Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fences And Setbacks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners debate 42‑inch fence standard, wildlife crossings and approval authority along Emigration Canyon Road
Summary
Planning commissioners reviewed a proposed 42‑inch default fence height for Emigration Canyon Road frontage, exceptions for taller privacy fences (setbacks, articulations and wildlife openings), a 900‑sq‑ft exception, and whether routine approvals should be administrative or come to the commission.
Commissioners spent the longest portion of the Feb. 13 meeting reviewing draft fence language for Emigration Canyon Road and the rest of the canyon. The draft establishes a default 42‑inch maximum fence height along canyon frontage to protect sight lines and wildlife movement; higher fences would be allowed if they meet strict conditions, including horizontal articulation every 40 feet, an opening for wildlife every 100 feet and a setback from adjoining properties.
The commission discussed several drafting issues: inconsistent numbers in earlier drafts (some text referenced 48 inches), whether the standard should measure setbacks from the edge of paved roadway or property/build‑to lines, and whether a 900‑square‑foot service‑area exception (for small arbours, patios or kennels) should allow higher fences without commission review. Commissioners debated materials and safety concerns (for example, prohibiting chain link in prominent canyon locations and considering more fire‑resistant materials where lots are tight).
On procedure, commissioners weighed making routine exception approvals administrative (director or designee) while reserving the planning commission for cases with potential impacts on wildlife corridors, steep slopes, stream corridors, or overriding public‑safety issues. Several commissioners favored a two‑track approach: director/designee for clear, standards‑compliant proposals and commission review for atypical or habitat‑sensitive requests.
Staff was asked to clean up cross‑references (Title 14 Title 19 inconsistencies), unify fencing language per zone, and produce an amalgamated draft and parcel maps showing buildable/unbuilt lots. Commissioners will consider the revised fencing and setbacks at the next work session; Matt agreed to circulate the consolidated draft in advance.
