Planning staff presented a workshop on proposed clarifications to Nibley’s fence regulations, focusing on fences along trails and streets, agricultural-style fences, corner-visibility requirements and possible changes to the permitting/inspection process.

City planner Levi said the current code does not allow solid opaque fences taller than four feet along public trails; above four feet the ordinance requires a 75% transparent treatment up to six feet. "Along public trails, we don't allow fence opaque solid fences greater than 4 feet," Levi said. Staff reported frequent enforcement issues where actual fences differed from permitted plans or did not meet the ordinance’s transparency standard.

The commission discussed several possible changes. Staff proposed raising the allowable opaque height on trails to five feet as a compromise to address the many existing 4–5 foot treatments seen in subdivisions. Commissioners also discussed clarifying how the rule applies when a trail runs between a street and a yard or when a corridor is wider; one option the commission considered was tying the requirement to the distance between fence and trail (for example, allowing taller opaque fences where there is a 20-foot buffer).

Members raised the treatment of agricultural fences on larger lots. Staff noted many property owners want three-rail or split-rail fences higher than four feet for pastures and that the rail fences are not opaque. "A lot of agricultural fence is a little taller than 4 feet," Levi said; commissioners suggested permitting non-opaque rail or post-and-rail fences in front-yard areas where practical.

On enforcement, staff proposed adding a required as-built inspection for fence permits: after construction staff would verify height and materials to catch nonconforming work before contractors leave the job. The presenter said this would reduce cases where homeowners must later remove or rebuild fences because a contractor built a different product from the approved plan.

Corner visibility and safety also drew discussion. Staff showed an example where a new fence effectively limited sight lines near a stop sign. Engineering guidance from the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) was discussed as a reference for sight-distance standards; the commission supported requiring an engineering check where a proposed fence could affect site distance. "If it doesn't meet a certain site distance, we would say you have to set back or drop it down to four feet," Levi said.

Other procedural items: staff suggested allowing the city council latitude to set a fee for fence permits (the code currently specifies no fee) and clarifying the treatment of temporary construction fences. Commissioners asked staff to return with clearer code language that addresses: (1) a maximum opaque fence height along trails (staff proposed 5 feet as a compromise), (2) a rule keyed to distance between trail and fence, (3) allowed agricultural fence types in front yards, and (4) an inspection step after construction to verify compliance.