Nathan Bilger, Columbia City planning and building director, presented draft language and four options for a front-yard fence code amendment during the April 22 Common Council meeting and asked council members for feedback before the planning commission takes the matter up.

Bilger said the current code allows front-yard fences of any type up to 3 feet high, and chain-link fences receive a "bonus" allowance up to about 4 feet. He said the four options under consideration are: (1) add an objective transparency definition and allow transparent fences up to 4 feet; (2) allow any customary fence up to 4 feet and remove the chain-link bonus; (3) create an "open decorative" category (including chain link and ornamental open fencing) that is permitted to 4 feet; and (4) add more specific material restrictions across zones to limit nonstandard materials (for example, exclude pallets or heavily utilitarian fencing in residential front yards).

Why it matters: Changes would affect homeowners' choices about front-yard fencing, materials and heights and could address neighborhood aesthetics, safety and animal-control concerns. The planning commission's decision could alter how easily residents can install front-yard fences and which materials the city accepts.

Details and context: Bilger said option 1 is the most objective because it offers a defined transparency metric, which could reduce subjective enforcement. Option 2 mirrors many Indiana codes that simply permit fences up to 4 feet and rely on existing visibility-triangle rules at intersections; Bilger noted the city's visibility triangle already prohibits obstructions between 2 and 8 feet at intersections. Option 3 was described as a middle path that allows decorative or open fencing types a 4-foot allowance while excluding truly opaque or nonstandard materials from the bonus. Option 4 would insert explicit material-language to the code to reduce ambiguity about items such as chicken wire or cattle fence use in front yards.

Council feedback and next steps: Council members expressed a preference for permissive but aesthetically compatible language. Several members said they favored the "open/decorative" verbiage (option 3) because it provides clarity without broad allowance for any material in the front yard. Bilger said he will refine the options and present an official draft to the planning commission on May 5 and will make the proposed text public in advance of that meeting to allow comment.

Ending: Bilger asked council members to forward feedback to planning staff before the planning commission review; the commission meeting is scheduled for May 5.