Planning commissioners review proposed updates to fences and retaining‑wall rules; staff seeks clearer engineering triggers

The Planning Commission spent substantial time on May 27 reviewing proposed amendments to the city code for fences and retaining walls, with staff seeking clearer standards for measurement, materials and engineering thresholds.

Staff member Kelly outlined changes proposed to address recurring requests and compliance issues, including a clear definition of how to measure fence and retaining wall height “from the finished grade upon which the fence is constructed to the top of the fence or retaining wall,” placement of fencing behind required landscape buffers in industrial zones, and compliance with state law allowing electrified wire fences in nonresidential zones. “We do measure heights for buildings to the middle of the gable, but, obviously, fences and retaining walls don’t have gables,” Kelly said in explaining the measurement language.

On retaining walls the packet proposed requiring building permits for walls greater than 4 feet in height; staff explained that the state building code has scaled back some prior requirements and that reinstating a permit trigger would reduce unsafe unpermitted construction. Kelly noted homeowners and building staff are often uncertain whether a wall “is holding a building surcharge or not,” and that requiring a permit would help address liability and safety concerns. Commissioners debated whether the code should also require engineered drawings above a given height. “I think the safest thing to do is just if it’s over 4 feet, you’re getting a building permit that you get it engineered,” said one commissioner during discussion; others suggested further objective criteria tied to what the wall is holding and site conditions.

The commission also reviewed combined‑height rules (examples in the staff report show how a retaining wall plus fence might be limited so the combined structure cannot exceed a stated maximum), material and visual standards (for example, restricting high‑intensity primary colors and adding an “architectural grade finish” for visible retaining walls), and a new subsection to align city code with portions of the state building code.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the changes respond to frequent variance requests in the city’s hilly neighborhoods and to ongoing code‑enforcement challenges on walls and fences that are either unsafe or visually discordant. Staff flagged recent local cases — one food‑cart vendor had used temporary plastic fencing that the city required be replaced — and cited past failures of improvised retaining walls as a reason to clarify standards.

Next steps: Staff said it will refine the draft language, check building‑official guidance on where engineering should be required, and return the draft for further review; the item was discussed as a work session, not adopted at the meeting.