As Kenton County continues to develop, available flat land is reduced and much of the remaining land areas to be developed consist of steep, heavily wooded hillsides as depicted in Figure 5. Increased interest in urban living, the convenience of amenities, and magnificent views of the Ohio River and downtown Cincinnati are making development of previously untouched hillsides feasible. The hills and landscape of Northern Kentucky hold a variety of values and meaning for the people of this community. Land use has been undergoing change. These changes have community implications for quality of life in the short term as well as long term. Understanding the opportunities and constraints relative to health, safety, and welfare is essential.
Discussion about the region’s hillsides began in the first comprehensive plan for Kenton County adopted in 1972. This plan identified a conservation category on the county’s recommended land use map which identified slopes which were 20 percent or greater. While the plan recommended restrictions for intensive urban development in these areas, a further study of Northern Kentucky’s hillsides was also recommended.
Subsequent comprehensive plans used the term Physically Restrictive Development Areas (PRDA) in place of the Conservation land use category later shifting to the Developmentally Sensitive Area (DSA) designation which is used as an overlay with an underlying recommended land use. The policy recommendation for DSA areas continued to be cautious in scope particularly when the type of geologic formation called Kope was present. In 1994, the Hillside Trust pursued a study titled A Hillside Protection Strategy for Greater Cincinnati that covered Hamilton County in Ohio and Kenton County in Northern Kentucky. The study identified critical hillsides and provided several recommendations, including guidelines for development on hillsides. Other geological components, such as soil and geology, were also assessed in determining the severity of potential impacts from further development on DSA designated areas of the county.
In 2008, the Department of Landscape Architecture from the University of Kentucky assisted PDS to begin public discussions on hillsides. Three public meetings were held over a four-month period in early 2008. Stakeholder participation and survey activities were used to gather insight and ideas. Collectively, over 200 residents attended these meetings to provide input. While this was a student project, it brought to light the level of public interest with regards to hillsides in Kenton County. The students opened the public discussion with varying scenarios of development patterns and assessed the costs and benefits for these approaches.
PDS undertook the second phase of The Hills project in late 2009 with the goal of continuing discussion began by the UK students and building consensus on the future of hillsides in Kenton County. The Hills project was designed to solicit public opinion on how Kenton County residents feel about its largely undeveloped hillsides and to build public consensus on how this community should respond to growing pressure to develop on its hillsides. This outreach effort included online surveys, forum discussions with panels of experts, close work with a technical task force, as well as communication and discussion with many different stakeholders throughout the community.
In October 2009 the first public opinion survey was posted online for two weeks to obtain public input on the future of hillsides. Four hundred Kenton County residents participated in the survey. 88% of the respondents indicated that hillsides were important to them. 35% of those said hillsides were important due to environmental benefits while 27% said they were important due to potential for development. 54% of the respondents indicated that single family development was appropriate on hillsides but were split on the appropriateness of multi-family on hillsides. Over 65% felt that non-residential uses were inappropriate on hillsides. This survey was used an as tool to gauge the community’s initial thoughts as it related to hillsides.
Over 120 people attended the first public forum that was held in December 2009. A 16-person panel of design, development, and public policy professionals facilitated the public forum, and a Northern Kentucky University communications professor moderated. The setting allowed the public to ask questions of the panel and vice versa. Forum participants answered questions through an audience response system where each person used a keypad to respond. Their responses were tabulated immediately and projected on a screen.
Several general themes came from the first public forum and include the following:
1. The need to preserve hillsides for their beauty and to maintain the character of Northern Kentucky is important.
2. The rights of property owners who own land on these hillsides are important.
3. The downhill impacts of storm water runoff from hillside developments should be considered.
4. Today’s 20 percent slope threshold (for a more intense review process) should be assessed to determine its effectiveness.
5. This is an important issue and those in attendance want to continue to participate in it.
A second public forum was held in May 2010 to continue the discussion on hillsides in Kenton County. A 16-person panel of design, development, and public policy professionals took part in the forum. Over 30 people were in attendance at this meeting. The panel and audience agreed that there is a need for both conservation and development of hillsides, and that a balance between the two is necessary. As a result of the second public forum it was concluded that there is a need to initiate a meeting with local technical professionals who work with hillside issues regularly—to get their expertise on engineering and technical design aspects and how they relate to developing hillsides.
The third public forum was held in September to continue the discussion on the future of hillsides in Kenton County. A 16-person panel of design, development, and public policy professionals took part in the forum. Over 50 people were in attendance at this meeting. This forum was mainly focused on the topic of hillside conservation. Four additional topics of interest surfaced at the meeting:
1. Non-monetary ways to conserve hillsides such as a donation of property by interested donors to a conservation group;
2. The importance of focusing conservation efforts on land that has ecological value, based on the Forest Quality Assessment that was done for Kenton County;
3. The importance of considering individuals’ economic status when crafting recommendations;
4. The importance of analyzing hill slides that have already occurred in Kenton County and any associated repairs, as well as understanding if the slides occurred naturally or because of poor development practices.
A significant piece of The Hills project outreach included a scientific opinion survey conducted by Levin & Associates to gauge the level of public interest in hillsides. An overview of the type of data that would provide insight into the level of public interest was used as a foundation for the questions pursued. An independent third party administered the phone survey. For Kenton County, a sample size of 300 complete responses was needed to create a scientific survey with a margin of error +/- 6.5%. The following were main conclusions drawn from the survey:
1. Most respondents prefer a mix of hillside development and preservation.
2. More than half want the community to place a high or very high priority on preservation.
3. One third of the respondents care deeply about Kenton County hillsides and favor full preservation.
4. 80 percent of the respondents agree or strongly agree that undeveloped hillsides add to the visual appeal of Kenton County.
5. 65 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that preserving hillsides is an appropriate use of our community’s resources.
6. Just 10 percent of the respondents said they don’t care about hillsides.
7. More than half of the respondents indicated that they would be interested or extremely interested in any decisions made regarding hillsides in Kenton County.
All concerns and ideas expressed during this year long discussion were grouped into one of the following three categories along with findings and conclusions:
1. Engineering - Geotechnical investigations, safety, and enforcement:
Findings:
• Within current regulations, geotechnical investigations are required when land disturbance is proposed on slopes equal to or greater than 20 percent on that portion of land. This threshold of 20 percent is consistent with the current policy guidance provided in the comprehensive plan.
• Kope formation, a geology that is susceptible to slippage, is often present on slopes greater than 20 percent.
• When a geotechnical investigation is performed and the recommendations from the report are followed, the project has a high probability of being safe and successful.
• The current, single “trigger” of disturbing existing slopes equal to or greater than 20 percent that prompts the geotechnical professional to become involved is a one-dimensional, limited threshold.
Conclusions:
• The current threshold of 20 percent for when geotechnical investigations are required and do not need to be increased or decreased.
• When geotechnical investigations are performed the recommendations contained therein should be required to be followed. A certification letter indicating compliance with the recommendations should be required from the geotechnical engineer of record. This recommendation is included in the new zoning ordinances which several jurisdictions in the community have adopted or are in the process of adopting.
• While the current single threshold of proposed slopes equal to or greater than 20 percent is sufficient for the purposes of requiring further geotechnical investigation, additional triggers should be considered. These should take into consideration other factors such as those that influence hillside stability and assessment of potential impact beyond a particular site.
- 2. Land Development - Balance of preservation and development
-
- Findings:
-
• Public opinion surveys and input received at the public forums indicate that there is a desire in the community to address the need for true preservation of hillsides.
• Concerns also exist regarding the rights of property owners to develop their land.
• Public opinion also indicates that the general consensus is to see a balance of preservation and development.
Conclusions:
• Alternative policy recommendations should be made that provides guidance on how true preservation may be pursued without affecting the rights of property owners.
• While there was a general consensus that hillsides add to the character of northern Kentucky, aesthetics is one factor that is hard to define and quantify.
• There is a need to identify hillsides worthy of preservation using elements such as Geologic (Kope formation, Landslide prone areas), Ecological (Wildlife corridor and Endangered species) and Environmental (Tree canopy, slopes) features.
- 3. Site Design - Density, flexibility in design and aesthetics
Findings:
• Most ordinances do not differentiate site design controls based on terrain. Requirements for setbacks, infrastructure and height are the same on hilly terrain as on flat land.
• The Physically Restrictive Development Area (PRDA) (now referred to as Developmentally Sensitive Areas, or DSA) in the comprehensive plan, while providing caution for development, does not provide any guidance on density of development on hillsides.
• No clear public opinion on the location of development on a hillside (i.e.) top, bottom or middle emerged. But there was a clear indication of support for development that was clustered with the disturbance of vegetation minimized.
Conclusions:
• There is a need to identify hillsides worthy of preservation using elements such as Geologic (Kope formation and landslide prone areas), Ecological (Wildlife corridor and endangered species) and Environmental (Tree canopy and slopes) features.
• The areas identified as worthy of preservation should be the areas targeted for providing an alternative form of development that is sensitive to the natural elements of hillsides.
• Since site design issues are unique to each site, a review process that is more design based and flexible in requirements should be explored.