Emigration Canyon resident seeks exception for front-yard fence; commission defers decision to July

Emily Plew, a homeowner on Emigration Canyon Road, asked the Emigration Canyon Planning Commission on Thursday, June 12, 2025, for exceptions to local fence rules so she can install a cedar front-yard fence and privacy screen along the road.

Plew said the stretch of Emigration Canyon Road by her house is “heavily trafficked with bicyclists and motorcyclists, especially on weekends. And so it makes being out in the front yard nearly impossible,” and that she is seeking an exception to recent ordinance changes that would otherwise limit fence height and require greater setbacks and horizontal articulation.

The commission’s discussion focused on three practical issues: whether the proposed fence would sit inside the county right-of-way, how the ordinance’s 20-foot setback and minimum horizontal articulation requirements apply at this property, and how landscaping could be used to soften a taller fence. Commissioners who reviewed the materials said the proposed simple, horizontal design (option B in Plew’s packet) would be acceptable in appearance, but noted the application needs clearer documentation of property lines and right-of-way before a final decision.

Why this matters: The commission must balance neighborhood character, sight-line and traffic safety, wildlife egress, and property rights with residents’ requests for privacy and noise mitigation on a road used frequently by cyclists and motorcyclists. Several commissioners also flagged snow-plow impacts and the county’s emerging effort to tighten fence-design standards along the canyon.

Details of the proposal and discussion Plew presented plan views, photographs and two renderings. She said the proposed fence would be cedar, stained dark gray or brown, and that her current proposal calls for heights ranging roughly from 5 feet 6 inches to 6 feet 8 inches. She said the fence as proposed would sit about nine feet from the edge of pavement, and that she is seeking exceptions from (1) the code’s 20-foot front-yard/right-of-way setback requirement and (2) the ordinance’s horizontal-articulation requirement because her front yard and the road geometry limit where the fence can be placed.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly asked for a clearer property-line or survey statement showing where the county right-of-way lies. Commissioner Jim McNamara said his site visit suggested the proposed fence alignment may coincide with the right-of-way line near an existing utility pole and power box, and the commission discussed requiring an indemnification or hold-harmless agreement if a fence is approved in the right-of-way.

Several commissioners recommended landscaping or shrub planting in front of panels to soften the visual impact. One commissioner noted the applicant already showed proposed bushes behind the guardrail and commended Plew for not proposing the fence to extend past the guardrail, to maintain an opening for animal passage.

Procedural outcome The commission did not take a final vote on the exceptions at the June 12 meeting. Commissioners and legal counsel raised two procedural impediments: the agenda item had not been posted with the required 24-hour notice in a format the commission would treat as an action item, and staff needed to confirm the right-of-way/property-line questions. On advice from legal counsel, the commission agreed to make the application an action item on the July agenda, with a staff report and additional review (including review by staff member Jody) to accompany the packet.

Commissioner Tim (first name used in the transcript) summarized the procedural direction: the item will be made an action item for the July meeting and staff will provide a report; no formal approvals were granted on June 12.

What comes next Wendy (staff member) will add the item to the July agenda as an action item and provide a staff report. The commission asked the applicant to consider a private survey to clarify the property line if county records remain unclear. Commissioners suggested that if the fence is approved, landscaping or articulation and a hold-harmless agreement could be conditions to address visual and maintenance concerns.

For now, the application remains under review and will return to the Emigration Canyon Planning Commission in July for a formal decision.