Planning commission refines fence ordinance language; asks staff for definitions and keeps masonry option for commercial-residential boundaries

The Planning and Zoning Commission continued its review of a proposed rewrite of the fence ordinance on Aug. 20, 2025, asking staff to draft clear definitions for three categories of fence treatment and leaving a masonry option in the draft for commercial-residential boundaries.

Why it matters: fence standards affect privacy, noise buffering and property values; they also shift construction costs to developers or property owners and can be the source of neighbor disputes.

What the commission discussed and decided: - Definitions requested: staff was asked to prepare three distinct definitions for use in the code: non-obscuring (visibility-preserving), site-obscuring and opaque/high-screen (very low openness). Commissioners discussed example thresholds expressed as percent openness per square foot (for example, allowing no more than 5% or 10% open area in an opaque screen), and asked that language be measurable so it can be applied consistently. - Height: commissioners indicated a preference for a minimum 6-foot height for required site-obscuring fences along certain boundaries. The code’s existing references to a 6-to-8-foot range were discussed; members favored retaining a minimum of 6 feet while the rest of the fence code will continue to restrict extraordinary heights except in specific circumstances. - Masonry at commercial-residential interfaces: staff presented Cedar City’s approach, which requires a 6-foot masonry fence when commercial development abuts residential use. Commissioners agreed to retain masonry as an option (or requirement for certain high-impact uses such as an RV park) because masonry provides additional noise and security buffering, though members noted masonry raises construction costs and suggested offering material options in the draft language. - Who constructs and maintains fences: commissioners discussed assignment of installation responsibility and maintenance. Staff was directed to clarify that the party required to provide the fence (typically the developer or property owner of the more intensive use at the time of development) installs it, and that maintenance responsibility should align with property ownership and permit records. - Density-based buffer triggers: staff proposed and commissioners discussed a rule that would require a site-obscuring fence where a proposed residential development’s density exceeds an adjacent residential use by a defined threshold (examples discussed include a difference of three or more units per acre). Commissioners asked staff to test density-based language as an alternative to purely counting dwellings.

Examples, enforcement and next steps: staff said much of the code’s application will be determined at building-permit and development-review stages (for example, who must build a required fence when a new development is filed). Commissioners asked staff (Dan) to prepare draft definitions and a revised ordinance for the commission to review and to schedule a public hearing when the draft is ready. The commission agreed it would be preferable to finish the draft before public notice so the public could review a full proposed text.

Public comment and broader code connections: commissioners referenced a recent RV park application as an example of where clearer rules would have helped; they also noted state-level Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) code updates are pending and will be integrated when available. Commissioner Weston Reese endorsed keeping masonry as an option for high-impact commercial uses, saying, "I say in. I think that's pretty normal." Staff confirmed they will return with a redlined proposal and the recommended definitions.

No formal ordinance adoption occurred; the commission directed staff to prepare the revised draft and return for a future meeting and public hearing.