Emigration Canyon planners refine draft fence rules, prioritize wildlife corridors and vegetation protections

Emigration Canyon Planning Commission members spent the bulk of the meeting continuing revision of Title 19 provisions for fences and tree/vegetation protections, focusing on how to measure setbacks, maximum fence heights, mandatory wildlife openings and how to handle tree removal in wildfire-prone areas.

The commission directed staff to revise the draft ordinance and bring a cleaned-up version with drawings to the next meeting; commissioners also agreed to seek input from wildlife experts (for example, state DNR wildlife biologists) before finalizing corridor spacing and opening sizes.

Why it matters: The revisions under discussion would change where property owners may place fences along canyon roads, how tall those fences may be, and what openings must be provided to allow wildlife movement. The rules could affect lot owners’ ability to enclose yards for pets or privacy and affect long-term efforts to reduce wildlife–vehicle conflicts and preserve migration routes.

Most consequential decisions and remaining issues

- Setback measurement: Commissioners agreed that setbacks should be measured from the recorded right-of-way or, if necessary, the road centerline rather than the variable edge of pavement. Staff said edge-of-pavement measurements are unreliable in the canyon because asphalt widths vary and some segments will be widened in the future for bike lanes.

- Setback distance: After discussion, the group indicated a working setback of 10 feet from the paved surface on most roads, with a specific caveat that Emigration Canyon Road is treated as a special case and that the draft should rely on right-of-way lines rather than pavement edge where feasible.

- Height: The commission reached consensus that a 6-foot standard is appropriate for typical backyard or perimeter fences, with 7 feet treated as an exception requiring planning commission approval. The draft language that retained a 42-inch standard for some front-yard situations drew skepticism and staff proposed removing that as a universal maximum while keeping targeted limitations for specific road frontages where appropriate.

- Articulation: The draft includes a requirement for horizontal articulation: 5-foot minimum recesses at least every 40 feet of continuous fence. Commissioners agreed the articulation requirement provides visual relief on long runs of fencing but also asked staff to produce drawings and objective criteria for exceptions rather than leaving decisions entirely subjective.

- Wildlife crossings and setbacks between adjoining properties: Commissioners focused on how to ensure passage for deer and other wildlife. The key elements discussed were: - Side and rear yard fences should be set back 3 feet from the property line on each side, which creates a 6-foot corridor if both adjoining owners place fences at that setback. - The commission discussed a spacing rule for openings (staff and several commissioners referenced "every 100 feet" as a working number) and a minimum opening width of 6 feet. Commissioners debated two interpretations: one that requires paired 3-foot setbacks on both sides of a property line (creating a 6-foot corridor at those locations) and another that would require a 6-foot opening at least every 100 feet along a continuous fence. Staff will clarify the draft to avoid creating unintended parallel corridors or excessive materials burdens on property owners. - Commissioners discussed landscaping or planting restrictions within required corridors: they flagged the need for language preventing installation of boulders, dense plantings or other features that would block a corridor and asked staff to include guidance or limits on what is permitted within explicit wildlife-crossing corridors.

- Enclosing entire properties: Commissioners expressed a preference to discourage fences that completely enclose an entire property perimeter in a way that blocks wildlife movement. The draft will include discouraging language and objective requirements (setbacks and openings) rather than an absolute prohibition; many existing lots will be grandfathered until adoption and implementation.

- Technical and expert input: Commissioners asked staff to contact state DNR wildlife biologists (or other wildlife experts) for advice on appropriate spacing and width for wildlife openings and to evaluate the potential for corridor designs to reduce road–wildlife collisions.

Tree and vegetation protection and wildfire interface

The commission reviewed the tree and vegetation protection section of the draft concurrently with the fence rules. Key points:

- Staff referenced the Salt Lake County Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) code revisions (discussed in staff reports) as an example; commissioners asked staff to compare the county's adopted WUI rules (and related best practices) to the current Emigration Canyon draft and to return recommended language.

- Commissioners discussed defensible-space and wildfire mitigation priorities: they noted that fire-safety considerations have changed recent practice (in some jurisdictions officials now recommend reducing certain tree plantings near structures) and that the ordinance should not require replanting that undermines defensible-space objectives.

- Replacement ratios and limits of disturbance: The draft retains a replacement/revegetation approach tied to an approved limit of disturbance on site plans. Commissioners asked staff to confirm and, where necessary, simplify replacement-caliper or density rules, and to consider removing or revising clauses that are inconsistent with modern WUI guidance.

Process and next steps

Staff (Brian) said he will redraft the fencing section to resolve ambiguous phrasing, add illustrative diagrams, and present a consolidated draft that combines the fence rules with site design standards. The commission also asked staff to try to schedule input from wildlife experts (DNR or similarly qualified biologists) before final adoption.

The commission intends to take further action at its next scheduled meeting; staff listed the next meeting on the calendar and said the fence draft and any recommended vegetation/WUI changes will be on that agenda.

Votes at this meeting

The only recorded formal motion during the transcript excerpted here was approval of the March 13 minutes as revised. A member moved to approve the minutes and the motion passed unanimously; the individual roll-call votes were not recorded in the minutes excerpt.

Ending

Commissioners agreed to continue the Title 19 review, with staff returning a revised draft and drawings and with a plan to solicit wildlife-expert input. The meeting closed with scheduling reminders for the next meeting.