Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Provided Information - 3/10/2026CITY 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 10, 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 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. 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. The following information was provided for the February 10, 2026 briefing. It is included again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about two text amendments related to fence, wall and hedge heights. Multiple petitions are not typically briefed at the same time but since these are closely related, they are being processed together. The first text amendment related to fence, wall and hedge heights in residential districts was initiated by the City Council in January 2025. The proposal would increase the maximum hedge height on side yard property lines in front of the primary structure’s primary façade to six feet if it does not obstruct clear view standards. The proposal would also increase the maximum fence, wall or hedge height behind the principal structure’s primary façade from six feet to seven feet. (Staff note: Planning staff recommend moving Item Schedule: Page | 2 hedges to the landscaping chapter of City code and not limiting the height. This is discussed further in the additional information section below.) The second proposed text amendment was initiated by the Planning Commission and would extend the increased fence height to six feet of front yard fences allowed in the M-1 zoning district within the International Center to all properties in the M-1 and M-1A zoning districts citywide. The Planning Commission reviewed both proposals at its August 13, 2025 meeting and held public hearings at which no one spoke. 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 1. The Council may wish to discuss whether it is still supportive of increasing the maximum height for rear yard fences and walls to seven feet. 2. The Council may wish to discuss whether it is supportive of moving hedges to the landscaping section of City code and eliminate the height limit. 3. The Council may wish to discuss whether it is supportive of extending the six-foot maximum fence height to all properties in the M-1/M-1A zoning districts except for those that abut or are across the street from zoning districts that allow residential uses. In those instances, front yard fences would be limited to four feet. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For clarity the two text amendments will be discussed separately below. Fence, Wall and Hedge Height When conducting research for the proposal, Planning staff compared maximum allowed fence and hedge heights within the following Utah municipalities: Provo, Ogden, and South Salt Lake. Planning also considered maximum heights in Portland Oregon, Denver Colorado, and Clark County Nevada (Las Vegas area). Allowed front yard hedge heights in the researched municipalities ranged from three to six feet. Some do not define the term “hedge” in code but include hedges as landscaping regulated in their landscaping ordinances. It is Planning’s opinion that hedges, which are not defined in City code, fit better in the Landscaping and Buffers section of code rather than in the fencing ordinance. Defining hedges as vegetation in this section would not limit their height but require them to “be maintained in a live condition to present a reasonably healthy appearance.” The code also does not allow vegetation to block the sight distance triangle, so they won’t obstruct the view of oncoming pedestrians or vehicles. Page | 3 The six municipalities listed above allow maximum rear yard fence heights between six and eight feet. Planning recommends allowing fences and walls in rear yards up to seven feet high. They found benefits for privacy, security, property aesthetics, and additional height could help prevent large game animals from entering private properties. It is worth noting that fences taller than seven feet require engineering drawings which could be a burden for property owners. Key Considerations Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the fence and hedge 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 Fences are not required in most zones, so they aren’t discussed in 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. Plan Salt Lake and other City master plans discuss protecting the natural environment. Planning staff stated “By considering hedges as “landscaping” and allowing them to grow in any location and at any height, this will help maintain the importance of sustaining vegetation for a healthier natural environment.” Consideration 2 – Key Changes Moving hedges to the landscaping section of City code will allow property owners to determine what height they would like, and they will be responsible for maintenance. Regarding the proposed maximum fence height of seven feet, Planning staff noted additional height will likely be used in new fences or those being fully replaced. Consideration 3 – Additional Text Changes – General Code Cleanup and Update While working on the Council request to review fence and hedge heights Planning staff identified additional proposed changes to the sections of City code related to fences, walls and hedges, and to ground mounted utility boxes listed below. 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. 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 Page | 4 zoning districts allowing residential uses. Front yard fences for those M-1 and M-1A properties would be limited to four feet. 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 Consideration 1 – Compatibility with Master Plan Policies and Initiatives 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. Consideration 2 – Zoning Districts That Allow Six-foot Fencing in the Front Yard Setback- Use Analysis ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Page | 5 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. • 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.