Transmittal - 8/17/2021ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00511
STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore, AICP, Principal Planner
(385)214-9714, kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as
requested and recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences
(Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and
approved by right (Chapter 21A.40.120). The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and
hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards for all zoning
districts, except for a few specific instances. Those instances include:
•When a residential district abuts a nonresidential district
•Manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts
•Public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect
public safety
•Private game courts
•Temporary construction fencing
•Decorative pillars and arches
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
July 7, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jul 14, 2021 15:03 MDT)
07/14/2021
07/14/2021
Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the
authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height through the Conditional Use process. The
amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community
organizations (community councils) on July 22, 2020 per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online
open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any
concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment.
Two community councils (East Bench Community Council and Sugar House Community
Council) submitted formal comments expressing concerns with the proposal. Concerns were
primarily on the lack of ability to consider unique circumstances if the special exception is
removed. No community councils requested that staff attend a meeting to review the proposal.
Public Open House: An online open house was held from July 22, 2020 through July 27, 2020.
Planning Commission Meeting: On January 13, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. Five citizens provided testimony related
to the request. Two citizens spoke in support of the request, one against the request, and two with
general comments and questions. The Commission requested clarification on fencing materials
and their durability, discussed fence heights when a property is adjacent to multi-family, and
fencing to secure vacant property. Ultimately, the Commission made a recommendation with a
condition that staff allow fencing up to 6-feet in front yards of vacant lots, as well as to add a
maximum fence height of up to 8-feet when fences in residential zoning districts abut non-
residential uses. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to
the City Council.
Ordinance Changes Since Planning Commission Approval: Following the recommendation
of approval by the Planning Commission the Attorney’s Office created the Ordinance. During
their review a few minor details in the proposed amendment were modified due to legal,
grammatical and technical issues that were identified:
• Removed authority of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission
(21A.210.E.4.i) to modify fence height through any land use application. The Attorney’s
Office noted that a Conditional Use process is the only process with direct standards that
could be tied to fence height. Please note that fence height can still be modified through
the Planned Development process.
• Clarified when fences tied to private recreational activities may receive additional height
(21A.210.E.4.d).
• Made minor edits throughout to text and definitions to provide clarity. Substance and
meaning of the proposal did not change.
EXHIBITS:
1. Ordinance
2. Project Chronology
3. Notice of City Council Hearing
4. Planning Commission
A) Mailing Notice
B) Staff Report
C) Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
5. Mailing List
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Ordinance
2. Project Chronology
3. Notice of City Council Hearing
4. Planning Commission – January 13, 2021 Public Hearing
A. Mailing Notice
B. Staff Report
C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
5. Mailing List
1. ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A
of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to fence, wall, and hedge height requirements)
An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining
to fence, wall, and hedge height requirements pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00511.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission( the “Planning Commission”) held a
public hearing on January 13, 2021 to consider a request by the Salt Lake City Council (the “City
Council”) to amend the Salt Lake City Code to remove the Special Exception process under Section
21A.52.030 and adjust the City’s height requirements for fences, walls, and hedges; and
WHEREAS, at its January 13, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt changes to the Salt
Lake City Code pertaining to fence, wall, and hedge height; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to alter the requirements for fence, wall,
and hedge height as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this
matter, that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section
21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Definition of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add
a new definition of Primary Façade, which definition shall be inserted into the list of definitions in
alphabetical order and shall read and appear as follows:
PRIMARY FAÇADE: the side of a building that faces a public or private street and
includes the main customer or resident entrance. Buildings located in zoning
districts that include a mix of residential and that have sides of the building that face
multiple streets shall be interpreted to have a principal façade along each side of the
building that faces a street.
SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120. That
Section 21A.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Code (Regulation of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) shall be
and hereby is amended as follows:
21A.40.120: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES:
A. Purpose: Fences, walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security,
defining private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public
by impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The
purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy and
site design and the public concerns for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure
the provision of adequate light, air and public safety.
B. Location: All fences, walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of
the property they are intended to serve.
C. Building Permit Required:
1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any fence that does not
exceed six feet (6') in height and is not made of concrete or masonry or does not require
structural review under the Uniform Building Code regulations. The permit is to ensure
compliance with adopted regulations.
2. A building permit and fee are required for fences and walls which exceed six feet (6') in
height and all fences or walls of any height that are constructed under the International Building
Code. The permit is to ensure compliance with all Zoning Ordinance standards and requirements
(location, height, types of materials) as well as to ensure the structural integrity of the pilasters
and foundation system which will be verified by plan review and site inspection.
3. The application for a permit must include plans identifying the location and height of the
proposed fence or wall. If the fence or wall is constructed of masonry or concrete of any height
or exceeds six feet (6') in height, construction details showing horizontal and vertical
reinforcement and foundation details shall be shown on the plans.
4. The building permit fee for a fence will be a general permit fee based on construction
costs or valuation of the work as shown in the consolidated fee schedule.
5. Construction of any fence in the following districts shall also comply with the additional
fencing regulations found in the following subsections of this title:
a. FP Foothills Protection District (21A.32.040I),
b. H Historic Preservation Overlay District (21A.34.020E), and
c. Foothill Residential FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 Districts (21A.24.010P).
D. Design Requirements:
1. Residential districts (chapter 21A.24, "Residential Districts", of this title):
a. Allowed Materials: Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials
that require low maintenance. Acceptable materials for a fence include chainlink, wood, brick,
masonry block, stone, tubular steel, wrought iron, vinyl, composite/recycled materials (hardy
board) or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing.
Other materials of similar quality and durability, but not listed herein, may be used upon
approval by the Zoning Administrator through an administrative interpretation application.
b. Prohibited Materials: Fences and walls shall not be made of or contain:
(1) Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal.
(2) Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal
roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood.
2. Nonresidential districts (chapters 21A.26 through 21A.34 of this title: commercial
districts, manufacturing districts, downtown districts, gateway districts, special purpose districts
and overlay districts):
a. Allowed Materials: Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials
that require minimal maintenance. Acceptable materials for fencing in nonresidential districts
include, but are not limited to, chainlink, prewoven chainlink with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up
concrete, masonry block, stone, metal, composite/recycled materials or other manufactured
materials or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. Other materials of similar
quality and durability, but not listed herein, may be used upon approval by the Zoning
Administrator through an administrative interpretation application.
b. Prohibited Materials: Fences or walls in nonresidential districts shall not be constructed
of or contain:
(1) Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal.
(2) Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal
roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood.
E. Height Restrictions and Gates:
1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the
following zoning districts:
a. Residential Zoning Districts:
(1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.12.E.4 of this code a fence,
wall or hedge located between the front property line and front building line of the
facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance shall not exceed 4
feet in height.
(2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal structure
shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
(3) Where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall
not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in the rear or side yard areas.
b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts:
(1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the primary facade of
the principal structure shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
(2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary façade of the principal structure
shall not exceed 6 feet in height.
(3) Not withstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and E1 zoning districts
fences, walls, or hedges may be up to 6 feet in height if located between the front
property line and the front yard setback line.
(4) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall,
or hedge of a maximum 6 feet in height may be placed no closer than 10 feet from the
property line.
(5) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind the
primary façade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or fence
and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.12.
2. Double Frontage Lot: A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both the front
and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of 6 feet in height in a front
yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge:
a. is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the
primary entrance to the principal building is located;
b. is in a location that is consistent with other 6 foot tall fence locations on the block;
c. complies with Sight Distance Triangle requirements of this Title; and
d. complies will all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this Title.
e. Not exceed 6 feet in height in a front yard.
3. Vacant Lots. Fencing to secure vacant or undeveloped lots may be up to 6 feet in height,
provided the fence is not closer than 5 feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than 80%
transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with the
height restrictions of this Title.
4. Additional Fence Height Allowed. Notwithstanding any other Section of this Chapter, the
following regulations apply:
a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR,
SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear
yard except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special
Purpose Zoning District. The maximum height shall be 8 feet. This exception
does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner side yard or front yard, and
only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district.
b. Public Utility Facilities. Fences or walls may exceed the maximum height
regulations when the fence or wall is necessary to restrict access and promote
safety of public utility buildings or structures, provided that the portion of the
fence or wall which exceeds a height of 6 feet is at least 80% transparent. In no
event, shall the fence or wall securing a public utility building or structure exceed
12 feet in height.
c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, or
other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in
height and may be located in any required yard, provided that the fence or wall is
no less than 80% transparent above a height of 6 feet. Fences or walls for which a
greater height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges,
baseball fields, athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the
subject property to a height necessary to contain the recreation equipment.
d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation Equipment.
Fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, or other
similar recreation equipment expressly permitted in Section 21A.36.020.B, may be
up to 10 feet in height provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent
transparent above a height of 6 feet.
e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during the
planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10
feet in height in any required yard.
f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 inches above the allowable
height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter
or width of no more than 18 inches; and provided, that the pillars shall have a
minimum spacing of no less than 6 feet apart, measured face to face.
g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable maximum
fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates
such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the
maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and 5
feet in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate
design. A maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per property.
h. Barbed or Razor Wire Fences. Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire
fences may be up to 12 feet in height.
i. Conditional Uses. A fence, wall, or hedge may exceed the allowable height
requirements of this Chapter where additional fence height is imposed as a
reasonable condition to mitigate the anticipated detrimental effects of a
conditional use. Where such additional height is imposed as a reasonable
condition, such height shall not exceed the minimum height necessary to mitigate
the anticipated detrimental effects of the conditional use.
5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a fence,
wall, or hedge shall comply with the Sight Distance Triangle Requirements of this
Section.
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be
erected to a height in excess of 3 feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within
the sight distance triangle extending 30 feet either side of the intersection of the
respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not
provided as noted in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title.
b. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges
may be erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with
the front facade of the principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to
any required front yard setback line for all other zoning districts), required side
yard or required rear yard to a height not to exceed 6 feet. The zoning
administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height
along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys.
c. Intersection of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges
shall not exceed 30 inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in
section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title.
d. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a
sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50% open shall be
allowed to a height of 4 feet.
e. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and
alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team,
may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring
increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns
created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions.
6. Height Measurement. The height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall be measured from the
finished grade of the site as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. In instances of an
abrupt grade change at the property line, the height for fences that are located on top of a
retaining wall shall be measured from the top of the retaining wall.
7. Gates:. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the
location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way,
passenger vehicles shall require a minimum 17 foot 6 inch setback from back edge of
sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways
shall require a 100 foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a
sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate
that does not impact the staging area.
F. General Requirements:
1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain
untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard
deterioration.
2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the
ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of
columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to
support the materials and withstand wind loads.
3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair,
free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
G. Barbed Wire Fences:
1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG-
5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts.
2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a
special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those
listed above as permitted uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the
placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping out of animals around
nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other
similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any
residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of
residence.
3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard
setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted
urban design element master plan.
4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet
(6') high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands
shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No
barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward
over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining
property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line.
5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve, as a
special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if it is found that the applicant has
shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from
dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave stations or construction
sites.
H. Razor Wire Fences:
1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a
special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2
zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special exception the placement of
razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer
stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that
the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence.
2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or
corner side yard setback.
3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is
less than seven feet (7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter
and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached.
4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve razor
wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for
the security of the property in question.
I. Exemption: The A airport district is exempt from all zoning ordinance fence regulations.
The department of airports has administrative authority to regulate and approve fencing within
the A airport district. All fencing that the department of airports requires of its clients within the
A district is subject to review and approval by the airport.
J. Electric Security Fences:
1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and M-
2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are prohibited.
2. Special Exception: Electric security fences on parcels or lots adjacent to a commercial
zone may be approved as a special exception pursuant to the requirements in chapter 21A.52 of
this title.
3. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front
yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties.
4. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be constructed
or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes.
5. Perimeter Fence Or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless it is
fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than six feet (6') in height. There
shall be at least one foot (1') of spacing between the electric security fence and the perimeter
fence or wall.
6. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging prior
to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate a vehicle
completely outside of the public right of way.
7. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of ten feet (10').
8. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that
read: "Warning-Electric Fence" at intervals of not greater than sixty feet (60'). Signs shall
comply with requirements in chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title.
9. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box that holds
building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies
SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsections 21A.52.030.A. That
Subsection 21A.52.030.A shall be and is hereby amended as follows:
21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED:
A. In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following
special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title:
1. Accessory building height, including wall height, in excess of the permitted height
provided:
a. The extra height is for architectural purposes only, such as a steep roof to match
existing primary structure or neighborhood character.
b. The extra height is to be used for storage of household goods or truss webbing and not
to create a second level.
c. No windows are located in the roof or on the second level unless it is a design feature
only.
d. No commercial use is made of the structure or residential use unless it complies with
the accessory dwelling unit regulations in this title.
2. Accessory structures in the front yard of double frontage lots, which do not have any rear
yard provided:
a. The required sight visibility triangle shall be maintained at all times.
b. The structure meets all other size and height limits governed by the zoning ordinance.
3. Additional building height in commercial districts are subject to the standards in chapter
21A.26 of this title.
4. Additional foothills building height, including wall height, shall comply with the
standards in chapter 21A.24 of this title.
5. Additional residential building height, including wall height, in the R-1 districts, R-2
districts and SR districts shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24 of this title.
6. Any alternative to off street parking not listed in chapter 21A.44 of this title intended to
meet the number of required off street parking spaces.
7. Barbed wire fences may be approved subject to the regulations of chapter 21A.40 of this
title.
8. Conditional home occupations subject to the regulations and conditions of chapter
21A.36 of this title.
9. Dividing existing lots containing two (2) or more separate residential structures into
separate lots that would not meet lot size, frontage width or setbacks provided:
a. The residential structures for the proposed lot split already exist and were constructed
legally.
b. The planning director agrees and is willing to approve a subdivision application.
c. Required parking equal to the parking requirement that existed at the time that each
dwelling unit was constructed.
10. Use of the front yard for required parking when the rear or side yards cannot be
accessed and it is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback
requirements, subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.44 of this title.
11. Grade changes and retaining walls are subject to the regulations and standards of
chapter 21A.36 of this title.
12. Ground mounted central air conditioning compressors or systems, heating, ventilating,
pool and filtering equipment located in required side and rear yards within four feet (4') of the
property line. The mechanical equipment shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County health
department noise standards.
13. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room or a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool,
or other similar uses in an accessory structure, subject to the following conditions:
a. The height of the accessory structure shall not exceed the height limit established by the
underlying zoning district unless a special exception allowing additional height is allowed.
b. If an accessory building is located within ten feet (10') of a property line, no windows
shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines.
c. If the accessory building is detached, it must be located in the rear yard.
d. The total covered area for an accessory building shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of
the building footprint of the principal structure, subject to all accessory building size limitations.
14. In line additions to existing residential or commercial buildings, which are
noncomplying as to yard area or height regulations provided:
a. The addition follows the existing building line and does not create any new
noncompliance.
b. No additional dwelling units are added to the structure.
c. The addition is a legitimate architectural addition with rooflines and exterior materials
designed to be compatible with the original structure.
15. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential
districts subject to the standards of chapter 21A.36 of this title.
16. Outdoor dining in required front, rear and side yards subject to the regulations and
standards of chapter 21A.40 of this title.
17. Razor wire fencing may be approved subject to the regulations and standards in chapter
21A.40 of this title.
18. Replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying segment of a residential or
commercial structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure provided:
a. The owner documents that the new construction does not encroach farther into any
required rear yard than the structure being replaced.
b. The addition or replacement is compatible in design, size and architectural style with
the remaining or previous structure.
19. Underground building encroachments into the front, side, rear and corner side yard
setbacks provided the addition is totally underground and there is no visual evidence that such an
encroachment exists.
20. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner and evaporative swamp coolers located in
required front, corner, side and rear yards within two feet (2') of a property line shall comply
with applicable Salt Lake County health department noise standards.
21. Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing in the CG, M-1, M-2 or EI
districts, subject to the standards in chapter 21A.44 of this title.
22. Ground mounted utility boxes may be approved subject to the regulations and standards
of section 21A.40.160 of this title.
23. Legalization of excess dwelling units may be granted subject to the following
requirements and standards:
a. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City
community housing plan. This plan emphasizes maintaining existing housing stock in a safe
manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods within the city. This
subsection provides a process that gives owners of property with one or more excess dwelling
units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set
forth in this subsection.
b. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this
subsection shall comply with the following standards.
(1) The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a
dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide
documentation thereof which may include any of the following:
(A) Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar
documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants;
(B) Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit,
business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in question;
(C) Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit;
(D) Historic surveys recognized by the Planning Director as being performed by a
trained professional in historic preservation;
(E) Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor;
(F) Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but
not necessarily that the unit was occupied); and
(G) Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record
which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995.
(2) The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12,
1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the
following may be considered:
(A) Evidence listed in subsection A24b(1) of this section indicates that the unit has
been occupied at least once every five (5) calendar years;
(B) Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied for
more than five (5) consecutive years;
(C) If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by subsections
A24b(2)(A) and A24b(2)(B) of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction
upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof.
(D) Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which
provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling unit at least once every five
(5) years.
(3) The property where the dwelling unit is located:
(A) Can accommodate on site parking as required by this title, or
(B) Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or bus
stop in service at the time of legalization.
(4) Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved except for
those related to excess units.
c. Conditions Of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the
following conditions:
(1) The unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within fourteen
(14) days of special exception approval.
(2) The unit owner shall allow the City's building official or designee to inspect the
dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life safety
requirements as provided in title 18, chapter 18.50, "Existing Residential Housing", of this Code.
Such inspection shall occur within ninety (90) days of special exception approval or as mutually
agreed by the unit owner and the City.
(3) All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed
within one year unless granted an extension by the Zoning Administrator.
d. Application: In addition to the application requirements in this chapter, an applicant
shall submit documentation showing compliance with the standards set forth in subsection A24b
of this section.
24. Designation, modification, relocation, or reinstatement of a vintage sign as per chapter
21A.46 of this title.
25. Additional height for sports related light poles such as light poles for ballparks, stadiums, soccer
fields, golf driving ranges and sport fields or where sports lights are located closer than thirty feet (30')
from adjacent residential structures.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published
in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of
______________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending fence, wall, and hedge height requirements
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
May 26, 2021
2. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2020-00511
July 7, 2020 Petition was assigned to Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner, for
staff analysis and processing.
July 22, 2020 Email sent to all Recognized Community Organizations informing
them of the petition.
July 22, 2020 Online Open House for project began.
August 27, 2020 Online Open House concluded.
December 29, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State
websites and Planning Division listserv. Newspaper notice was
also requested to be printed.
January 13, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public
hearing. The commission voted unanimously to send a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
February 1, 2021 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney’s office.
3. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020 -00511 Fence Height
Zoning Text Amendment - A request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance
regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter
21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right
(Chapter 21A.40.120). The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to
four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except
for a few specific instances. Those instances include when a residential district abuts a
nonresidential district, manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts, public facilities
and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game
courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic
Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height
as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all
zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive
comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider
adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held
electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our
website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during
the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24 -Hour comment line at
(801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received
through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please call Krissy Gilmore at 385-214-9714
between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at
kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com. You may review the file online at
https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/citizen, by selecting the Planning tab, and entering the petition
numbers PLNPCM2020-00511.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours
in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Mailing Notice
December 29, 2020
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
January 13, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801.535.7757 FAX 801.535.6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Krissy Gilmore, kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com, 801-535-7780
Date: January 13, 2020
Re: PLNPCM202020-00511 Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Zoning Text Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide
PARCEL ID: N/A
MASTER PLAN: N/A
ZONING DISTRICT: All Zoning Districts
REQUEST:
This is a request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the
Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define
instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right (Chapter 21A.40.120).
The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards
and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except for a few specific instances.
Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, manufacturing
and extractive industries zoning districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater
height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing.
Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the
authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The
amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information in this staff report and the standards to consider for zoning text
amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed Code Text
B. Existing Code Text
C. Analysis of Standards – Zoning Text Amendment
D. Public Process and Comments
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
E. Department Review Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:
The proposed amendments to the Special
Exception and Fence Height zoning code are
primarily intended to provide uniformity and
clear expectations to the public for when an over
height fence, wall, or hedge is appropriate, as well
as to remove the complicated and costly special
exception process.
Currently, fences, walls, and hedges are limited to
four feet in height in front yards (up to the front
façade of the building) and six feet in the side and
rear yards in all zoning districts. Though an over
height fence can be approved through the Special
Exception process, excess fence height is generally
only approved in limited circumstances due to
compatibility issues with the development pattern and character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods.
The proposed amendment defines specific instances when an over height fence is appropriate and
can be approved by-right and removes the special exception process. For reference, special
exceptions are minor changes to an incidental use of the property or a dimensional requirement
in the zoning ordinance, such as additional fence height. The process includes a mailed notice to
next door neighbors for input before a decision. The decisions are usually made by planning staff,
but controversial requests or requests that cannot be approved by staff are referred to the
Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission.
The above is a list of helpful definitions to review as the proposed amendment is considered. The
full proposed regulations can be read in the full code proposal in Attachment A. New regulations
and changed regulations are underlined in that attachment. Some of the proposed changes are
discussed further in the Key Considerations section due to public input.
Defined Terms
21A.62: Fence: A structure erected to provide privacy or security which defines a private space and
may enhance the design of individual sites. A wall or similar barrier shall be deemed a fence.
The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance does not specifically define wall or hedge. Any word not defined in
the Zoning Ordinance shall be defined in Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (see 21A.62.010). The Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary includes the following definitions:
Wall: (a) a high thick masonry structure forming a long rampart or an enclosure chiefly for
defense —often used in plural; (b) a masonry fence around a garden, park, or estate; (c) a
structure that serves to hold back pressure (as of water or sliding earth)
Hedge: a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees
Key Points
• Removes the Special Exception process to
request additional fence height.
• Defines instances where additional fence
height could be appropriate.
• Generally, limits fence height to 4’ in the
front yard.
• Developments could still request excess
fence height through land use applications
that already require review by the Planning
Commission and Historic Landmark
Commission.
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Applicable Review Processes and Standards
Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment
Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four standards, pertaining to whether proposed
code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning
ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best
professional practices. Those standards are addressed in Attachment C.
City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not
controlled by any one standard.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS:
The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the
project, community input, Planning Commission input, and department reviews:
1. Consistency & Clarity
2. Staff & City Resources
3. Community Character
4. Appropriate instances for over height fences
Consideration 1. Consistency & Clarity
An increasing number of requests for over height fences have been received for special exception
review. A review of all special exception applications shows that fence height has been the top
requested special exception for the last three years (104 applications). The application tracking
system does not easily show how many have been approved or denied, but staff believes that it is
rare for an over height fence to be approved in the front yard due to compatibility issues. Majority
of the approved over height fences were likely in the side or rear yards. Planning Commission has
also heard at least two requests for over height fences in the last year. Both were denied by the
Commission.
The over height fence special exception results in an unpredictable development pattern, as well
as unpredictable expectations for applicants. Often, applicants assume that the act of applying
equals approval and are confused when it is denied. If applications are routinely denied or
discouraged, such as fence height, then the ordinance should not provide an exception.
Consideration 2: Staff & City Resources
The Fence Height Text Amendment is being reviewed separately from a larger application to
remove all special exceptions. The following briefly summarizes the issue of staff and city
resources, and the removal of Special Exceptions:
Special exceptions require staff resources to be allocated to processing applications that
only benefit individual property owners instead of addressing citywide growth issues
and implementing master plans through other code updates. This creates equity issues
because the city resources are required by code to be directed to those neighborhoods
where most applications come from. More than 85% of all land use applications received
come from property owners east of I-15.
The special exception fee is subsidized by the general fund. The application fee in 2019
was $259. The average staff processing time is about 20 hours. The fee covers between
37% and 48% of the cost to process. That percentage decreases to 14-18% of the cost for
applications that must be reviewed by the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Commission. Special exception application fees generate about $38,000 in revenue for
the city but cost at least $80,000 to process. The number of special exception applications
has increased by 400% since 2011 forcing an inequitable subsidy of city resources to the
benefit of individual property owners without any benefit to the general public.
Source: Special Exception Code Changes Staff Report, Published September 25, 2020
(http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2020/00606StaffRepo
rt.pdf)
Consideration 2: Neighborhood Character
The purpose of the fence regulations as stated in
ordinance section 21A.40.120.A is “to achieve a balance
between the private concerns for privacy and site
design and the public concerns for enhancement of the
community appearance, and to ensure the provision of
adequate light, air and public safety.” As to the
compliance with the above purposes, building a fence
that exceeds the height limits in the front of the property
would create a walled-in effect and establish a greater
level of privacy than is generally expected in Salt Lake
City. Furthermore, generally, excess fence height is not
compatible with the development pattern and character
of the Salt Lake City, which is one of low or no fences
in the front yard area.
The current review standards for Special Exceptions (21A.52.030.A.3) discuss that an over height
fence, wall, or hedge may be granted if it is “determined that there will be no negative impacts
upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of
public and private views, and matters of public safety.” Staff is of the opinion that it is generally
very difficult to meet the above provision. The character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods is
generally one of low or no fences in the front yard areas. Additionally, the excessive side and rear
yard heights, though more flexible in height allowance, are also generally not excessive and should
not be to protect private and public views.
Finally, fence height requirements of 4 feet in the front yard and 6 f eet in the side and rear yards
are common nationwide and are found in most city zoning ordinances. Lower fence heights in the
front yard are generally required because of the safety aspect (view of the driver), as well as in the
interest of preserving an unobstructed view of open yards.
Consideration 3: Appropriate instances for over height fences
Through best practice research, discussions with various city divisions, and an analysis of when
over height fences have been approved in Salt Lake City, the following were determined to be
situations or uses where over height fences are appropriate and could be allowed by-right:
- Public Facilities, such as municipal structures, schools, or utility buildings
- Recreation Facilities, such as around parks, open space, or similar recreation areas
- Athletic fields or courts, such as driving ranges, baseball fields, athletic fields; or
similar facilities
- Temporary construction fencing
Example of open front yards
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
- Decorative pillars attached to fences that meet the height requirements
Following public review of the draft ordinance, the following over height allowances were added
to address concerns raised:
- The Planning Commission and Historic
Landmark Commission will retain the ability to
approve taller fences to mitigate a negative
impact associated with a land use application.
- Side or rear yard fences in single family zones
which are next to nonresidential zones
- Gates, arches or trellises attached to fences that
meet the height requirements.
- In the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing and EI
Extractive Industries zoning districts fences,
walls, or hedges may be up to a maximum of 6
feet in height up to the front yard setback line.
- If there is no minimum front yard setback in the
underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or
hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in height can be placed 10 feet from the front property
line.
Staff believes these additions address concerns expressed during the public input phase, while
also meeting community character objectives described above, such as avoiding a walled in effect.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment standards in
Attachment C. Excess fence height is generally not compatible with the development pattern and
character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods and should be discouraged in the interest of proving
uniformity and clear expectations to the public. Removing the special exception process and
defining instances where taller fences could be approved by-right provides predictability for
property owners, as well as frees up staff resources to focus on citywide projects. Due to these
considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation
on this request to the City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal
and can request that changes be made to the proposal. The recommendation and any requested
changes will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on
the proposed changes. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or
decline to approve the proposed changes.
If ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the City Zoning
code and new development would be required to follow the new regulations.
Example of a gate and trellis
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Proposed Code
This attachment includes a “clean” version of the code without strikethroughs and underlines
that show deleted and new text, and a “draft” version that identifies such deletions and new text
with strikethroughs and underlines.
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
1
1
MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 2
3
21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES: 4
5
E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 6
Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following unless otherwise permitted by this 7
Title: 8
1. Residential Zoning Districts: 9
a. Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in subsection 21A.24.010P, 10
and subsection 21A.120.E.3 of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected 11
to a height in excess of 4 feet between the front property line and the primary 12
façade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance. 13
14
b. Fences, walls or hedges located at or behind the primary façade of the principal 15
structure shall not exceed 6 feet. The zoning administrator may require either 16
increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide 17
adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 18
19
c. When there is no existing principal structure, fence, wall, or hedge height shall 20
not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or when adjacent to a public street or 6 feet 21
in the rear or interior side yard areas. 22
23
24
* Primary Façade is the side of a building that faces a public street and includes the main 25
customer or resident entrance. 26
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 27
a. The maximum height for fences, walls, or hedges when between the front 28
property line and primary façade of the principal structure shall be 4 feet and 29
when located at or behind the primary façade of the principal structure shall be 6 30
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
2
feet. In the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to a 31
maximum of 6 feet in height up to the front yard setback line. If there is no 32
minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or 33
hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in height can be placed 10 feet from the front 34
property line. 35
36
37
38
b. Outdoor storage, when allowed in the Zoning District, shall be located behind the 39
primary façade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or 40
fence. 41
42
c. Double Frontage Lots. A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both 43
the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of six feet in 44
height in a front yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge: 45
a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard 46
where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; 47
b. Is in a location that is consistent with other six foot tall fence locations 48
on the block; 49
c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 50
d. Complies with all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this 51
Title. 52
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
3
53
3. Allowances for additional height for fences, walls, or hedges unless otherwise permitted 54
by this Title: 55
a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR, 56
SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear yard 57
except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special Purpose 58
Zoning District. This exception does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner 59
side yard or front yard, and only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district. 60
b. Public Facilities. Fences or walls for which a greater height is necessary 61
because of an association with uses that require high fences to protect public safety or 62
fences that are required by federal or state law, such as, but not limited to, institutional 63
uses, utility buildings or structures for municipal service uses, public schools, or similar 64
facilities may be allowed up to a maximum height of 12 feet provided the fence or wall is 65
no less than 80% transparent above a height of six feet. 66
67
c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, 68
or other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in 69
height and may be located in any required yard, provided that the fence or wall is no less 70
than 80 percent transparent above a height of six feet. Fences or walls for which a greater 71
height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges, baseball fields, 72
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
4
athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the subject property to a height 73
necessary to contain the recreation equipment. 74
d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation 75
Equipment. For fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, 76
or other similar recreation equipment, the maximum height shall be up to 10 feet 77
provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent transparent above a height of six 78
feet. 79
80
e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during 81
the planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10 feet in 82
height in any required yard provided the fence complies with site distance triangle 83
requirements of this Title. 84
f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 inches above the allowable 85
height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or 86
width of no more than 18 inches; and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum 87
spacing of no less than 6 feet, measured face to face. 88
g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable 89
maximum fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates 90
such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the 91
maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and five feet 92
in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate design. A 93
maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per parcel. 94
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
5
95
96
g. Barbed or Razer Wire Fences: Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire 97
fences may be up to 12 feet in height. 98
h. Commission Authority. The Planning Commission or Historic Landmark 99
Commission can modify fence, wall, or hedge height as part of their approval of a land 100
use application in order to mitigate impacts according to the approval standards for the 101
applicable land use application. 102
4. Vision Clearance and Safety: 103
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 104
erected to a height in excess of three feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the 105
sight distance triangle extending thirty feet either side of the intersection of the respective 106
street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in 107
section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance 108
Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed thirty inches in height within 109
the sight distance triangle as defined in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 110
c. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a 111
sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50 percent open shall be 112
allowed to a height of four feet. 113
d. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for driveways 114
and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, 115
may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring 116
increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by 117
the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 118
5. Height Measurement: The height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall be measured from the 119
"finished grade" of the site as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. In instances of an 120
abrupt grade change at the property line, the height for fences that are located on top of a retaining 121
wall shall be measured from the top of the retaining wall. 122
123
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Clean Version
6
124
6. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 125
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 126
location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger 127
vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch setback from back edge of sidewalk, or 128
property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall require a one 129
hundred foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not 130
provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does not impact the 131
staging area. 132
F. General Requirements: 133
1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 134
untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 135
deterioration. 136
2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 137
ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 138
columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 139
support the materials and withstand wind loads. 140
3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 141
free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 142
21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 143
(removed Special Exception authorization for over-height fences, walls, or hedges) 144
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
1
1
MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 2
3
21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES: 4
5
E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 6
Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following unless otherwise permitted by this 7
Title: 8
9
1. General Height: 10
1. a. Residential zoning districts: Zoning Districts: 11
a. Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in subsection 21A.24.010P, 12
and subsection 21A.120.E.3 of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected 13
to a height in excess of four4 feet (4') between the front property line and front 14
building line of the primary façade of the principal structure that contains the 15
primary entrance. 16
17
b. Fences, walls or hedges located at or behind the primary façade of the principal 18
structure shall not exceed 6 feet. The zoning administrator may require either 19
increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide 20
adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 21
b. 22
c. When there is no existing principal structure, fence, wall, or hedge height shall 23
not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or when adjacent to a public street or 6 feet 24
in the rear or interior side yard areas. 25
26
27
* Primary Façade is the side of a building that faces a public street and includes the main 28
customer or resident entrance. 29
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
2
2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 30
a. No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of four feet (4') 31
when within any required front yard area. Fencing for outdoor storage shall be 32
located behind any required front yard area. The maximum height for fences, 33
walls, or hedges when between the front property line and primary façade of the 34
principal structure shall be 4 feet and when located at or behind the primary 35
façade of the principal structure shall be 6 feet. In the M-2 and EI zoning districts 36
fences, walls, or hedges may be up to a maximum of 6 feet in height up to the 37
front yard setback line. If there is no minimum front yard setback in the 38
underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in 39
height can be placed 10 feet from the front property line. 40
41
42
43
b. Outdoor storage, when allowed in the Zoning District, shall be located behind the 44
primary façade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or 45
fence. 46
47
c. Double Frontage Lots. A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both 48
the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of six feet in 49
height in a front yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge: 50
a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard 51
where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; 52
b. Is in a location that is consistent with other six foot tall fence locations 53
on the block; 54
c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 55
d. Complies with all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this 56
Title. 57
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
3
58
3. Allowances for additional height for fences, walls, or hedges unless otherwise permitted 59
by this Title: 60
a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR, 61
SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear yard 62
except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special Purpose 63
Zoning District. This exception does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner 64
side yard or front yard, and only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district. 65
zoning districtsb. Public Facilities. Fences or walls for which a greater height is 66
necessary because of an association with uses that require high fences to protect public 67
safety or fences that are required by federal or state law, such as, but not limited to, 68
institutional uses, utility buildings or structures for municipal service uses, public 69
schools, or similar facilities may be allowed up to a maximum height of 12 feet provided 70
the fence or wall is no less than 80% transparent above a height of six feet. 71
72
c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, 73
or other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in 74
height and may be located in any required yard, provided that the fence or wall is no less 75
than 80 percent transparent above a height of six feet. Fences or walls for which a greater 76
height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges, baseball fields, 77
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
4
athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the subject property to a height 78
necessary to contain the recreation equipment. 79
d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation 80
Equipment. For fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, 81
or other similar recreation equipment, the maximum height shall be up to 10 feet 82
provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent transparent above a height of six 83
feet. 84
85
e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during 86
the planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10 feet in 87
height in any required front yard areayard provided the fence complies with site distance 88
triangle requirements of this Title. 89
f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 eighteen inches (18") above 90
the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum 91
diameter or width of no more than 18eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars 92
shall have a minimum spacing of no less than 6six feet (6'), measured face to face. 93
2. g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable 94
maximum fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates 95
such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the 96
maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and five feet 97
in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate design. A 98
maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per parcel. 99
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
5
100
101
g. Barbed or Razer Wire Fences: Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire 102
fences may be up to 12 feet in height. 103
h. Commission Authority. The Planning Commission or Historic Landmark 104
Commission can modify fence, wall, or hedge height as part of their approval of a land 105
use application in order to mitigate impacts according to the approval standards for the 106
applicable land use application. 107
4. Vision Clearance and Safety: 108
a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 109
erected to a height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within 110
the sight distance triangle extending thirty feet (30') either side of the intersection of the 111
respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as 112
noted in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 113
The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower 114
fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and 115
alleys. 116
4. Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and 117
hedges shall not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within the sight distance triangle as 118
defined in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 119
5. c. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area 120
defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50fifty percent 121
percent (50%) open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). 122
6. d. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for 123
driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development 124
review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, 125
requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns 126
created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 127
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
6
7. Measuring: Measuring the 5. Height Measurement: The height of a fence, wall, or hedge 128
shall be measured from the "finished grade" of the site as defined in 129
section 21A.62.04021A.62.040 of this title. 130
8. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark 131
commission may approve taller fencing if it is found that In instances of an abrupt grade change 132
at the property line, the extra height is necessary for for fences that are located on top of a 133
retaining wall shall be measured from the securitytop of the property in question as defined 134
in chapter 21A.52 of this title.retaining wall. 135
9 136
137
6. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 138
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 139
location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger 140
vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch (17'6") setback from back edge of 141
sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall 142
require a one hundred foot (100') setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a 143
sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does 144
not impact the staging area. 145
F. General Requirements: 146
1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 147
untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 148
deterioration. 149
2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 150
ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 151
columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 152
support the materials and withstand wind loads. 153
3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 154
free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 155
G. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") 156
above the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a 157
maximum diameter or width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that 158
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text - Redlined Version
7
the pillars shall have a minimum spacing of no less than six feet (6'), measured face to 159
face. 160
H. Encroachments: Encroachments into the "sight distance triangle" for driveways as defined 161
and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This 162
regulation shall also apply to sight distance triangles for alleys. 163
164
21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 165
3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height 166
limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there 167
will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and 168
streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of 169
fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances 170
subject to compliance with other applicable requirements: 171
a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is 172
constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, 173
spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at 174
least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; 175
b. Exceeding the allowable height limits on any corner lot; unless the city's traffic 176
engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic 177
condition; 178
c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend 179
above the allowable height limits; 180
d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved 181
recreational uses which require special height considerations; 182
e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative 183
impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the 184
rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; 185
f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; 186
g. Avoiding a walled-in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district 187
where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces 188
from property to property; or 189
h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioner's property or 190
neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 191
(removed Special Exception authorization for over-height fences, walls, or hedges) 192
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Existing Code Text
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text – Original Chapter
1
MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 1
2
21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES: 3
4
E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 5
1. General Height: 6
a. Residential zoning districts: Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in 7
subsection 21A.24.010P of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in 8
excess of four feet (4') between the front property line and front building line of the facade of the 9
principal structure that contains the primary entrance. 10
b. Nonresidential zoning districts: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in 11
excess of four feet (4') when within any required front yard area. Fencing for outdoor storage 12
shall be located behind any required front yard area. 13
2. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a 14
height in excess of three feet (3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance 15
triangle extending thirty feet (30') either side of the intersection of the respective street curb 16
lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in section 21A.62.050, 17
illustration I of this title. 18
3. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges may be 19
erected in any required corner side yard (extending to a point in line with the front facade of the 20
principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to any required front yard setback line 21
for all other zoning districts), required side yard or required rear yard to a height not to exceed 22
six feet (6'). The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence 23
height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 24
4. Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall 25
not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in 26
section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 27
5. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a sight 28
distance triangle, see through fences that are at least fifty percent (50%) open shall be allowed to 29
a height of four feet (4'). 30
6. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, 31
the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may require 32
alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring increased fence setback 33
and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade 34
change or other preexisting conditions. 35
7. Measuring: Measuring the height of a fence shall be from the "finished grade" of the site 36
as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. 37
8. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark 38
commission may approve taller fencing if it is found that the extra height is necessary for the 39
security of the property in question as defined in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 40
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text – Original Chapter
2
9. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 41
erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 42
location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger 43
vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch (17'6") setback from back edge of 44
sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall 45
require a one hundred foot (100') setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a 46
sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does 47
not impact the staging area. 48
F. General Requirements: 49
1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 50
untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 51
deterioration. 52
2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 53
ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 54
columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 55
support the materials and withstand wind loads. 56
3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 57
free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 58
G. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") above the 59
allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or 60
width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum 61
spacing of no less than six feet (6'), measured face to face. 62
H. Encroachments: Encroachments into the "sight distance triangle" for driveways as defined 63
and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This 64
regulation shall also apply to sight distance triangles for alleys. 65
66
21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 67
3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height 68
limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there 69
will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and 70
streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of 71
fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances 72
subject to compliance with other applicable requirements: 73
a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is 74
constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, 75
spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at 76
least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; 77
Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text – Original Chapter
3
b. Exceeding the allowable height limits on any corner lot; unless the city's traffic 78
engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic 79
condition; 80
c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend 81
above the allowable height limits; 82
d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved 83
recreational uses which require special height considerations; 84
e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative 85
impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the 86
rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; 87
f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; 88
g. Avoiding a walled-in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district 89
where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces 90
from property to property; or 91
h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioner's property or 92
neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 93
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Analysis Of Zoning Text
Amendment Standards
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is
a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one
standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the
following:
CONSIDERATION FINDING RATIONALE
1. 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;
The proposed
amendments are
generally
consistent with
the goals and
policies the
City’s plans.
Though no citywide plans specifically discuss fence
height, Plan Salt Lake includes Guiding Principle 8:
Beautiful City, which is focused on providing an attractive
built form that protects views of natural spaces, and
reflects our commitment to high quality neighborhoods
and protecting neighborhood character.
The proposed amendments are in line with the adopted
and utilized Master Plans and additional adopted
planning documents, and is considered a vital segment of
the stability of neighborhoods.
2. Whether a proposed
text amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance;
The proposal
generally
furthers the
specific purpose
statements of
the zoning
ordinance by
ensuring their
enforcement and
administration.
The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to “promote the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake
City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and
carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use
Development and Management Act (State Code).” The
proposed amendments provide consistency and
predictability to reduce land use conflicts, better
allowing enforcement and administration of the City’s
zoning ordinance. The proposed changes maintain
conformity with the general purpose statements of the
zoning ordinance and ensure that the code can be legally
administered and enforced to further those ordinance
purposes. Additionally, according to Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design Guidebook, tall fences,
over grown shrubbery and other barriers blocking sight
lines adjacent to pedestrian paths could shield an
attacker. Alternatively, low hedges or fences, allow for
“eyes on the street” and usually discourage crime and
vandalism, meeting safety goals of the purpose
statement.
3. Whether a proposed
text amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and provisions
of any applicable overlay
The proposal is
consistent with
and does not
impact the
enforceability of
The proposed text amendment is citywide and is not tied
directly to any property or specific geographic location
within the City. Therefore, the amendment would not be
subject to any overlay zoning district standards.
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
zoning districts which
may impose additional
standards; and
any existing
appeal process
references in any
zoning overlays.
The proposed amendments do allow for the Planning
Commission and Historic Landmark Commission to
approve additional fence height as part of a land use
application review.
4. The extent to which
a proposed text
amendment implements
best current,
professional practices of
urban planning and
design.
The proposed
changes
eliminate legal
conflicts,
improve
enforceability
and
administration
of City Code,
and so
implement best
professional
practices.
As discussed, the proposed changes clearly outline when
over height fences are appropriate, removing the
somewhat unpredictable process and outcome of special
exceptions. The proposed amendments allow for better
administration and streamlining of city code. The
regulations do not relate to any specifics relating to
professional practices of design. Additionally, urban
design practices discourage the use of excessively tall
fences, specifically in front yards, due to visual
appearance and safety.
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
Public Process And
Comments
The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input
opportunities related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received
throughout this process are included within this attachment.
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities
related to the proposal:
• Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out July 22, 2020
o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community
councils) per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage
o Two community councils (East Bench Community Council and Sugar House
Community Council) submitted formal comments. No community councils
requested that staff attend a meeting to review the proposal. Both community
councils expressed concerns with the proposed amendment.
o Numerous public comments were received, which are included on the following
pages. The majority of the comments focused on two specific projects and concerns
associated with not allowing a taller fence in those instances. Other comments
requested more consideration to what situations could grant additional fence
height, such as for properties next to public lands.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
• Public hearing notice mailed on December 30, 2020
• Public hearing notice published to newspaper January 2, 2021
• Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv on
December 30, 2020
From:Aimee Burrows
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height
Date:Thursday, September 10, 2020 11:49:30 AM
Attachments:EBCC Minutes 8.19.20.pdf
Hello Krissy,
I just realized that this email will get to you after the close of the Public Comment Period for
the Fence Height Zoning Amendment, but I'm still going to send it. The membership of East
Bench Community Council voted against this amendment at our meeting on August 19,
2020. There were 15 council members in attendance and the vote was unanimous. Please see
the attached meeting minutes.
Thank you,
Aimee Burrows, Chair
East Bench Community Council
ebcc.chair@gmail.com
EAST BENCH COMMUNITY COUNCIL
General Meeting Agenda
Zoom Meeting, 7 pm, Wednesday, August 19, 2020
25 Participants in All, including Jamie Stokes Community Liaison from Mayor’s Office, Detective Meinzer, Jonathon Bates,
Andrew King, Shawn Wood, and Julianne Sabula for Research Park presentation, and Dan Dugan as our city council
representative
1. Welcome, Introduce Board Members in Attendance: Karrington, Burrows, Moore, Wright, Overdevest, Eyre
2. Business Items
Remaining general meetings for this year: Sept 16, October 21, November 18
Please sign up for updates from Dan Dugan https://www.slc.gov/district6/ and SLC Council
https://www.slc.gov/council/ U of U alerts https://alert.utah.edu/ updates, and Mayor’s update
https://www.slc.gov/mayor/
Lots of local government partners post on NextDoor. The EBCC includes the St Mary’s and Arcadia Heights
neighborhoods.
3. SLC Fire Department Newsletter – no fire representative SLC Fire Station 13, Parleys Way
801-799-3473 | fire@slcgov.com
4. SLC Police Department Report Det. Nathan Meinzer, SLCPD CIU
801-799-3625 | ciudistrict6@slcgov.com
a. Traffic issues - they are aware of a growing presence of street racing, bigger on the west side, making sure
it doesn’t come up to Foothill
b. Allowing police to be more proactive now that Covid is ramping down a little, more citations being issued
c. Car prowls – 14 last month, our district is unique in that we have the most long term residents in our area,
so monitor any suspicious behavior, anyone we don’t recognize from our neighborhood, please call if you
see someone walking around at night with a hoodie or looking out of place; several stolen cars recovered
from our area, 4 burglaries in our area – no forced entry;
i. Burglaries have risen significantly in recent months, it is a national trend that they have been
tracking and they suspect it is due to covid – people unemployed and looking for quick income
d. Question from Dennis Eyre: has there been an unusual amount of people resigning or retiring from the
force? Yes, about 20+ down from resignations, losing bodies fairly quickly. As they lose people out of
patrol, they will move detectives back to patrol – number 1 priority is taking care of the citizens; Dan Dugan
says they’re monitoring it and making sure there is enough staff to keep everyone safe.
5. SLC Mayor’s Report Jamie Stokes, Community Liaison
801-535-7110 | jamie.stokes@slcgov.com
a. Covid: still in orange phase, but looking positive. They are reassessing once a week from health dept,
they’re encouraged by the negative trend (positive) since mask s have been enforced. Economic
development is working with business on how to operate safely: https://www.slc.gov/ed/covid19/ . The
Wellness Bus is offering free COIVD-19 tests to those with and without symptoms.
Check https://healthcare.utah.edu/wellness/driving-out-diabetes/mobile-health-program.php for more
information.
Community comment urging the city to be careful about going to yellow too soon given that the
university is about to open up, governor might be hard to move back to orange once we’re in
yellow
b. Street typologies survey, encouraging us to look at it and give feedback, it’s a vision for what the city could
look like. Comments due Aug 31: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/2019/08/30/typologies/
c. Census is almost over – end of September, please fill it out if you haven’t already – phone, mail, online.
d. Equity front – black lives matter mural completed recently – 8 artists painted 2 letters each. Listen to the
artists behind the City's Black Lives Matter Mural describe their inspiration:
https://www.facebook.com/361929204013526/videos/339445270578049 There are proposals from the
mayor’s office on how to recover economically from Covid using equitable means:
https://www.slc.gov/mayor/2020/08/19/mayor-mendenhall-proposes-budget-to-equitably-address-
community-covid-needs/
6. Salt Lake City Council Report Dan Dugan, District 6
801-535-7784 | dan.dugan@slcgov.com
a. Street Typogology – take the survey, if there’s not enough room for your comments then email Dan
Dugan directly to get your comments into the survey, have until 8/31/20.
b. Census voting – encouraged to register to vote
c. Parley’s Point and Benchmark street – some concern over the development, he’s in contact with the
mayor to make sure the development isn’t hurting the neighborhood.
d. School starts after Labor Day; we have a low rate of Covid 19 test positives about 10% on the east side,
but be sure to keep our guard up and stay safe, get flu shots when the time comes.
e. Indian Hills cell towers – there are concerned community members, Dan Dugan is in tune with it, though it
is in the hands of the school board and the State, currently fighting other 5g cell towers in the city but it’s a
state and federal law that give the providers the right of way – might be up against a brick wall, but aren’t
going to give up for that reason.
7. Research Park Master Plan Jonathon Bates, Exec Dir RE Admin
a. Jonathon gave a 15 minute presentation on the vision plan for Resarch Park, what the next 50 years could
look like: https://realestate.utah.edu/research-park-vision-plan/
b. There was concern over projected height of buildings. Planning committee has taken this into account,
they want to protect the views from the foothills. All projected specifics are on the powerpoint.
c. Planning committee wants to keep an open dialogue, community welcome to leave comments on website
8. Other Business
a. https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/22/fence-height-zoning-amendment/
Anthony Wright presented specifics on the fencing variance: our neighborhood has a unique typography
with sloping yards and lots compared to neighborhoods like sugarhouse and 9th and 9th that are built on flat
square lots. The variance was good intentioned, but doesn’t allow for unique typography. The proposed
amendment eliminates allowing things to be taken into a case by case basis.
i. Brooke Karrington made a motion to vote on th e variange, Anthony Wright gave the 2nd. EBCC is
not in favor of this new ordinance: Majority voted against the amendment. 0 community members
voted in favor of the amendment. Due to the conditions that zoom presents, it was hard to identify
if anyone abstained from voting.
ii. The EBCC position has been decided, but community members are still encouraged to go online
to make comments, or email Dan Dugan (dan.duagn@slcgov.com ) your comments and he will
read them and pass them along to the planning committee.
b. Mark Overdevest: discussed 37 acre property between Devonshire with Lakeline going up for sale. Seller
put it through to get 3 buildable lots passed, listed about 10 days ago, $8.75 million is listing price . Son is
listing agent, zoned FR2 (foothill residential 2) and OS (Open Space), each lot must be a minimum of .5
acre; Seller would prefer to sell it to the city and not disturb the Bonneville shoreline trail; Owner has 3 of
the lots zoned but don’t know if there is permission to build
c. If you’re interested in filling a vacancy on EBCC Board, please email ebcc.chair@gmail.com by the end of
this month. The board will appoint a member to the board before the September 16th meeting.
d. Surveys for our community listed below
i. New SLC Flag, due Aug 21: https://www.slc.gov/flag/
ii. Billboard Ordinance: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/20/billboard-ordinance-amendments/
iii. Fencing, Walls and Hedges: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/22/fence-height-zoning-
amendment/
iv. Restaurants in Public Land Zones: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/08/04/permitting-
restaurants-in-the-public-lands-zoning-district/
E B C C B o a r d M e m b e r s
Aimee Burrows ebcc.chair@gmail.com Anthony Wright anthonywright13@gmail.com
David Wirthlin dbwirthlin@gmail.com Mark Overdevest mark.overdevest@gmail.com
Brooke Karrington b.karrington04@gmail.com Dennis Eyre denniseyre@prodigy.net
Katie Moore domandkatie@gmail.com
Emily Lucht emily.lucht@gmail.com
From:Anthony Wright
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed Fence changes
Date:Monday, July 27, 2020 11:43:48 AM
To whom it may concern,
I was just made aware of the proposed change to fence zoning. I am in opposition to the change. I believe the way
the language reads now allows for more flexibility for unique circumstance where a 6ft front fence may be
acceptable.
While I dislike the idea of properties having a solid fence right next to the sidewalk, an iron or semi transparent
fence in the front of some properties is acceptable and is seen all over the world in many beautiful neighborhoods.
The way the amendment reads is that no matter the circumstance or situation, 4 ft is the max for a residential front
yard. Having a special exemption allows the city to grant the exception for specific circumstances. An iron fence
may be appropriate for a historic district where other structures have the same, or for a property set far back from the
street where a taller transparent fence would not provide a boxed feel.
I hope you consider the potential impact to those with unique circumstances that may benefit from a taller fence. Not
every home or lot is the same and not allowing reasonable exceptions with neighbors approval hurts development.
Sent from my iPhone
From:Anthony Wright
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: Proposed Fence changes
Date:Monday, July 27, 2020 11:59:54 AM
Furthermore saying a person cannot have a hedge over 4 ft tall? What constitutes a hedge? Are
you trying to say no trees can be in the front yard? Define the spacing for trees to be
considered a hedge. This will be an enforcement logistical nightmare. If the city decides to
limit a property owners right to privacy and security that will not sit well with the public.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Anthony Wright >
Date: July 27, 2020 at 11:43:44 AM MDT
To: kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com
Subject: Proposed Fence changes
Anthony Wright Letter
Fencing
I am all for the standardization of the city code. If we can save the city time and resources that
are being spent on variances for things that are likely to be approved, I’m all for that.
My concern is that amendments will be made to the code, the variances will be eliminated, and
that the exceptions that are reasonable and have no adverse impact on the surrounding area,
will be left out. No one can predict every situation that may arise that does not fit into the box
of code. If every home was on a flat, square lot, with the same buffers from commercial
properties, major roads, and no topographic challenges it would be easy to create a code that
everyone can follow. For example, the avenues, foothill, and along the Wasatch fault line,
sometimes have extreme topographic and slope challenges that cannot reasonably meet code
standards. Another example is in historic districts or even neighborhoods with older homes.
Often, homes that are not on the registry but want to bring their home more in line with the
surrounding homes that were built before code implementation, need a variance to keep in line
with the character of the neighborhood.
In regard to the proposed changes to fencing regulation, I feel that the existing variance section
was erased with no addition to the code to address potential reasonable exceptions.
The current permissible variances allowed for additional height if they met very specific criteria.
With this being eliminated, it effectively makes it impossible under any circumstance to build
anything over 4 ft in the front or 6ft for side or rear.
No one wants a majority of houses with solid fencing going to the sidewalk, which even under
the current variances is not allowed. If you refer to the current variances section, you will see
the list of reasonable exceptions such as being constructed with a wrought iron or transparent
options, or it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution,
light or other encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics.
There are times where a taller fence is justified for either privacy, safety, or an attempt to limit
noise, light pollution, or sound of a busy road. Does anyone find it reasonable that we would
not allow someone who lives on foothill drive to not construct a 6 foot fence with a hedge to
help obstruct the noise and pollution?
I believe people should be able to express themselves with their yard and landscaping options.
The current verbiage says no hedge in front of the home shall exceed 4ft. The use of hedge is
extremely vague. Many people plant a row of trees along their driveways, in front of their main
windows, or even have a mature tree trimmed to be a hedge in the front yard. The literal
interpretation would basically make any vegetation in the front yard in violation if over 4 ft tall.
Limiting everyone to the same restrictive standards could hurt the esthetics of our city, limit
creativity and expression, and deny some the right to privacy and security. I challenge the
Anthony Wright Letter
council to drive the city for just 15 minuets and look for fencing that would now be a violation.
You will see the grand wrought iron gates of the lower avenues, 6 foot fencing in front of
homes that sit on major roads, unique and beautiful landscaped hedges and trees over 4 ft , and
corner lots with transparent side fencing. The way the amendment reads now is that a 4 foot
chain link fence can wrap your front yard and driveway while a 6 Ft decorative, mostly
transparent wrought iron fence and gate would be prohibited.
* I ask that you consider including wrought iron, tubular steel, or other transparent fencing as
an option for going up to 6ft in the front of a property. If that still does not seem reasonable,
consider having an increase in height up to 6ft for every foot you step back from the front
property line. I also ask that you consider allowing excess height for ornamental features for a
gate. I would much rather see a beautiful, intricately designed arched gate over a flat 4ft chain
link gate. It would be sad to never again see a new wrought iron gate in our city.
Below are some examples I have found around the city that would be non-conforming under
the amendments but are very reasonable, have no adverse impact on the area, and provide the
privacy and security we citizens are entitled to.
Non permissible 6 ft fence on foothill drive
Anthony Wright Letter
Fencing over 4 ft to alleviate intrusion of noise, and pollution from foothill drive.
Transparent fencing over 4 ft that is stepped back from sidewalks. Not allowed (note, homes are far
from the road and additional height provides security for the property with the home situated in the
middle of the lot).
Anthony Wright Letter
Non permissible hedge on major roads
Anthony Wright Letter
Non permissible hedge in front yard over 4 ft. This hedge is cut from native scrub oak
Non permissible ornamental gate exceeding 4 Ft in height
Anthony Wright Letter
Wrought iron fence exceeding 4 ft in height
3 ft chain link fencing with no landscaping or privacy hedge. Allowed…
From:
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fencing ordinance modification
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 3:32:31 PM
Ms. Gilmore, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the fencing.
While I appreciate it is easier to be totally uniform throughout the city, it is not always reasonable for
the homeowner. In my case, my property backs up to “wild lands” on the east – there are no roads,
no habitation in the area – but there are cougar. In fact, I have a fence that is 6’ tall on the back, and
I maintain a “down to mineral dirt” firebreak for 10’ wide along the entire east stretch of my
property at the east fence line, with fencing continuing to the west along the entire back yard
reaching down to the house. (I have no fence whatsoever extending from the house to the street.)
Yesterday there was a distinct paw print in the dust in that area – INSIDE the 6’ high fence – which
paw print was of a size to exclude domestic cats and bobcats. Cougar can easily leap 10’ from a
standing position. I had intended to raise the fence to provide protection for me and my family. The
proposed ordinance would prevent me from creating that protection.
I strongly urge the consideration of special circumstances such as property like mine.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Joan Ogden
1423 S Devonshire Drive
Salt Lake City UT 84108
From:Lynn Schwarz
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence Height
Date:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 7:46:25 PM
Ms. Gilmore:
I cannot understand the reasoning behind SLC's idea to eliminate any mechanism for granting
exceptions regarding fence height. This means that SLC can see the future and has determined
that at no time, never, ever, in perpetuity, will there be a circumstance that necessitates a fence
that cannot fit into your regulations. This is truly incomprehensible considering SLC's efforts
to plop high density housing in single family neighborhoods. Even now, with IZZY South and
Richmond Flats smack dab in the middle of single family neighborhoods, SLC cannot fathom
the necessity of a higher fence to protect the surrounding neighbor's privacy. The neighbor's
concerns are brushed away as inconsequential as SLC leaves NO recourse for unusual
conditions. This makes no sense and must be reconsidered.
Lynn Schwarz
2023 East Crystal Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84109
Sugar House Community Council Trustee
From:thea
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Cc:Judi Short
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed fence height modification ordinance
Date:Thursday, July 30, 2020 11:32:03 AM
Dear Ms. Gilmore:
Have just read through the proposed changes, and am wondering what prompted the complete
omission of the Special Exception Authorization section. Is it because of too many requests to build
higher fences? Are some so frivolous that they are taking up time much better spent on other
issues? If so, I would encourage you to reword the exception section rather than eliminate it.
The plethora of apartment buildings going up in city neighborhoods, while great for increasing
housing capacity, is creating issues for established residents whose back yards are adjacent to them.
These problems are specifically addressed in the current fence ordinance, i.e. in Section (e) allowing
height exceptions in “cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of
noise pollution, light or other encroachments on the right to privacy, safety, security and
aesthetics.” Section (f) refers to “keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban
design of the city.”
I urge you to retain these considerations for the neighbors of these new complexes, and in fact,
change the ordinance to require that the complexes themselves pay for higher fences. In the case of
the Izzy South project, with a ground floor parking garage for about 60 cars, the fence definitely
needs to be higher and made of a solid material to block pollution from the cars. Any developer also
ought to be required to plant at least 10 foot tall trees for each rear-facing unit overlooking
established neighborhood back yards. These requirements would help neighbors without creating
undue extra expense for projects.
The Izzy project design aims to limit harmful impact on our environment, so I would think this would
be acceptable to its developer.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments and best wishes,
Thea Brannon
1768 E Wilson Ave.
SLC
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
1
Gilmore, Kristina
From:Mary R. Cosgrove <>
Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 7:16 AM
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence height
Our property butts up against the cemetery and I noticed a neighbor east of us has put up very high fences. They appear
to me to be over 6 ft.
I can see why she did this. It's interesting having a cemetery behind your house. A taller fence would be great so the
visitors in the cemetery cannot look into our backyard and we wouldn't have to see the graves and funerals.
I realize we are probably the only houses in SLC the actually have a cemetery cemetery behind their. SL county does
however. It's a consideration.
Thanks,
Mary Cosgrove
2357 Sheridan Rd
84108
From:Judith Boulden
To:Gilmore, Kristina; D. Gordon Wilson; Rhonda Devereaux
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence heigh amendment
Date:Wednesday, August 26, 2020 10:17:05 AM
Hello,
Our neighborhood has a nuisance vacant lot where, over an extended period of time and at
significant neighborhood involvement, we have been able to erect a fence higher than 4’. The
lot is located at 134 Edgecombe Drive and overlooks the City. In the past there has been drug
use, litter, gang violence, shooting, and traffic obstruction at the lot that required calling the
police as well as traffic enforcement. The fence we were finally able to erect, at cost borne by
neighbors and the absent property owner, has reduced this negative activity to a degree,
though not entirely. Replacing this fence with one only 4’ tall would totally defeat all that we
have accomplished over several years. Anyone can get over a 4’ wall. Please reconsider
exceptions to this proposed ordinance to deal with security situation such as we have.
Judith Boulden
79 Edgecombe Drive
Salt Lake City
Sent from my iPad Pro
From:
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) RE: Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Date:Thursday, August 27, 2020 11:20:11 AM
Krissy, I corrected a small typo in this amended version. Thank you! Jim
Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511
Yesterday I was made aware of a proposed amendment to the City’s zoning code which removes the
Special Exception language from the City’s Fence Height Zoning and adds additional restrictive
language. I appreciate that the City has a variety of physical environments to navigate and
conformity to uniform standards is an important tool to ensure equal treatment. However,
complete removal of the Special Exception process eliminates another important tool for the City to
use in circumstances that it had not anticipated.
By way of example, this tool was used very effectively at 134 Edgecombe, a private lot zoned for
single family residential use in our neighborhood. At that location there is a vacant lot in an
otherwise fully developed residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, this lot had become a frequent
high volume view point for many people and was exacerbated by its proximity to the City’s urban
core. Short periods of low volume viewing alone is of course not a contentious issue. Sadly though
this location had become a perpetual extended stay party zone. Residents of the neighborhood
have engaged in a daily trash pickup that commonly includes food packaging waste, beverage
packaging waste, used condoms and hypodermic needles. Frequent visits from SLPD can confirm
these circumstances.
We engaged the neighborhood and solicited input from a broad and diverse set of neighbors,
conducted neighborhood meetings to which all were invited by posting notices on everyone’s door,
conducted formal surveys all of which occurred over a several year period. One result of this effort
was approximately 40 residents providing funding along with the property owner to construct a
fence. In this case a 4-foot fence allowed by right would not have been sufficient to curtail the
problem as it would have been easily bypassed allowing the problem to continue. As such, the
property owner applied for and received a Special Exception allowing for a 6-foot fence which was
installed according to the approved permit.
Although this fence has not provided a complete solution, it has significantly reduced the volume of
traffic. We do continue to pick up trash daily and have explored other options to reduce the appeal
of extended stays. The City has many special publicly designated locations for the enjoyment of our
City’s residents. Private neighborhood locations simply don’t have the necessary resources such as
trash cans, bathrooms, maintenance, enforcement tools among many other issues that are available
at areas designated for public use.
By removing the Special Exception process you are removing an important tool for the City and its
residents to ensure that residential zones are used accordingly in circumstances intended for the
existing Special Exception process. Perhaps you could include language such as, “Special Exceptions
will be granted in circumstances where there are negative environments or conditions that could be
at least partially mitigated by the presence of higher fencing that provides either a physical and/or
visual barrier. Examples of such circumstances include excessive public use, disregard for parking or
other limitations, or the presence or accumulation of waste resulting from such visitation.”
Thank you for your consideration,
James Schulte
Capitol Hill resident
From:
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2020 11:10 AM
To: 'kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com' <kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com>
Subject: Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511
Yesterday I was made aware of a proposed amendment to the City’s zoning code which removes the
Special Exception language from the City’s Fence Height Zoning and adds additional restrictive
language. I appreciate that the City has a variety of physical environments to navigate and
conformity to uniform standards is an important tool to ensure equal treatment. However,
complete removal of the Special Exception process eliminates another important tool for the City to
use in circumstances that it had not anticipated.
By way of example, this tool was used very effectively at 134 Edgecombe, a private lot zoned for
single family residential use in our neighborhood. At that location there is a vacant lot in an
otherwise fully developed residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, this lot had become a frequent
high volume view point for many people and was exacerbated by its proximity to the City’s urban
core. Short periods of low volume viewing alone is of course not a contentious issue. Sadly though
this location had become a perpetual extended stay party zone. Residents of the neighborhood
have engaged in a daily trash pickup that commonly includes food packaging waste, beverage
packaging waste, used condoms and hypodermic needles. Frequent visits from SLPD can confirm
these circumstances.
We engaged the neighborhood and solicited input from a broad and diverse set of neighbors,
conducted neighborhood meetings to which all were invited by posting notices on everyone’s door,
conducted formal surveys all of which occurred over a several year period. One result of this effort
was approximately 40 residents providing funding along with the property owner to construct a
fence. In this case a 4-foot fence allowed by right would not have been sufficient to curtail the
problem as it would have been easily bypassed allowing the problem to continue. As such, the
property owner applied for and received a Special Exception allowing for a 6-foot fence which was
installed according to the approved permit.
Although this fence has not provided a complete solution, it has significantly reduced the volume of
traffic. We do continue to pick up trash daily and have explored other options to reduce the appeal
From:Terry Becker
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: 20+ foot walls
Date:Thursday, August 27, 2020 12:07:03 PM
Kristina,
Thank you for giving me background on the proposed amendent. Planning rules and
regulations are in place to protect our communities from inappropriate development, and
should assure all citizens that planning polcies will be fair and predictable. Three years ago we
had first-hand experience of bad planning process and general standards and considerations for
special exceptions (21A.52.060) were ignored. “Special exception” went from 4 feet to two 20
foot walls, and additional 3 foot cement walls and high fencing on top of those. We hope the
department and commission will think carefully about making changes to the zoning
ordinance.
From:Stokes, Jamie
To:Lynn Schwarz
Cc:Mayor; Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:Re: Elimination of Special Exceptions for Over-Height Fences
Date:Friday, August 28, 2020 2:56:59 PM
Hi Lynn,
Thanks for sharing your feedback about the fence height zoning amendment with our office.
I'm copying Krissy Gilmore on this message so she is aware of your comments -- she is the staff
planner in charge of answering questions and compiling feedback about this particular issue. It
is my understanding that no decision has been reached on the petition in question and there
has yet to be a date set for a public hearing.
I'm happy to answer additional questions you may have, although Krissy is undoubtedly much
more knowledgable than I am. Thanks again for reaching out!
Jamie Stokes
she/her
Community Liaison
385-707-7062
OFFICE of the MAYOR
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
www.slcmayor.com
www.slcgov.com
From: Lynn Schwarz >
Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 4:09 PM
To: Mayor <Mayor@slcgov.com>; Fowler, Amy <Amy.Fowler@slcgov.com>; Fullmer, Brian
<Brian.Fullmer@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Elimination of Special Exceptions for Over-Height Fences
I cannot understand the reasoning behind SLC's idea that eliminating any mechanism for granting
exceptions regarding fence heights is a good idea. This means that SLC can see the future and at no
time ever, never, in perpetuity, will there be a circumstance that necessitates a fence that does not
fit your regulations. This is truly incomprehensible considering SLC's efforts to plop high density
housing into single family neighborhoods. Even now, with IZZY South and Richmond Flats smack dab
in the middle of single family neighborhoods, they will only be allowed to have 6 foot fences
separating them from adjoining single family houses. Neighbors are begging for higher fences to
reasonably preserve their privacy, but those requests will be brushed away as inconsequential as SLC
leaves NO recourse for unusual conditions. This makes no sense and must be reconsidered.
Lynn Schwarz
2023 East Crystal Ave
Salt Lake City, UT 84109
Sugar House Community Council Trustee
From:Dan Moulding
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public Comment Re: Fence Height Zoning Amendment (Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00511)
Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 10:45:23 PM
Hi Krissy,
It was recently brought to my attention that the Planning Commission is taking under
consideration a proposal to amend city fence height zoning ordinances which would have the
effect of removing the "special exception" provision of the existing ordinance, and that public
comment on the proposed amendment has been requested. I would like to submit the
following comment for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Among the reasons given in favor of the proposed amendment, I am to understand, it has been
asserted that, "according to the American Planning Association, special exceptions for fence
height should be discouraged". I would first like to dispel this absurd misconception. The APA
discourages freely granting variances to fence height ordinances[1]. This is not the same thing
as discouraging special exceptions within ordinances, which are utterly distinct from
variances, as I'm sure the Planning Division and Planning Commission will heartily agree.
The special exception provision in the existing Salt Lake City ordinance serves at least two
important purposes:
1) It discourages the practice of freely granting variances at will, in accordance with APA
recommendations, because it prescribes -- by ordinance -- specific situations in which the
standard fence height limits may not be appropriate.
2) It provides the means by which specific types of situations may best be addressed by the
City in a uniform manner, rather than attempting to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to every
situation city-wide.
If the special exception provision were to be removed, as proposed, it would predictably have
the effect of requiring the City to approve more variances than are currently necessary, in
order to address the varying needs of spaces throughout the city -- directly in contravention to
the APA's clearly stated recommendations.
Particularly worrisome, would be the elimination of the following section of the existing
special exception provision:
e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative
impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the
rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics;
Elimination of the special exception provision will mean the elimination of an important tool
the City currently has to allow for higher fences where such height is necessary in order to
ensure the safety and security of our neighborhoods. Even if somehow removing the provision
would result in better uniformity -- it won't, it will simply mean more variances will be
needed, resulting in less uniformity -- trading our neighborhoods' safety for uniformity would
be both unwise and, frankly, irresponsible.
From:Personal
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zoning Ordinance amendment
Date:Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:40:53 PM
Please do what you can to defeat this amendment or change it or grandfather existing permits.
My concern is the fence we as neighbors in concert with the owner of 134 Edgecombe Drive
paid for and had installed to reduce the problem of noise, trash and illicit and illegal activity
taking place nightly.
The fence, while not stopping such activity completely, it has greatly curtailed it. If the zoning
ordinance amendment passes the problem returns full force.
NOT A GOOD OUTCOME
Feel free to contact me.
Phone is
Sent from my iPhone
From:Judith Boulden
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed Fence Height Amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 10:50:03 AM
Dear Ms. Gilmore,
I write in opposition to the proposed change to the regulation of fences that proposes to
eliminate the Special Exception process. The stated reason is to provide uniformity and
promote clear expectations for fence height.
Initially, why is uniformity considered a goal? The City has wonderful diverse
neighborhoods from the charm of the Avenues to the urban structure of the Granary District.
Why should such diverse neighborhoods be uniform and who would expect them to be? I
believe the premise of this proposed change is flawed and counter to producing vibrant,
unique neighborhoods.
More importantly, one of the few exceptions is for public facilities where a greater height
is necessary to protect public safety. There is a pressing example of when private
facilities absolutely require taller fences to promote public safety - 134 Edgecombe Drive. I
live on Edgecombe Drive and have endured the impact of this vacant lot that is a magnet for
illegal drug use, gang conflict, extensive litter and violation of various noise and parking
ordinances on the neighborhood. I routinely picked up “morning after” litter consisting of
used needles, human waste, food and drink remains, bottles and cans, furniture and clothing -
and even offensive weapons. After years of this, a coalition of neighbors over an extended
period of time was able to obtain permission to erect a metal fence higher than 4ft. to keep this
offensive and unsafe conduct out of our neighborhood - now it’s confined to the City street at
least. Why should the City eliminate this increased fence height recourse for private facilities
and allow it only for public facilities. To change the ordinance and maintain the necessity of
taller fences for public facilities for public safety purposes is to acknowledge such exceptions
are essential - why should such exceptions not be available to private facilities for the same
reasons? In circumstances such as 134 Edgecombe Drive, safety surely outweighs uniformity
and some perceived expectation.
Please help us to keep our neighborhood safe and reject this ill thought out amendment.
Respectfully,
Judith Boulden
79 Edgecombe Drive
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:David Scheer
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Cc:"Jim Schulte"
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence zoning height amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 10:28:16 AM
Hello Kristina-
I'm writing to ask about a particular case of special importance to our neighborhood that may be
affected by the proposed fence zoning height amendment.
There is currently a 6' wrought iron fence at 134 Edgecombe Dr. on the front property line. This
fence was erected two years ago through a concerted effort by a group of neighbors, with the
cooperation of the property owners and properly permitted by the city. It was erected because the
property attracted crowds on weekends and especially holidays like July 4 and July 24 because the
property is vacant and has a view of the city. These crowds were an extreme hazard and nuisance to
neighbors, starting brush fires that threatened homes, leaving huge amounts of trash, playing loud
music and blocking the street. Since the fence was erected, these problems have been largely
eliminated. The neighborhood believes that keeping this fence is essential to our safety and well-
being.
My question has to do with whether the new amendment will cause this fence to have to be taken
down. Is the proposed amendment going to be retroactive? Will this fence's permit be revoked or
not renewed under the amendment?
Given that the vote on this amendment is imminent, I would greatly appreciate a response at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
David Scheer, Chair
Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council
www.chnc-slc.org
council@chnc-slc.org
From:Vanja Watkins
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 1:28:21 PM
Dear Ms. Gilmore,
As a 55 year resident on Edgecombe Drive, I would like to comment about the Fence Height Zoning Amendment.
My home is directly across the street from 134 E. Edgecombe Drive which is and always has been a vacant lot. Over
the years, I have seen changes in the way this property is regarded. Until a few years ago people who stopped and
parked to admire the view have been respectful and have caused no problems in the neighborhood.
Sadly there has been a marked change in the behavior of viewers at this site within the last several years. At first
neighbors were willing to pick up trash and litter left behind by people admiring the view, but gradually the problem
has expanded far beyond litter. Our quiet neighborhood has been subjected to excess garbage, noise, parties, street
games at odd hours, lewd behavior, increased traffic that often causes snarls on our narrow street, and of course
illegal parking and trespassing onto private property in spite of signs posted by our city. People ignore signs!
What a great relief we experienced when the attractive and necessary 6 ft. metal fence was installed to help prevent
some, but not all, of these problems. Some neighbors would have preferred a solid fence, regular police patrols, a
regular route by city parking officers with power to issue tickets, a gate to prohibit non-resident traffic after 10 p m.,
or other similar measures to prevent the perplexing problems on this street that also impacted the entire
neighborhood. But we were pleased to begin to solve our problems with the installation of a fence for which many
neighbors willingly and generously contributed— and with the property owner’s agreement.
Now to have this single, simple step for improvement possibly denied to our neighborhood is a huge
disappointment. Please do not let this happen because of a solitary viewpoint not representative of the many who
live here.
Thank you for your serious consideration of a respectful, law-abiding and usually friendly neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Vanja Watkins
123 Edgecombe Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah
From:Lynne Cartwright
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence and screen at 134 Edgecombe Drive
Date:Wednesday, September 9, 2020 3:46:29 PM
“The City Council has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to
remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences and to define
instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right.”
Instituting a fence height restriction primarily to target a security fence and itsscreen on 134 Edgecombe Drive doesn’t make sense.
1. Ensign Downs has its own CCRs to address issues regarding privacy, househeight, etc. For a quasi-governmental body to step in and restrict that fence isoverreach.
2. The charm of the development is its eclectic nature. Mandating uniform fenceheight would destroy that. We’ve all moved beyond the “little boxes on the hillside”aesthetic.
3. The large majority of the homeowners have “voted” by contributing to the fenceconstruction and periodic maintenance. The group went through the city’s processto secure permission for the fence. They want this fence as a security measure. Oneperson has requested this change against the wishes of virtually all the rest of theneighbors. The neighbors on Edgecombe Drive are fully in favor of the fence and itsscreening.
4. Before the fence, that open space was an “attractive nuisance” that collected notjust trash but hazardous waste (dirty diapers, used needles, used condoms, forsome examples), creating a neighborhood problem. It also attracted random non-compliant traffic through Ensign Downs, especially at night, making it unsafe forresidents to walk their own neighborhood. The less barrier that fence provides, themore it attracts these problems.
I have lived at 202 E. South Sandrun Road since May 1955. I hope to live here until Idie. But disallowing the security fence at 134 Edgecombe decreases my security aswell as introduces hazards into the area.
--Deon Freed via my daughter's email since I don't use email.
From:Maggie Probst
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Date:Friday, September 11, 2020 7:46:30 AM
Dear Ms. Gilmore,
As a resident of the Capitol Hill neighborhood, I am writing you express my concern over this
amendment as it relates to the fence on 134 Edgecombe Drive. I have driven Edgecombe almost
daily for 13 years and witnessed the traffic on the street increase dramatically over the course of
time. Along with the traffic came all the nuisances of noise and trash, etc. that plagued our
neighborhood. Since the fence has been erected on the property, the traffic has significantly
decreased, and the result has been a safer, quieter residential neighborhood. This instance seems
precisely why the fence height variance exists, and it works! I strongly urge that the special
exception process for over height fences not be changed.
Maggie Probst
907 Dartmoor Way
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
From:Ingo and Kathy Titze
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fence on 134 Edgecombe
Date:Saturday, September 12, 2020 3:21:12 PM
I would like to add my concern for the removal of the fence and screens that have been, in my
opinion, a necessity for the safety of the street due to unprecedented accumulation of cars and
trash at late hours and daytime hours. There is no limit to the worry from the residents and
traffic congestion in this area. Putting up the fence and screens are the only things that deter
onlookers since the police can not be there every minute. However, I believe that if some
tickets were issued, the word would get around and also act as a deterrent.
Thank you for your time and help in this matter.
Kathy Titze
56 E. Dorchester Drive
.SLC, UT 84103
From:Jim Schulte
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Date:Friday, September 11, 2020 11:39:20 AM
Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment
Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511
Kristina,
I wanted to provide some additional context for some of the comments you are receiving from
residents of our neighborhood regarding the vacant lot at 134 Edgecombe. Some of them are under
the impression that the zone change itself could cause the removal of the fence. I understand from
your comments in response that the fence could remain as an existing non-conforming
use/improvement. While I appreciate that perspective, the existence of our fence is certainly more
“fragile” with the proposed zone change as it does not recognize and provide an avenue of approval
for the unique circumstances of a location like 134 Edgecombe that can benefit from a special
exception to the fence height ordinance. We are continuing to work as a neighborhood to improve
the still very destructive behavior that comes with excessive all night visitation and one
recommendation that has been highly vetted and approved by the neighborhood is a 4’ screen. It’s
not clear whether that would be allowed under our current special exception. If this zone change
occurs we would lose the ability to apply for an amendment to our prior approval.
Please add language to the proposed zoning amendment that will provide a path for the City to
evaluate further existing permit amendments and new special exceptions for lots that that can
demonstrate adverse conditions that warrant such an exception such as 134 Edgecombe.
Thank you.
James Schulte
Capitol Hill Resident
From:Rhonda Devereaux
To:Gilmore, Kristina
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zoning ordinance change on fence height
Date:Monday, September 21, 2020 1:16:45 PM
Kristina,
I am hopeful that you are able to take my comment into consideration regarding the proposed removal of
‘Special Exceptions’ for fence heights. I have a personal beef with the removal of the exceptions clause,
being I live on Edgecombe Dr, just a couple of houses away from the empty nuisance lot at 134E
Edgecombe Dr. I am sure you have already heard from others the saga of the criminal and nuisance activity
on that lot and our community working together to try to minimize the disruption to our neighborhood. The
fence has helped a ton. The trial of additional placement of a fabric to reduce the view while seated in a car
in the no parking zone seemed promising. Seems crazy to reverse the progress we have made.
But just as important as this issue is with us, I think the MESSAGE you are sending with the proposed
removal of ‘special exceptions’ is very alarming. We have a serious problem with this lot. And as special as
I’d like to think we are, I bet there are other communities facing similar issues. As a community, we tried the
usual avenues to address it. Yet, it only became worse. We have been told repeatedly that there aren’t
enough personnel (police officers, ticketing officers, etc) to respond quick enough to make a difference. So
as a community, we formulated a plan to try to fix this problem WITHIN the confines of the law AND at our
own expense. This has resulted in a reduction of crime, nuisance garbage, fires and calls to the police
department, parking enforcement and the property owner. Win/win situation, don’t you think?
Now there is a push to reduce abandon the special permits due to aesthetic concerns (evidently one
complaint) and the laborious process the permits require? This would be simply volleying the problem back
to the police and parking enforcement, who we already know have too much on their plate, not to mention
a slap in the face to our community for trying to rectify a very frustrating and dangerous problem.
Until the City can adequately address and rectify the mess of this open lot, I believe that
reversing/eliminating special permits is in no-one’s interest. This could crush the future legal efforts of
communities banding together to resolve an issue when their leaders can’t.
I thank you you for the consideration of my comments.
Rhonda Devereaux
88E Edgecombe Dr
SLC, UT 84103
Merrick
Voicemail-- Does not support removing the special exception to allow over-height fences. They do not
feel that 4’ is enough to secure kids and a dog in the front yard.
PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Text Amendment
City Department Review
Comments
Planning Staff Note: In general, the proposed changes do not directly impact most other City
departments. When routing the proposal, staff also sent the request to review to the Parks and
Public Lands Division. The request could impact their future park and recreation planning effort
but did any comments or concerns.
Transportation: No concerns.
Engineering: No concerns.
Public Utilities: No comments provided.
Building Services (Zoning): No concerns.
Building Services (Fire): No concerns.
4. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice
January 13, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
January 13, 2021, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members
will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings
can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning
Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general
comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-01132021
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South -
Joe Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design
Review and a Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential
units located at approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4 -story building that will be
located roughly on the same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design
Review approval to allow for an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of
approximately 45 FT. Through the Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to
decrease the front, rear, and corner side yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the
building. The exterior wall of the prop osed upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall
of the existing building, which is located right at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a
front and corner side yard setback of 15’ and a rear yard setback of 10’. In order to utilize the ground
floor of the existing building, the applicant is also requesting to allow the rooftop garden areas to
count toward landscaping requirements. The property is located within the CC (Commercial
Corridor) zoning district in council district 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Amy
Thompson at (385) 226 -9001 or amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00721
& PLNPCM2020-00722
2. Windsor Court Planned Development at approximately 1966 S Windsor Street - Mike
Spainhower, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a 17 -unit multi-family
dwelling at 1966 S. Windsor Street. The project would be built on an existing vacant lot. The total site
is 0.7 acres. The Planned Development is needed to address a modification to the front yard setback
and landscape buffers. The subject property is located in the RMF -35 zoning district and within
Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (385) 226 -8499
or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020 -00727
3. Village at North Station Building D Design Review at approximately 1925 W North Temple –
Michael Batt, representing the property owner, is seeking Design Revie w approval to modify a front
setback requirement for a proposed building located at approximately 1925 W North Temple. The
applicant is requesting to modify the maximum 5' front yard setback requirement due to the location
of a high voltage power line alon g Orange Street. They are requesting increased front yard setback
so that the front of the building is a required minimum safe distance from the power line. Modifications
to the front yard setback can be approved through the Design Review process. The subject property
is located within the TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area District - Mixed Use Employment Center
Station – Transition) zoning district. The property is in Council District 1, represented by James
Rogers (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (385) 226-3835 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case
Number PLNPCM2020-00730
4. 9th Mixed-Use Multifamily Design Review – Eric Moran, on behalf of the property owner and
management company, RD Management, along with architects Peter Jacobsen and Jeff Byers of
The Richardson Design Group, are seeking Design Review approva l to redevelop the property
located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 400 South and 900 East with residential and
commercial space. The proposal includes 264 residential units and approximately 16,000 square
feet of commercial space. The app licant is requesting Design Review by the Planning Commission
to allow for a façade length greater than 200 feet in the TSA-UN-C zoning district and for modifications
to the design standards in 21A.37. The property is located within Council District 4, re presented by
Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com )
Case number PLNPCM2020-00641
5. AT&T Wireless Communication Facility Conditional Use at approximately 1550 South 5600
West – A request by Brian Sieck of Smartlink for a new AT&T wireless communications facility with
an 80’ monopole and unmanned communication site located at approximately 1550 South 5600 West.
The proposed site would be located in the northwest corner of the parcel. The subject property is
located within the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district and is located within Council District 2,
represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or
sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00819
6. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South – Salt Lake City has
received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group representing the property owner
of 810 East 800 South, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The
proposal would rezone the property located at a pproximately 810 East 800 South from R-2 (Single
and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and the Central Community Master Plan
Future Land Use map designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial . The
applicant anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial on the first floor
and residential units on the second floor. The subject property is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) and is located within Council District 5 represented by Darin Ma no (Staff contact: Sara
Javoronok at (385) 226 -4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020 -00740
& PLNPCM2020-00741
7. Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at approximately 554 & 560 South 300 East - Salt Lake
City has received a request from Mariel Wirthlin, with The Associated Group and representing the
property owner of 554 and 560 South 300 East, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and
the zoning map. The proposal would rezone the properties located at approximately 554 and 560
South 300 East from RO (Residential Office) to RMU (Residential/Mixed Use) and amend the Central
Community Future Land Use Map from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. The
proposed Master Plan amendment to High Mixed Use and rezone to RMU is intended to allow retail
service uses on the property, in addition to office use. The subject property is zoned RO
(Residential Office) and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff
contact: Nannette Larsen at (385) 386-2761 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers
PLNPCM2020-00604 & PLNPCM2020-00712
8. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over -height fences
(Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved
by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front
yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances
include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and
manufacturing districts, public facilities and recrea tion facilities where a greater height is necessary
to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning
Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional
fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter
21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide.
(Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535 -7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00511
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,
which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Notice of Public Hearing
On Wednesday, January 13, 2021, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City
Council regarding the following petitions:
1. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South
– Salt Lake City has received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Devel-
opment Group representing the property owner of 810 East 800 South, to
amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The pro-
posal would rezone the property located at approximately 810 East 800
South from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Busi-
ness) and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map designa-
tion from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant
anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial
on the first floor and residential units on the second floor. The subject prop-
erty is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and is located within
Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Sara Javoro-
nok at (385) 226-4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLN-
PCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-007412.
2. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City
Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the special
exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030)
and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and ap-
proved by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and
hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards and six feet (6’) in the side or rear
yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include when
a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries
and manufacturing districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a
greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and
construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic
Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence,
wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments
proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt
Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilm-
ore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLN-
PCM2020-00511
The public hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m. via Webex. To participate go to:
http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-01132021
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Build-
ing. Commission Members will connect remotely. If you are interested in
watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the fol-
lowing platforms:
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.
slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the
meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.
com.
DN0000000
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, January 13, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 05:30 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of
time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the
meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson,
Amy Barry; Commissioners, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal
Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Jon Lee, and Andres Paredes were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Nick
Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Katia Pace, Principal
Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal
Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Chairperson Brenda Scheer, read the emergency proclamation for holding a remote meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 02:31
MOTION 02:46
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom moved to approve the December 9, 2020 meeting minutes.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Lyon,
Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voting as
she was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 04:24
Chairperson Scheer informed the public of the long agenda and that there will be a break half-way through
the agenda.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 05:33
Michaela Oktay, Planning Director, stated she had nothing to report.
05:55
Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South - Joe
Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design Review and a
Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential units located at
approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4-story building that will be located roughly on the
same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for
an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of approximately 45 FT. Through the
Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to decrease the front, rear, and corner side
yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the building. The exterior wall of the proposed
upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall of the existing building, which is located right
at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a front and corner side yard setback of 15’ and a rear
yard setback of 10’. In order to utilize the ground floor of the existing building, the applicant is also
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 8
The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether the RO zone will be eliminated
MOTION 3:20:56
Commissioner Lyson stated Based on the information in the staff report I move that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed master plan amendment, as
presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00712.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION 3:22:40
Commissioner Lyon stated, Additionally, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council approve the proposed zoning map amendment, as presented in PLNPCM2020-
00604.
Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Ottertrom voted
“Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
3:23:46
Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment – A request by the City Council to amend the zoning
ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over-height fences
(Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by
right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4’) in front yards
and six feet (6’) in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include
when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and manufacturing
districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect pub lic
safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the
Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height
as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning
districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at
(801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00511
Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on unique conditions
• Clarification on how fence height is measured when a property has an abrupt grade change
• Clarification on whether a property owner can build a 10-foot fence around a backyard swimming
pool or tennis court
PUBLIC HEARING 3:38:39
Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Cindy Cromer – Stated when you’re dealing with Historic properties which were built prior to the City’s
zoning ordinance, you ought to be able to repurpose fencing.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 9
Jim Schulte – Stated he requests special exceptions that addresses special circumstances where some
additional fencing or screening can address the public nuisance, and criminal activity that isn’t compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Judi Short, Sugar House Land Use Chairperson – Stated her support of the request.
David Fernandez - Stated his support of the request. Also, he asked whether it has been determined
whether vinyl or plastic is considered a durable material.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff further discussed the following:
• Clarification on what constitutes a durable material
• Clarification on whether there are any limitations of materials
• Whether a multi-family mixed use building is considered a non-residential use
• Vacant property that is attracting nuisance
MOTION 4:05:07
Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented,
and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00511
Fence Height Zoning Text Amendment. With the additional recommendation:
1. That Planning Staff draft a provision to the ordinance allowing for a fence height allowing
up to 6-feet in front yards of vacant lots without existing structures, which non-conforming
fences must be removed when the vacant lot is developed and;
2. To add a maximum height of up to 8-feet to residential and non-residential over height
allowances section
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins,
Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 4:07:59
5. MAILING LIST
Name Address City State Zip
Trolley Square Ventures, LLC 630 E South Temple St Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
SK Hart ST, LLC 630 E South Temple St Salt Lake Ci UT 84102