A developer wants to re-zone approximately two acres of land near the entrance to the Brighton loop so he can develop a bed and breakfast and conference facilities, with all the attendant amenities.
We oppose this up-zoning because we believe it is inconsistent with the Salt Lake County Canyons Master Plan and will inevitably lead to further "commercial creep" down canyon from Brighton all the way to Solitude. We believe this property should remain part of the nearby cabin area. See "More Information" for details.
Write -- by December 13th -- to:
Salt Lake County Planning Commission
2001 S. State Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84190
Also, let others know how you feel. Write to:
Public Forum
Salt Lake Tribune
P.O. Box 867
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Fax: 237-2022
Readers' Forum Deseret News
P.O. Box 1257
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Fax: 237-2121
Please note that while this Statement contains many of the same points that were made in our Statement that was submitted to the Commission on July 9, 1996 in connection with the Applicant's earlier re-zoning application (PL-96-4033), it has been revised to take into account the changes in the current application.
Citizens' Committee to Save Our Canyons is a 25 year old local, non-profit organization that is dedicated to the preservation and protection of the Wasatch canyons from excessive development. We believe, as you do, that the canyons of the Wasatch Front are a treasure in one of the most urbanized areas of the country. They provide de facto parks, unparalleled wilderness and solitude, a critical watershed to Salt Lake City, and wildlife habitat for a variety of species. Our members were very active participants in the process which led to the adoption in 1989 of Salt Lake County's Wasatch Canyons Master Plan, which is relevant to the matter under consideration.
We appreciate this opportunity to urge you to disapprove of application PL96-4063 (the "Application") to re-zone this two acre parcel of property which is located on the north (down canyon) side of the Brighton Loop road because it is inappropriate for the site, inconsistent with the Master Plan and it would inevitably lead to more up-zoning efforts in respect of additional residential property further down canyon. We ask that you to take a position which will prevent commercial creep in this part of Big Cottonwood Canyon, which is exactly what the Master Plan was designed to prevent.
Appropriate Zoning.
FM-10 allows a substantial amount of development of a variety of commercial uses. Much of what has been constructed at the Brighton and Solitude Ski Resorts is located on FM-20 zoned property. The applicant has indicated he desires to build a bed and breakfast and conference. It must be remembered, however, that this is a re-zoning and therefore he is not limited to those uses. In any event, the area north (down canyon) of the Brighton Loop Road at this time is essentially cabins and natural, with the exception of the public board walks around Silver Lake and the Nordic Center servicing the nearby groomed trails. The proposed development of this property will fundamentally change forever the surrounding area and is inappropriate and not necessary.
While the applicant notes that part of the subject property was the site of the old Balsam Inn, it has been gone for more than 35 years, and therefore the neighbors who have had residential cabins in the area for a long time have the right to their expectations that the adjoining property will not be commercially used.
Conference rooms are not necessary or suitable to this mountain area. You should reject further efforts to turn our beautiful mountains into all-purpose resorts or businesses that could be located elsewhere. There are already plenty of services available already in the canyon and in the valley to serve locals and visitors alike.
There appears to be more than enough property already zoned C-V or FM-10 or FM-20 within the Brighton Circle area that can handle any new services that are deemed necessary.
There has been some suggestion that the traffic at this site is such that a cabin is not appropriate. You should note that, because the adjoining road is a loop, all vehicles that go past this property go past all of the other (more than a dozen) cabins on both sides of the mile-long loop.
We also believe that a number of questions are raised by the Application which have not yet been satisfactorily answered:
The Application refers to several aspects of the applicant's current plans, such as number of units, no tennis court, no beer outlet, etc. But since this is just a re-zoning application, how can there be any assurance these things will not change when the Applicant submits a conditional use application? Or when he submits a new conditional use application in the future?
How many net developable acres are within the subject property?
What will be the impact on the watershed protection if there is a variance granted to the existing stream set-back ordinance?
Is there any demonstrated unmet need for the uses that the commercial zoning will allow?
We understand that you have not created any new FM-10 zoned property in the canyons since the Master Plan was adopted; perhaps not even since the zoning was originally adopted in the 1970's. You should not start now.
The Wasatch Canyons Master Plan
The Master Plan does not address this particular site or application, of course, but we believe that there are clear directives in the Master Plan that should guide you to reject the Application.
First, under the chapter devoted to general land use policies, the Master Plan provides these directions:
"LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES
FOR BIG AND LITTLE COTTONWOOD CANYONS, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, LODGING, AND CONDOMINIUMS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED AT EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS HAVING SUITABLE TERRAIN IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE SKI RESORTS TO PRESERVE THE NATURAL APPEARANCE AND AVOID THE PROLIFERATION OF COMMERCIAL AREAS IN THE CANYONS. FOR OTHER CANYONS, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO EXISTING COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREAS.
. . .
A major objective of this Plan is to preserve the natural beauty of the Canyons. The addition of new, free standing stores, gas stations, restaurants or multi-family housing outside of the existing resort areas would not be appropriate to the canyon setting and would offer services already available only a short distance from any portion of the canyons.
Due to limited suitable terrain, other canyon uses, traffic considerations and the proximity to commercial services in the Valley, future non-ski resort commercial enterprises should be located outside of the canyons in the Salt Lake Valley. . . .
Any proposals for additional Canyon lodging are subject to existing building and zoning requirements, suitability reviews, water availability, aesthetic guidelines, and sewer connections." (Emphasis added by underlining.)
In addition, under the heading "Wasatch Canyons Master Plan Policies - Big Cottonwood Canyon" in the Canyon Plans chapter, the Master Plan states on page 71 that
"Outside Brighton and Solitude, the rest of Big Cottonwood Canyon should retain its traditional role and character."
The Master Plan further states in this section that
"any future commercial development will be consolidated in close proximity to the resorts (emphasis added)."
While it is arguable that the subject property is "in Brighton", we believe you can and should, for the purposes of the Master Plan, treat the property as just outside of Brighton. It is surrounded by residentially-zoned property, with the exception of the property on the other side of the Brighton Loop Road, which is zoned and used commercially. It is almost a half-mile from the ski resort itself. We think you should use the road as the natural -- and existing -- dividing line between the ski resort area one the one hand and the adjoining cabin/single family dwelling area on the other. If the road is not the dividing line, there will be pressure on the adjoining property owners further down canyon to transform their residential property into commercial real estate development. With restaurant decks and tennis courts within earshot, who would blame them? If you want to see how this might happen, look at the area between Alta and Snowbird, which was essentially zoned and developed prior to the Master Plan, and see how it has become crowded with rented condos. Furthermore, we believe you can and should interpret this language as barring this project, because it would have the opposite effect as was intended by the Master Plan; instead of consolidating development, your approval would foster commercial sprawl down canyon for the reasons noted above.
This is not idle speculation. We have been informed that already a lodging company has purchased a neighboring (down canyon) parcel of property currently zoned residential, and we can only assume that it is intended for development as multi-family rental housing, stores or other commercial activities.
In addition, we wish to point out that the conference rooms referred to in the Application are not necessary for the ski resorts. As noted above, the Master Plan provides that
"future non-ski resort commercial enterprises should be located outside of the canyons in the Salt Lake Valley."
The conference rooms and related facilities should be located in the Salt Lake Valley.
We feel that the language of the applicable sections of the Master Plan, and the intent of these provisions, should lead you to reject the Application. It will not consolidate commercial operations at the Brighton ski resort; it will add new uses beyond the far end of the resort area. The proposal will duplicate what can be found nearby in the valley. And the Master Plan states that additional lodging in the canyon has to be governed by existing zoning -- a request for up-zoning the subject property is not contemplated by the Master Plan.
Summary
If it is rezoned, the subject property's northern boundary would be residential property. The consequences would be to extend the existing boundary of the "resort" area beyond the loop road. If the road is breached, it will be extremely difficult to deny future property owners further down canyon to link on to this project as being in "close proximity" to the resort for the purposes of the Master Plan, and the result would be inevitably turning the top of Big Cottonwood Canyon between the Brighton and Solitude ski resorts to look like the area between Snowbird and Alta. With the hundreds of existing undeveloped private lots in Big Cottonwood Canyon, there will be increasing pressures on development. We urge the County not to make additional commercial development possible, further accelerating the trend and aggravating the problems.
The only way to prevent the undesirable result of the total commercialization of our local canyons is to hold firm to what restraints we have. Any loosening of those restrictions will only come back to haunt the County later when other applicants want similar changes in zoning. If you use the road as the defining lining for the existing ski resort, you will have a workable standard. If you extend it beyond the other side of the road down canyon, there will be no way of effectively dealing with the pressures to change residential property into much more valuable commercial property.
Again, thank you for the chance to express our deep concerns about this proposal.