SLEDS Riparian Section commentary
Residents, predominantly those living along Little Cottonwood Creek, have raised various concerns regarding how the proposed riparian protection standards from within the draft SLEDS (Sensitive Lands Evaluation & Development Standards) updated ordinance encroach upon their property ownership and management needs and rights.
FYI: 7pm, February 15th Town Hall Meeting to discuss proposed riparian section of SLEDS. Location: Cottonwood Heights City Hall, 2277 E Bengal Blvd
In early February, an unidentified group rumored to be Salt Lake Board of Realtors, circulated door-hangers petitioning the CH residents to contact their city council representative asking them to “vote NO on the SLEDS ordinance”.
In my opinion, this is a short-sighted attempt to stymie an otherwise well-intentioned and necessary effort to protect sensitive land areas within Cottonwood Heights. The ordinance applies predominantly to seismic and riparian management. Through collaborative efforts between well-informed residents, city staff and city planning commission, council and committee members, we should be able to produce an ordinance that will protect precious air, water, soil, meet best building safety practices as well as meet core needs of existing residents. The ordinance is to set up procedures to best monitor sensitive lands with specific measurement standards to properly evaluate a land parcel’s appropriateness or inappropriateness for development. The ordinance was not meant to be punitive to existing homeowners. Instead, it is to fully evaluate the suitability for undeveloped or redeveloping land use. We SHOULD be able to reach palatable terms within the ordinance for existing homeowners whose property includes riparian areas.
Ellen asked city staff to provide in a singular document including all of the public’s concerns that have been raised thus far related to the new riparian section. Staff indicates that the following “likely is not inclusive of every comment that has been heard”. Here is what they have recently provided:
Concern: Inability to use chainsaws or other equipment in riparian protection areas.
Staff Response: A previous ordinance draft included limitations on heavy machinery. This provision has been removed and there is no prohibition on heavy machinery usage.
Concern: The new ordinance prohibits an individual from reconstructing their home if it is destroyed by natural disaster.
Staff Response: This is inaccurate. Per ordinance 19.88.110, structures damaged or destroyed by ‘fire, flood, wind, earthquake or other calamity or act of God or the public enemy’ is allowed to be reconstructed as it existed prior to such event occurring. Such reconstruction projects require building permits to be obtained.
Voluntary reconstruction or expansion of buildings is fully permitted if structures meet current ordinance standards. If a structure exists that is considered legal non-conforming (i.e., it was approved and legally constructed and ordinances and regulations have changed over time so that it may not meet all current standards), it may also be expanded or reconstructed upon approval by the city’s Appeals Hearing Officer. Again, this is an ordinance that exists city-wide and has been utilized many times in the city’s history.
The riparian protection standards are recommending that the hearing officer consider a few additional standards, namely that (1) the structure should not have a history of flooding, (2) the expansion should not require substantial armoring, and (3) the structure is not being expanded closer to the waterway if it is already closer than allowed per ordinance. Staff is preparing a clarification to this provision so that only the latter of those three additional requirements is a review factor.
Concern: It is unclear which waterways this ordinance applies to. Does it apply to irrigation ditches?
Staff Response: The ordinance does not apply to irrigation ditches. It applies to ‘a stream channel or wetland, and the adjacent land.’ A clarification will be added to the draft ordinance that specifies irrigation ditches are not subject to the ordinance
Concern: The city is requiring that an arborist approve any tree to be removed on my property.
Staff Response: This is incorrect. A previous ordinance draft required a qualified arborist to inspect trees prior to removal, but that provision has since been removed. Dead or dying trees are allowed to be removed without prior inspection or city approval. The current draft ordinance requires that dead trees which are removed are replaced with adequate trees in the same general vicinity. Additionally, unintended tree starts are not subject to the ordinance and are allowed to be removed.
Concern: This ordinance will eliminate my ability to use land as desired.
Staff Response: The ordinance is designed to most strictly regulate new development activity and substantial development. Use of existing property continues to be allowed with very few exceptions. Additionally, the ordinance includes a provision for a reasonable use exception and authorization of minor exceptions, which allow property owners to receive exceptions from the standards upon submittal of reasonable justification. More so than any other hazard regulated by the SLEDS ordinance, the riparian protection standards provide numerous options to receive exceptions for reasonable use of property to continue.
Concern: This ordinance does not allow me to fertilize my lawn.
Staff Response: This is partially accurate. Zone A, which is the zone closest to the waterways, does not allow fertilizer to be utilized. However, fertilizer is allowed on trees if applied by a qualified professional, and this does not require prior approval by the city. Staff has consulted with county and state experts to determine if any fertilizers are recommended for use around water, and there aren’t any.
Concern: The ordinance requires property owners to pay the cost of consulted experts to complete city reviews of development proposals
Staff Response: Technical development proposals affecting riparian protection areas may require technical studies or reports to be submitted by a property owner/developer. The city may contract with an outside technical expert to conduct a review of such information if city staff does not have the expertise to properly review it. This is consistent how all other SLEDS reviews occur for other hazards.
Concern: The ordinance regulations are all based on measurement from the ‘top of bank,’ but the top of bank changes every year.
Staff Response: Top of bank is measured and determined, as defined in the draft ordinance, at the time any given application is made to the city.
Concern: The ordinance requires a permit to conduct emergency flood control work on my property.
Staff Response: Emergency flood control work is allowed without any requirements. Pre-emptive flood control work, like bank stabilization, armoring, etc. is also allowed, upon review by the Development Review Committee. Salt Lake County Flood Control also requires permits for such activity.
Concern: The ordinance greatly restricts how I can use my current property.
Staff Response: As proposed, the ordinance’s table of uses includes 20 activities which are regulated in some way. Of those 20, 5 uses are proposed to not be allowed (use of fertilizer, new livestock pens, parking lots, and new accessory and primary structures). Six of the 20 activities are allowed, but require prior approval by the city’s DRC. The remaining uses are allowed without requiring any extra city approval process. Staff continues to be open to refining and adjusting the ordinance to match its intent of being most restrictive on new, intrusive development activities and allowing reasonable use of property to continue.
Door hanger as it appeared in a Nextdoor.com post.