1. Salt Lake County – Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ) Revisited
David J. Gellner, Planner
Salt Lake County PDS

2. FCOZ – Implemented in 1997
FCOZ was adopted to address development in sensitive areas
Provide for Watershed protection
Preserve the natural character of areas critical to recreation and quality of life
Salt Lake County Planning Division won a Utah APA Achievement Award in 1998 for Ordinance Development for FCOZ

3. Salt Lake County – FCOZ Areas

4. FCOZ – Southwest Areas Not the focus of this presentation
Southwest areas – not the same as the Wasatch Canyons areas – different vegetation – not watershed – different mindset and development desires
Will come back to this at end

5. FCOZ – Wasatch Canyons Main focus area of this presentation
Primary Watershed areas for a large portion of the Salt Lake Valley
Developed recreation – private property – public land – conflicts at times
Area that provides an “Identity” to the Salt Lake Valley

6. Wasatch Canyons – FCOZ Areas

7. Where are we now?
13 Years have passed since the initial adoption of FCOZ
Have things changed? If so, what has?
“Rear view mirror” – How are things working? Are there problems or issues?
Validation or a starting point for “Where do we go from here?” OR
“We are on Track!” (Self-reflection)

8. Slope Regulations – Salt Lake County
Zoning established in 1968 for canyons
FR and FM zones created in 1973
Hillside Protection Zone adopted in 1985
The Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ) replaced Hillside in 1997

9. (Lofty goal – sometimes easier said than done!)
Purpose of FCOZ
FCOZ Ordinance seeks to protect and preserve natural and sensitive areas while also balancing private property rights and public safety.
(Lofty goal – sometimes easier said than done!)

10. Basic FCOZ Restrictions
In brief FCOZ looks at streams, wetlands, slopes and vegetation preservation
Development prohibited on slopes in excess of 30% - Waivers - Lots of Record
Variance - slope development over 40%
Stream and wetland setbacks – also subject to Waivers and Variances
Limits of Disturbance (LOD)
Vegetation protection and replacement

11. FCOZ Review Process
Land use review process – multi-agency review process (Format may be changing.)
Land use approval finalized
Building and Construction phase
LOD – separate inspections from SLVHD may be required for waste systems
Replacement of vegetation & Bonding

12. Regulatory Authority (I. E
Regulatory Authority (I.E. - We’re from different branches of the Government but we’re all here to help you!)
Overlapping jurisdictions and regulations
Salt Lake County – private property
Salt Lake City – Watershed ETJ
Salt Lake Valley Health Department
U.S. Forest Service – own plans and rules
Utah Division of Water Quality
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

13. Regulatory Ground Zero
FCOZ often seems like it is “Ground Zero” for being the intersection of regulatory restrictions, private property rights and special interest groups
Water quality vs. environmental vs. open space vs. developed recreation vs. casual recreation vs. private property rights

14. What has changed (if anything) in the last 13 years?

15. Societal Changes More concern about watershed and public health issues
Realization that we are in an arid region with a rapidly growing population – water is important to our survival
Change in development patterns
Change in landowner desires

16. So, how has it been working?
Depends on your point of view
Some happy – some not so much
Question - What is the difference between an environmentalist and a would be developer/new owner?
Balancing act between development rights, regulations and preservation.

17. What are some of the issues?
Marginal Lots
Larger Houses
More Year-Round Houses
Demand for Services
Fire Service Demands
Garbage Collection Issues

18. Marginal Lots The “easy lots” are often gone
Remaining have constraints – sometimes “reasons” they haven’t been developed!
Waivers and Variances – allowed
Sometimes seen as an “end run” to the Ordinance by public and other groups

19. Marginal – Stream Setbacks
Many older cabins were built right “on the stream” (literally)
Required setbacks – for water quality and health considerations
Old cabins being expanded or replaced by bigger ones – hard to move away from stream – modern setback rules apply with some exceptions for existing

20. Marginal – Stream Setbacks

21. Marginal – Stream Setbacks

22. Marginal – Stream Setbacks

23. Stream Setback Waivers Why a “Yes” Answer?
Non-conforming rights and Waivers for existing structures
Sometimes our “only mechanism” to get them to hook up to sewer – upgrade septic system – abandon outhouses
Balance – allow expansion closer to stream if other things get upgraded – in best public health interest (overall)

24. Larger Houses
Can lead to other issues – size pushes into more constrained areas of site
Putting “houses” on small lots that would accommodate “cabins”
Old lots – often small – some “tent lots”
Smaller dwelling could fit on lot without Ordinance deviations

25. (Much) Larger Houses
Tear Down – Silverfork Area - BCC

26. Larger Houses
Replaced with a new “cabin”

27. What is a Cabin? (The very name invokes warm and fuzzy feelings!)
Definition is changing and evolving
Larger – more use year round – extended family – coming from farther
Sometimes more of a “second home”
Certain materials make it a cabin instead of a house
Commercial implications – possibly built for rental purposes – current issue

28. Cabins (Typical – from another era)
Cabin – Mt. Haven area
Cabin – Silverfork area

29. “Typical” Cabin – Forest Glen Area
Cabins
“Typical” Cabin – Forest Glen Area

30. Newer “Cabin” – Forest Glen - BCC
Larger Houses
Newer “Cabin” – Forest Glen - BCC

31. New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC
Larger Houses
New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC

32. New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC
Larger Houses
New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC

33. New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC
Larger Houses
New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC

34. More Year-Round Houses
More year round houses = a greater need for critical services (Emigration Canyon)

35. Year Round and Other Services?
More full time residents – lifestyle changes – work from home – physical location less relevant
Some areas becoming more “urban” – full time residents but in the Foothills rather than city
Future implications?
More commercial services?
Other conveniences needed?

36. Fire Service Demands
More development necessitates better fire protection in the canyons
New Fire Stations in Emigration Canyon and Big Cottonwood Canyon – one built – one under construction
Permitting for stations under FCOZ rules – some difficulty – setbacks and development standards

37. Big Cottonwood Canyon Fire Station – Under Construction

38. Emigration Canyon Fire Station

39. Fire Station “Danger” (Emigration Fire Station Construction)

40. Fire Station “Danger” Cont’d (Sometimes you just can’t win!)

41. Garbage Collection Issues (Emigration Canyon – Killyons – Burrs Fork)
Steep lots and driveways or access roads – hard to move cans up and down
Leads to small “can farms” left down by the road all year long
Winter – conflicts with snow removal
Cans get hit and ruined – garbage spread out – traffic issues
Looking for a better solution

42. Garbage Collection Issues (Emigration Canyon – “Garbage Can Farm”)

43. Garbage Collection Issues (Emigration Canyon Community Container Sites)

44. Garbage Collection Issues (Emigration Canyon Community Container Sites)

45. Other Issues?
Conflicting agency restrictions – Health, SLCPU and Salt Lake County
Sewer vs. Septic in Forest Glen
Geothermal heat pumps – new issue – growing concern
Led to a better dialogue and inter-agency cooperation – Watershed Coordination Mtgs.
Trying to get on “same page” – don’t send down a “box canyon” with no way out!
Also conflicts on vegetation and WUI with UFA and FCOZ – need some “alignment”

46. Problem Cabin – Forest Glen
Proposed Cabin – Forest Glen - BCC
SLC – wouldn’t allow a sewer line to cross their property to service the lot
SLVHD – too steep for septic system
What are my options? (in a “box” canyon)
Other platted lots in same area – also undeveloped – same conditions - implications?
Better process & coordination in future?

47. Not the Desired End Result!

48. Problem Cabin – Forest Glen (Finally under construction!)

49. Other Issues? – Ski Resorts
Ski Resorts – not “pristine” wilderness – very developed areas - what standards should they be held to?
Current standards of FCOZ are often burdensome and cumbersome for ski resorts – already subject to other plans
Are the same development standards Fair? Reasonable? or even Realistic?

50. Solitude Mountain Resort - BCC
Developed Recreation areas – 3 ski resorts

51. Other Issues? – Southwest
Different ecosystem – drier – vegetation less developed – still fragile
Not a critical Watershed area
Different demographic/property owner
Horsing/Ranching/Open Range Mentality
How do they fit into the regulations?
Should they be considered differently?

52. I.E. - “Where do we go from here?”
What about the future?
I.E. - “Where do we go from here?”

53. Directions/Ideas/Regrouping
Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow process – with Envision Utah – working on new “vision” for Wasatch Canyons
Updated “Wasatch Canyons Master Plan” to be produced by Salt Lake County in near future
Ordinance changes – possible rewrite of FCOZ in near future

54. Possible FCOZ Amendments
Substandard lot consolidation – issues with old plats – comprehensive approach
Grading standards – septic and other – discrepancies need to be fixed
Tree and Vegetation – removal – replacement – WUI - other
Trails and recreation development – what standards?

55. FCOZ Amendments Cont’d
Ski resorts – elimination from FCOZ regulations?
Stream corridor and wetlands protection – some discrepancies to be addressed
LOD calculations – methodology and percentage?
Back to “Self reflection” and “Next Steps”

56. David J. Gellner, Planner
Questions?
Thank you for your time!
and
On behalf of the Organizing Committee - Thank you for attending the Utah APA Fall Conference!
David J. Gellner, Planner
Salt Lake County PDS