Planning commission refines landscaping rules, forwards ordinance to town council
May 06, 2026 | Fairfield, Utah County, Utah
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Fairfield Planning and Zoning commissioners finished a public hearing and voted to send an amended landscaping ordinance to the town council for review and potential adoption.
The commission, led by the chair, opened the public hearing on the ordinance and found no public comment before proceeding to a detailed, page‑by‑page review. Commissioner Jamie moved to forward the ordinance to council after commissioners resolved several drafting issues; the motion carried.
Commissioners focused on clarifying how the ordinance treats developer‑installed landscaping versus individual single‑family yards. Brad, a reviewer working with the draft, said the goal was to require developers who install landscaping for a subdivision to meet stronger standards while avoiding retroactive burdens on existing homeowners. "This is a very, I would say, very specific, landscaping ordinance," Brad said, noting minimum tree caliper and evergreen height requirements can raise costs but improve survivability.
To address resident concerns about retroactivity, commissioners agreed to add explicit effective‑date language making the ordinance prospective: new requirements would apply only to development applications submitted after adoption. Chair asked staff to add a non‑retroactivity sentence in the ordinance’s purpose or effective‑date section so existing yards would be grandfathered unless they undergo a change of use or subdivision.
The commission also resolved several drafting edits: replacing references to an "air park" nonresidential zone with "mixed use zones," removing multifamily mentions where those zones do not yet exist, and confirming minimum parking‑lot landscaping requirements (a minimum 5% of total parking lot area and one tree per 10 parking spaces). On fencing, commissioners agreed to permit chain‑link when used as a screening device if slatted to roughly 85% closure, preferring a positive, performance‑based rule rather than an outright prohibition.
After finishing the edits and agreeing Brad would polish outstanding wording before the ordinance goes to council, Commissioner Jamie moved and the commission approved forwarding Title 10.19.00 (landscaping requirements) to the town council for review and approval. The commission also agreed that Brad would continue to review the ordinance language and that staff would add effective date/non‑retroactivity language.
The commission voted unanimously on the forwarding motion. The town council will receive the ordinance for its review and any further public hearings or decisions.
The commission adjourned at approximately 8:12 p.m.
The commission, led by the chair, opened the public hearing on the ordinance and found no public comment before proceeding to a detailed, page‑by‑page review. Commissioner Jamie moved to forward the ordinance to council after commissioners resolved several drafting issues; the motion carried.
Commissioners focused on clarifying how the ordinance treats developer‑installed landscaping versus individual single‑family yards. Brad, a reviewer working with the draft, said the goal was to require developers who install landscaping for a subdivision to meet stronger standards while avoiding retroactive burdens on existing homeowners. "This is a very, I would say, very specific, landscaping ordinance," Brad said, noting minimum tree caliper and evergreen height requirements can raise costs but improve survivability.
To address resident concerns about retroactivity, commissioners agreed to add explicit effective‑date language making the ordinance prospective: new requirements would apply only to development applications submitted after adoption. Chair asked staff to add a non‑retroactivity sentence in the ordinance’s purpose or effective‑date section so existing yards would be grandfathered unless they undergo a change of use or subdivision.
The commission also resolved several drafting edits: replacing references to an "air park" nonresidential zone with "mixed use zones," removing multifamily mentions where those zones do not yet exist, and confirming minimum parking‑lot landscaping requirements (a minimum 5% of total parking lot area and one tree per 10 parking spaces). On fencing, commissioners agreed to permit chain‑link when used as a screening device if slatted to roughly 85% closure, preferring a positive, performance‑based rule rather than an outright prohibition.
After finishing the edits and agreeing Brad would polish outstanding wording before the ordinance goes to council, Commissioner Jamie moved and the commission approved forwarding Title 10.19.00 (landscaping requirements) to the town council for review and approval. The commission also agreed that Brad would continue to review the ordinance language and that staff would add effective date/non‑retroactivity language.
The commission voted unanimously on the forwarding motion. The town council will receive the ordinance for its review and any further public hearings or decisions.
The commission adjourned at approximately 8:12 p.m.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
