HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 05/06/2025 - Memorandum from Ginny Sawyer re Wildlife Friendly FencingCity Manager’s Office
City Hall
300 LaPorte Ave.
PO Box 580
Fort Collins, CO 80522
970.221.6505
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 1, 2025
To: Mayor Arndt and Councilmembers
Through: Kelly DiMartino, City Manager
Tyler Marr, Deputy City Manager
From: Ginny Sawyer, Project & Policy Manager
Subject: Wildlife Friendly Fencing
Bottom Line
Staff was requested to, under Other Business, research and consider current fencing regulations and
policies to determine if there were areas of improvement that could be made.
Wildlife friendly fencing is intended to allow safe passage over, under, or through fencing, or to install
fencing in a way to completely disallow movement past the fence. Requests for information and online
research produced limited results, however, a few potential improvements were identified.
Background
Staff from Zoning and the City Manager’s Office met with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) staff to
review current fencing regulations. Fencing regulations are reviewed below. CPW staff very much
supports all wildlife friendly fencing efforts and provided their publication “Fencing with Wildlife in Mind.”
This document mostly focuses on rural settings but there are practices that can apply to an urban
environment. (https://cpw.widencollective.com/assets/share/asset/vlrphdeji6)
Existing Regulations
The City’s current regulations address residential fencing, security fencing/oil & gas, and livestock
containment. Variances are allowable in all cases. In general, the following are key points:
Oil & Gas Facility:
• No less than 6 feet in height.
General Fences:
• Allowed in all zones.
o Potential option to adjust allowance or fence specifics based on adjacency to Natural
Area or known wildlife corridor.
This could include allowing taller fence than might be normally required (i.e.
Woodward site).
• No barbed wire or other sharp-pointed fence and no electrically charged fence shall be installed
or used in any zone districts, except as stated below.
• In the Urban Estate (UE), Rural Land (RUL) and Foothills Residential (RF) Districts, barbed wire
and portable electrically charged fencing may be used for the purpose of livestock and pasture
management. Electrically charged fencing must be used within permanent fencing.
Docusign Envelope ID: 101AC0CD-AE43-4403-A56C-662502837176
o Potential option to add that top strand of such fencing must be smooth and bottom
strand must be 16 inches off the ground. These practices are called out in the CPW
fencing guidelines.
o Potential option to add Public Open Lands (POL) to allow for the fencing described
above for habitat improvement purposes. When Natural Areas utilizes grazing for
ecological health some level of barbed fencing is beneficial.
• In the Employment (E) District and the Industrial (I) District, the Director may grant a revocable
use permit that must be renewed every three (3) years for installation of security arms and
barbed wire strands atop protective fences or walls, provided that the following conditions are
met: the lowest strand of barbed wire must be maintained at least ten (10) feet above the
adjoining ground level outside the fence.
• Fencing cannot be more than 4 feet high if located in a front yard and no more than 6 feet high
in a side or back yard. Front yard fencing also applies to commercial when considering the
direction of the front of the building.
Specific Situational Questions
Woodward Fencing:
Woodward at Lemay and Lincoln has fencing along both streets and around the perimeter. Based on
code the fencing along Lincoln/Lemay is considered “front yard” and therefore by code would have
been 4 feet in height. Due to security concerns, a minor amendment was approved to allow the fence to
be 5 feet in height. The plan also required flat topped pickets.
As part of the conversations with CPW, staff asked about reports of animal impalement at the
Woodword property. CPW had heard of these occurrences but did not directly witness nor were they
involved (Photo of Woodward fencing below.) Staff followed up with current security staff at Woodward
to inquire about these occurrences (frequency, location, etc.) Security staff is new and so were not
knowledgeable of these events. Both CPW and Woodward would prefer the original fencing on-site to
be taller (there are not plans to do this, but both agreed there would be benefit at this location.) CPW
thought higher fencing would prevent an animal from attempting to jump. Another suggestion was to
add reflective flags along the top.
Whitewater Park/Xcel easement:
The fencing and barbwire at this location is a non-conforming use. If this infrastructure were installed
today the fencing would likely be higher and without barbwire.
Next Steps
Options could include:
• No new regulations and work with development on a case-by-case basis through existing
variance process.
• Adopt amendments as listed under “potential options” above.
• Increase allowance for taller fence heights for nonresidential uses.
Staff will wait for additional direction from Council. If code amendments are desired, they could be
rolled in with 2025 Land Use Code changes. Code changes would not be retroactive.
Docusign Envelope ID: 101AC0CD-AE43-4403-A56C-662502837176
Docusign Envelope ID: 101AC0CD-AE43-4403-A56C-662502837176