Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Fencing Materials topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears proposed changes to site‑obscuring fence rules to allow vinyl, wood in some developments
Summary
City planning staff and a developer representative described proposed amendments to zoning and engineering standards on June 18 that would allow additional materials such as vinyl or wood for site‑obscuring fences in some residential and PUD settings, while keeping masonry requirements at commercial/residential interfaces.
City planning staff and a developer representative described proposed modifications to the city’s code sections and an engineering standard that would relax specified material requirements for site‑obscuring fences in some developments.
Tyler Noying of Cottonwood Hollow LLC and city planner Don Boudreaux explained the proposed change would alter the definition of a "site‑obscuring fence" in section 26‑1‑4 and 32‑8 and in engineering standards detail 4.6.0.1 to permit additional materials — such as vinyl or wood — provided the fence achieves a defined degree of obscuration (the draft uses a 90% site‑obscuring threshold). The change would keep masonry requirements between commercial and residential interfaces but would remove masonry mandate in some PUD perimeter locations to allow materials that are lower cost and easier for individual homeowners to repair.
Don Boudreaux told council that the revisions are intended as a cleanup to reconcile conflicting references to fence materials across code sections and engineering standards. Council members asked about the rationale for the 90% threshold (privacy link product advertisers had claimed about 98% obscurity); staff acknowledged some subjectivity and said enforcement would involve visual determination against the 90% guideline.
Council discussion covered aesthetics, maintenance responsibility and public‑right‑of‑way sight distance. One council member noted the 10‑foot setback for perimeter walls helps preserve sight lines and pedestrian character and provides room for landscaping; another warned a large setback can become an unkempt strip if not maintained. Staff suggested removing duplicate requirements from engineering standards and referencing the single zoning definition to avoid conflicts.
Planning commission tabbed the item for a second set of hearings; the council closed the public hearing and placed the ordinance changes on the next action agenda to allow continued review by planning commission and council.
