Salt Lake County – Foothills
and Canyons Overlay Zone
(FCOZ) Revisited
David J. Gellner, Planner
Salt Lake County PDS
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
Salt Lake County – FCOZ Areas
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
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
Wasatch Canyons – FCOZ Areas
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)
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
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!)
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
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
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
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
What has changed
(if anything)
in the last 13 years?
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
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.
What are some of the issues?
•
•
•
•
Marginal Lots
Larger Houses
More Year-Round Houses
Demand for Services
• Fire Service Demands
• Garbage Collection Issues
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
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
Marginal – Stream Setbacks
Marginal – Stream Setbacks
Marginal – Stream Setbacks
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)
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
(Much) Larger Houses
Tear Down – Silverfork Area - BCC
Larger Houses
Replaced with a new “cabin”
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
Cabins
(Typical – from another era)
Cabin – Mt. Haven area
Cabin – Silverfork area
Cabins
“Typical” Cabin – Forest Glen Area
Larger Houses
Newer “Cabin” – Forest Glen - BCC
Larger Houses
New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC
Larger Houses
New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC
Larger Houses
New “Cabin” – Silver Lake - BCC
More Year-Round Houses
More year round houses = a greater need
for critical services (Emigration Canyon)
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?
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
Big Cottonwood Canyon Fire
Station – Under Construction
Emigration Canyon Fire Station
Fire Station “Danger”
(Emigration Fire Station Construction)
Fire Station “Danger” Cont’d
(Sometimes you just can’t win!)
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
Garbage Collection Issues
(Emigration Canyon – “Garbage Can Farm”)
Garbage Collection Issues
(Emigration Canyon Community Container Sites)
Garbage Collection Issues
(Emigration Canyon Community Container Sites)
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”
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?
Not the Desired End Result!
Problem Cabin – Forest Glen
(Finally under construction!)
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?
Solitude Mountain Resort - BCC
Developed Recreation areas – 3 ski resorts
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?
What about the future?
I.E. - “Where do we go from
here?”
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
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?
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”
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
DGellner@slco.org