Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fence And Lot Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fruit Heights reviews proposed fence, corner-vision and lot-coverage limits; commissioners favor 50% rear-yard cap
Summary
Fruit Heights City Council reviewed proposed limits on front-yard, side-yard and corner fences and debated a 50% yard-wide lot-coverage cap (excluding primary building footprint).
Fruit Heights City Council reviewed proposed amendments to city regulations governing fences, walls and lot coverage.
Staff presented a structure that separates front yards, interior side/rear yards and corner side yards. Under the draft, front-yard fences measured from the front plane of the primary building would be limited to 4 feet. Interior side and rear yard fences behind the front plane of the primary building would be limited to 6 feet. For corner lots, the draft proposes that a fence or wall within the side setback not exceed 6 feet and must be located outside the minimum clear-view area (the draft cites a triangular area formed by property lines with points 40 feet from the intersection); additionally, a fence on a corner side yard would generally be set back at least 9 feet from the back of curb.
Commissioners discussed how to define the front plane of the primary building in the ordinance text, and whether to treat driveways and driveway-vision triangles differently (several members said driveway-visibility concerns are distinct and could be handled separately). The draft already contains an exception process: exceptions and requests to exceed height limits would be handled as conditional uses by the planning commission; several members favored retaining that review step so exceptions are public and recorded.
The commission also debated lot-coverage rules. One proposal would replace a rear-yard-only formula with a yard-wide maximum and the working figure discussed was 50% of the yard (exclusive of the primary building footprint). Commissioners noted modern permeable paving products and suggested allowing permeable surfaces to help maintain stormwater capacity even if a larger hard surface were installed.
Next steps: staff will incorporate clarifying definitions (front plane, buildable envelope), keep the planning-commission exception pathway for unusual cases, and return a cleaned-up draft and public-notice plan for a future public hearing. No final ordinance was adopted at this meeting.
