Planning commission backs clarified 10‑foot forestry setback, sends draft to council after public concerns

The Immigration Canyon Planning Commission on Jan. 8 recommended that the city council adopt revised forestry‑zone setback language that keeps a 10‑foot building setback for new construction but clarifies that the distance is measured from the outer edge of a public or private right of way.

The action followed an extended working session on a proposed setbacks table and competing proposals for measuring setback distances — from the property line, the edge of pavement, the center line or the right of way. Chair Tim Harpst opened the discussion by noting the commission's intent to align the city's code with commonly used zoning language while addressing canyon‑specific issues.

Legal counsel Claire told commissioners the mayor favored wording that preserved a 10‑foot setback measured from the road or right of way rather than from a property line. "His inclination was to keep the 10‑foot setback in the spirit in which it was written, which was from the road," Claire said. Staff noted the draft table originated in a commercial‑zone draft and that the commission has been working on the titles 18 and 19 rewrite for roughly two years.

During public comment, several residents urged caution. Robert McFarland of 6102 Immigration Canyon Road warned the commission to avoid changes that could render existing homes "uncompliant," citing disputed title lines and survey uncertainty. "If someone very aggressively took this language, could they say that house is condemned and we have nowhere to live?" he asked. Gary Bowen and other residents described narrow canyon segments, proximity to streams and inconsistent historic surveys, asking for flexibility to account for topography.

Several speakers also raised concerns about timing. Justin Khan, a property owner, said the meeting occurring days before an MSD resolution on road‑widening funds looked suspicious and accused officials of trying to alter code to accept grant money before resolving right‑of‑way issues. Claire and commissioners rejected that framing, stressing the draft applies only to future construction and does not affect title, right‑of‑way acquisition or the road‑improvement project.

Commissioners sought specific waiver language so the commission could approve exceptions when an applicant demonstrates that a reduced setback would not impose additional burdens on neighbors. They added public safety, view corridors, snow storage, drainage, septic separation and stream/water‑quality concerns to a non‑exhaustive list of factors the commission may consider when granting a waiver. The final wording favors measuring from the outer edge of the public or private right of way (the right‑of‑way edge), which commissioners said prevents implying permission to build within the public right of way.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend the draft ordinance and table to the city council and asked staff to transmit the record of deliberations and public concerns. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. The commission asked staff to note the strong public views on measurement and survey variability when the item goes before the city council.

The vote sends the draft to the council for formal consideration; commissioners emphasized that the ordinance as debated would apply only to new construction, leaving existing structures as legal nonconforming uses.

The Planning Commission also discussed next steps on the subdivision ordinance and a zone‑by‑zone general‑plan review to align zoning with desired lot sizes and reduce controversy on future applications.