Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Access Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission backs masonry fencing requirement for double‑frontage lots except on local roads
Summary
The commission recommended that the city require masonry fencing as a subdivision improvement on double‑frontage lots that abut roads classified above local (collectors, arterials, highways), with the fence placed along the higher‑classification frontage and required before building permits are issued.
The Santaquin City Planning Commission voted unanimously Aug. 12 to recommend a code amendment that would require masonry fencing on double‑frontage lots when those lots abut roads classified above local.
Planning staff framed the amendment as a measure to prevent secondary vehicular access and construction traffic from using both frontages of lots that back onto collectors, arterials or frontage roads. The draft language presented to the commission would require a masonry‑style fence to be installed as a subdivision improvement at the same time utilities, curb, gutter and sidewalks are constructed.
Staff said the change would not apply retroactively to vested projects or those governed by an existing development agreement. The commission discussed examples such as the masonry fence installed along Summit Ridge Parkway under a development agreement and the Bella Vista subdivision on 400 East, which staff said is on a collector road.
Commissioners asked about scope. Several members and staff suggested limiting the requirement to roads above the local classification; staff proposed language that would apply the fence requirement when the lot fronts a higher‑classification road and allow the Development Review Committee (DRC) to determine the appropriate frontage when classifications are ambiguous.
Commissioner Hoffman moved to recommend approval of the amendment as revised to exclude lots that front a local roadway on both sides; Commissioner Moke seconded. The commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation.
Discussion only: the commission debated whether the requirement should apply to single corner cases on local roads and whether landscaping should accompany long masonry walls; a commissioner noted shade and pedestrian comfort concerns where sidewalks run adjacent to masonry fences. Formal action: commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the council; the amendment would require council adoption before taking effect.
Clarifying details provided during discussion included that the fence is to be a masonry style and installed as part of subdivision improvements, that existing development agreements and vested rights are not altered, and that the fence should be located along the higher‑classification roadway if the lot abuts different road types.
