Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Residential Buffer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission recommends residential buffer changes for industrial uses; moves several intense uses to 'prohibited' near residential zones
Summary
The commission gave a positive recommendation to a zoning text amendment clarifying the 1,000-foot residential buffer and proposing to prohibit certain high‑impact industrial uses within that buffer; the vote was unanimous.
Salt Lake City planning staff presented a code amendment on March 12 to clarify how the 1,000-foot residential buffer applies to industrial and other high‑impact uses and to add or reclassify some uses that should be restricted or conditioned near residential districts. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
What staff proposed: Associate planner Noah Elmore explained the amendment would revise the code footnotes that reference the utility/residential buffer so that the footnotes point readers clearly to the exemption section, and it would explicitly list which uses are prohibited within 1,000 feet of residential districts. The amendment replaces references to "single- or two-family zoning" with a reference to the broader chapter 21A.24 (residential districts) so the rule applies consistently across residential zones, including RMF districts.
Uses affected: Staff recommended four industrial uses be prohibited within the 1,000-foot residential buffer because of their potential for noise, odor, pollution and other impacts: explosive manufacturing and storage; flammable liquids or gases heating-fuel distribution and storage; medical/hazardous waste incinerators; and petroleum product refineries. Eight other intense uses would be changed from permitted to conditional and the text would clarify measurement by lot lines and other definition cleanups.
Public and commission response: Staff sent the required notices, held an open house and presented to community councils; there were no written public objections in the staff record. The Planning Commission asked clarifying questions about scope and measurement. Commissioners expressed general support for the text clarifications and for moving the most intensive uses out of proximity to residential areas.
Vote and next steps: Commissioner Scherer moved and the commission seconded a positive recommendation to City Council. The vote in favor was unanimous. The item will now move to City Council for final action.
