Glendale council hears extensive debate on proposed front-yard fence rules, refers code rewrite to planning commission

The Glendale Common Council on (date of meeting) referred a proposed zoning-code amendment that would tighten front-yard fence, hedge and windbreak rules to the Planning and Architecture Review Commission for further drafting and a detailed staff memo.

Council members and staff framed the draft as an attempt to address neighbor complaints about small, fenced-in front-yard enclosures — examples cited included a dog run and a front-yard vegetable garden with temporary rabbit fencing — while preserving allowed natural landscaping and other lawful uses.

City staff presented the draft amendment, which would (as drafted) require permits for some low front-yard fences (including fences three feet tall and under if the fence exceeds a defined linear length), limit front-yard fence styles to decorative picket, split-rail or low masonry walls, and prohibit materials such as chicken wire, barbed wire, plain chain link and snow fence in residential front yards. Staff said the proposal would also require that, if a front yard is enclosed, the fence must extend the full frontage of the property or use permitted corner/decorative segments rather than creating a small fenced “island” inside the front yard.

The presentation noted the draft does not change permitted uses inside a front-yard enclosure (for example, gardening), but it would prevent small, inset fenced areas that staff and several residents described as out of keeping with neighborhood curb appeal.

Public commenters and several aldermen pressed staff on practical impacts. Resident Steve West said he uses stacked wood stumps to stop vehicles from turning across his lawn and urged the council to preserve flexibility for unique lots, saying some Glendale lots were platted decades ago and do not fit a “one-size-fits-all” rule. Robert Cromwell, a resident who testified twice, said he found many existing yards that would violate the draft and asked for clearer wording and broader public notice before adoption.

Aldermen asked staff to clarify defined terms and to explicitly tie “front yard” and “side yard” to the definitions elsewhere in the code. Multiple council members and members of the public asked the council to make the text clearer about whether the permit threshold tied to linear feet (staff said “linear feet” should be used, not “diameter”) applies citywide or only to front yards. Several speakers urged staff and the commission to consider lot size and to craft exceptions for small properties.

After roughly 90 minutes of presentation and public testimony, Alderman Doherty moved — and Alderman Bailey seconded — a motion to refer the draft to the Planning and Architecture Review Commission (PARC) with a detailed staff memo incorporating the public comments. The motion carried 4–1. The council president asked staff to include clarifications about front-yard/side-yard definitions and to tighten ambiguous language before PARC’s review.

The referral means PARC will hold its own public hearing and may propose additional edits before the council considers final adoption.

The council and staff repeatedly said existing nonconforming fences would remain grandfathered where they already exist; replacements and major changes would need to comply with any new rules once adopted.

Why it matters: The ordinance would change what kinds of fences and plantings are allowed in front yards across Glendale. That affects property owners’ choices about screening, vegetable gardens, small pet areas and storm protection, and may require property owners who alter or rebuild front-yard fences in the future to get permits and meet new design requirements.

What happens next: Staff will prepare a detailed memo and revised text for the Planning and Architecture Review Commission; PARC will schedule a public hearing and recommend changes back to the council.