Planning commission reviews draft fence-code revisions; staff to return with formal text amendment

The Canby Planning Commission met in a work session to discuss proposed revisions to the city's fence code. Planning Manager Ryan Potter presented staff's draft edits and said the session was intended to collect commission feedback before staff prepares a formal text amendment for a noticed hearing.

"Tonight we're gonna talk about fence standards for the last time in a work session," Potter said, summarizing staff's goal of moving the draft toward a formal ordinance. He told commissioners staff will review the draft with the city attorney and return the revised code for public hearing and a recommendation to city council.

The commission focused first on safety rules the draft now places at the start of the chapter. Potter said staff moved a vision-clearance provision to the top of the section "to emphasize how important that was," and stressed that the provision "applies in all zones and in all lot configurations." Commissioners asked staff to clarify how vision-triangle requirements interact with allowances for taller backyard fences on corner and through lots.

Commissioners and staff discussed several substantive points in the draft: - Vision clearance and step-downs: The draft keeps vision-clearance requirements that reduce fence height within the triangular sight lines at intersections. Potter said higher fences on corner lots could "wrap around more," but must step down to the lower height required in the front setback and to the vision-triangle height (discussed in the session as about 2.5 feet in the triangle and 3.5 feet in front-setback contexts, per the draft language). Commissioners asked staff to provide clearer guidance so property owners can determine where a taller fence must step down.

- Corner lots, through lots and wrapping fences: Staff proposed clearer language to allow six-foot backyard fences to wrap along a side street in many corner-lot situations, while still requiring lower heights in front-setback areas for safety and aesthetics.

- Height by zone and abutting uses: The draft keeps six-foot residential fences as the default. Commissioners expressed support for allowing an eight-foot fence where a residential property directly abuts commercial or industrial zoning or an industrial use, to provide additional buffering. Staff said nonresidential zones (highway commercial and industrial) would continue to be eligible for taller fences and that PUDs could request alternative standards through their discretionary review.

- Fences along pedestrian paths: Staff proposed more-permissive language to reflect common practice: six-foot fences along rear and side yards that must step down at required front setbacks, with an eight-foot allowance in industrial/commercial zones where there is no front setback.

- Mitigation fences and industrial screening: The draft retains a provision allowing the planning commission or staff to require site-obscuring or noise-mitigating fences for developments with specific adverse impacts. Commissioners discussed whether the screening requirement for open storage and laydown yards in the industrial park overlay should default to eight feet; several commissioners said taller screening makes sense for industrial storage areas.

- Arbors and vegetation: Staff proposed removing or narrowing a separate "arbor" provision. Commissioners questioned whether the city should regulate arbors attached to fences and whether vegetation that encroaches on public rights-of-way or blocks vision triangles is already covered elsewhere in the code. Several commissioners said regulation of arbors and private vegetation may be better handled through nuisance or property-maintenance provisions and private CC&Rs rather than the fence chapter.

- Materials and maintenance: Commissioners raised concerns about durability and long-term maintenance (examples cited included vinyl fences that degrade over time). Potter said staff would consider language that fences be constructed of durable materials and maintained in good condition, while noting enforceability limits.

- Definitions and grade: Commissioners asked staff to add or clarify definitions for "height" (for example, whether height is measured from finished grade or from a retained/bermed surface) and for how to handle retaining walls with fences on top. Potter said staff will research how other cities measure fence height and bring recommended definitions back to the commission.

What it means: Commissioners generally supported making the code more explicit about vision clearance, making allowances for taller screening where residential abuts commercial/industrial uses, and simplifying path-related provisions to reflect common practice. No formal decisions were made; the session was advisory.

Next steps: Potter said staff will revise the draft to reflect the commission's feedback, consult with the city attorney for legal review, provide clearer graphics or a table showing typical vision-triangle/step-down measurements, and return a formal text amendment for a noticed hearing. Staff announced the fence-code amendment will be on the planning commission agenda as an ordinance text amendment for a future meeting (staff referenced a June 9 hearing date in the meeting schedule).