Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 3/24/2026CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:March 24, 2026 RE: Fence, Wall and Hedge Height Text Amendment PLNPCM2025-00045, and Fence Height in M-1 and M-1A Zoning Districts Text Amendment PLNPCM2025-00138 PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE Three people spoke at the March 10, 2026 public hearing for this item. One commenter expressed support for regulating hedges in the landscaping ordinance and not restricting their height. Another commenter discussed updating the zoning ordinance to allow taller front yard fences for some properties to provide additional security. (Staff note- this would require a separate zoning text amendment that is not part of the subject proposals.) The third commenter noted that when fences were installed in the front yards of historic properties, they were much lower than what is allowed under the current ordinance. She asked the Council to consider this when amending the ordinance to allow taller fences. The Council closed the hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting. The following information was provided for previous meetings. It is included again for background purposes. BRIEFING UPDATE During a February 10, 2026 briefing Council Members expressed appreciation and general support for the proposed text amendments. The Council supported allowing side and rear yard fences up to seven feet tall. Item Schedule: Page | 2 A question was asked about increasing allowed height for front yard fences. Planning staff stated there is not an administrative way to do that and would require in-depth review and a separate text amendment. (Staff note: Planning staff recommend moving hedges to the landscaping chapter of City code and not limiting the height. This is discussed further in the additional information section below.) The Commission voted 5-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the fence, wall and hedge height amendment with the exception that rear yard fences remain at a maximum of six feet. The Commission voted 5-3 to forward a positive recommendation for the M-1/M-1A fence proposal with a condition that properties in these zoning districts that abut or are across the street from any zone that allows residential uses have front yard fences that do not exceed four feet. Commissioners who voted in opposition to the motions did not share why they were opposed. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed text amendments and determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposals. POLICY QUESTIONS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Fence, Wall and Hedge Height Page | 3 considered maximum heights in Portland Oregon, Denver Colorado, and Clark County Nevada (Las Vegas area). Key Considerations Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives Plan Salt Lake and many neighborhood plans, though they are they are mentioned in some more recent master plans. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element includes a discussion of land use buffers, including fencing, to separate adverse effects from dissimilar uses. It notes that fencing can deter criminal activity and provide security. Consideration 2 – Key Changes Consideration 3 – Additional Text Changes – General Code Cleanup and Update Remove “hedges” from the ordinance. “Hedges” would be considered landscaping and regulated under 21A.48 “Landscaping and Buffers” ordinance. Residential and Non-residential districts have been combined to make the regulation of fences and walls more consistent when possible. Page | 4 Remove or modify most of the provisions listed under the “Double Frontage Lot” section, since most of them are listed in other parts of the zoning ordinance. Remove the word “hedges” from 21A.40.160 to be consistent within the zoning ordinance and replace with “landscaping.” M-1 and M-1A Maximum Fence Height Text Amendment Some Council Members will recall adopting a text amendment in October 2024 requested by Delta Airlines that increased the maximum front yard fence height for properties in the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district within the International Center. The current proposal would expand that allowed fence height in front of buildings to all properties in the M-1 and M-1A (Northpoint Light Industrial) zoning districts throughout the city, with an exception for these properties that abut or are across the street from zoning districts allowing residential uses. Front yard fences for those M-1 and M-1A properties would be limited to four feet. The rationale for increasing the maximum front yard fence height is to provide additional security for visitors and vehicles to these properties which frequently have parking in front of the buildings. Because facilities in the manufacturing districts don’t often have consistent traffic flows there are not “eyes on the property” that are found in commercial and residential districts. Taller fences could also help screen larger vehicles that frequently are on site at manufacturing and distribution facilities. As noted above, the Planning Commission recommended limiting front yard fence height in the M-1/M-1A zoning districts to four feet on properties that abut or are across the street from zoning districts that allow residential use. The Commission felt this would help maintain a residential neighborhood aesthetic in these areas. City code currently allows six-foot fences on properties in the M-2 (Heavy Manufacturing) and EI (Extractive Industries) zoning districts if located between the front property line and the front yard setback line. The proposed change to City code is shown in red below. Notwithstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.E.1.b.(1), in the M-1, M-1A, M-2 and EI zoning districts, fences, walls, or hedges may be up to six (6) feet in height if located between the front lot line and the front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance, unless the subject property is abutting or across a public street from a zoning district that allows residential use, then the maximum height for a front yard fence is four (4) feet. Key Considerations Planning staff identified two key considerations related to M-1 and M-1A fence height proposal, found on pages 6-8 of the Planning Commission staff report for that item, and briefly summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives As discussed in the fence, wall, and hedge height item above, fences are not required in most zones, so they aren’t discussed in Plan Salt Lake and many neighborhood plans, though they are mentioned in some recent master plans. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element includes a discussion of land use buffers, including fencing, to separate adverse effects from dissimilar uses. It notes that fencing can deter criminal activity and provide security. Page | 5 Consideration 2 – Zoning Districts That Allow Six-foot Fencing in the Front Yard Setback- Use Analysis Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended expanding the six-foot front yard allowed fence height adopted in October 2024 for M-1 zoned properties in the International Center to M-1 and M-1A properties citywide. This would bring consistency to these properties which often have valuable materials and equipment. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment C (pages 19-20) of the Fence, Wall and Hedge Planning Commission staff report, and Attachment B (pages 10-11) of the M-1 and M-1A Planning Commission staff report outline zoning text amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding (fences/walls/hedges) Finding (M-1/M-1A fences) Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. City purposes and goals do not specify fence and hedge heights. Proposal is intended to achieve safety and security. City purposes and goals do not specify fence and hedge heights. Proposal is intended to achieve safety and security. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Complies Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not applicable Not applicable The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements best current, professional practices of urban planning and design. Complies Complies CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW During City department and division review of the proposed text amendment, no responding departments and divisions expressed opposition though Public Utilities noted the need to maintain water meter access for their employees. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 13, 2025 – Both petitions accepted by Planning Division. • February 25, 2025 – o Petitions assigned to Diana Martinez, Senior Planner. o Early notifications sent to community council chairs citywide. 45-day comment period begins. • May 8, 2025 – Extended 45-day recognized community organization comment period ends. • July 23, 2025 – Planning Commission public hearing notice posted at the Sugar House and Main Libraries. Page | 6 • August 13, 2025 – Planning Commission meeting and public hearing. The Commission votes 5-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. • August 28, 2025 – Ordinance requested from the Attorney’s Office. • December 10, 2025 – Ordinance received from the Attorney’s Office. • January 13, 2026 – Transmittal received in City Council Office.