City approves two 8-foot residential fence extensions to address privacy and noise

The City of Cottonwood Heights administrative hearing on June 4 approved two conditional-use requests allowing 8-foot residential fences, citing privacy and noise-mitigation concerns for lots adjacent to busy roadways and neighboring taller fences.

Mike Johnson, community and economic development director and the administrative hearing officer, said the first request (CUP25007) for 7621 S. Primavera Court was warranted because the lot sits adjacent to Wasatch Boulevard and across from Ferguson Park, creating high traffic and noise. “Given the location of this lot, and the adjacency to Wasatch Boulevard, it certainly seems like a qualifying impact to support the approval of a slightly higher fence,” Johnson said.

Planning staff recommended conditional approval for both applications, saying the proposed materials and 8-foot height would increase privacy and help reduce noise for the applicants. Staff advised that approvals are subject to building permits, inspections and compliance with material and maximum height limits; under city code an 8-foot fence may be permitted as a conditional use and up to 12 feet with neighbors’ consent.

For CUP25007, applicants Cameron and Jane Archibald proposed a concrete fence along the east property line to buffer noise from Wasatch Boulevard and Ferguson Park. After the public comment period produced no speakers for that item, Johnson moved to approve the application pursuant to the findings and conditions in the staff report dated June 4, 2025. The applicant was instructed to work with staff to complete the building-permit process.

The second request, CUP25008, was filed by Elite Outdoor Pro on behalf of property owner James Dodson for 2450 E. Bengal Bend Cove. The proposal would replace an existing 6-foot chain-link fence with an 8-foot vinyl fence on the west and south property lines; the applicant said the 8-foot portion would be limited to a rear section (highlighted in blue on staff plans) and would transition to 6 feet toward the street to satisfy city requirements. The applicant also stated the neighbor to the south supported the plan.

Two neighbors spoke during public comment on CUP25008. Neighbor Betsy Romney, who shares the property line, said she supported the fence but raised a procedural question about setback and placement relative to a potential hot tub: “Is there setback? Is it just arbitrary?” The hearing officer said the building-permit site plan must show the fence on the applicant’s property and, if necessary, the city can require a survey to resolve any boundary dispute. Neighbor Curtis Preece said he was “a 100%” in support, adding the new fence will enhance the property and neighborhood by increasing privacy and reducing light intrusion.

The applicant described planned grading and concrete work to slope runoff away from the property so the fence installation would not cause drainage impacts on adjacent lots. Johnson said the city enforces codes that prohibit discharging runoff onto neighboring properties and that the permit process will ensure compliance.

After staff analysis and the public input, Johnson found CUP25008 to be a reasonable request limited to the 8-foot extension area and moved to approve the application under the staff report’s findings and conditions. Both approvals now proceed to the building-permit stage and require approved plans, permits, and inspections before construction may begin.

Recorded conditions for both approvals require the applicant to obtain and complete all building-permit and inspection requirements, follow the approved material and design specifications, and ensure final fence height does not exceed eight feet above the finished grade for the approved sections.