Emigration Canyon planning panel debates fence setbacks, wildlife openings and who can approve exceptions

EMIGRATION CANYON, Utah — The Emigration Canyon Planning Commission spent most of its April 3 meeting debating proposed changes to the municipal zoning code that would restrict where and how property owners can build fences along Emigration Canyon Road and other local streets.

Planners presented draft language recasting parts of Title 19 (zoning) and related Title 14 (roadway/engineering standards). The draft would keep a 42-inch baseline height limit for most perimeter fences and add rules allowing taller fences only where visual impacts are mitigated by horizontal articulation or a landscaped buffer. It would also require wildlife openings and set a minimum setback from the paved surface of the road for fences fronting Emigration Canyon Road.

Commissioners and staff said the proposals aim to protect sight lines and the canyon’s visual character, preserve wildlife movement and reduce long stretches of “wall-like” fencing. They traded detail about how large buffers should be, where exceptions should be decided and how the ordinance should treat replacement fences that predate any change.

“'No fence may be approved, constructed, or installed within wildlife corridors, riparian areas, unique geographic features, and or other historical or cultural resources,'” planner Matt read from the draft during the meeting, highlighting the commission’s intent to protect sensitive areas. He told the commission he had tried to integrate prior comments and that staff plans to circulate a shared draft of Title 19 ahead of the next meeting.

Commissioner Jim, a longtime reviewer of the code, urged an aspirational standard while recognizing site constraints. “I think 20 feet is a good objective,” he said, referring to the setback used in the current Emigration Canyon language; but he added the ordinance should allow modification where topography or safety make 20 feet impractical.

Commissioners debated specific measurements that appear in the draft: a 20-foot setback along Emigration Canyon Road (the current code), a 10-foot default for other streets, and staff proposals to consider a 10–12 foot compromise for the canyon given existing development and right-of-way constraints. The draft also includes a requirement for a wildlife opening at least 6 feet wide at least every 100 linear feet of fence, or a paired 3-foot setback on adjoining properties to achieve the same opening.

Height and visual-mitigation language drew particular scrutiny. Under the draft, fences fronting Emigration Canyon Road “may exceed 42 inches in height provided the visual impact is mitigated by providing a 5-foot minimum horizontal articulation located a minimum of every 40 feet of linear fence or by providing a minimum 6-foot landscaped area between the fence and the property line adjacent to the road.” Commissioners debated how to interpret “horizontal articulation” (staff explained it as lateral jogs that create a visual break) and whether the 40-foot/5-foot formula or a limitation on the length of taller fence segments would better prevent a continuous wall effect.

Commissioners also discussed the approvals process for exceptions. Several members argued that minor, geometrically constrained cases should be handled administratively by the planning director or the director’s designee, while larger or policy-significant deviations should come before the planning commission. Jim said the commission should see proposals “when it has the potential to influence the character of the community.” Tim agreed that routine or minor modifications could be handled by staff, but that the commission should review significant exceptions.

The draft seeks to make clear that new, replacement or substantially modified fences must be shown on an approved site plan. Staff noted that under current code a site plan is required for most development and that in practice fence projects often lack building permits because fences under seven feet do not require them; that complicates enforcement of new rules and could leave much existing fencing legal nonconforming.

Right-of-way issues also surfaced repeatedly. Commissioners pressed staff to avoid language that would appear to authorize building inside the public right of way. Staff and the commission agreed to add or clarify language stating that fences may not be placed in public rights of way and that any encroachment would require appropriate permits and be subject to removal if the public agency later needs the space.

The commission reviewed several aerial examples near Ruth’s Diner as case studies, noting many existing fences already violate the draft standards (no landscape buffer, little setback, greater than 42 inches). Commissioners said enforcing a new standard will create legal nonconforming fences in many places and discussed whether the code should allow owners to replace an identical fence that fails to meet the new rules when it deteriorates.

No formal vote was taken on the Title 19 revision itself. Commissioners agreed to continue work on the draft: Matt said he will send the revised fencing section and a consolidated Title 19 Word document to the commission before the May meeting. The commission scheduled a follow-up discussion for May 8.

At the meeting’s close the commission moved, seconded and approved adjournment.

What happens next: staff will circulate the updated draft Title 19 and the specific fencing subsection; commissioners asked staff to check municipal right-of-way widths and return with clarified language specifying the measurement baseline (for example, from the centerline, edge line or recorded right-of-way).