Emigration Canyon planning panel debates setbacks, pet limits and references to overlay rules in forestry-zone rewrite

The Emigration Canyon Planning Commission on Sept. 24 debated wording and cross-references in a draft rewrite of the forestry and recreation zone that staff hopes will replace parts of the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOS).

The discussion centered on three practical questions: where to put site-development standards now scattered between FCOS and several code chapters; what explicit setback and stream-buffer distances should be listed in the new zone; and whether the code should set or change limits on household pets. Commissioners also flagged a discrepancy between two height provisions in the draft and asked staff to reconcile the draft with the more stringent FCOS language now in effect.

Commissioners and staff said the drafts should keep the stricter existing protections while making the code easier to read. Land-use counsel Claire said the draft can identify a new chapter — 19.46 in the proposed numbering — as applying to all underlying zones so that the overlay is not required to remain in force as a separate zone. "We don't need to keep the overlay zone; we can just identify in 19.46 that it applies to all zones," Claire told the commission, in a discussion urging explicit cross‑references to FCOS until those protections are formally migrated into the new chapter.

Staff proposed moving the FCOS site-design setback language into the new forestry-and-recreation chapter so the rules would be in one place for designers and applicants. Commissioners agreed that, because many canyon lots are irregular and steep, the draft should include a setbacks table (mirroring the commercial chapter's table) plus a sentence stating that the Planning Commission may waive those table requirements for developments with difficult topography or other natural barriers. A staff member summarized the preferred approach: bring the commercial setbacks table into the forestry text and add a waiver sentence so the commission can grant relief where terrain makes standard setbacks impractical.

The commission repeatedly emphasized the practical consequences for applicants. Several participants noted existing code language allowing an applicant to place structures closer than 10 feet to a property line if the applicant can demonstrate the structure will not burden neighbors with problems such as drainage, snow storage or access. Commissioners said that general clause leaves too much uncertainty in the forestry zones and recommended inserting clearer, “ballpark” setbacks in the new zone text while retaining a commission waiver for constrained lots.

Members also discussed household-pet limits. The draft relies on the code definition of "household pets" but does not currently specify a numeric maximum for the forestry zone. Commissioners discussed options used in other jurisdictions — for example, treating two dogs or cats as a household number and creating a defined kennel/cattery category for higher counts — and asked staff to propose language (one suggestion was raising the implicit current model from two to four household pets) and to add grandfathering language where existing households exceed a new limit.

On building height, commissioners discovered conflicting provisions: one sentence in the proposed chapter set a 35-foot limit, while another referenced a 30-foot standard tied to FCOS. Commissioners noted that FCOS currently governs and therefore prevails where it is more stringent; several commissioners recommended striking the draft's conflicting sentence and referencing FCOS measurement rules until the city and FCOS standards are fully reconciled in a combined code package.

The commission closed its discussion in agreement on a path forward: rename the draft to "Forestry and Recreation Zones," add a clear setback table (with explicit reference to ephemeral-stream setbacks), retain references to the FCOS provisions that will remain in force, include a waiver process for the Planning Commission to address constrained lots, and ask staff to return with an updated draft before the next hearing. Staff was asked to circulate the revised drafts to commissioners before the next scheduled meeting so the commission can take a recommendation vote.

Documents and code sections cited during discussion included the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone (FCOS), draft chapter 19.46 (Immigration/Emigration Canyon site development and design standards), and existing site‐development chapters (19.72 and 19.32) and related tables for setbacks. The commission did not adopt any ordinance language at this meeting; it instructed staff to prepare revised text reflecting the points above for a future action meeting.