regardless of the eventual form, may be established on a community-by-community basis or collectively. Feedback and guidance from the working committee will be advisory.

1B. Develop Hillside Overlay District and Critical Slope Floating Zone Standards The first concrete step towards implementation should be to develop two sets of standards to provide consistent guidance and a running start for implementing this Report’s recommendations. Specifically, it is recommended that each community consider Hillside Overlay District (HOD) and Critical Slope Floating Zone (CSFZ) provisions that could be adapted into existing land use regulations. It is recommended that the County and each City jointly prepare these standards and be accepted by each City and the County as a “Mutual Starting Point” for moving forward to individual implementation of the standards considered appropriate for each entity.

2. Hold On-Going Working Sessions with City/County Planning Commissioners to discuss possible amendments/updates.

3. Begin implementation procedures at the speed acceptable to each involved.

a. First consider amending and revising PUD policies to limit the amount of clustering on very steep slopes and in areas visible from SLRS.

b. Amend subdivision and site plan review procedures to limit the amount of vegetation clearing allowed before and after construction more or less in line with the recommendations of this Report.

Phase II


v

4. Adopt Critical Slope Floating Zone Provisions a. Establish Environmental and Public Resources of Concern b. Establish Standards of Design and Construction c. Establish Findings Statement Procedures

Phase III 5. Adopt Hillside Overlay District Provisions

a. Establish SLRS b. Establish Standards of Design and Construction c. Establish Findings Statement procedures.

6. Assess feasibility of Transfer of Development Rights Program

7. Conduct a “Lessons Learned” analysis of how the rules are or are not performing

Phase IV 8. Update SLRS as necessary 9. Implement Transfer of Development Rights Program 10. Implement any revisions that were identified as necessary during the “Lessons Learned”

analysis. 11. Keep analyzing progress and look for ways to improve. Non-Regulatory Recommendations In addition to “regulatory” recommendations, the Report also highlights some techniques each community and the County could consider which would not involve adding additional laws to the books. These include researching and considering the use of a Transfer of Development Rights Program, the use of Conservation Easements and the encouragement of landowners to voluntary improve the visual appearance of existing structures. These and all of the recommendations discussed in the Executive Summary are provided in greater detail throughout this Report.

As rules and measures are implemented, continually assess your progress to determine how and where to improve the protection of your sensitive resources.


vi

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

The challenges facing Sevier County are very similar to the challenges facing communities across the nation. Public policies and attitudes useful in the past may need to be refreshed to tackle new realities about growth and development. It is at these times that communities strive to the find new ways to move forward while remaining a special place. The question at the heart of such efforts is, “Who do WE want to be tomorrow?” It is sometimes forgotten that choices made as a community (“we” choices) are a special set of shared individual choices (“me” choices). To get there, the lines around “we” and “me” should be examined together and responsibly. How can individual rights be balanced with the public’s right to an attractive, clean, healthy, and safe community? What issues have become genuine public concerns worthy of a community response? How should the use of property be balanced with its potential negative impacts on neighboring properties and the public? Every community should be asking and resolving these questions when considering whether or not to adopt land use regulations. During the public process of developing approaches and recommendations to address hillside and ridgeline development, all sides of the issue expressed articulate viewpoints. These many viewpoints became the framework for this Report. At the end of the day, one’s opinion and comfort level about changes in the community are worked out around the dinner table or over coffee with friends and neighbors. To promote such discussion, the following brings forward some of the most important questions asked by Sevier County citizens, questions about “me” and “we.”

As an interested citizen, please take a moment to read this and the recommendations of the Report.


vii

Table of Frequently Asked Questions Question__________________________________________________________________Page Q: Who hired Saratoga Associates to develop these recommendations?........................... viii

Q: Who is Saratoga Associates?.................................................................................... viii

Q: Who developed the stakeholder list and who are these “stakeholders”? ........................ viii

Q: What is the yardstick for the recommendations?......................................................... viii

Q: Will these recommendations apply to the whole county?................................................ix

Q: What happens after Saratoga Associates delivers these recommendations? Do they automatically become law? .........................................................................................ix

Q: Will a community have to adopt all of the recommendations at once?.............................ix

Q: If these recommendations were adopted, how long would the adoption process take?..... x

Q: The recommendations for this report appear similar to what other communities have done. Is this ‘reinventing the wheel?’ ............................................................................ x

Q: I heard that the recommendations would prevent development over certain elevations. Is that true? .................................................................................................................. x

Q: I heard that the recommendations would prevent development on very steep slopes. Is that true? ..................................................................................................................xi

Q: I’m troubled by what’s happened to our hillsides here. What is really new and challenging with these recommendations to manage this? ..............................................................xi

Q: What happens if these rules prevent any development from happening on my property? ..xi

Q: Will these recommendations apply to existing developments?.......................................xii

Q: I own a lot of land and I take good care of it. Good stewardship of the land is common sense. Why do we need more rules to tell people what to do? ......................................xii

Q: The recommendation for establishing scenic viewsheds seems very broad. If enacted, won’t this cover most of the county and its cities? .......................................................xii

Q: Is it true that recommendations for streams are being recommended? Won’t this impact existing development on the valley floor? ................................................................... xiii

Q: Property rights and the “greater good” seem at odds. How is it possible to balance these opposing viewpoints? ............................................................................................... xiii

Q: Where will the money come from for enforcement? .................................................... xiv

Q: Will the rules prevent all new hillside development from being visible? .......................... xiv

Q: Won’t new regulations have a chilling effect or stop all development? ........................... xiv


viii

Q: Who hired Saratoga Associates to develop these recommendations? Saratoga Associates was hired by four local government legislatures: Sevier County and the Cities of Sevierville, Pigeon Forge, and Gatlinburg. Q: Who is Saratoga Associates? Saratoga Associates is a private consulting firm located in Saratoga Springs, New York (pop. 26,000). The firm employs community planners, engineers, architects, and landscape architects who work together on a range of projects. The firm is hired by municipalities, state agencies, private individuals, developers, conservationists, and not-for-profit organizations. Examples of Saratoga Associates’ projects can be found at www.saratogaassociates.com Q: Who developed the stakeholder list and who are these “stakeholders”? Every citizen of Sevier County who cares about hillside development is a potential stakeholder. In order to devise a workable focus group, the client communities compiled a list of approximately 50 potential participants. The intent of the stakeholder meeting was to gather concerns from professionals and individuals involved on a daily basis with land development or conservation. It was deliberately designed to include many viewpoints - even opposing viewpoints. It brought together professional architects, engineers, conservationists, local activists, property rights interests, local officials, natural resource managers, contractors, and the National Park Service. Each meeting was facilitated and open to public observation. The list of invitees has been provided to the press and is available for public review. Additional opportunities to participate were extended to members of the public at-large who felt their perspectives were not adequately represented. Q: What is the yardstick for the recommendations? The recommendations are guided by a four-goal vision for hillsides identified by the


ix

municipalities in the contract for this study: > Preserve significant vistas > Prevent severe environmental and aesthetic degradation > Maintain appealing community image for visitors and residents > Accommodate continued economic and residential growth All four goals, including continued growth, are promoted by this set of recommendations. Q: Will these recommendations apply to the whole county? No. The Hillside Overlay District Approach, for example, would apply only when scenic resources of community-wide significance may be impacted by new development proposed above a certain elevation. The Critical Slope Floating Zoning Approach would apply only on steep slopes - those in excess of 15 percent. There will be some areas where elements of both the HOD and CSFZ would apply. Shallow slopes, flat terrain (like the valley floors), and existing development would not be impacted by these recommendations. Q: What happens after Saratoga Associates delivers these recommendations? Do they automatically become law? No, the recommendations do not automatically become law. Saratoga Associates was hired only to facilitate a public participation process by which recommendations were developed. The recommendations in this Report should be considered a set of “Tools” from which each community can draw from to enhance their land use policies to better deal with hillside and ridgeline development. As one public participant declared, “…the report gives you the ABCs, and it is up to each community what book it wants to write.” Q: Will a community have to adopt all of the recommendations at once? No. Each community will need to decide if and how to move forward with the recommendations. The recommendations are designed to complement and build upon each other. Implementation guidance is provided in the Preferred Directions Report to assist communities.


x

Q: If these recommendations were adopted, how long would the adoption process take? It depends on the adoption process in each community. At a minimum, as prescribed by law, the process could last as little as three months. This entails a careful review of the proposed ordinances necessary to implement the recommendations, public hearings, and official deliberations. Q: The recommendations for this report appear similar to what other communities have done. Is this ‘reinventing the wheel?’ No. It is important to distinguish between the 1) standards and 2) the process used to recommend the standards. On the matter of the standards, it is fair to say that they are informed by the efforts of many other communities. In fact, most regulations anywhere—from acreage limits to zoning—are based upon the work of other communities. Because this effort stands on the shoulders of others, the communities of Sevier County benefit from that foresight. Indeed, it would be irresponsible for Saratoga Associates to recommend a comprehensive set of untested “original” standards. It would be likewise irresponsible for the communities of Sevier County to enact such standards. On the second matter, however, the process was designed to promote thoughtful deliberation and to define the issue in local terms. This is necessary for developing a workable community response to local issues. Participants were asked: What do you think of these? How can we make it better? What will not work here? What did we miss? The result is a set of standards that will achieve reasonable development and conservation on hillsides that participants felt they could live with. Q: I heard that the recommendations would prevent development over certain elevations. Is that true? No. Above certain elevations, the goal is to use improved development standards and not to prevent development.


xi

Q: I heard that the recommendations would prevent development on very steep slopes. Is that true? Yes, but only on very, very steep slopes. Slopes over 60 percent are generally unsuitable for nearly all forms of development. It is recommended that this be the upper limit on which very low-density development may occur. At this point, public health and safety concerns like fire, landslides, and erosion are paramount. Heightened development standards will be used for developments on slopes over 15 percent. Many communities nationwide have chosen this as a starting point for regulation of hillside development. Q: I’m troubled by what’s happened to our hillsides here. What is really new and challenging with these recommendations to manage this? Most recommended rules and standards in this report, if adopted, will be new to the communities of Sevier County. The exceptions are where the report recommends keeping certain existing standards for road grades and artificial slopes. Q: What happens if these rules prevent any development from happening on my property? Nothing different than what happens already. When a zoning rule deprives all economic use of the entire parcel, a locality would grant a variance. State law requires this. Instances where all economic value is lost rarely happen. If all economic value is lost and a variance is being considered, the variance must be the minimum necessary (not a waiving of all rules) to allow some economic use of the parcel. Planning officials from Park City, Utah, which adopted a very strict hillside protection ordinance, indicated that such “relief from the rules” had been invoked only once in the last decade - in which case a variance was granted. The specifics vary by state. This report recommends that the communities of Sevier County study and possibly implement a “Transfer of Development Rights” (TDR) program. In the few, rare instances where a landowner was unable to use any portion of their land, they could sell the “right to develop” their land to another individual whom would “transfer” those rights to build


xii

more intensely elsewhere – like in a downtown setting. Such programs elsewhere in the nation have worked very well to compensate landowners. Q: Will these recommendations apply to existing developments? Land use rules are rarely applied retroactively. The policy of allowing previous existing uses to continue is called “Grandfathering” and is often enshrined in state legislation or as court precedents. However, it is also common that if the landowner wishes to make major changes, like rehabilitating or constructing an addition to a home, then the new construction must follow the new rules. The specifics of grandfathering vary from location to location. Q: I own a lot of land and I take good care of it. Good stewardship of the land is common sense. Why do we need more rules to tell people what to do? In theory, government enacts land use rules because development on one piece of land can negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the public at-large. In order to manage these “we” problems, public rules are enacted to publicize appropriate standards. Most people, most of the time, want to do what is right for the community as they go about their personal business. By the same token, if everyone always did the ‘right’ thing, rules would not be necessary. It takes only a few individuals who are unmindful of good stewardship to spoil the land and harm the public. Rules are necessary to guide those who are unaware of the public standards. This report was commissioned on the presumption that action should be considered, and that if the community wishes to exercise its legal power to regulate, then these recommendations propose a way forward that balances many of the concerns expressed during the public process. Q: The recommendation for establishing scenic viewsheds seems very broad. If enacted, won’t this cover most of the county and its cities? No. The choice to nominate scenic sites is up to each community. The recommendations here do not nominate sites that will be used to create a viewshed. The recommendations list only the criteria for nominating such places. The criteria focus on the kinds of places


xiii

that are likely to be enjoyed by many members of the public and areas that are officially designated as a protected or special place. It will be up to each community to nominate scenic sites or corridors that will then be used to map the viewsheds. Q: Is it true that recommendations for streams are being recommended? Won’t this impact existing development on the valley floor? Stream buffers are being recommended, but they won’t impact the valley floor. The buffers apply for new developments only on certain steep slopes. The intent of the recommendation is to reduce pollution of local waterways and drinking-water supplies from mud, toxins, and microbes (like e-coli from septic systems). Q: Property rights and the “greater good” seem at odds. How is it possible to balance these opposing viewpoints? The right to develop property and the “greater good” or “public good” are not mutually exclusive. Many other communities have found lots of overlap between these two seemingly opposing viewpoints. Zoning regulations, ideally, should balance an individual’s right to enjoy their property while limiting the potential harm of that enjoyment to the public and neighboring properties. When zoning rules are well designed, they can enhance the value of new development while improving the community. Time and again, appropriate regulations have been shown to raise property values. Everyone shares the benefits, including the landowner and their neighbors. During the first public meeting, a citizen declared that without “honest and realistic dialogue,” opposing viewpoints would not find common ground. This prescription for good-faith participation is how balance is found among many viewpoints. Ideally, at the end of the day, everyone’s “fingerprints” should be on the adopted regulation. This process made a genuine effort to include many diverse and opposing viewpoints, and the questions and recommendations found here is evidence for that. If the municipality chooses to begin official deliberations on whether or not to adopt the rules, local and state law provides the opportunity for additional public hearings and input.


xiv

Q: Where will the money come from for enforcement? Enforcement is a vexing issue that faces every community. Each community here must decide how to fund the enforcement of these rules, if adopted. Recommendations on funding and the implementation of the rules are included in this report. Q: Will the rules prevent all new hillside development from being visible? No. While communities should strongly encourage applicants to screen as much of their development from significant public resources, the complete screening of new development is not the goal of these recommendations. The recommendations propose a standard for measuring how visible new development may be. This standard is called “Visually Subordinate.” This means that new buildings and roads shouldn’t be the defining feature of a hillside. Visually subordinate means that if someone tried, they could pick out individual buildings on a hillside. However, the buildings would not be the first things a person would see. There are many good examples of visually subordinate development in Sevier County and its municipalities. Likewise, there are many “visually prominent” developments, that most public participants agreed were highly undesirable from a visual impact and public safety perspective. Q: Won’t new regulations have a chilling effect or stop all development? No. One yardstick for developing the recommendations is to ensure continued overall growth. Furthermore, it is important to examine if the recently adopted zoning rules have had a chilling effect on development in the communities of Sevier County. With respect to these recommendations, only on the most extreme steep slopes and on the most prominent ridgelines is it recommended to prohibit development. In these instances, there are recommendations to take the development that would otherwise be there and shift it to more appropriate areas of the parcel or to sell those development rights to another individual for use in more appropriate areas. In each case, the development community could easily see an improvement on their “bottom line.” This is because they would be precluded from spending costly sums on infrastructure and utilities to access very steep slopes. Developers who chose to appropriately cluster units and conserve undeveloped land also stand to enjoy a tax windfall.


1

Section 1

Project Background


2

Section 1 Introduction and Project Background 1.1 PROJECT HISTORY

In early 2007, Sevier County and its municipalities commissioned a study to develop and examine a set of recommendations for the effective management of hillside development. As part of this effort, the client communities have retained Saratoga Associates to facilitate the recommendation process and to elicit pubic comments. The involved client communities consist of Sevier County and the Cities of Sevierville, Pigeon Forge, Gatlinburg, and Pittman Center. The development of recommendations is guided by a four-goal vision for hillsides identified in the contract for this study: 1. Preserve significant vistas; 2. Prevent severe environmental and aesthetic degradation; 3. Maintain appealing community image for visitors and residents; and 4. Accommodate continued economic and residential growth. From March to May, Saratoga Associates conducted case studies of several communities that have chosen to regulate hillsides and ridges. The case studies trace the development of their ordinances from its genesis to its adoption and enforcement. Their stories provide guidance for the challenges that Sevier County faces. (Refer to the Sevier County Public Library website for a copy of the Case Study Report) During the same time, Saratoga Associates performed an analysis of local land use regulations. This was necessary to understand how local land use rules are shaping hillside development patterns, where weaknesses can be improved, and where strengths can be better known and leveraged. In summary, it was found that local regulations do not provide a framework designed to protect the region’s scenic resources or promote hillside safety. (Refer to the Sevier County Public Library website for a copy of the Local Land Use Regulation Analysis Report) In June, Saratoga Associates conducted field visits and held two informational/workshop meetings. Meetings were held with a broad range of stakeholders and the public at-large, each well attended. All participant meetings were open to the public. The case studies and findings from the local zoning analysis were presented and the meeting was opened to comments from the public. In each meeting, participants expressed a strong desire to see enhanced safety and aesthetic standards for hillside and ridgeline development.


3

In order to devise a workable focus group, the client communities compiled a list of approximately 50 potential participants. The intent of the stakeholder meeting was to gather concerns from professionals and individuals involved on a daily basis in land development or conservation. It was deliberately designed to include many viewpoints - even opposing viewpoints. It brought together professional architects, engineers, conservationists, local activists, property rights interests, local officials, natural resource managers, contractors, and the National Park Service. Each meeting was open to public observation, and the list of participants has been provided to the press and is available for public review on the Sevier County Public Library Website. In addition to these public forums, a “working committee” was developed which consists of planning officials from each client community. This group has provided ongoing guidance regarding existing municipal rules and procedures. They have also reviewed the range of public comments made and feel that this public format provides a practical way to address specific concerns and to develop effective recommendations. By July, all public comments from June meetings were compiled and used as a framework for an “Emerging Concepts Report.” The report outlines a preliminary set of recommendations for the enhancement of standards for hillside and ridgeline development. The report was designed to share with members of the public the concerns expressed at all meetings. At that stage, recommendations were preliminary and designed to advance the discussion on specific methods for enhancing hillside development standards. By mid-July, the Emerging Concepts Report was presented in back-to-back stakeholder and public meetings by Saratoga Associates. Opportunities for open public comment were given. The questions have been collected and are presented as an “FAQ” section at the beginning of this report. Comments were also used to refine the direction and the substance of the recommendations. By mid-August, the report had been revised and re-released as the “Preferred Directions Report.” Upon final release of this completed report, it will be to the discretion of each community if they wish to consider adopting the recommendations “as is” or in an amended form. State and local laws requires that official consideration of new land use regulations be subject to additional public hearing and a public comment period.


4

1.2 CASE STUDY OVERVIEW Five communities were selected for review of their ordinances that regulate hillside development. They are: Napa County, California; Park City, Utah; Warwick, New York; Albemarle County, Virginia; and Stowe, Vermont. The case studies are intended to provide an understanding of how other communities have chosen to regulate development patterns on hillsides and ridges. Each case study is based on an examination of their hillside ordinance and on discussions with local planners and stakeholders. The case studies strive to trace the development of the ordinance from its genesis to its adoption and its enforcement. The case studies are provided in Appendix A (under separate cover). Until recent decades, hillside open spaces were taken for granted. Regulations were unnecessary simply because the market did not support hillside development and aesthetic concerns had not been developed to the extent they are today. Development on hillsides was costly and adverse impacts were localized. By comparison, development on nearby flatland was accessible, easy, and cheap. The forces that limited hillside development have changed to encourage hillside development. Engineering and construction is feasible for middle class lifestyles. Flat terrain is built-out. Retiring baby boomers are escaping to rural, hillside communities in droves. Communities known for their natural beauty and vacation-like atmosphere are feeling sharply this demographic shift in the form of a booming second-home market. Despite the ability of engineering to mitigate impacts, there continue to be risks inherent to hillside development. A mix of factors makes regulating hillside development a politically challenging effort. Because municipal rules typically lag behind market shifts, hillside regulations tend to place at odds newly vested stakeholders seeking to maximize the profit potential of newly available hillsides and conservationists of all stripes seeking to preserve the natural and aesthetic qualities of hillsides. Municipalities, likewise, have a public interest duty to consider the larger recreational, environmental and community character impacts of poor development. In four of the five communities, their status as a major tourist destination was a factor that figured prominently in the decision to address hillside concerns. Three of the five communities used a stakeholder process to facilitate the process. Perhaps the mantra adhered to by the Albemarle case study is worth emphasizing here: parse the costs and benefits among the stakeholders in an equitable manner.


5

1.3 SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL LAND USE RULES Local land use rules were evaluated to facilitate the development of standards for hillside development. This was necessary to understand how current local land use rules shape hillside land use patterns, where weaknesses can be improved, and where strengths can be better known and leveraged. In summary, local land use regulations in Sevier County and its municipalities do not provide a framework designed to comprehensively govern the development or preservation of hillsides and ridges. Moreover, certain existing rules will worsen risks inherent to hillsides. The following municipal regulations were reviewed for this analysis (date of copy in parenthesis). The full report is provided in Appendix B (under separate cover). Sevier County Zoning Ordinance (April 2006) Sevier County Subdivision Regulations (March 1996) Sevier County Stormwater Resolution (No Date Noted)

Town of Pittman Center Zoning Ordinance (September 1997) Town of Pittman Center Subdivision Regulations (July 2003) Town of Pittman Center Storm Water Ordinance (May 2005) City of Sevierville Zoning Ordinance (January 2007) City of Sevierville Subdivision Regulations (August 2003) City of Sevierville Storm Water Ordinance (May 2005) City of Sevierville “Citizen’s Policy Plan” (July 2005) City of Gatlinburg Zoning Ordinance (September 2006) City of Gatlinburg Subdivision Regulations (1988) City of Gatlinburg Storm Water Ordinance (May 2005) City of Gatlinburg Excavation, Grading, and Clearing Code (June 2000) City of Gatlinburg Land Use Plan (September 1991) City of Pigeon Forge Zoning Ordinance (January 2007) City of Pigeon Forge Subdivision Regulations (1991) City of Pigeon Forge Storm Water Ordinance (May 2005)


6

1.4 CONDITIONS AND RISKS INHERENT TO STEEP SLOPES Development on steep slopes presents benefits and poses risks. This summary discusses conditions and risks inherent to steep slope and concerning hillside development. The summary is based on both a professional assessment and on public comments gathered from the stakeholders meeting and the public meetings. Fire Risks from fire are increased on steep slopes. As wildfires spread across a hillside, they advance by up to twice the speed they otherwise would on flat terrain. Limited emergency access points, prone buildings, and woodland fuels worsen such risks. The risks for wildfires are increased as the urban interface moves deeper into forested terrain. Landslides Landslides and slope failure are an ever-present threat on hillsides. Depending on the conditions of the slide, they may be termed debris flows, mudslides, landslides, rock falls, slumping, and mass wasting. These geologic phenomena are a natural part of erosion and are not limited to catastrophic slides. Soil creep and slumping occur in time spans of years, but pose similar risks to buildings and public safety. The Appalachian Mountains are dotted with evidence of historic and ongoing landslide activity. The evidence for this is often concealed by vegetation and soil, given the intervals of decades and centuries between natural slope failures. Slides are often triggered by excessive rainfall events. Hurricanes Francis and Ivan in 2004 dropped significant amounts of rain that resulted in numerous landslides. The most devastating was the Peeks Creek Debris Flow, killing 5 people, injuring 2, and destroying 15 homes. State geologists have examined many slope failures in eastern Tennessee. In almost all cases, they identified human induced disturbances such as roads and hillside cuts that destabilized otherwise stable conditions. In mountain locations in western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee, hillsides are prone to natural failure where slopes exceed 58 percent. The image, below left, indicates soil creep: As the slope “rolls” downward over many years, the tree growing within the slope corrects its upward growth by curving in the opposite direction. The middle image is of the 1997 Pigeon Creek Landslide along Interstate 40 in North Carolina. This catastrophic slide cost in excess of 10 million dollars to clean up. For scale, notice the two construction trucks in the center of the middle image. The image on the right is of a Sevier County landslide that destroyed the rear of the house in 2001. The area was not designated a landslide prone area and occurred on a comparatively shallow slope of 45 percent (most


7

landslides occur on slopes in excess of 58 percent). The slide was induced by increased stormwater runoff from an upslope road after a weeklong rain event.

Earthquakes Earthquakes in eastern Tennessee are rare events. Nonetheless, the region lies within a zone of elevated risk within the Eastern United States. Recorded earthquakes ranged in strength from light to moderate. Approximately two-dozen earthquakes have been recorded in Sevier County between 1964 and 1998. Numerous others have been recorded in neighboring counties. Low intensity earthquakes in the area are a cause for concern based on the potential to destabilize marginally stable slopes and the possibility of slope and building failure.


8

This map figure is an excerpt from the Geologic Hazards Map of Tennessee (1977). The map indicates large portions of Sevier County are naturally prone to landslides. The red square northeast of Sevierville identifies the location of the 2001 landslide pictured on the previous page. The location is outside of areas designated as prone to landslides, highlighting the necessity for a site-by-site assessment of proposed projects.


9

Soils and Bedrock Steep slopes are typically covered by shallow or thin soils. Because of this, cuts in bedrock are typically necessary for safe building foundations and the placement of utilities. These disturbances to bedrock can alter the near surface hydrology and potentially destabilize naturally stable slopes. Furthermore, such soils tend to be sandy and otherwise well draining. This means that stormwater runoff, septage, and other non-point source pollutants travel further with fewer opportunities for attenuation, like thicker soil horizons, longer residence times, and more vegetation. The near surface flow of water contributes water to area streams and waterways in a natural process known as stream baseflow. Certain geologic rock formations within Sevier County are naturally acidifying. While covered with soil or overlying rock, the acidifying layer poses no danger. However, when exposed to the atmosphere, the interaction of the rocks with water creates a low pH (acidic) water solution. This water solution interacts with the native soils and rocks to dissolve heavy metals contained in them. This process is known as “acid rock drainage.” It is the dissolution of heavy metals and their transport off site that pollutes drinking water supplies and harms local ecology. Because


10

these are sites of extreme chemical conditions, they are not favorable for the re-growth of native vegetation and are likely to remain exposed for decades. Visibility and Natural Aesthetics Hillsides are by their nature highly visible. Steep slopes exaggerate building features and ensure their visibility from farther distances. Ground disturbances, road cuts, and tree cutting that accompany building construction are also highly visible. The natural aesthetics of hillsides are formed by the natural patterns of continuous vegetation, rocky outcrops, and the contours of ravines and ridgelines. Development designed with sensitivity to the landscape can help ensure that the desired natural look of hillsides and ridges are preserved. Techniques and materials to lessen visual impacts are readily available to the design and building trades. Erosion Rates of erosion are higher on steep slopes. Reasons for this are the slope itself, which accelerates water flow, and thin unconsolidated soils, which are erosion prone. Natural vegetation, over time, tends to stabilize the underlying soils and helps to retain water by slowing its downhill flow. Such processes are important for reducing the introduction of sediment into waterways and slowing the flow of water. Construction grading removes naturally stabilizing vegetation and exposes loose soil to the elements. Runoff from construction sites and from impervious surfaces can erode and destabilize artificial slopes. Watersheds and sub-watershed in the eastern United States, where impervious surfaces constitute more than 10 percent of the area, exhibit severe stream erosion and are prone to increased incidents of flooding. Water Groundwater resources on hillsides provide clean drinking water for the public and sustain healthy stream habitats. Groundwater resources of concern include aquifers and near surface water sources, such as seeps and stream baseflow. Hillside bedrock contains numerous cracks and fractures that allow water to move into localized aquifers at rates much quicker than those found in thick soil profiles or through flat terrain. This means that effluent from septic fields and the downward percolation of polluted stormwater runoff can contaminate drinking water supplies with toxins and pathogens. Stormwater runoff, like groundwater pollution, can adversely impact water supplies and stream habitats. Fish and stream invertebrates are particularly sensitive to changes effected by stormwater runoff. Increased volumes of stormwater runoff and the transport of pollutants is not the only concern. Stream ecologists found that the temperature fluctuations caused by the runoff, both colder and hotter, are as detrimental to ecological health as the pollutants.


11

The elements of a stream buffer that provide these critical services are the vegetation and soil layers within the buffer. Together they slow the flow of water allowing sediment and mud to settle within the organic layer of the forest floor. Plant uptake of nitrogen and phosphates lessen the amounts that will otherwise enter local waterways. Furthermore, the soil provides a substrate for pollutants to attach to, while microbes within the soil and organic layer help to sequester pollutants. Naturally regulated water temperatures promote the health and integrity of aquatic ecosystems for human enjoyment. Thus, the natural shade provided by existing stream buffers helps to cool stormwater runoff in the summer. Soils are generally inhospitable environments for human pathogens and viruses. Hence, ensuring adequate distances between effluent points and receiving waters reduces the input rate of harmful microbes into waterways.


12

Section 2

Recommendations


13

Section 2 Recommendations

2.1 FIVE GUIDING PRINCIPLES > No Project shall result in an undue adverse impact on the region’s significant and unique

natural and scenic resources. The purpose of this principle is to promote more thought and care in the design and construction of hillside development. It is evident that many of the negative impacts on public health and welfare from development are needless and can be avoided. This is based on field visits by Saratoga Associates and on the overwhelming number of such comments from the stakeholder group and the public. The goal is not to prevent all impacts from development - impacts are unavoidable. The key word is “undue,” meaning unwarranted, unjustified, inappropriate, or excessive by reason of the conditions inherent to steep slopes. During the design and review of the project, the goal is to ensure that the applicant, the Planning Commission, and the public at large have taken a “hard look” at likely negative impacts and their causes. Only after such an examination, is it feasible to identify the best response and mitigation techniques. > Any approved project shall mitigate adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable. This principle builds on the preceding one by helping to establish what impacts are “undue,” meaning unwarranted, unjustified, inappropriate, or excessive. The standard, rather than prescribe specific practices, prescribes a way to assess the applicant’s response to the project’s impacts. It seeks to minimize the risk of being wrong with respect to mitigating adverse impacts. The key word is “practicable” (not practical), meaning what can be practiced. If the applicant has failed to make a good-faith effort to explore and apply all appropriate and reasonable techniques to mitigate adverse impacts, then the applicant has not mitigated adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable. Furthermore, this standard does not suppose that all adverse impacts will be avoided. However, it presumes that if adverse impacts cannot be avoided, they can be significantly minimized. > “Visually subordinate” shall be the standard for assessing visual impacts of proposed

development within scenic regions. By luck of geology and climate, the communities of Sevier County are blessed with astounding natural beauty and a profound sense of place. It speaks for itself that this natural beauty is the basis for a thriving local tourism economy, second to none in Tennessee. Human development within this natural landscape can either complement or harm this beauty, and, by extension, the local economy. The standard of “visually subordinate” is designed to encourage development that complements the natural landscape. Visually Subordinate means that the development is not


14

the most defining feature of the landscape. There are techniques and tools easily available that make the standard practical and recommended. Conserving the natural landscape will ensure the continued authenticity of local tourism economy for this and future generations of Sevier County citizens. > Density shall decrease as slopes increase. Conditions inherent to steep slopes make intensive uses on them dangerous and unsightly. Hillsides possess scenic views, fresh air, and the feeling of “getting away.” They also possess unstable slopes, rapid rates of runoff, natural hazards, and public health and safety concerns. Excessive density on steep hillsides not only exacerbates the hillside’s negative qualities, it even detracts from its desirable qualities. The intent of this principle is to require densities that balance the enjoyment of the community’s hillsides with the promotion of development in harmony with steep slopes. > Project approval shall take into consideration both positive and negative impacts. The promotion of sensible hillside development is the objective of this report. This recognizes that there are legitimate public and private benefits to hillside development. These include the promotion of the local economy and the diversification of housing. These positive impacts are to be considered to the degree that adverse impacts can be avoided.


15

2.2 ESTABLISH ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC RESOURCES OF CONCERN It is recommended that the Communities of Sevier County identify and establish Environmental and Public Resources of Concern. The purpose of establishing resources of concern is to identify priority resources that are a matter of promoting the public health, safety, and welfare of current and future generations. These resources include environmental features inherent to steep slopes, public services, and policy priorities that may be significantly and negatively impacted by improper hillsides design. It is envisioned that the implementation of this recommendation will be through the official adoption of a local ordinance or resolution. The recommendations may be adopted individually, although they are designed to complement each other. Adoption of these standards action would be consistent with the adoption of a Critical Slope Floating Zone, as proposed in this report. This recommendation is designed to provide the Planning Commission and the public with a checklist of issues common to hillside development. It is also necessary from the perspective of “due process” to alert all potential applicants to public interest concerns they will be asked to consider during the review of hillside development. By establishing this in a local ordinance, this will provide an objective basis for identifying potential adverse impacts from hillside development. In implementing this recommendation, the applicant and the Planning Commission will have the tools and parameters to establish a productive dialogue. In keeping with the first guiding principle of no undue adverse impact, the Planning Commission or its technical staff will be expected examine the resources of concern in light of the project application in hand. The process for this review and the applicant’s response are described in Recommendation 2.6. The objective is not to enumerate a “laundry list” of highly specific, potentially localized issues. In fact, such issues can only be known once a site assessment has been conducted and the project design is prepared. Furthermore, in the interest of fairness and predictability, the resources of concern cannot be so general as to be useless. Rather, the resources of concern should be concise enough to provide the applicant with reasonable guidance during the design phase of the project, such that they may reasonably anticipate appropriate mitigation or avoidance techniques. The following is a preliminary list of Environmental and Public Resources of Concern:

1. Surface Soils and Geology > Thin or shallow soils prone to erosion > Bedrock prone to slope failure


16

> Acid rock drainage > Ridgelines > Ravines > Rock Outcrops > Long term management plan of undeveloped areas of site

2. Water Resources > Contributions to creeks and streams, both surface and near surface hydrology (seeps

and baseflow) > Management of stormwater quality and quantity > Management of stormwater impacts on slope stability and erosion > Surface and ground water pollutants, including sediment, litter, heavy metals, salts,

phosphates, nitrates, and pathogens 3. Air Resources 4. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology

> Sensitive and endangered species endemic to the region > Maintain quality of permanent and intermittent streams > Preservation of native vegetation for its aesthetic and slope stabilizing qualities > Long-term management and deeded protection of undeveloped portions of site

5. Transportation and Access > Access by emergency service providers > Alternative means for emergency access > Safe access > Lines of sight > Switchbacks > Congestion

6. Land Use, Zoning, and the Master Plan > In harmony with existing, surrounding uses > Consistent with provisions of zoning intent and purpose > Consistent with the policies of the Master Plan > Creation of lots of sufficient size and suitable location to promote the

recommendations 7. Water Supply

> Well water, sources and potential impacts to offsite water supplies > Surface water, creeks, wetlands > Stormwater drainage > Free from pollutants and pathogens

8. Sewage Treatment > Pick up and disposal > Effluent discharge downslope > Long term plan for operations and maintenance > Sufficient land area for treatment and attenuation of pollutants

9. Utilities


17

> Water pressure > Installed on stable slopes > Available during emergencies such as wildfire

10. Solid Waste Disposal > Cleanliness > Attraction of wildlife > Odors > Long-term operations and maintenance

11. Community Services > Access by emergency service providers > Police, fire, and first responders


18

2.3 STANDARDS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR SITES IMPACTING RESOURCES OF CONCERN The following standards of design and construction are recommended for proposed areas of disturbance on slopes with grades 15 percent or greater. It is recommended that the following standards be implemented through adoption of a local ordinance or resolution. 2.3.1 Artificial Slopes- Maximum Grade & Benching Artificial slopes refer to retaining walls and “cut and fill” slopes. Generally, retaining walls are characterized by vertical and sub-vertical walls. Cut and fill slopes are created by cutting into the hillside (the backslope or “cut”), and gathering the cut rock and soil to form nearby embankments (fill slope). When designed well, these can provide flat and stable terrain on steep slopes. Cut and fill slopes, consistent with existing local policy, are not to exceed slopes of 2H: 1V and are to be designed in conformance to accepted professional design standards. In order to avoid unnecessary disturbances and visual impacts, any unterraced cut or fill slope is not to exceed a rise of 15 feet. Any cut and fill slope that exceeds 15 feet will be designed to include terraces suitable for the survival of vegetation and trees. Terraced slopes may not exceed 45 feet. The backslope will be set at an angle that is consistent with the material’s natural angle of repose. The head and toe of the slopes will be rounded to lessen erosion there. Engineered retaining walls will be subject to the same requirements regarding heights and terracing. This standard will be enforced during the site plan review and construction phases of the project. Avoid Promote


19

Rationale: The recommended maximum slopes are a continuation of existing policy in the communities of Sevier County. Reference authorities for other applicable design standards (methods for compaction, mixing, draining, water content, etc.) should include state or federal highway design manuals, which are often keyed to ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) standards. Terraced benches are provided to ensure sufficient space for the establishment of shrubs and small trees to screen the bright orange of iron oxides present in many area soils and bedrock.

2.3.2 Artificial Slopes - Materials, Compaction, Dewatering Due care will be taken by engineers, designers, and contractors to ensure that artificial slopes use appropriate materials, are sufficiently compacted using professionally approved practices, and ensure that water draining through or across artificial slopes do not jeopardize the stability of the artificial slope. This standard will be enforced through the certification process recommended in part 2.9 of this report.

Rationale: Material used for the creation of fill slopes is typically loose and not reinforced. As such, the stability of a pile of fill material is derived from the friction of interlocking particles of soil and gravel. Fill material piled at too steep an angle will collapse when the force of gravity exceeds the force of friction within the fill material. This failure point is known as the “angle of repose” or “angle of friction.” When fill material is used to build an artificial slope, geotechnical engineers begin by examining the kinds of particles in the fill (clay, sand, gravel, cobbles), the amount of each size, the natural water content, and the amount of friction or cohesion between particles. They use this information to calculate the slope at which the material will be stable. Depending on the material on hand, mixing techniques and the compaction of the fill material, the fill slope may be used to safely support construction on it. Pockets of clay or decomposing organic matter (like tree stumps) can overtime destabilize fill slopes. Since fill slopes derive their stability from friction between particles, the flow of water across and through fill slope is of critical importance. If sufficient drainage


20

is not provided, water pressure within the material can eventually push apart the interlocking particles, resulting in slope failure. Erosive runoff across fill surfaces destabilizes slopes by washing out supporting granular matter. Evidence of this process can be seen in the formation of rills and gullies.

2.3.3 Artificial Slopes - Disposal of fill, borrow Significant amounts of extra soil and rock are generated through grading and construction. The disposal of this material on steep slopes is a public health and safety concern. The disposal of cut material on site will be away from streams, wetlands, intermittent streams, and ravines. A buffer of 100 feet around permanent and intermittent streams will be used to demarcate where fill material may be responsibly disposed of. This standard will be enforced during the site plan review and construction phases of the project.

Rationale: The intent of this recommendation is to avoid the sedimentation of streams by the erosion of soil and rock disposal. Drinking water quality and stream ecology are very sensitive to high rates of sedimentation. Silt can cover sandy, pebbly stream bottoms necessary for hatching of fish and amphibians. Fine sediment, such as suspended clay, particles can effectively clog the respiratory systems of aquatic life. One hundred foot buffers are recommended for the steep slopes and the high percolation rates of fill material. The image, right, is of a site where a hillside road was proposed. The road could not be built as designed due to an erroneous survey and an alternate location was found while this site remains unmanaged. This ravine feeds an intermittent stream beginning just below this site. The exposed surface, at this time, was not stabilized. Based on the faded timbers at the foot of the slope, these conditions have likely persisted for over a year. Several large homes (not in image) have been constructed around this site - one at


21

the top of the exposed slope in the background and another to the left of the foreground. This image draws attention to the need for accurate site surveys, soil erosion management, and revegetation. The image was taken in Sevier County.

2.3.4 Artificial Slopes - Mass Grading Mass grading will be prohibited. The grading of hillsides and the creation of artificial slopes will be the minimum necessary for providing safe access, extending utilities, and constructing onsite improvements. This standard will be enforced during the site plan review and construction phases of the project.

Rationale: The grading of entire hillsides is unnecessary and harmful. Mass grading refers to the practice of clearing all or most of a site prior to construction. Under recommendations made in this report, the exposure of soils and rock by the wholesale removal of vegetation worsens erosion and pollutes nearby streams. Under these conditions, runoff has effectively no residence time as it races offsite and may increase the frequency of flooding downstream.

2.3.5 Roadways - Maximum Grade Consistent with existing policies, public and private road grades are recommended to not exceed grades of 12 percent. Runs less than 200 feet in length may exceed the 12 percent grade, but may not exceed grades of 15 percent. Such grades allow safe access by emergency responders. This standard will be enforced during the site plan review and construction phases of the project. 2.3.6 Roadways - Driveways Driveways provide access between the residence and any public or private roads. Driveways are recommended to not exceed 25 percent. Where the driveway intersects a public or private roadway, there will be sufficient length (50 feet minimum) and shallowness of grade (preferably consistent with 2.5.5) to allow emergency responders and drivers to safely turn onto the driveway.

Rationale: The image, right, depicts two driveway scenarios. The dashed lines are topographic contours. The driveway on the left results in fewer cuts and ascends

Avoid Promote


22

the terrain at a shallower grade. The driveway on the right descends about 20 feet before rising again, creating steeper cuts, disturbing more vegetation, and creating more opportunities for erosive runoff. Notice, too, that the building site (white) is oriented with the topography, not across it.

2.3.7 Roadways - Switchbacks Switchbacks are to be avoided. However, this report recognizes that in limited instances, switchbacks provide the only possible method of access. As such, switchbacks are to be allowed in either of the following two cases. First, switchbacks may be used if it allows more appropriate development upslope than could be found downslope, by reason of shallower slopes and fewer negative impacts. Second, switchbacks may be used if no downslope sites are feasible for development under the recommendations of this report. In either case, road grades for switchbacks are not to exceed the standards provided above.

Rationale: Concerns about switchbacks are the short lines of the sight and the steep and short curves (for emergency access). Switchbacks, during the construction phase, also result in significant amount of vegetation clearing and disturbance to the natural grades. The picture to the right is of a switchback in Colorado and depicts the concentration of land disturbance and associated vegetation clearing necessary at the switchback.

2.3.8 Stream Buffers It is recommended that a stream buffer be used as a setback for development from streams. The setback should equal 100 feet and be measured from the mean high water (MHW) of intermittent and permanent streams. Applicable streams are to be identified on the most recent 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle. Intermittent and permanent streams identified through a site assessment are to be included as well. Buffers may be disturbed for the placement of roads, bridges, and utilities, but only the minimum necessary. All reasonable alternatives will have to be exhausted.


23

Rationale: Buffers around streams and waterways provide the beneficial service of attenuating surface water flows and reducing pollutant loads of contributing waters. The cost of this natural service is free, so long as sound land management principles are utilized. The alternative, whereby professionally designed water filtration and remediation systems are designed, constructed and maintained, is excessively costly to the public. Extensive scientific literature has been compiled to assess the filtering capacity of various soils and their efficacy at removing specific pollutants. The filtration of surface water depends on soil, steepness, and pollutant in question. Thin, sandy soils with little organic matter require greater buffer distances to provide the same amount of filtering capacity as thick silts. Likewise, steep slopes require greater buffers to provide the same filtering capacity as level terrain. Buffer widths for thin, well-drained soils on steep slopes range from approximately 100 feet to figures in excess of 300 feet. The recommendation of 100 feet is based on a comprehensive review of this literature and will provide a high degree of filtering capacity for the pollutants of primary concern, such sediment and pathogens.

2.3.9 Utilities Utilities are to be incorporated into common trenches utilizing duct banks. Care regarding the retention or drainage of stormwater runoff will be taken in the design and construction of such trenches. Utility cuts will be restored to a natural grade and re-vegetated, as necessary, to conform to the character of the surrounding natural terrain. 2.3.10 Stormwater & Erosion - Impervious Surfaces The use of pervious pavements and surfaces are to be promoted and considered for use. Such surfaces allow water to percolate downward and reduce the amount that will flow to erosive drainage points. Impervious surfaces should not exceed 15 percent of lot area for lots less than ½ acre. Impervious surfaces should not exceed 10 percent of lot area for lots greater than ½ acre. Impervious surfaces should not exceed 10 percent of lot area for entire subdivision area. 2.3.11 Stormwater & Erosion - Sheet Flow Where feasible, surfaces will be designed and engineered to promote sheet flow and to avoid the


24

channeling water. The recommendation may not be used as a justification for avoiding the use of stormwater retention and detention facilities where necessary.

Rationale: Sheet flow is the term used to describe the uniform and sheet-like flow of water across a surface. By contrast, channel flow describes the collection of water from a large surface area into a furrow, gully, or other pathway. Because channel flow collects large volumes of water, the volume of stormwater is increased at the discharge point, as is its erosive potential. Long-term, centralized detention structures are to be avoided on hillsides, generally. Rather, the goal is to release water from the site at as many different points as possible to keep volumes and discharge rates low. If sheet flow cannot be designed, the use of level spreaders may achieve comparable results.

2.3.12 Stormwater & Erosion- Runoff and Artificial Slopes Upslope runoff across artificial slopes will be limited or avoided to the maximum extent practicable. The creation of erosive rills and gullies erode and destabilize steep slopes and as such are to be avoided. Artificial slopes are to be vegetated or stabilized using geotextiles and pervious engineered surfaces to prevent runoff and to stabilize artificial slopes. The use of floating bark is to be avoided as a soil stabilization method. These are necessary to limit erosion and the formation of rills and gullies on artificial slopes.

Rationale: Cut and fill slopes require significant disturbances, removing its protective cover of stabilizing vegetation. This removal is necessary during construction. However, if well managed, erosion can be minimized or effectively eliminated. Geotextiles and other engineered surfaces are affordable options to reduce runoff rates and stabilize surface soil in order to allow ground cover to grow and eventually provide additional stabilization. Trees are recommended as a long-term strategy for soil stabilization. The arrows, below left, show where numerous rills and gullies are forming on this exposed fill slope. These were typical of those observed in Sevier County. The largest gully was 8 inches deep and will continue to erode. Because of the road’s proximity to the slope, erosion has cut through the road’s gravel basecoat (notice gray gravel) and will soon scour the road’s subgrade. Over time, this will erode the lateral support and tension cracks will likely appear in the road surface. Costs


25

to repair this stretch of road (assessment, design, consulting, repair, maintenance) will be extreme. The party responsible for costs in most cases will be either the local government or the homeowner’s association.

The road to the right is the source of erosive runoff. The image, above right, shows where an embedded diversion is directing water towards the artificial slope. The diversion is presumably designed to prevent runoff from collecting at the end of the road. The road’s proximity and embedded diversion are the cause for accelerating runoff at this point, however, vegetation management or engineered surfaces on the artificial slope would substantially slow runoff rates. Ultimately, sufficient distance from artificial slopes, the design of shallower and shorter slopes, comprehensive stormwater management, and vegetation management would provide significant savings for this development over the long haul. The image below, taken in Sevier County, shows several design and construction standards recommended in this report. Construction in the background was temporarily halted and the exposed surfaces were stabilized with ground cover. Notice, also, the established ground cover surrounding the recently completed structure in the left foreground. In order to stabilize the stormwater outflow, lower right, cobbles are used. Overall, the road is curbed (not shown), the slopes are much shallower, and stormwater is treated on site.


26

2.3.13 Stormwater & Erosion- Acid Rock Drainage Naturally acidifying soils and rock formations identified on the site are to be avoided. Where a cut into such soils and formations cannot be avoided by exhausting all alternatives, the exposed surfaces will be capped and sufficiently sealed to reduce the percolation of water across them.

Rationale: Certain geologic rock formations within Sevier County are naturally acidifying. While covered with soil or overlying rock, the acidifying layer poses no danger. However, when exposed to the atmosphere, the interaction of the rocks with water creates a low pH (acidic) water solution. This water solution interacts with the native soils and rocks to dissolve heavy metals contained in them. This process is known as “acid rock drainage.” It is the dissolution of heavy metals and their transport off site that pollutes drinking water supplies and harms local ecology. Once the drainage leaves the site, the acidity is eventually neutralized by natural reactions, and the metal content in the water oxidizes. This oxidation process results in a smothering precipitate that covers the stream in a bright orange covering. Because these are sites of extreme chemical conditions, they are not favorable for the re-growth of native vegetation and are likely to remain exposed until the reactive agents have been exhausted, perhaps decades, if not longer.

2.3.14 Stormwater & Erosion- Post-Construction Peak Flow Rates Consistent with existing requirements for the NEPA Phase II Stormwater requirements, post-construction peak flow rates are not to exceed pre-construction peak flow rates. Up- and down-slope areas, both on and off the parcel, are not to be used in stormwater analysis. In particular, up slope stormwater practices constructed (on- or off-site) may not be used to demonstrate that attenuation has already been provided for the downslope site. This standard will be enforced during the review of the proposal and the construction of the project.

Rationale: Including a large enough offsite area in stormwater calculations can effectively hide true discharge values from development sites. In order to avoid this form of technical gerrymandering, the site plan and accompanying documents should include both the assumptions and calculations used to calculate runoff figures. When detention facilities are proposed, the “direct geometry” method should be used for calculating volumes. The “average end area” method can overestimate


27

the amount of volume available for on-site detention. The channel volume, the amount retained by conveyances like ditches and pipes, may not be used for calculating detention on site.

2.3.15 Grading and Clearing- Commencement Exposed surfaces created by grading and construction are to be kept at a minimum throughout the construction process. To limit these exposures and the greatly increased potential for polluted runoff, it is recommended that grading not commence earlier than 15 days prior to the initiation of construction and building of specific sites, not subdivision development phases. Within 15 days of substantial completion of the construction and building, exposed surfaces are to be stabilized using native species, cover crops, geotextiles, and other engineered surfaces.


28

2.4 ESTABLISH SCENIC AND LANDSCAPE RESOURCES OF SIGNIFICANCE Sevier County and municipalities all possess significant aesthetic, scenic, geologic and ecologic resources tied to the unique character of the Great Smoky Mountains region. Inappropriate development on certain hillsides and ridgelines has the potential to adversely impact these unique local resources. To protect these important resources, the community must begin by identifying specific publicly accessible places from where views of hillside and ridges are enjoyed. Such places include scenic highways, walking trails, scenic lookouts, parks, historic sites and buildings, and water sports locations. It is recommended that Sevier County and its municipalities use the following criteria to identify scenic and landscape resources of significance (SLRS):

> Public recreation areas including parks, hiking trails, community greenways and scenic navigable waterbodies;

> Segments of designated state and local “Scenic” highways, byways, Parkways or other travel corridors that provide views of scenic landscapes;

> Buildings and sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places

> Specific views of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park from any of the above locations; and

> Specific views from designated points within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

> Major Downtown tourist destinations, such as Gatlinburg’s Main Street

The next step in this process includes identification by each community and the County of areas that are available for development and likely visible from the SLRS discussed above. The recommended approach is to identify specific elevations above which heightened development review and standards would apply. This establishes a clear and objective trigger for heightened review that is easily understood by landowners and reviewing agencies. To tie these two factors together (SLRS and a designated threshold elevation) development standards are to be instituted for proposed development that is 1) located above the identified elevation and 2) potentially visible from designated SLRS. Together, these recommendations establish the parameters for applying the recommended standards identified in section 2.3 of this report. The preferred mechanism for implementing this recommendation is by the adoption of a Hillside Overlay District (HOD).

View of surrounding mountains from Gatlinburg’s Main Street


29

2.5 STANDARDS OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR ACHIEVING VISUALLY SUBORDINATE DEVELOPMENT The following standards of design and construction are recommended for proposed areas of disturbance within the Hillside Overlay District. It is recommended that the following standards be implemented through adoption of a local ordinance or resolution. Such action is consistent with the recommendation of adopting a Hillside Overlay District. 2.5.1 Vegetation Removal- Preliminary Site Survey The quickest and easiest design method for avoiding adverse visual impacts from development is to regulate the removal of vegetation during site development. It is recommended that the vegetation removal and thinning to facilitate preliminary site planning and surveying be kept to a minimum. Specifically, clearing is to be restricted to: > One unimproved access path no wider than eight (8) feet per lot > Parcel boundaries for purposes of surveying > Selective patches for soil testing or other ground investigations Selective patches of clearing will have a minimum separation distance of one hundred (100) feet. In addition, no vegetation four or more inches diameter at breast height (DBH) and/or any vegetation forty or more feet in height should be removed from the site prior to approval by the Planning Commission. All clearing undertaken prior to application submission should be depicted on the required application materials. Additional allowances are to be made for the removal of diseased or damaged vegetation and trees that present legitimate safety or health hazards. 2.5.2 Timber Harvesting While this Study focused almost entirely on the adverse impacts associated with land construction on the region’s hillsides and ridges, concerns have been raised during the public and stakeholder meetings regarding the adverse effects of improper timber harvesting. Inappropriate timber harvesting can result in adverse visual as well as other environmental impacts that rival or exceed impacts associated with development. To adequately and fairly analyze all of the issues surrounding this topic would require a separate study. With that said, a few basic recommendations are provided in this Report.


30

> It is recommended that the County and each community require the issuance of a “Vegetation Removal Permit” prior to the removal of more than ¼ acre of vegetation within an HOD and/or in a CSFZ and not associated with any new land use and development. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the applicants must provide a harvesting plan that depicts how the proposed clearing will be undertaken so as not to create adverse visual and environmental impacts.

> No new land use or development should be permitted in an area subject to harvesting for a

minimum of five years to allow for successional growth. Limits on the continued vegetation maintenance of an area subject to a harvest should be considered. The main rationale is to limit the probability that new development would be sited on a cleared area, thus increasing the chances for significant adverse visual impacts.

> As discussed in greater detail below, an applicant proposing construction in an HOD that

does not contain a sufficient amount of vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent screening may have to plant the appropriate amount and type of vegetation to achieve the required screening. This important requirement alone may deter applicants from inappropriately harvesting timber prior to land development.

2.5.3 Vegetation Clearing for Construction Roadways and Utilities In the development of roads and/or clearing of utility easements, removal of trees should be the minimum extent necessary. The limits of clearing proposed for roadways and utilities should be clearly marked in the field and as identified on the approved plan. Perimeter Buffer Area In subdivisions and in the development of building lots, a minimum buffer area of thirty feet wide between the building envelope and property lines should remain undisturbed except for driveways and utility lines. The specific intent of this requirement is that there should be no continuous strip clearing along contiguous lots. Building Envelope To allow for the construction of buildings, a specified building area will be identified in the application materials and clearly flagged in the field. The following clearing allowances for different buildings types are recommended:


31

> Principal Building: Limited to a distance not to exceed forty feet beyond the proposed foundation/footprint.

> Detached Accessory Building: Twenty feet of clearing beyond the foundation/footprint. > Structures having a footprint of one hundred square feet or less: Five feet of clearing beyond

the foundation/footprint. > Exemptions are to be provided for oddly shaped or shallow lots.

Rationale: The most direct method for avoiding and mitigating both visual and erosion impacts associated with hillside development is to place restrictions on the amount of vegetation that can be removed both during and after construction. The picture to the right depicts a single family dwelling under construction in Sevier County around which still exists most of the natural vegetation, particularly on the down slope side. The preservation of this vegetation together with sitting and building design standards will greatly increase the chances that a building will be “visually unobtrusive.” The second picture depicts the filtered view from the same house (noted above). This demonstrates that scenic views from structures can still be achieved when most of the vegetation is left on the downslope side. Careful and pre-planned thinning or limbing of these trees would increase a view to the surrounding mountains without increasing the visual impact of the house from public vantage points.

Clearing for Onsite Water and Wastewater Systems When public water and sewer services are not available, additional vegetative cutting will be permitted to install the onsite water and wastewater systems. The location of these systems should be carefully chosen so as to avoid increasing the visibility of proposed structures beyond the allowed 25 percent maximum. 2.5.4 Tree Fencing Tree fencing will be used to protect trees and vegetation outside of approved envelopes. Tree fencing protects vegetation from encroachment by construction equipment, storage of heavy


32

materials, and disposal of construction waste. No tree root areas should be covered or filled above the natural grade.

Rationale: Compaction of the ground around the tree’s root system by repeated encroachment and vehicle traffic has been shown to harm the long-term health of the tree. In some instances, this has resulted in the unnecessary death of important vegetation on site.

2.5.5 Additional Clearing for Construction and Views At times, additional clearing may be necessary to allow for construction of structures. In these instances, a Tennessee Licensed Civil Engineer, Landscape Architect, or Architect must make a determination that the recommended clearing allowances are insufficient to allow safe construction of a proposed structure. Additional clearing may also be necessary for the proper installation of onsite water and wastewater systems. Furthermore, a landowner that would like to remove additional vegetation to increase their view of the surrounding landscape may also do so under specific guidance and only after the proposed structure from which the view is desired has been constructed. Limited additional clearing for construction, water and wastewater installation and views are to comply with the following requirements: > A moderate forest density remains in place to ensure that any new proposed structure be

Visually Subordinate with a minimum of 75 percent screening as viewed from a SLRS. > Clearing should in no case create a cleared area of ¼ acre or more in size on any one lot or

development site as viewed from a SLRS.


33

> When construction is completed and additional clearing of vegetation is desired, or if additional vegetation clearing is necessary to allow for safe construction as demonstrated by a Tennessee Licensed Civil Engineer, Landscape Architect, or Architect, a tree-by-tree inventory to be prepared by a Tennessee Licensed Forester or TN Licensed Landscape Architect showing the location, type, and DBH of every tree four or more inches DBH lying outside the permitted building envelope described above, and within the boundary in which clearing or trimming is proposed.

> All vegetation proposed and approved for removal should be clearly marked in the field for

verification purposes. All vegetation to remain protected should also be clearly marked in the field. Said inventory should be made part of any submission for final project approval. Such a plan should assure that trimming is conducted in a manner (a) sufficient only to allow a filtered view from the property towards any SLRS, (b) that will not result in a view of more than 25 percent of the proposed structure as viewed from a SLRS, and (c) that assures continued health of each tree left standing.

2.5.6 Mitigation Measures – What if 75 percent screening cannot be achieved or more than ¼ acre of a site is cleared? If necessary to create a view from the proposed structure or for safe construction, then vegetation may be removed that results in a clearing that exceeds ¼ acre or results in exposure in excess of 25 percent of a proposed structure. The need for such clearing must be demonstrated and certified by a Tennessee Licensed Civil Engineer, Landscape Architect, or Architect. In such cases, the Applicant will be required to utilize any combination of the following mitigation measures as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission to mitigate to the maximum extent practicable adverse visual impact(s) to SLRS. In addition to the following standards, the Planning Commission is to encourage applicants to design aesthetically compatible projects that incorporate environmentally friendly design principles and components, as may be employed from the mitigation menu below. Professional Design and Siting A properly sited and designed project is the best way to mitigate potential impacts. Under optimum circumstances, a project should be sited to avoid visual impacts to unique aesthetic resource within its viewshed. Sometimes economic, engineering, or site-specific constraints preclude optimum design treatments. Under these circumstances, other mitigation strategies should be considered.


34

Screening Screens are objects that conceal other objects from view. They may be constructed of soil, rocks, bricks, or anything opaque. Vegetation can, despite its visual porosity, function as a screen when there is sufficient visual mass. Screens may be natural (vegetation) or artificial (fences and walls). If used, screens will appear natural (wood, stone). Screens constructed from soil are called berms. When used, berms should appear natural e.g. blend with nearby topography, and not appear artificial e.g. geometrical or symmetrical shape.

Rationale: When sized and placed properly screens may completely conceal an object, while improperly sized and placed screens may fail to conceal. Screens may block desirable views when improperly placed. Screens are not necessarily buffers and buffers are not necessarily screens. A buffer may attenuate noise, soften a landscape or provide other functions that may or may not include screening. Screens possess line, form, texture, planes and color, and therefore, have their own aesthetic qualities. At times, they may be more impacting than the object to be concealed. Screens may draw attention to the object to be concealed. Screens may physically connect two similar or dissimilar areas.

Relocation A facility component may be relocated to another place within the site to take advantage of the mitigating effects of topography and vegetation. Camouflage/Disguise Colors and patterns of color may conceal an object or its identity. Disguise may take many forms, and is limited only by the imagination of the project designers. As an example, communication towers can be disguised as trees, flagpoles, barn silos, church steeples, or any other “in-character” structure depending upon circumstances. Low Profile Reducing the height of an object reduces its viewshed visibility. Downsizing Reducing the number, area or density of objects may reduce impacts. Non-Specular Materials. Using building materials that do not shine may reduce visual impacts.


35

Lighting With respect to regional issues, such as a tall combustion exhaust stack or radio tower, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires certain lighting for public transportation safety. These impacts may be considered unavoidable unless lower profiles can be achieved. Applicants should also document that they have consulted with and met all applicable lighting standards under local jurisdiction. Consideration should be given to light pollution considerations such as off-site light migration, glare, and “sky glow.” Lighting requirements, through best engineering practices, should not exceed the functional requirements of the project. Maintenance How a landscape and structures in the landscape are maintained has aesthetic implications. “Eyesores” result from neglect. This should be part of any mitigation strategy. Decommissioning Removing an object from the landscape after its useful life is over reduces the duration of a visual impact.

Rationale: Decommissioning takes many forms. However, from the perspective of aesthetics, three are of most significance: 1) the total removal from the site of all Project components and restoration to an acceptable condition, usually with attendant revegetation; 2) partial removal of Project components, such as elimination of visually impacting structures; and 3) conditions designed to maintain an abandoned facility/development and site in an acceptable condition that precludes “eyesores” or structural deterioration. Applicants should provide such plans when deemed necessary.

2.5.7 Vegetative Screening Procedures When the existing vegetation does not achieve 75 percent screening, a mix of native species matching the kinds and density of vegetation indigenous to the area are to be planted. Such screening will be expected to provide 75 percent screening within 2 years. All planted vegetation will not be smaller than four (4) inches DBH and no less than ten (10) feet in height at the time of planting. All vegetation will be planted in a manner representative of surrounding conditions and will not have the appearance of a suburban style hedgerow.


36

2.5.8 Additional Design and Mitigation Measures Applicants proposing development visible from a SLRS will be required to incorporate the following standards in addition to other applicable standards: Setdowns from Ridgelines Units should not project above significant ridgelines. No units should be built on ridges or within 50 lateral feet of a ridgeline. Pre-development forest canopies on ridgelines will remain thick, natural, and unbroken during and after construction. Set into hillside Buildings should be stepped into the side of the hill and not pushed up, out, away from the hillsides as is prevalent in the region. Buildings should also not be perched on highpoints, outcroppings or prominent knolls. Split development pads, “stair-stepping” should be encouraged, and structures should be oriented along and not across the topography.

Rationale: Building into slopes, keeping structures off ridgelines and not permitting them to be perched out and over ridges will greatly increase the chances that the structure will blend with the surroundings and be screened by existing or planted vegetation. The structures depicted to the right have been constructed into the slopes, which allow the natural

Avoid

Promote


37

and planted vegetation to provide adequate screening. Retaining walls Retaining walls should be designed and constructed parallel to pre-disturbance slopes. Landscaping should be required to the greatest extent practical. Contour grading results in rounded edges and slopes, both vertically and laterally, and allows for the gradual blending of artificial and natural surfaces which may help to reduce the visual impacts of hillside grading. Setbacks The yard setbacks from the property line should be no less than 1.5 times the height of the proposed structure or the setback requirement of the existing zoning regulations, whichever is greater. Signage No signage should be permitted which will be visible above the existing tree canopy. Roads and Driveways Roadways and driveways should be constructed following the natural topography and not across. The footprint of roads should be limited to the maximum extent practical.

Retaining Walls

Promote Avoid

The image on the left illustrates an ideal landforming design for hillside grading. The image on the right illustrates how inappropriate grading practices can exaggerate visual impacts.

Avoid Promote

Driveways


38

Lighting Requiring shielded, downcast (45 degrees) lighting only in functional areas should be considered. Floodlights should be motion activated. No lighting should be permitted above the eaves or parapets. No landscape lighting or continuous lighting over 75 watts should be permitted. Subdivision street lighting should be concentrated at intersections. Color On building faces visible from SLRS – exterior (roofing, siding, fascia, window treatments) building materials with muted, dark earth tones are strongly encouraged and white should be avoided. Building and Retaining Walls To reduce the visual scale of buildings and retaining walls, uniform and blank massing or surfaces should be avoided. Terrace retaining walls/constructed slopes Retaining walls should be finished using materials of a color and texture that are similar to local natural conditions. Shorter walls should be staggered/terraced to the maximum extent practical in place of one larger wall to allow for the planting of vegetation that will provide screening of the slope cuts.

Avoid Promote

Building Materials, Design and Orientation

Avoid Promote


39

Reflectivity – Windows Non-mirrored, tinted, and low-reflectivity glass should be used where practical for all windows visible from a SLRS. Avoid uninterrupted expanses of windows, use overhangs, eaves, porches and patios to shade windows. Reflective material for roofing, fascia, and soffits should also be avoided. Walls/Rooflines Continuous rooflines over 40 feet in length should be avoided, and the use of smaller roof components that imitate the natural slope of the terrain should be encouraged. In addition, major rooflines should parallel the topography of the hillside. 2.5.9 Building Height The height of proposed structures will not extend more than twenty-five (25) feet above ground level, if 75 percent screening cannot be achieved after allowable vegetative clearing for site assessments and construction. Vegetation around the structure and suitable for screening are not to include shrubs and saplings less than 1 inch DBH. If 75 percent screening can be achieved, then the proposed structures will not extend more than thirty (30) feet above ground level. The height of the structure will be calculated as the mean height. The height of the structure is to be measured from the lowest natural grade to the uppermost roofline. Proposed structures will not exceed the ridgeline elevation as seen from a SLRS. Fixtures such as chimneys or cable satellite dishes are to be exempted from this requirement, although care is to be taken to ensure that building features do not unwarranted attention to the landscape. Ridgeline vegetation and tree canopies are to remain unbroken and provide a backdrop to new development.

Rationale: The design of the structure is just as important as the location in which it is placed. Excessive highly reflective glass, large expanses of “blank” walls without windows or architectural details, bright colors and inappropriate height are more likely to result in adverse visual impacts. The first picture in this series depicts well-placed buildings and good use of vegetation. If more appropriate darken earth tone colors were used, the visual presence of these structures


40

would be greatly reduced. The second picture in this series (to the right) is taller then it should be, uses inappropriate earth tone colors and contains excessive “blank” walls that increase the structures visual presence. Comparatively, the third picture in this series depicts a structure (under construction) that is more appropriately sized for its hillside location, avoids blank walls, uses roof overhangs to avoid window glare and break up the buildings façade, has a variety of roof peaks and angles that blends well with its surroundings and uses darker earth tone colors, all of which decreases its visual presences and avoid aesthetic impacts.


41

2.6 MITIGATING ADVERSE IMPACTS

In order to promote the principle of “no undue adverse impact,” a two-stage project review process is recommended. The first is the preparation of a “Findings Statement” by the Planning Commission and its technical staff based upon an initial review of the preliminary plat or site plan. Second, the project applicant must demonstrate sufficiently that the adverse impacts identified in the findings statement have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Again, the intent of the demonstration of no undue adverse impact is to ensure that resources of concern on steep slopes are properly considered. A demonstration of no undue adverse impact is to be made in addition to conformance with the standards of design and construction recommended in this report. The standards prescribed here are intended to address the core issues most common to hillside development. The purpose of the findings statement is to address impacts unique to the project and to provide the applicant with flexibility in addressing them. One size does not fit all. 2.6.1 Preparing the Findings Statement The findings statement will enumerate any reasonably anticipated negative impacts created by the project on SLRS or Environmental and Public Resources of Concern. A findings statement will be prepared for any application proposing a subdivision of land or new development. The statement will enumerate the resources (as established in local law) to be impacted, the cause of such impacts, and the nature of such impacts. The adverse impacts will be characterized by the likelihood, duration, extent, intensity, under what conditions the impact is likely to occur, and any other such information that will assist the applicant in addressing the impact. Cumulative impacts may be considered to the degree that specific components of the project can be identified as contributing to the impacts. In order to facilitate the process, it is recommended that a preliminary scoping meeting be held between the applicant and the Planning Commission or its technical staff. The purpose of the meeting is to review and identify the significant impacts likely to occur and those impacts that are irrelevant or not significant. This meeting may take place concurrently with the optional pre-application conference already established in local laws. It is of legal importance for the applicant that the findings statement not be arbitrary or hopelessly vague. Since the applicant will be asked to mitigate or avoid the adverse impacts identified in the findings statement, the applicant will need to know and understand the impact created, the cause for the impact, and the scope of the impact. These three pieces of information


42

(type, cause, and scope) will allow the applicant to formulate and design a response that is appropriate to the scope of the impact. If no adverse impacts to resources of concern are identified, the findings statement will indicate such. Likely adverse impacts are to be based on a rational and reasonable connection between the elements of the project and the conditions known to exist on and around the site. The type, cause, and scope of the impacts are to be based upon a professional assessment of the project, the conditions at the site, and in consideration of similar experiences and circumstances elsewhere. Adverse impacts are to be identified only whereby the health, safety, and welfare of the public is promoted and the purposes and intent of any ordinances adopted pursuant to this report are realized. It is envisioned that the findings statement will be concise and of sufficient detail to assist the applicant in mitigating adverse impact. A quantitative analysis will not be required, but may be provided where necessary. The applicant will not be expected to respond to findings within the findings statement that are arbitrary or vague. 2.6.2 Demonstration of No Undue Adverse Impact The applicant, upon receipt of the findings statement, will begin to examine and formulate a response to adverse impacts identified in the findings statement. It is anticipated that the scoping meeting and clear rules outlining the parameters of issues will allow the applicant to avoid or sufficiently mitigate adverse impacts before they are identified in the findings statement. If the findings statement identified adverse impacts, then the applicant must mitigate such impacts to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). Any impact not mitigated to the maximum extent practicable is to be considered an “undue adverse impacts.” The goal of the MEP standard is not to eliminate all adverse impacts. Rather, it requires the applicant to examine the full range of proven and advanced techniques available to them, and then identify from those choices, which works best within their project. As such, the standard provides flexibility to the applicant and strives to realize honest mitigation. The maximum extent practicable means, specifically, that the applicant has proposed mitigation practices and avoidance techniques that minimize adverse impact by reason of 1) the project’s scale, 2) the severity of the adverse impacts, 3) the commitment of resources commensurate with the project’s scale, 4) the level of mitigation to be achieved, 5) and the use of innovative or state-of-the-art development practices and community planning techniques. The standard is to be assessed objectively in light of the findings statement and the applicant’s proposed mitigating program. Impacts that have not been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable are to be considered an “undue adverse impact.” In the event of an undue adverse impact, the applicant


43

may elect to amend the project appropriately or the Planning Commission shall reject the application until the applicant has demonstrated no undue adverse impact. The Planning Commission and its technical staff, during the final review, are to assess each application on a case-by-case basis examining the resources of concern, the project as proposed, and in consideration of the applicant’s reply to the findings statement. In part, the MEP standard is based on a determination of “feasibility.” Feasibility, in the strictest sense, means “capable of being done” or done at any cost, and as such, is too strict. However, the assertion that something is unfeasible must be examined in light of the project’s scale (including size, extent, and expense) and the applicant’s commensurate commitment of resources. Thus, the response must be proportional to the cause, thus providing an objective basis for assessing a demonstration of no undue adverse impact.

The two images below show two different sites where silt fencing is used, a widely used stormwater practice. But are they the maximum extent practicable? Based solely on these images, such a determination is difficult to make. However, the image on the left is of the foot of a hillside property exhibiting shallow slopes and where a couple of modestly sized single-family homes are being constructed. This would likely satisfy the MEP standard, given the scope of the project, the likely impacts, and the use of silt fencing, straw, and other available low-cost techniques. The image on the right is part of a major subdivision on very steep slopes. Silt fencing is an insufficient remedy, given the sensitive receptors downslope (an intermittent stream) and its proximity to runoff discharge points. Substantial revegetation, improved grading techniques, structural stormwater management practices, and the reconsideration of the road layout will likely need to be weighed. The lowest cost technique here would be avoidance by setbacks. Both images were taken within Sevier County.


44

2.6.3 Incorporating the Findings Statement into existing procedures The findings statement, its preparation and the applicant’s response, can be incorporated smoothly into existing procedures. Current local rules require the preparation of preliminary plans for submission to and consideration by the Planning Commission and its technical staff. After a set time, the preliminary plans are returned to the applicant with comments for improvement. The applicant makes suitable adjustments and resubmits the application as a final plan for final consideration by the Planning Commission. The findings statements can “piggy back” on this effort, given that review-respond-review process provided by current rules is in harmony with the intent of the findings statement. In the event that a project is subject to the rules of both the Hillside Overlay District and the Steep Slope Floating Zone, a single findings statement may be prepared for both processes.


45

2.7 CHANGES TO SUBDIVISION/PUD RULES Density It is recommended that the density of development be tied to the severity of slope, with the principle being that the steeper the slope, the less dense development should be. Each community and the County will need to determine for themselves the appropriate level of density for particular slopes. Clustering Techniques The use of clustering can be a beneficial technique to protect areas significant natural and aesthetic resources, if implemented correctly. While clustering should continue to be encouraged, communities should consider the possibility of limiting the amount of clustering on very steep slopes, which will assist in concentrating environmental and aesthetic impacts to localized areas. “No guarantee of maximum development” The recommendations provided in this Report are not intended to “shut off development.” They are intended to focus attention on safe development techniques and potential adverse impacts. The maximum density allowable on steep slopes (to be established by each community) is a function of zoning and ideal steep slope conditions - stable soils and bedrock, suitable runoff conditions, emergency access, accessible by roads not exceeding required grades, sufficient vegetative cover, provision of utilities, no sensitive environmental receptors (streams, wetlands, ravines), sufficient area for septic systems, and zones for wildfire management. By following these recommendations, there will be instances where the maximum allowed density per zoning regulations will not be achievable due to conditions specific to the site. Density transfers and the transfer of development rights are recommended to offset the likelihood that a few parcels will be significantly impacted.


46

2.8 ENHANCED SITE PLAN REVIEW Many of the standards and requirements developed in this report are to be enforced through existing official project review processes. The following recommendations are intended to augment these processes. Slope Calculation Slope maps will be provided for all development projects subject to these recommendations. Slope maps will be based upon topographic data represented at two-foot contours for proposed areas of disturbance. Areas outside of proposed development areas may be represented at five-foot contours. Through the use of industry-accepted computer aided design software, slope will be calculated between each topographic contour line. The averaging of slope for an entire site will not be permitted as a basis for calculating slope as necessitated by these recommendations.

The image below is taken from a portion of a site plan slope map from a location in New York State. The coloring (blue, green, yellow, red) illustrates the outcome of a CAD slope calculation. Two-foot topographic contours are depicted using dashed lines. Solid lines depict roads, buildings, and parcels. Numbers indicate elevation. The colors represent the calculated slope between contour lines and are categorized by predefined slope categories. Then, computer analysis is used to aggregate the total area for each slope category, as a percentage of the site and by total acreage. The figures, bottom, are for the entire project site, not the inset provided below. The slope categories identified here are more stringent than those provided by the recommendations made in this report.


47

Non-binding referral to NPS For exceptional projects (by reason of location, size, or impacts) subject to the recommendations of the Hillside Overlay District, it is recommended that the reviewing agency make a non-binding referral to the National Park Service (NPS). The intent is to solicit feedback relating to potential adverse impacts to the aesthetic and environmental resources of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. The referral would be non-binding and could not, by itself, result in a denial of the project if the NPS identified concerns. However, the intent is to foster improved working relationships with the NPS and to keep project reviews open and transparent. Any comments received from the NPS should be seen as an opportunity to encourage appropriate design and mitigation measures. This is an occasion to promote the development of quality projects, and ultimately community character, that are in harmony with the “gateway” status of Sevier County. Pre-Application Conference Project applicants should consult early and informally with the Planning Commission and its technical staff for advice and assistance before the preparation of any preliminary plats or site plans. The conference will enable the applicant to become thoroughly familiar with these regulations and other official plans or public improvements, which might affect the area. Such informal review should prevent unnecessary and costly revisions on the applicant’s behalf. The pre-application conference is intended to supplement the Scoping meeting recommended for the preparation of a findings statement. Preliminary plans are to be consistent with all applicable requirements and standards. Enhanced Site Plan Information Requirements The following informational requirements are to be provided for all site plans required of new land uses or development on slopes 15 percent or greater. This information will supplement site plan information already required and assist the Planning Commission and its technical staff in identifying potential adverse impacts:


48

a. Existing structures on the site; b. Existing structures and roads within 500 feet of the proposed area of disturbance; off-

site structures and roads are to be included where applicable; c. Locations and design of septic or community sewage treatment systems; d. Existing and Proposed driveways, their length, grade, and surface type; e. Perennial and intermittent waterways, springs, seeps, and wetlands; f. Soil type by erosion susceptibility and naturally acidifying properties; g. All applicable setbacks from ridgelines, watercourses, and property lines; h. Delineation of protected sensitive habitats for flora and fauna; i. All necessary certifications

Enhanced Land Disturbance Permit Requirements The following informational requirements are to be provided for all land disturbance permits required of new land uses or development on slopes 25 percent or greater. This information will supplement information already required and assist the Planning Commission and its technical staff in identifying potential adverse impacts.

Enhanced Erosion and Sediment Control Plan: a. Written narrative and maps identifying potential sources and kinds of water pollution

during and after development of the project, inclusive of non-point sources of water pollution;

b. Location of proposed staging areas; c. Location of construction waste and equipment storage areas; d. Pollution prevention measures to be used for construction site waste materials,

inclusive of litter, chemicals, debris, fill, and grub.

Enhanced Stormwater Management Plan: a. Identify all locations of construction and post-construction stormwater practices; b. Identify the practices utilized in subpart i, above; c. Describe the phasing of the practices utilized in subpart i, above; d. Proposed final ground cover, by type; e. Provide all assumptions and calculations used to justify proposed practices; f. List of parties responsible for implementation of SWPPP provision, by phase

Geotechnical Report The following informational requirements are to be provided for all new land uses and development on slopes 25 percent or greater. The geotechnical report will assist the Planning Commission and its technical staff in identifying potential adverse impacts and seeks to ensure


49

the safe development of site improvements. The geotechnical report is intended to identify and characterize a variety of onsite features critical to the design and construction of hillside development.

a. A narrative of conditions and hazards identified on the site. The narrative should address the scope of the site inspection, the suitability of the site for development, the foundation types for site improvements, retaining systems, grading, drainage considerations, stability of cut-slopes and constructed embankments, settlement of the site and adjacent sites due to existing conditions, proposed construction, and proposed surface and subsurface drainage facilities.

b. A soils map derived from a soil survey on the site and using Unified Soil Classifications;

c. Subsurface conditions- Depth(s) to bedrock; Strike and dip of bedrock; Orientations of any identified joints, faults, and slip planes within the bedrock that are considered to be indicative of prevailing site conditions; Bedrock by type identified on the site; Strength and load bearing capacity of bedrock by type and whereon structural foundations are proposed; Any structural cross-section illustrative of conditions at the site; The mapped locations and logs of any drilling or core samples;

d. Grading- Location of cut and fill locations; angle of back slopes and fill slopes; Cut material suitability as fill material, including calculations and assumptions; Water content; Weathering; Densities; Expansion or consolidation potential; Optimal moisture conditions of fill material;

e. Foundations- Foundation designs, footing depth, footing widths, assumptions for foundation materials; tested bearing values, settlement- total, differential, and rate.

f. Water- The location of perennial and intermittent waterways; The location of seeps, springs, and wetlands; Natural surface drainage patterns and a characterization of near surface hydrology;

g. Natural Slope Failure- Locations of colluvial deposits or other features that exhibit evidence of mass wasting, landslides, soil creep, or rock creep within 100 feet laterally and 500 feet vertically of proposed area of disturbance; description of cause(s) and recent activity;

h. Prior activity- Location of excavations, cave entrances, sinkholes, and active or abandoned mine entrances, wells, pits, or quarries.

i. Slope aspect j. Signed and certified


50

2.9 ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS

At the time this report was drafted, Tennessee state law caps civil penalties and fines for zoning and subdivision regulations to a maximum of $50 per day per offense. It was the consensus of the stakeholder meetings and the public comments that these do not deter violations. An increase in the maximum daily fine per offense is necessary. In addition, this Report provides the following recommendations to supplement the enforcement of existing and recommended requirements. Stop Work Orders Aside from steep fines, stop work orders may provide localities with one of the most effective enforcement tools. Stop work orders require the construction site operators to stop all work until specified corrections are made. Developers are, generally, repaying substantial loans before ground is broken. Furthermore, any profit margins are realized only during the sale of the last few units. Contractors are similarly impacted by delays, since they are working under the terms of a bid contract. Additional work caused by non-compliance and delays increases costs related to equipment, wages, and opportunity costs of foregone work. As such, timely completion and avoidance of delays are powerful incentives tied to realizing profit. By linking enforcement with delays, the developer and contractor have a compelling reason to ensure compliance. Certification Certification is recommended to provide an extra layer of due diligence and accountability to the project review process and to the construction of site improvements. It is recommended that certain critical documents be certified, as well as site improvements upon their completion. Certification will constitute part of the project’s official record and can assist communities in identifying responsibility for specific phases of the project. Failure to provide certification for documents will be deemed by the Planning Commission as an incomplete application, ineligible for a determination of approval. Failure to provide certification for specified completed site improvements will be deemed ineligible for receipt of a Certificate of Occupancy. Certification is recommended for the following items in addition to those already required by law:

Documents > Site Plan Surveys, prior to submission, by licensed surveyor or engineer of record; > The Geotechnical Report, prior to submission, by engineer or geologist of record; > Engineered Designs for Site Improvements, prior to submission, by engineer of

record;


51

> Post-Construction Tree Cutting Plan, prior to implementation, by engineer or landscape architect of record;

> SWPPP, prior to implementation, by engineer of record, and any all contractors and subcontractors identified as responsible parties in the SWPPP;

Site Improvements > Artificial Slopes, upon inspection at project phase completion, by engineer of record; > Grading Permit, upon inspection at project phase completion, by engineer of record.

a. All Artificial Slopes, completed as designed b. All Permanent Stormwater Management Practices

The report recognizes that during construction, site conditions may reveal themselves such that modifications must be made to the original design. In such cases, the certification will be measured against approved modifications of officially reviewed plans. Public Posting of Permits Permits, schedules, and contact information should be posted conspicuously and publicly at the site of construction, even if such information is already available in the public record. The intent is to provide members of the public with sufficient information to contact responsible parties or to report violations at the site. Detailed plans and itemized schedules are not intended to be the focus of this recommendation. Construction Phasing Inspections Projects involving multiple units are often built in phases. It is recommended that each phase be inspected and certified for conformance before subsequent phases may commence. In addition to all required certifications recommended above, an inspector will assess if site improvements were constructed in conformance with the approved site plan. If certifications and inspections find non-conforming improvement, the applicant will be expected to remedy the non-compliant features. Failure to make such remedies will result in a withholding of the Certificate of Occupancy and a delay in the commencement of future phases. Deed Restrictions Deed restrictions are recommended to assist (not supplant) the enforcement of standards and requirements by communities and individuals. The following items may be considered for inclusion in deed restrictions: parameters for tree cutting, protection of stream buffers, septic system management, maintenance of private roads, maintenance of artificial slopes, and maintenance of stormwater management practices.


52

Deed restrictions have been used somewhat successfully to enforce conditions and restrictions imposed on a property. Deed restrictions are sometimes referred to as “Code, Covenants, and Restrictions” (CCRs). Regardless of the name, they are recommended here to provide communities with an additional, although qualified, enforcement tool. The recommendation is qualified because they encompass a complicated area of the law. Each community is strongly encouraged to seek appropriate counsel when considering the use of deed restrictions. Deeds are a form of private contracting between two individuals. Deeds are often established or amended before or at the point of sale between the buyer and the seller of real property. The deed is appended to the property’s title and, in theory, will “run” with that title in perpetuity. Since the 1980’s, subdivision developers typically set up a homeowners association (HOA) to manage and enforce deed restrictions established by the developer. HOAs set up by the developer are often marketed as a positive selling point, by limiting what neighbors may or may not do. In general, deeds are enforced by one of the original parties or a designated third party. This sometimes includes a land trust or a not-for-profit organization. If the developer has a stake in an HOA, they will typically remove their stake when 50 percent of the units have been sold. After this, it is the responsibility of the HOA to enforce the deed restrictions. In this case, an HOA is a specialized form of private government, which must levy fees (taxes) and rules (laws) on the homeowners to enforce deed restrictions. If the HOA has the wherewithal to enforce the rules, they may bring a civil action against the violator. However, there are concerns regarding the long-term ability of the HOA to enforce restrictions.


53

2.10 MOVING FORWARD Consider a Transfer of Development Rights program Transfer of development rights (TDR) programs is a voluntary program that allows landowners to transfer development entitlements from one parcel to a different parcel. In exchange for that transfer, the sending landowner is compensated financially for the development entitlement, and the receiving landowner is able to build more intensely than they otherwise could. Once the development entitlements are transferred, the sending parcel is restricted from developing. Then, the municipality records the new development restrictions in the deed for the sending property. TDR programs have historically been established to protect farmland and open space areas. In the case of Sevier County and its municipalities, the program could be used to direct development away from the steep slopes or visually sensitive sites to land suitable for more intense development. Moreover, this will shift development to areas where impacts are less likely to be detrimental to community character and public health. TDR programs could also be used in concert with Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). A TDR program involves three actors, each gaining value they otherwise could not achieve. The program involves a seller, a buyer, and the local government. The seller is the owner of land from where development entitlements are transferred. The seller will typically want keep their land in its existing, undeveloped condition. However, the seller also recognizes that there is a market for their land and, as such, may wish to supplement their income if they found a buyer willing to pay for the developments rights. The buyer, who owns a parcel elsewhere, believes they can have a more profitable development if they could develop more intensely. The buyer applies the transferred entitlements to the project, thereby adding units above levels allowed under existing zoning rules. The municipality is the third actor, which establishes the rules of the process and defines “sending areas” and “receiving areas.” From the municipal perspective, the sending areas are locations not suitable for intense development for reasons such as limited public services, existing farming, steep slopes, sensitive environments, or cultural heritage. The receiving areas are locations suitable for intense development by reason of existing infrastructure, existing density, and a desire to facilitate efficient growth

SENDING SITE

Steep Slopes and Visually Sensitive Sites

RECEIVING SITE Existing Infrastructure


54

and promote cost-effective, public service delivery. The broker or administrator of a TDR program is typically the local government. In order for a TDR program to work, there must be at a minimum a market for higher density development. It is clear that in Sevier County, a significant market exists as evidenced by the high demand for development on the region’s hillsides and ridges. Issues to keep in mind when considering a TDR program: > Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-7-402, counties and municipalities may establish a

voluntary transfer of development rights program to preserve historic districts, or significant environmental or agricultural areas. Any TDRs must be voluntary and by contract.

> Receiving and sending districts must be designated and mapped in accordance with a comprehensive/master plan;

> Pursuant to state law, the sending districts may include agricultural land and that the receiving districts must have the infrastructure needed to support increased development;

> Development rights are documented as conservation easements that are enforceable by the town or other designated entity;

> For TDR to work, communities must build consensus on its use as a way to protect resources and direct future growth.

Encourage the Use of Conservation Easements A conservation easement is another tool that allows property owners to voluntarily restrict development on all or portions of their land. The restriction is recorded on the deed for the property and is binding on all future owners and heirs. The restriction may be enforced by the initiating landowner or by a designated third party. Conservation easements may be donated to land trusts or other organizations whose mission is conservation or environmental stewardship. The value of the donation can have significant positive tax implications, both at the federal and state level. Donations of conservation easements can be deducted as a dollar-for-dollar charitable contribution. Conservation easements also impact the valuation of land for tax assessments. In Tennessee, specifically, land covered by a conservation easement is assessed at its current use - forestry or agriculture - and not its “highest and best” use. Details are provided in Tennessee’s “Agricultural, Forest, and Open Space Land Act.”


55

Consider Voluntary Methods to Improve the Visual Appearance of Existing Structures It is apparent that some existing developments on the regions hillsides and ridges have resulted in adverse aesthetic impacts. It is not necessary to ‘write them off’ and just focus on future development. The County and each community are strongly encouraged to ask owners of existing visually prominent structures to voluntarily take steps to reduce their structures visibility. The steps could include, when practical, the planting of vegetation and/or changing the structures color scheme. The reduction of adverse visual impacts from existing structures may be claimed by the applicant as a mitigation measure for a subsequent phase of a development. Incentives, such as density bonuses on subsequent project phases could also be considered to encourage the visual improvement of existing development.


56

Section 3

Implementation


57

Section 3 3.1 IMPLEMENTATION The following program is suggested for implementation of the policies and standards made in this Report. The preferred mechanism for implementing the bulk of them is by adoption through local law or resolution, in particular the Hillside Overlay District and the Critical Slope Floating Zone. It is further suggested that the inspection and enforcement procedures of these policies be implemented in phases, to allow time for municipal and county resources to be sufficiently ready. Other recommendations are to be adopted by amending existing local laws and by the study and commencement of future programs, such as a Transfer of Development Rights Program. Initial Implementation Strategies

The recommendations outlined in this report can be implemented any number of ways. Specifically, they do not have to be implemented all at once and, in fact, portions of the recommendations can be incorporated into local land use regulations. Communities would not be required to implement all of the recommendations for there to be effective and meaningful progress for protecting the area’s hillsides and ridgelines.

> Conduct Workshop with Local Elected Officials

A Workshop with elected officials from each City and the County has been requested to clarify the recommendations developed in this Report and to answer any questions about them. The intent of the Workshop is to help familiarize local elected officials with the Report and to help settle concerns not already addressed in the report.

> Hillside and Slope Development Design Guidelines Manual

Sevier County and each City should collectively prepare a “Guidebook” that details the many design and mitigation measures recommended in this Report. Such a “Guidebook” should be provided to all applicants proposing development on the Region’s sensitive hillside and slope resources. The applicants should be strongly encouraged to consider the design and mitigation techniques and the planning commissions for each community and the County should also refer to the document when reviewing such projects.

Communities would not be required to implement all of the recommendations for there to be effective and meaningful progress for protecting the areas hillsides and ridgelines.


58

Critical Path Implementation Strategies Phase I 1A. Establish an Implementation Working Committee/Focus Groups

It is recommended that a Working Committee be established and convened for the purpose of providing guidance and feedback during the development of any local

laws/rules developed to implement recommendations made in this Report. The Working Committee may either exist as a continuation of the existing Working Committee or a continuation of the Stakeholder Group, both established for this study. The Working Committee for this report consisted of city and county planners and provided ongoing guidance

and feedback in the development of this report. Such committee, regardless of the eventual form, may be established on a community-by-community basis or collectively. Feedback and guidance from the working committee will be advisory.

1B. Develop Hillside Overlay District and Critical Slope Floating Zone Standards The first concrete step towards implementation should be to develop two sets of standards to provide consistent guidance and a running start for implementing this Report’s recommendations. Specifically, the Report recommends that each community and the County consider Hillside Overlay District (HOD) and Critical Slope Floating Zone (CSFZ) provisions that could be adapted into existing land use regulations. It is recommended that the County and each City jointly prepare these standards and be accepted by each City and the County as a “Mutual Starting Point” for moving forward to individual implementation of the standards considered appropriate for each entity.

2. Hold On-Going Working Sessions with City/County Planning Commissioners to discuss possible amendments/updates.

3. Begin implementation procedures at the speed acceptable to each involved.

a. First consider amending and revising PUD policies to limit the amount of clustering on very steep slopes and in areas visible from SLRS.

b. Amend subdivision and site plan review procedures to limit the amount of vegetation clearing allowed before and after construction more or less in line with the recommendations of this Report.


59

Phase II 4. Adopt Critical Slope Floating Zone Provisions

a. Establish Environmental and Public Resources of Concern b. Establish Standards of Design and Construction c. Establish Findings Statement procedures

Phase III 5. Adopt Hillside Overlay District Provisions

a. Establish SLRS b. Establish Standards of Design and Construction c. Establish Findings Statement procedures.

6. Assess feasibility of Transfer of Development Rights Program 7. Conduct a “Lessons Learned” analysis of how the rules are or are not performing

Phase IV 8. Update SLRS as necessary 9. Implement Transfer of Development Rights Program 10. Implement any revisions that were identified as necessary during the “Lessons Learned”

analysis. 11. Keep analyzing progress and look for ways to improve.

As rules and measures are implemented, continually assess your progress to determine how and where to improve the protection of your sensitive resources.


60

“Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not. The question is not whether your part of the world is going to change. The question is how.”

Edward T. McMahon, The Conservation Fund

Other Plans & Studies

Documents

Transcript of Other Plans & Studies