Presentation on theme: "Salt Lake County – Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ) Revisited"— Presentation transcript:
1 Salt Lake County – Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ) Revisited David J. Gellner, PlannerSalt Lake County PDS
2 FCOZ – Implemented in 1997FCOZ was adopted to address development in sensitive areasProvide for Watershed protectionPreserve the natural character of areas critical to recreation and quality of lifeSalt Lake County Planning Division won a Utah APA Achievement Award in 1998 for Ordinance Development for FCOZ
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 desiresWill 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 ValleyDeveloped recreation – private property – public land – conflicts at timesArea that provides an “Identity” to the Salt Lake Valley
7 Where are we now?13 Years have passed since the initial adoption of FCOZHave 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 canyonsFR and FM zones created in 1973Hillside Protection Zone adopted in 1985The Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOZ) replaced Hillside in 1997
9 (Lofty goal – sometimes easier said than done!) Purpose of FCOZFCOZ 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 preservationDevelopment prohibited on slopes in excess of 30% - Waivers - Lots of RecordVariance - slope development over 40%Stream and wetland setbacks – also subject to Waivers and VariancesLimits of Disturbance (LOD)Vegetation protection and replacement
11 FCOZ Review ProcessLand use review process – multi-agency review process (Format may be changing.)Land use approval finalizedBuilding and Construction phaseLOD – separate inspections from SLVHD may be required for waste systemsReplacement 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 regulationsSalt Lake County – private propertySalt Lake City – Watershed ETJSalt Lake Valley Health DepartmentU.S. Forest Service – own plans and rulesUtah Division of Water QualityU.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 groupsWater 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 survivalChange in development patternsChange in landowner desires
16 So, how has it been working? Depends on your point of viewSome happy – some not so muchQuestion - 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 LotsLarger HousesMore Year-Round HousesDemand for ServicesFire Service DemandsGarbage Collection Issues
18 Marginal Lots The “easy lots” are often gone Remaining have constraints – sometimes “reasons” they haven’t been developed!Waivers and Variances – allowedSometimes 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 considerationsOld cabins being expanded or replaced by bigger ones – hard to move away from stream – modern setback rules apply with some exceptions for existing
23 Stream Setback Waivers Why a “Yes” Answer? Non-conforming rights and Waivers for existing structuresSometimes our “only mechanism” to get them to hook up to sewer – upgrade septic system – abandon outhousesBalance – allow expansion closer to stream if other things get upgraded – in best public health interest (overall)
24 Larger HousesCan lead to other issues – size pushes into more constrained areas of sitePutting “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 HousesTear Down – Silverfork Area - BCC
27 What is a Cabin? (The very name invokes warm and fuzzy feelings!) Definition is changing and evolvingLarger – more use year round – extended family – coming from fartherSometimes more of a “second home”Certain materials make it a cabin instead of a houseCommercial implications – possibly built for rental purposes – current issue
28 Cabins (Typical – from another era) Cabin – Mt. Haven areaCabin – Silverfork area
29 “Typical” Cabin – Forest Glen Area Cabins“Typical” Cabin – Forest Glen Area
31 New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC Larger HousesNew “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC
32 New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC Larger HousesNew “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC
33 New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC Larger HousesNew “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 relevantSome areas becoming more “urban” – full time residents but in the Foothills rather than cityFuture implications?More commercial services?Other conveniences needed?
36 Fire Service DemandsMore development necessitates better fire protection in the canyonsNew Fire Stations in Emigration Canyon and Big Cottonwood Canyon – one built – one under constructionPermitting for stations under FCOZ rules – some difficulty – setbacks and development standards
37 Big Cottonwood Canyon Fire Station – Under Construction
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 downLeads to small “can farms” left down by the road all year longWinter – conflicts with snow removalCans get hit and ruined – garbage spread out – traffic issuesLooking 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 CountySewer vs. Septic in Forest GlenGeothermal heat pumps – new issue – growing concernLed 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 - BCCSLC – wouldn’t allow a sewer line to cross their property to service the lotSLVHD – too steep for septic systemWhat are my options? (in a “box” canyon)Other platted lots in same area – also undeveloped – same conditions - implications?Better process & coordination in future?
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 plansAre 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 fragileNot a critical Watershed areaDifferent demographic/property ownerHorsing/Ranching/Open Range MentalityHow 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 CanyonsUpdated “Wasatch Canyons Master Plan” to be produced by Salt Lake County in near futureOrdinance changes – possible rewrite of FCOZ in near future
54 Possible FCOZ Amendments Substandard lot consolidation – issues with old plats – comprehensive approachGrading standards – septic and other – discrepancies need to be fixedTree and Vegetation – removal – replacement – WUI - otherTrails 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 addressedLOD calculations – methodology and percentage?Back to “Self reflection” and “Next Steps”
56 David J. Gellner, Planner Questions?Thank you for your time!andOn behalf of the Organizing Committee - Thank you for attending the Utah APA Fall Conference!David J. Gellner, PlannerSalt Lake County PDS