Planning commissioners debate limits on privacy fences near trails and open space

Planning commissioners discussed whether Highland should continue to require privacy fences adjacent to trails and open-space corridors to be limited to 4 feet of solid material with the top 2 feet open.

The discussion centered on three staff-presented options: keep the current code that applies the 4-foot solid / 2-foot open rule to any land designated as open space or trail corridor; limit the rule to areas identified as trail corridors (places with a planned or future trail) while allowing full privacy fences where there is only open space; or apply the restriction only where an actual trail exists. Staff described the issue as arising from a question forwarded to the commission by the City Council about narrow open-space strips that are not likely to host trails in the near term.

The topic mattered to commissioners and members of the public because of competing aims: protecting the visual openness of trail corridors and nearby parks, preserving sightlines that users say make trails feel safer, and respecting property owners’ desire for privacy. A staff member summarized the technical baseline for the discussion: "Our code currently requires if it's near certain trail or open space areas, it has to be 4 feet of privacy and 2 feet on top open," and clarified that the code treats any area designated on a plat as open space or a trail corridor the same way under the current rule.

Commissioners and public commenters raised several recurring concerns. One commissioner said narrow open-space strips can feel like alleyways if surrounded by full-height privacy fences and worried about isolation and aesthetics. Another commissioner, who identified as a heavy trail user, said some sections already feel "closed in" where privacy fences are allowed and favored keeping protections along planned trail corridors. Speakers also noted the city’s recent changes to fence rules that narrowed the areas where solid privacy fencing is prohibited and the practical enforcement route — enforcement typically begins with a complaint by a neighbor and escalates from there if needed.

Key clarifying details discussed at the meeting included: the code’s working definition of a "narrow" corridor as 30 feet or less; the existing technical requirement of 4 feet solid with the upper 2 feet open when the rule applies; the distinction staff drew between an "open space" (which may never receive a trail) and a "trail corridor" (land set aside on plats or in the trail plan for a potential trail); and that recent code revisions have trended toward allowing more privacy fencing while narrowing the areas where it is disallowed.

No formal code change was adopted during the discussion. The transcript does not record a definitive commission vote on amending the fence standard; commissioners debated the options, expressed differing preferences, and solicited clarifying information about definitions and enforcement, but the record shows only discussion and no enacted revision at this meeting.

The topic may return to a future agenda if commissioners request formal draft language or direct staff to prepare an amendment. For now, staff left the item as an open discussion for the commission to weigh the three alternatives and for future direction from the commission if they choose to pursue a code amendment.