HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-18-03City of
_,,�� Wheat -Midge T -,)4z
1 J a ITEM NO:
DATE: June 25, 2018
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
0 r
TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 16-2018 — AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE
OF LAWS CONCERNING ELECTRIFIED FENCES (CASE
NO. ZOA-18-03)
® PUBLIC HEARING
❑ BIDS/MOTIONS
❑ RESOLUTIONS
QUASI-JUDICIAL:
❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (06/11/2018)
® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (06/25/2018)
❑ YES
Community Developnlent Director
/1 •
City Manager
ISSUE:
Municipal Code is currently silent on the topic of electrified fencing. Historically, the City has
determined such fences to be prohibited in the City based on a finding that they represent "a
hazard to the health or safety of any person," and as such were by definition a prohibited fence
type. City Council requested discussion of the topic and an initial discussion occurred at the May
7, 2018 Study Session. At Council's May 21 study session staff presented a draft ordinance that
would allow electrified fences in certain locations through review and approval of a special use
permit (SUP). Council's direction at that meeting was to move forward with a code amendment
ordinance public hearing process, including the required Planning Commission public hearing.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 7 and they forward a
recommendation of approval with a 4-2 vote.
PRIOR ACTION:
As noted, City Council has discussed this topic at the May 7 and May 21, 2018 study sessions.
City Council introduced the ordinance on first reading on June 11 and Planning Commission
conducted their public hearing on June 7.
Council Action Forn — Electrified Fence Code Ordinance
June 25, 2018
Page 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
BACKGROUND:
Historically, staff has interpreted electric fences to be a prohibited fence type. Chapter 26-603 of
the Code defines various types of permitted fences, including: masonry walls, ornamental iron,
woven wire and chain link (with some limitations), wood, hedges, and barbed wire (with some
limitations). The code also defines fence types prohibited, as "any fence, if in the opinion of the
chief building inspector, public works director or chief of police that would constitute a hazard to
the health or safety of any person." Based on this language, electric fences have been treated as a
prohibited fence type.
In a May 7, 2018 staff memo to City Council, staff provided some anecdotal information as to
how other jurisdictions address electrified fences. While many Colorado jurisdictions choose to
prohibit these fences entirely, several also allow them, though generally in limited locations.
Based on Council direction at the May 7 study session, the City Attorney has drafted an
ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code to allow electrically charged fences, at a maximum
height of 9 feet, through review and approval of a special use permit (SUP) application.
Staff felt it would be appropriate to somewhat limit the scope of where such fences could be
installed in the City and the special use permit review process in itself is limiting. Each such
application needs to be evaluated relative to the extent which said application is consistent with
the nine (9) criteria for review found in Section 26-114. Further, we have proposed that they be
allowed only in limited zone districts: Commercial -One, Commercial -Two,
Industrial/Employment, Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial. In defining "electrically
charged fences," staff s draft language also suggests such fences are permitted "where
necessitated by a demonstrated need for heightened security due to the nature of the uses
surrounded by the fence, based upon such circumstances as excessive criminal or theft activity
and the like."
As City Council is aware, the SUP process begins as an administrative review and approval. The
process triggers City Council review under three (3) scenarios: 1) a written objection is received
during the public noticing period; 2) the Community Development Director (CDD) recommends
denial of said application; and 3) the CDD recommends conditions of approval, to which the
applicant objects and wishes to appeal said objection the City Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Council Bill No. 16-2018, an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of
Laws concerning electrified fences, on second reading and that it take effect immediately upon
adoption, as permitted by Section 5.11 of the Charter."
Council Action Form — Electrified Fence Code Ordinance
June 25, 2018
Page 3
Or,
"I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 16-2018 an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of
the Code of Laws concerning electrified fences, for the following reason(s):
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Bill No. 16-2018
2. Planning Commission meeting minutes
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MATHEWS
COUNCIL BILL NO. 16
ORDINANCE NO.
Series 2018
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT
RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING ELECTRICALLY
CHARGED FENCES
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers
conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and C.R.S. § 31-23-101, the City,
acting through its City Council (the "Council"), is authorized to adopt ordinances for the
protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority, the City Council has previously
adopted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code") entitled zoning and
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend said Chapter 26 to provide for the
regulation of electrically charged fences as a special use in certain zone districts and
under specific conditions to ensure the safety and security of property owners and the
general public.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 26-123 of the Code is amended by the addition of the
following definition to be placed in the appropriate alphabetical order:
Electrically charged fence. A fence not exceeding 9 feet in height which is
constructed for the purpose of carrying and supporting wires which are electrically
charged so as to deter unauthorized persons from climbing on or over such fence,
which fence shall be erected in association with other perimeter fencing, and which
may be permitted only as a special use under section 26-114 where necessitated
by a demonstrated need for heightened security due to the nature of the use
surrounded by the fence, based upon such circumstances as excessive criminal
or theft activity and the like.
Section 2. Section 26-114 (special uses) of the Code, subsection B
(Applicability) is amended to read as follows:
B. Applicability. The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all uses listed
as "special uses" within the provisions set forth for any particular zone district.
REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRICALLY
CHARGED FENCE IS PERMITTED IN THE ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED IN
ATTACHMENT 1
ARTICLE 2 OF THIS CHAPTER, AND IN ADDITION THERETO, THE PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (PCD) AND THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(PID).
Section 3. Section 26-204 of the Code is amended by including "electrically
charged fence" within the Table of Uses -Commercial and Industrial Districts, to permit
such use as a special use (S) in the C-1, C-2 and I—E zone districts.
Section 4. Section 26-313 of the Code, concerning Planned Commercial
Development (PCD) district regulations, is amended by the addition of a new subsection
J, to read as follows:
J. "In addition to other uses permitted in the PCD district, electrically charged
fences are permitted as special uses upon approval of a special use permit under
Section 26-114."
Section 5. Section 26-314 of the Code, Planned Industrial Development (PID),
is amended by the addition of a new subsection I to read as follows:
I. "In addition to other uses permitted in the PID district, electrically charged
fences are permitted as special uses upon approval of a special use permit
under Section 26-114."
Section 6. Section 26-603 of the Code is amended by the addition of a new
subsection J, to read:
J. "Notwithstanding this section, an electrically charged fence, if approved as a
special use pursuant to section 26-114, may be constructed to a maximum
height of 9 feet."
Section 7. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section,
subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not
be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption, as
permitted by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 5 to 1 on this
11th day of June, 2018, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in
the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for
June 25, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat
Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of 2018.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2018.
Bud Starker, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
Approved as to Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
First Publication: June 14, 2018
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
Published:
Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
Motion Carried 6-0.
D. Case No. ZOA-18-02: An Ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge
Code of Laws to include an additional criterion for review of applications for
special use permits.
Mr. Johnstone gave a brief summary and background regarding the ordinance
amendment.
Commissioner OHM wanted to know if within this 9th criteria the developer has
any control.
Mr. Johnstone explained that City Council has softened the language and will use a
standard of reasonableness.
Commissioner OHM also asked if a special use permit would be granted in
perpetuity.
Mr. Johnstone said yes but a special use permit could also be granted specific to an
applicant or limited in time.
It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner
LARSON to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending
Chapter 26 to include an additional criterion for review of applications for
special use permits.
Motion carried 6-0.
E. Case No. ZOA-18-03: An Ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge
Code of Laws concerning electrically charged fences.
Mr. Johnstone gave a short presentation regarding the ordinance amendment.
Commissioner OHM asked if the Board of Adjustment recommended a 3 foot
separation from a 6 foot perimeter fence for safety concerns, why has this been
omitted from the ordinance.
Mr. Johnstone said that due to the reality of the parties involved they say it is not
acceptable to them. He explained the other issue is real estate that is not used and
third the trash that collects between the two fences.
Commissioner OHM also wanted to know if signage, warning people that the fence
is electrified could be added to the ordinance.
Mr. Johnstone said it can be a condition of approval.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 7, 2018
ATTACHMENT 2
-12—
Commissioner OHM asked if there should be any references to the International
Standard IEC in the code.
Mr. Johnstone said he did not think there needed to be because the City has
adopted the International Electric Codes as part of our electric codes.
Commissioner OHM asked if a 9 -foot high electric fence is a standard in the
industry.
Mr. Johnstone said he does not think it is a custom design, but if 9 feet is codified
in the ordinance and if a higher fence is desired than a variance could be asked for.
Commissioner OHM thinks there should be a distinction between electric fences
and cattle electric fences.
Mr. Johnstone said the language to distinguish between the two could be used.
Commissioner LARSON asked if Electric Guard Dog, in the original application,
opposed the 3 -foot setback, only turned on after normal business hours and not
electrified on the Pennington School side.
Mr. Johnstone said yes but they appealed the 3 -foot separation requirement to the
Board of Adjustment.
Commissioner VOS asked what the need for an electrified fence is if there is
already a 6 -foot fence in place. She also asked if they have tried security on site.
Mr. Johnstone explained the 6 -foot fence is still easy to climb over and doesn't
stop the criminal activity. He added the fence has also been cut and on-site
security has not helped because the site is large.
Commissioner VOS asked if Pennington School is OK with the electrified fence on
their side of the property.
Mr. Johnstone said they have concerns but do not think they will object.
Commissioner OHM asked if there could be language regarding the voltage,
duration, repetition and distance between perimeter fences as determined by the
manufacturer.
Mr. Johnstone said Electric Guard Dog will have to have regular maintenance
program to keep the area clear so the system is not tripped.
Commissioner VOS asked what the material is between the fences.
Planning Commission Minutes - 13—
June 7, 2018
Mr. Johnstone said it will be a non -permeable material so there will be no weed
growth.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about addressing the Agricultural use with
regards to electrical fences.
Mr. Johnstone said it could be challenging because it is a different set of
circumstances because a cattle fence might not need a perimeter fence around it.
Commissioner VOS asked if the Agricultural community has asked about an
electrical fence.
Mr. Johnstone said not that he is aware of.
It was moved by Commissioner LEO and seconded by Commissioner
LARSON to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending
Chapter 26 concerning electrified fences.
Motion carried 4-2 with Commissioners BUCKNAM and DORSEY voting
against.
8. OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. City Council's Strategic Priorities for 2018/2019
B. Upcoming Ordinance on Freestanding ERs
C. Upcoming Update to Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS)
D. Citizens Survey Results
Mr. Johnstone gave a brief update on the four New Business items because the Planning
Commissioners will be involved in all four of the different processes.
10. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to
adjourn the meeting at 10:34 p.m. Motion carried 6-0.
Alan Bucknam, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes -14—
June
14—
June 7, 2018
City of
/' Wheatj"idge
,J ►
/00 q�p
P6 V,_
1 �
`d /1T6—D
C� V.J
ITEM NO: 81
DATE: June 11, 2018
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 16-2018 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS
CONCERNING ELECTRIFIED FENCES (CASE NO. ZOA-18-
03)
❑ PUBLIC HEARING ® ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (06/112018)
❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (06/25/2018)
❑ RESOLUTIONS
QUASI-JUDICIAL: ❑ YES
Community Developnient Director
// •
City Manager
ISSUE:
Municipal Code is currently silent on the topic of electrified fencing. Historically, the City has
determined such fences to be prohibited in the City based on a finding that they represent "a
hazard to the health or safety of any person," and as such were by definition a prohibited fence
type. City Council requested discussion of the topic and an initial discussion occurred at the May
7, 2018 Study Session. At Council's May 21 study session staff presented a draft ordinance that
would allow electrified fences in certain locations through review and approval of a special use
permit (SUP). Council's direction at that meeting was to move forward with a code amendment
ordinance public hearing process, including the required Planning Commission public hearing,
which occurred on June 7. Their recommendation will be forwarded to City Council at the public
hearing.
PRIOR ACTION:
As noted, City Council has discussed this topic at the May 7 and May 21, 2018 study sessions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None.
Council Action Foran — Electrified Fence Code Ordinance
June 11, 2018
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
Historically, staff has interpreted electric fences to be a prohibited fence type. Chapter 26-603 of
the Code defines various types of permitted fences, including: masonry walls, ornamental iron,
woven wire and chain link (with some limitations), wood, hedges, and barbed wire (with some
limitations). The code also defines fence types prohibited, as "any fence, if in the opinion of the
chief building inspector, public works director or chief of police that would constitute a hazard to
the health or safety of any person." Based on this language, electric fences have been treated as a
prohibited fence type.
In a May 7, 2018 staff memo to City Council, staff provided some anecdotal information as to
how other jurisdictions address electrified fences. While many Colorado jurisdictions choose to
prohibit these fences entirely, several also allow them, though generally in limited locations.
Based on Council direction at the May 7 study session, the City Attorney has drafted an
ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code to allow electrically charged fences, at a maximum
height of 9 feet, through review and approval of a special use permit (SUP) application.
Staff felt it would be appropriate to somewhat limit the scope of where such fences could be
installed in the City and the special use permit review process in itself is limiting. Each such
application needs to be evaluated relative to the extent which said application is consistent with
the nine (9) criteria for review found in Section 26-114. Further, we have proposed that they be
allowed only in limited zone districts: Commercial -One, Commercial -Two,
Industrial/Employment, Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial. In defining "electrically
charged fences," staff's draft language also suggests such fences are permitted "where
necessitated by a demonstrated need for heightened security due to the nature of the uses
surrounded by the fence, based upon such circumstances as excessive criminal or theft activity
and the like."
As City Council is aware, the SUP process begins as an administrative review and approval. The
process triggers City Council review under three (3) scenarios: 1) a written objection is received
during the public noticing period; 2) the Community Development Director (CDD) recommends
denial of said application; and 3) the CDD recommends conditions of approval, to which the
applicant objects and wishes to appeal said objection the City Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Council Bill No. 16-2018 an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of
Laws concerning electrified fences, on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for
Monday, June 25, 2018, at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect
immediately upon adoption, as permitted by Section 5.11 of the Charter."
Or,
Council Action Form — Electrified Fence Code Ordinance
June 11, 2018
Page 3
"I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 16-2018 an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of
the Code of Laws concerning electrified fences, for the following reason(s):
REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY:
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
Patrick Goff, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Bill No. 16-2018
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Series 2018
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE
OF LAWS CONCERNING ELECTRICALLY CHARGED FENCES
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers
conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and C.R.S. § 31-23-101, the City,
acting through its City Council (the "Council"), is authorized to adopt ordinances for the
protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority, the City Council has previously
adopted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code") entitled zoning and
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend said Chapter 26 to provide for the
regulation of electrically charged fences as a special use in certain zone districts and
under specific conditions to ensure the safety and security of property owners and the
general public.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 26-123 of the Code is amended by the addition of the
following definition to be placed in the appropriate alphabetical order:
Electrically charged fence. A fence not exceeding 9 feet in height which is
constructed for the purpose of carrying and supporting wires which are electrically
charged so as to deter unauthorized persons from climbing on or over such fence,
which fence shall be erected in association with other perimeter fencing, and which
may be permitted only as a special use under section 26-114 where necessitated
by a demonstrated need for heightened security due to the nature of the use
surrounded by the fence, based upon such circumstances as excessive criminal
or theft activity and the like.
Section 2. Section 26-114 (special uses) of the Code, subsection B
(Applicability) is amended to read as follows:
B. Applicability. The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all uses listed
as "special uses" within the provisions set forth for any particular zone district.
REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRICALLY
CHARGED FENCE IS PERMITTED IN THE ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED IN
ARTICLE 2 OF THIS CHAPTER, AND IN ADDITION THERETO, THE PLANNED
ATTACHMENT 1
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (PCD) AND THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(PID).
Section 3. Section 26-204 of the Code is amended by including "electrically
charged fence" within the Table of Uses -Commercial and Industrial Districts, to permit
such use as a special use (S) in the C-1, C-2 and I—E zone districts.
Section 4. Section 26-313 of the Code, concerning Planned Commercial
Development (PCD) district regulations, is amended by the addition of a new subsection
J, to read as follows:
J. "In addition to other uses permitted in the PCD district, electrically charged
fences are permitted as special uses upon approval of a special use permit under
Section 26-114."
Section 5. Section 26-314 of the Code, Planned Industrial Development (PID),
is amended by the addition of a new subsection I to read as follows:
I. "In addition to other uses permitted in the PID district, electrically charged
fences are permitted as special uses upon approval of a special use permit
under Section 26-114."
Section 6. Section 26-603 of the Code is amended by the addition of a new
subsection J, to read:
J. "Notwithstanding this section, an electrically charged fence, if approved as a
special use pursuant to section 26-114, may be constructed to a maximum
height of 9 feet."
Section 7. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section,
subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not
be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption, as
permitted by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to
on this day of , 2018, ordered published in full in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing and consideration on
final passage set for , 2018 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of 2018.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2018.
Bud Starker, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
Approved as to Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
First Publication:
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
Published:
Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
Ai.�,
City of
W heat jge
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
cl - Z N,-, � � , L \(\ (,
PLANNING COMMISSION
LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 7, 2018
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT
RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING ELECTRIFIED FENCES
CASE NO. ZOA-18-03
® PUBLIC HEARING
® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE
Case Manager: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
Date of Preparation: June 1, 2018
SUMMARY:
The City recently received a request to install an electrically charged fence around the perimeter of the
Ketelsen Camper sales facility off Kipling and the I-70 South Frontage Road. A similar request had been
initiated in 2014. Historically, the City has determined such fences to be prohibited in the City based on a
finding that they represent "a hazard to the health or safety of any person," and as such were by definition a
prohibited fence type. The rationale for this determination is discussed further in the "background" section of
this report. City Council requested discussion of the topic and an initial discussion occurred at the May 7,
2018 Study Session. At Council's May 21 study session staff presented a draft ordinance that would allow
electrified fences in certain locations through review and approval of a special use permit (SUP). Council's
direction at that meeting was to move forward with a code amendment ordinance public hearing process,
including the required Planning Commission public hearing.
BACKGROUND:
As stated above, historically, staff has interpreted electric fences to be a prohibited fence type. Chapter 26-
603 of the Code defines various types of permitted fences, including: masonry walls, ornamental iron, woven
wire and chain link (with some limitations), wood, hedges, and barbed wire (with some limitations). The
code also defines fence types prohibited, as "any fence, if in the opinion of the chief building inspector,
public works director or chief of police that would constitute a hazard to the health or safety of any person."
Based on this language, electric fences have been treated as a prohibited fence type.
In a May 7, 2018 staff memo to City Council (attached), staff provided some anecdotal information as to
how other jurisdictions address electrified fences. While many Colorado jurisdictions choose to prohibit
these fences entirely, several also allow them, though generally in limited locations. Based on Council
direction at the May 7 study session, the City Attorney has drafted an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the
Code to allow electrically charged fences, at a maximum height of 9 feet, through review and approval of a
special use permit application.
Staff felt it would be appropriate to somewhat limit the scope of where such fences could be installed in the
ZOA-18-03/Electrified Fences
City and the special use permit review process in itself is limiting. Each such application needs to be
evaluated relative to the extent which said application is consistent with the nine (9) criteria for review found
in Section 26-114. Further, we have proposed that they be allowed only in limited zone districts:
Commercial -One, Commercial -Two, Industrial/Employment, Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial. In
defining "electrically charged fences," staff's draft language also suggests such fences are permitted "where
necessitated by a demonstrated need for heightened security due to the nature of the uses surrounded by the
fence, based upon such circumstances as excessive criminal or theft activity and the like."
As Planning Commission is aware, the SUP process begins as an administrative review and approval. The
process triggers City Council review under three (3) scenarios: 1) a written objection is received during the
public noticing period; 2) the Community Development Director (CDD) recommends denial of said
application; and 3) the CDD recommends conditions of approval, to which the applicant objects and wishes
to appeal said objection the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council's preliminary direction is to consider amending the City's zoning ordinance to allow
electrified fences in limited locations through the discretionary review and approval of a special use permit.
While this is a unique approach to the extent an electrified fence is not a primary "use" of any given
property, staff believes the ability to apply the special use criteria to a site specific application for an
electrified fence will provide an appropriate set of criteria to determine whether such a fence is appropriate
in a given context.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws to allow electrified
fences through review and approval of a special use permit, in limited locations.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning electrified
fences."
Exhibits:
May 7 City Council study session memorandum
Draft Ordinance
ZOA-18-03/Electrified Fences
City of
`/ _ W heat Midge
COMMUIT
NY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager
DATE: April 27, 2018 (for May 7 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Electric Fences
ISSUE:
The City has recently been approached by an electric fencing company with a proposal to
construct an electric fence around the perimeter of the Ketelsen Camper property off of Kipling.
Camping World now operates the business through a long-term lease, though it is still owned by
the Ketelsens. The same parties have approached staff previously, when the Ketelsens were still
also the operators of the property. That history is important and is discussed in the "Background"
section of this memo.
Historically, the City has interpreted the zoning code to prohibit electric fences, deeming them
unsafe and therefore a prohibited fence type. This interpretation of the City Code is also
discussed more fully in the Background section of this memo.
PRIOR ACTIONS:
None by City Council.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There would be minimal direct financial impact to the City, other than the fees and use tax
associated with a building permit, should Council's direction be to allow electric fences in some
manner.
BACKGROUND:
As stated above, historically, staff has interpreted electric fences to be a prohibited fence type.
Chapter 26-603 of the Code defines various types of permitted fences, including: masonry walls,
ornamental iron, wove wire and chain link (with some limitations), wood, hedges, and barbed
wire (with some limitations). The code also defines fence types prohibited: "any fence, if in the
opinion of the chief building inspector, public works director or chief of police that would
constitute a hazard to the health or safety of any person." Based`on this language, electric fences
have been treated as a prohibited fence type.
In spring 2014, city staff was approached by Electric Guard Dog (EGD), an electric fence
company based in South Carolina, on behalf of Ketelsen Campers. Ketelsen had been
experiencing after hours break-ins and they were requesting a 10 -foot tall electric fence, to be
located around the entire perimeter of their property. Initially, staff informed them that electric
fences were prohibited for public safety reasons.
They persisted in their request and of course staff was certainly sympathetic to the desire to
reduce the criminal activities occurring at a longstanding Wheat Ridge business. Ultimately, a
variance request was submitted and administratively approved by the Community Development
Director for a 9 -foot (50% maximum administrative variance) electric fence, with three
conditions:
That said fence be setback 3 feet behind the existing six-foot chain link fence
That it only be turned on after normal business hours
That it not be electrified where adjacent to the Pennington Elementary School to the
south
The thinking behind the first condition was two -fold: 1) it would generally prevent someone
from being able to reach through the chain link fence and be exposed to the electrification; and
2) it would avoid a situation where someone would climb the six-foot fence and become
entrapped between the two fences and not have room to separate themselves from extended
duration contact with the electrified fence. The school district had been contacted during the
variance application process and they initially expressed great concern with the potential for an
electric fence in this location; however, they found this compromise design to be acceptable.
The applicant generally objected to the conditions, including the 3 -foot separation as they had
requested a 1 -foot separation for various reasons. They did not appeal the variance decision or
conditions of approval. In 2015, EGD applied to the Board of Adjustment for an interpretation
that an electric fence located only 1 -foot from a perimeter fence constituted a safety hazard and
therefore was prohibited. The BOA denied their interpretation and essentially affirmed the staff
recommendation that a 3 -foot separation was required to not create a safety concern.
Earlier this year, Camping World (Ketelsen) and EGD approached their District IV
Councilpersons to re-engage the City in options for obtaining approval of an electric fence.
Criminal activities and break-ins have increased recently. The Councilmembers then set up a
meeting with the City Manager, other City Staff, store manager and EGD representatives. EGD
is generally proposing a 9 -foot fence around the entire perimeter of the property, to be inset 4-8
inches from the existing fence and to be turned on after normal business hours. Staff agreed to
look at options for reconsidering the previous actions.
Subsequently the City Manager and Community Development Director engaged the City
Attorney to consider options that could be offered to the property owner. The City Attorney
determined that because the BOA decision affirmed the requirement for a 3 -foot set back of the
electric fence, that it would be very difficult to overturn that determination through an
administrative action, such as consideration of a new variance application.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the City Attorney's determination, staff is requesting direction from City Council,
whether Council wishes to consider a legislative approach to allowing electric fences. If a
legislative solution were to be pursued, it would also be an opportunity to further evaluate in
what locations and under what circumstance or design parameters electric fences might be
allowed in other locations within the City.
The City has also initiated a City Attorney list serve request to identify in what manner other
Colorado jurisdictions regulate electric fences. As of the writing of this staff memo, only one
jurisdiction has replied. Aurora prohibits electric fences throughout their City.
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Series 2018
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE
OF LAWS CONCERNING ELECTRICALLY CHARGED FENCES
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers
conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and C.R.S. § 31-23-101, the City,
acting through its City Council (the "Council"), is authorized to adopt ordinances for the
protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority, the city Council has previously
adopted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code") entitled zoning and
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend said Chapter 26 to provide for the
regulation of electrically charged fences as a special use in certain zone districts and
under specific conditions to ensure the safety and security of property owners and the
general public.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 26-123 of the Code is amended by the addition of the
following definition to be placed in the appropriate alphabetical order:
Electrically charged fence. A fence not exceeding 9 feet in height which is
constructed for the purpose of carrying and supporting wires which are electrically
charged so as to deter unauthorized persons from climbing on or over such fence,
which fence may be erected individually, or in association with other perimeter
fencing, and which may be permitted as a special use under section 26-114 where
necessitated by a demonstrated need for heightened security due to the nature of
the use surrounded by the fence, based upon such circumstances as excessive
criminal or theft activity and the like.
Section 2. Section 26-114 (special uses) of the Code, subsection B
(Applicability) is amended to read as follows:
B. Applicability. The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all uses listed
as "special uses" within the provisions set forth for any particular zone district.
REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRICALLY
CHARGED FENCE IS PERMITTED IN THE ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED IN
ARTICLE 2 OF THIS CHAPTER, AND IN ADDITION THERETO, THE PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (PCD) AND THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(PID).
Section 3. Section 26-204 of the Code is amended by including "electrically
charged fence" within the Table of Uses -Commercial and Industrial Districts, to permit
such use as a special use (S) in the C-1, C-2 and I—E zone districts.
Section 4. Section 26-313 of the Code, concerning Planned Commercial
Development (PCD) district regulations, is amended by the addition of a new subsection
J, to read as follows:
J. "In addition to other uses permitted in the PCD district, electrically charged
fences are permitted as special uses upon approval of a special use permit under
Section 26-114."
Section 5. Section 26-314 of the Code, Planned Industrial Development (PID),
is amended by the addition of a new subsection I to read as follows:
I. "in addition to other uses permitted in the PID district, electrically charged
fences are permitted as special uses upon approval of a special use permit
under Section 26-114."
Section 6. Section 26-603 of the Code is amended by the addition of a new
subsection J, to read:
J. "Notwithstanding this section, an electrically charged fence, if approved as a
special use pursuant to section 26-114, may be constructed to a maximum
height of 9 feet."
Section 7. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section,
subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not
be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days
after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to
on this day of , 2018, ordered published in full in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing and consideration on
final passage set for , 2018 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of 2018.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2018.
Bud Starker, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
Approved as to Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
First Publication:
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
Published:
Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
TUVRheinland
Constructional Data Form
for Electrical Products
(For TUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc. use only)
Certificate # T72171215 File # 31781025.001
License Holder: Electric Guard Dog, 550 Assembly Street, 5th Floor, Columbia, SC 29201
Type of Product: Charger Controller and Energizer for Electric Fence
Model Number: TUV-EF172, TUV-EF174, TUV-EF175, TUV-EF177, TUV-EF178
List of Critical Components:
Object/part
Manufacturer/
Type/Model
Technical Data
Standard
Mark(s) of
Note: Any errors or omissions in the CDF shall be reported to TUV Rheinland immediately upon receipt by the
applicant.
Trademark
Conformity
no.
Charge Controller:
Enclosure
Austin Electrical
59C0957-JP3R
Sheet Metal
UL 50, 50E
UL
Enclosures
1.6mm/16g,
CSA C22.2 No.
24xl83/161,x82/16„
40-M1989, CSA
Type 3R
C22.2 No. 94.2-07
enclosure
(E38905)
Charge
Renogy
CTLR-CM020
20Amp Solar
UL 1741
ETL
Controller
Charge Controller
IEC 62109
Power Meter
Renogy
MT -50
12VDC/23mA
EN 60950-1
ECM
EN 55022
EN 6100-3-2
Wiring
Interchangeable
Interchangeable
18AWG, 14AWG
UL758
UL
600V, 105°C
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
EN 60335-1
system
0417 /Vt"^
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
Columbia, SC
07/20/2017
Place
Date
///
(Stamp and signature of applicant)
Note: Any errors or omissions in the CDF shall be reported to TUV Rheinland immediately upon receipt by the
applicant.
Appendix 1 of Preparing a Constructional Data Form/Critical Component Lists (CDF) (MS -0004352) Page 1 of 6
Constructional Data Form for Electrical Products Version 6.0
TOVRheinland
Constructional Data Form
for Electrical Products
(For TUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc. use only)
Certificate # T72171215 File # 31781025.001
Object/part
Manufacturer/
Type/Model
Technical Data
Standard
Mark(s) of
Note: Any errors or omissions in the CDF shall be reported to TUV Rheinland immediately upon receipt by the
applicant.
Trademark
Conformity
no.
Circuit Breaker
Phoenix Contact
TMC81 B
15A, 60VDC or
UL 489
UL
277VAC
CSA C22.2
No.5.1
IEC 60947-2
Circuit Breaker
Phoenix Contact
TMC81 D
25A, 60VDC or
UL 489
UL
277VAC
CSA C22.2 No.
5.1
IEC 60947-2
Terminal Block
Phoenix Contact
PT 2.5
9.8Kv 24Amp
UL 1059, CSA-
UL
C22.2 No. 158
VDE
IEC 60947-7-1
Energizers Unit.
Enclosure
Austin Electrical
59C0957-JP3R
Sheet Metal
UL 50, 50E
UL
Enclosures
1.6mm/16g,
CSA C22.2 No.
24x183"6"x82/16,.
40-M1989, CSA
Type 3R
C22.2 No. 94.2-07
enclosure
(E38905)
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
Columbia SC
07/20/2017
Place
Date
(Stamp and signature of applicant)
Note: Any errors or omissions in the CDF shall be reported to TUV Rheinland immediately upon receipt by the
applicant.
Appendix 1 of Preparing a Constructional Data Form/Critical Component Lists (CDF) (MS -0004352) Page 2 of 6
Constructional Data Form for Electrical Products Version 6.0
TOVRheinland
Constructional Data Form
for Electrical Products
(For TUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc. use only)
Certificate # T72171215 File # 31781025.001
Object/part
no.
Manufacturer/
Trademark
Type/Model
Technical Data
Standard
Mark(s) of
Conformity
Energizer
Advanced
EF -172
Dual Zone: 2+2
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
Perimeter
stored joules
EN 60335-1
system
Systems
controller
Input Voltage:
12VDC
Current
Consumption:
700mA
Output Voltage
(no load):
9.9KV/zone
Stored Energy:
2.8 joules
Energizer
Advanced
EF -174
Dual Zone: 2+5
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
Perimeter
stored joules
EN 60335-1
system
Systems
controller
Input Voltage:
12VDC
Current
Consumption:
900mA
Output Voltage
(no load):
9.9KV/zone
Stored Energy:
Zone 1 — 2.8
joules
Zone 2 — 5 joules
TOV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
Columbia, SC
07/20/2017
Place
Date
(Stamp and signature of applicant)
Note: Any errors or omissions in the CDF shall be reported to TOV Rheinland immediately upon receipt by the
applicant.
Hppenaix 1 of vreparing a constructionai uata rormicntical component Lists (GDF) (MS -0004352) Page 3 of 6
Constructional Data Form for Electrical Products Version 6.0
TOVRheinland
Constructional Data Form
for Electrical Products
(For TUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc. use only)
Certificate # T72171215 File # 31781025.001
Object/part
no.
Manufacturer/
Trademark
Type/Model
Technical Data
Standard
Mark(s) of
Conformity
Energizer
Advanced
EF -175
Triple Zone:
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
Perimeter
5+5+5 stored
EN 60335-1
system
Systems
joules controller
Input Voltage:
12VDC
Current
Consumption:
1650mA
Output Voltage
(no load):
9.9KV/zone
Stored Energy:
2.8 joules
Energizer
Advanced
EF -177
Triple Zone:
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
Perimeter
2+2+2 stored
EN 60335-1
system
Systems
joules controller
Input Voltage:
12VDC
Current
Consumption:
1050mA
Output Voltage
(no load):
9.9KV/zone
Stored Energy:
2.8 joules
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
Columbia SC
07/20/2017
Place
Date
(Stamp and signature of applicant)
Note: Any errors or omissions in the CDF shall be reported to TUV Rheinland immediately upon receipt by the
applicant.
Appendix 1 of Preparing a Constructional Data Form/Critical Component Lists (CDF) (MS -0004352) Page 4 of 6
Constructional Data Form for Electrical Products Version 6.0
n�
TOVRheinland
Constructional Data Form
for Electrical Products
(For TUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc. use only)
Certificate # T72171215 File # 31781025.001
Object/part
Manufacturer/
Type/Model
Technical Data
Standard
Mark(s) of
Trademark
Conformity
no.
Energizer
Advanced
EF -178
Triple Zone:
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
Perimeter
2+5+5 stored
EN 60335-1
system
Systems
joules controller
Input Voltage:
12VDC
Current
Consumption:
1450mA
Output Voltage
(no load):
9.9KV/zone
Stored Energy:
2.8 joules
Energizer Com onents:
PWB
Interchangeable
Interchangeable
94V-0
UL 796
UR
(E198312)
Pulse
HK Film Capacitor
SPT -02R
16NF+/-10%,
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
Capacitor
900V (2 joules)
EN 60335-1
system
32pF+/-10%,
900V (5 joules)
Inductor L1
APS
S1540DL1
--
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
EN 60335-1
system
Inductor L2
APS
S1540DL2
--
EN 60335-2-76
Evaluated in
EN 60335-1
system
Fuse
Interchangeable
Interchangeable
250V, 2.OA, slow
UL248.1,
UL, CSA
blow
CSA#248.1
TOV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
Columbia, SC 07/20/2017
Place Date
�
(Stamp and signature of applicant)
Note: Any errors or omissions in the CDF shall be reported to TOV Rheinland immediately upon receipt by the
applicant.
Appendix i of vrepanng a constructional Data Form/Gritical Component Lists (GDF) (MS -0004352) Page 5 of 6
Constructional Data Form for Electrical Products Version 6.0
Constructional Data Form
for Electrical Products
TUVRheinland
(For TUV Rheinland of N.A., Inc. use only)
Certificate # T72171215 File # 31781025.001
Routine Safety Testing:
Required: ❑ Not Required: Reason: Class III product:
Other.
TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc.
Columbia, SC 07/20/2017
Place Date
(Stamp and signature of applicant)
Note: Any errors or omissions in the CDF shall be reported to TUV Rheinland immediately upon receipt by the
applicant.
Appendix 1 of Preparing a Constructional Data Form/Critical Component Lists (CDF) (MS -0004352) Page 6 of 6
Constructional Data Form for Electrical Products Version 6.0
THE UNIVEPSITY
WISCONSIN
M A 0 1 S 0 N
Safety of electric security fences
John G. Webster
Professor Emeritus of Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin -Madison
Madison WI 53706
Electric current shocks us, not voltage
Most of us can remember receiving an electric ,shock; it can happen during a regular day.
How can that happen and when? Walking across a carpet during dry weather, then touching a
doorknob and feeling a spark that jumps to the doorknob is a very common way. Placing a finger
inside of a lamp socket that inadvertently was turned on is yet another. Touching the spark plug
in a car or lawn mower has happened to many people as well. But why are we all still alive after
receiving these electric shocks during a regular day"? We are still alive because even though the
voltage is high, not enough electric current flowed through our heart.
Even when the voltage is high, when the current flows for only a very short duration we
can not be electrocuted. Furthermore, it is even hard to get electrocuted in the home because the
power line voltage of 120 volts can't drive enough continuous current through the high resistance
of our dry skin. Kitchens and bathrooms fall in a different category; they are dangerous places
because our skin may be wet. When our skin is wet, our skin resistance is low and permits a
large electric current to flow through the body as shown in Figure 1. A large enough current can
cause ventricular fibrillation. During ventricular fibrillation the pumping action of the heart
ceases and death occurs within minutes unless treated. In the United States, approximately 1000
deaths per year occur in accidents that involve cord -connected appliances in kitchens, bathrooms,
and other wet locations.
Burns, injury
Sustained myocardial';
tonttution ,�
ve�cular "/Ij
ve
111911111111111 111111111
f
y 1 Rapiratory paralysis, tati`ue, pain
60 ULZ
1-.i Lrt-go current
Threshold of perception
1fm: i_i111111 1 1 1'1 Ili I f 1tls111 1 1 i Ilial i 1 i,I 1�11
1mA 10mA 100 m I 10A 100A
60 -HA current, rens
Figure 1 Physiological effects of electricity. Threshold or estimated mean values are given for
each effect in a 70 kg human for a I- to 3 s exposure to 60 Hz current applied via copper wires
grasped by the hands. From W. A. Olson, Electrical Safety, in J. G. Webster (ed.), Medical
Instrumentation Application and Design, P. ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
Department of Biomedical Engineering
2130 Engineering Centers Building University of Wisconsin -Madison 1550 Engineering Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1609
608/263-4660 Fax: 608/265-9239 Email: bme@engr.wisc.edu http://www.bme.wisc.edu/
2
Short duration pulses are safer than continuous electric current
Figure 2 shows that shock durations longer than 1 second are the most dangerous. Note
that as the shock duration is shortened to 0.2 seconds, it requires much more electric current to
cause ventricular fibrillation. Electric security fences have taken advantage of this fact by
shortening their shock duration to an even shorter duration of about 0.0003 seconds. Therefore,
electric security fences are safe and do not lead to ventricular fibrillation due to the short 0.0003
second shock duration. .
5000
Fibrillation
threshold
2000
1000
500
200
0
D 100
C
Q
E 50
w 10 L
0.1
■ 94 kg pony
+ 12 kg dog
• 10 kg dog.
0 7.5 kg dog
• 6.0 kg dog
x 5.0 kg dog
0.2 0.5
■—.-0
Shock duration, seconds
Figure 2 Thresholds for ventricular fibrillation in animals for 60 -Hz ac current. Duration of
current (0.2 to S s) and weight of animal body were varied. Fibrillation current versus shock
duration for a 70 kg human is about 100 milliamperes for 5 second shock duration. It increases to
about 800 milliamperes for 0.3 second shock duration. From L. A. Geddes, IEEE Trans. Biomed.
Eng., 1973, 20,465-468.
Electricity near the heart is most dangerous
There are four situations where electricity may be applied close to the heart. (1) Figure
3(b) shows when a catheter tube is threaded through a vein into the heart, any accidental current
is focused within the heart and a small current can cause ventricular fibrillation. (2) Cardiac
pacemakers also pass electric current inside the heart, but the current is kept so small that
ventricular fibrillation does not occur. (3) A Taser weapon may rarely shoot a dart between the
ribs very close to the heart and apply a 0.0001 second pulse, but this has not been shown to cause
ventricular fibrillation. Typically when a person takes an overdose of drugs, he creates a
disturbance, police are called, the person refuses to obey, the police Taser him, afterwards he
dies of a drug overdose, and the newspapers report, "Man dies after Taser shot." (4) A
defibrillator applies a 0.005 second, 40 ampere electric current. This causes massive heart
contraction that can change ventricular fibrillation to normal rhythm and save a life.
3
Macroshock
blicroshock
(a) (b)
Catheter
Figure 3 Effect of entry points on current distribution. (a) Macroshock, externally applied
current spreads throughout the body, (b) Microshock, all the current applied through an
intracardiac catheter flows through the heart. From F. J. Weibel], "Electrical Safety in the
Hospital," Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 1974, 2, 126-148.
When comparing an electric security fence to the above examples, we know that an
electric security fence is similar to Figure 3(a). Why do we know that? If a person contacts an
electric fence, electric current is concentrated in the limbs and causes a deterrent shock; when it
continues to pass through the torso, it spreads out and becomes more diffuse. Therefore as shown
in Figure 3(a) and in Figure 2 electric security fences are safe because the deterrent shock
spreads out and becomes more diffuse and is of a very short duration.
Only power lines cause ventricular fibrillation
Table 1 shows that short duration electric pulses, even though applied near the heart do
not cause ventricular fibrillation. In contrast, the continuous current from power lines kills 1000
persons per year.
Table 1 Only power lines cause ventricular fibrillation
Duration of
Current
Likely to be
Caused ventricular fibrillation?
pulse in
in
applied near
seconds
amperes
heart?
Power lines
Continuous
0.1
No
1000 per year
Electric
0.0003
10
No
No
security fence
0.8 times/sec
Taser
0.0001
2
May be
No
19 times/sec
Cardiac
0.001
0.005
Yes
No
pacemaker
1 time/sec
Defibrillator
0.005
40
Yes
Cures ventricular fibrillation
1 time
Spark plug
0.00002
0.2
No
No
1 time
Doorknob
0.00002
0.2
No
No
1 time
Sentry Security Systems, LLC position on the relationship of security fences
to codes and standards
Electric fencing is used safely throughout the world, with applications for both animal control and commercial
security. In a commercial security setting, security fences deter crime and help apprehend criminals. The mere
presence of a security fence discourages unlawful entry, theft and the destruction of property. Additionally, it is
easier to apprehend the determined criminal because the owner and police are notified instantaneously when the
criminal distorts or breaks the fence. Security fences also protect the people who work at a site, providing
business owners and employees significant peace of mind.
The security fence sold by Sentry Security Systems is powered by a 12 volt DC marine (or similar) battery. The
National Electric Code does not cover battery powered products such as smoke alarms. Therefore, the security
fence sold by Sentry Security Systems is not covered by the NEC.
There is in fact no US standard that addresses security fences whether main or battery powered. UG 69
addresses animal control fences but not security fences. There is, however, a good international standard - IEC
60335-2-76 - that addresses security fences. This standard is attached for your information.
We respectfully request that you determine that, as a battery poti%,ercd device, security fences do not fall under
the National Electric Code.
Safety of electric fence energizers
Amit J. Nimunkarl and John G. Websterl
1Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, 1550 Engineering Drive,
Madison, WI 53706 USA.
E-mail: Webster@engr.wisc.edu (John G. Webster) Tel 608-263-1574, Fax 608-265-9239
Abstract
The strength—duration curve for tissue excitation can be modeled by a parallel resistor—
capacitor circuit that has a time constant. We tested five electric fence energizers to determine
their current -versus -time waveforms. We estimated their safety characteristics using the existing
IEC standard and propose a new standard. The investigator would discharge the device into a
passive resistor—capacitor circuit and measure the resulting maximum voltage. If the maximum
voltage does not exceed a limit, the device passes the test.
Key words: strength—duration curve, cardiac stimulation, ventricular fibrillation, electric safety,
electric fence energizers, standards.
1. introduction
The vast majority of work on electric safety has been done using power line frequencies such as
60 Hz. Thus most standards for electric safety apply to continuous 60 Hz current applied hand to
hand. A separate class of electric devices applies electric current as single or a train of short
pulses, such as are found in electric fence energizers (EFEs). A standard that specifically applies
to EFEs is IEC (2006). To estimate the ventricular fibrillation (VF) risk of EFEs, we use the
excitation behavior of excitable cells. Geddes and Baker (1989) presented the cell membrane
excitation model (Analytical Strength—Duration Curve model) by a lumped parallel resistance—
capacitance (RC) circuit. This model determines the cell excitation thresholds for varying
rectangular pulse durations by assigning the strength—duration rheobase currents, chronaxie, and
time constants (Geddes and Baker, 1989). Though this model was originally developed based on
the experimental results of rectangular pulses, the effectiveness of applying this model for other
waveforms has been discussed (lEC 1987, Jones and Geddes 1977). The charge—duration curve,
derived from the strength—duration curve, has been shown in sound agreement with various
experimental results for irregular waveforms. This permits calculating the VF excitation
threshold of EFEs with various nonrectangular waveforms. We present measurements on electric
fence energizers and discuss their possibility of inducing VF.
2. Mathematical background and calculation procedures
Based on the cell membrane excitation model (Weiss—Lapique model), Geddes and Baker (1989)
developed a lumped RC model (analytical strength—duration curve) to describe the membrane
excitation behavior. This model has been widely used in various fields in electrophysiology to
calculate the excitation threshold. Figure 1 shows the normalized strength—duration curve for
current (1), charge (Q) and energy (0. The expression of charge is also known as the charge—
duration curve which is important for short duration stimulations.
100"
30
10
V
3
a
2
�t
0.001 0.03 Q1 1.0 10
Duration dir
3
1
03
100
Figure 1. Normalized analytical strength–duration curve for current I, charge Q, and energy U.
The x axis shows the normalized duration of dl -r. Note that for d << z, Q is constant and the most
appropriate variable for estimating cell excitation. (from Geddes and Baker, 1989).
The equation for the strength -duration curve is (Geddes and Baker, 1989),
t
Av=IR(l-e z), (1)
where I is a step current intensity, R is the shunt resistance, Ov is the depolarization potential
threshold which is about 20 mV for myocardial cells, r is the RC time constant, and t is the time I
is applied.
If we let the stimulation duration go to infinity, the threshold current is defined as the
rheobase current (I= b). If we substitute I in equation (1) by b and define the threshold current Id
= Av R for the stimulation with duration d. Equation (1) becomes,
Id = bd (2)
l -e s
We can calculate the threshold charge (Qd) by integrating equation (2) and it becomes,
3
Qd = Idd = bd d (3)
1-e T
For short duration stimulation (d << r ),with duration shorter than 0.1 times the RC time
constant, equation (3) can be approximated by equation (4) and it yields equation (5),
d
(4)
z
Qd = br (5)
Equation (5) suggests that the charge excitation threshold for short duration stimulation is
constant and equals the product of the RC time constant r and the rheobase b. Geddes and
Bourland (1985) showed that the charge—duration curve for single rectangular, trapezoidal, half
sinusoid and critically damped waveforms had a good agreement for short duration stimulations.
Therefore we used the same model to estimate thresholds for stimulation sources where I was not
constant, under the same stimulation setting.
Cardiac cell excitation has been intensively studied at the 60 Hz power line frequency
because most accidental electrocutions occur with 60 Hz current, which has a longer duration
relative to the cardiac cell time constant of about 2 ms. However, EFEs operate with pulse
durations much shorter than the time constant.
3. Methods
Figure 2 shows our experimental test set-up. The EFEs under test consist of Gallagher Group Ltd
PowerPlus B600 (EFE1), Gallagher Group Ltd PowerPlus B280 (EFE2), Speedrite HPB (EFE3),
intellishock 20B (EFE4) and Bhtzer 8902 (EFE5) EFEs. The short duration electrical pulses
from these EFEs are passed though a series of eleven 47 92 (ARCOL D4.29, HS50 47 R F)
resistors which measure 518 SZ, which represents approximately the internal resistance of the
human body. It is further connected to two 18 Q (RH 10 207 DALE 10 W 3%) resistors
connected in parallel which measure 9.08 Q. This is used as the sensing resistor across which the
oscilloscope measures the output voltage. For these very short pulses it is important to use
noninductive resistors because the same current flowing through a resistor that has substantial
inductance will measure a larger current than a resistor that is noninductive. To reduce
electromagnetic interference, a faraday cage, covered with aluminum foil, was connected to
ground. This diverted the electromagnetic interference to ground. The data were collected in
EXCEL format from a disk in the Agilent 54621 oscilloscope. The calculations for different
parameters presented in Table l and the Figures 3-5 were plotted using MATLAB.
4
S3 �.
Electric Fence' 2 OF
Ener izer —,
Taser �� ; R1 R2 R3 R11 S4 Oscilloscope
S1 �J 9.08 Agilent
200 NF; 54621
i--------------- S2
I Leak ' Faraday cage
Detector
-------------------------------------
Aluminum foil
Aluminum foil Y i
Figure 2. The EFE is selected by S1. The current flows through a string of 47 0 resistors R1—R11
(total 518 fl) which approximates the internal body resistance of 500 Q. The 9.08 fl yields a low
voltage that is measured by the oscilloscope.
3.1. Determination of current
EFEs are used in conjunction with fences wires to form animal control fences and security
fences. We tested five EFEs (EFEI—EFE5) using the experimental set-up in Figure 2 and
obtained the output currents shown in Figure 3.
i-
1
1
Q
3
U
9
S
• EFEI
i —EFE2
2 .i
••••,EFE3
---EFE4
0 i
pip
i
8 a.
i
4
6
4
'4
2
+a.
20
200
400 600
800 1000 12
n0
Time (µs)
Figure 3. The output current waveform for five EFEs. EFEI yields about 7.75 A for 151 las =
1170 gC, EFE2 yields about 3.34 A for 345 gs = 1150 µC, EFE3 yields about 5.69 A for 91 gs =
5
518 gC, EFE4 yields about 1.25 A for 252 Rs = 315 gC and EFE5 yields about 5.7 A for 137 gs
= 781 gC.
4. Results
Table 1 shows the approximate results for the rms current, power, duration and charge for all the
EFEs.
Table 1 Approximate results for all EFEs.
EFEs
EFE1
EFE2
EFE3
EFE4
ECF5
Parameters
Units
A. (IEC)
Total Energy
AZ ms
7.94
4.04
3.10
0.42
4.69
95% Energy Duration
Ps
129
346
91
253
138
lrms
A
7.65
3.33
5.69
1.25
5.69
IEC Standard 1ft175
A
13.0
6.21
16.8
7.85
7.37
Pass IEC Standard
Yes/No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
B. Proposed standard
Voltage
V
3.88
2.91
NAv
NAv
NAv
Duration
Ns
233
132
Current
A
3.33
4.41
Charae
UC
776
582
NA- not applicable, NAv- not available
IEC (2006) defines in 3.116 "impulse duration: duration of that part of the impulse that
contains 95% of the overall energy and is the shortest interval of integration of .P(t) that gives
95% of the integration of i(t) over the total impulse. I(t) is the impulse current as a function of
time." In 3.117 it defines "output current: r.m.s. value of the output current per impulse
calculated over the impulse duration." In 3.118 it defines "standard load: load consisting of a
non -inductive resistor of 500 Q 2: 2.5 D and a variable resistor that is adjusted so as to maximize
the energy per impulse or output current in the 500 0 resistor, as applicable." in 22.108,
"Energizer output characteristics shall be such that — the impulse repetition rate shall not exceed
1 Hz; — the impulse duration of the impulse in the 500 S1 component of the standard load shall
not exceed 10 ms; — for energy limited energizers the energy/impulse in the 500 n component of
the standard load shall not exceed 5 J; The energy/impulse is the energy measured in the impulse
over the impulse duration. — for current limited energizers the output current in the 500 Q
component of the standard load shall not exceed for an impulse duration of greater than 0.1 ms,
the value specified by the characteristic limit line detailed in Figure 102; an impulse duration of
not greater than 0.1 ms, 15 700 mA. The equation of the line relating impulse duration (ms) to
output current (mA) for 1 000 mA < output current < 15 700 mA, is given by impulse duration =
41.885 X 103 X (output current) -''3 .,We used these definitions and calculated the total energy,
the shortest duration where 95% of the total energy occurs, the rms current for that duration from
Figure 3 for the EFEs (EFE1—EFE5). Similarly we calculated the output current using the
relationship impulse duration = 41.885 X 103 X (output current) -"34, provided by the IEC for all
the EFEs (EFEI--EFE5). Table 1 lists these under the heading "A. (IEC)". Table 1 shows that all
the EFEs pass the IEC standard.
M
5. Proposed new standard
IEC (2006) uses the rms current for the shortest duration where 95% of the total energy occurs as
the standard to determine if the EFE is safe for use. Geddes and Baker (1989) have shown that
for pulses shorter than the cardiac cell time constant of 2 ms, the electric charge is the quantity
that excites the cells. We propose a simple experimental set-up shown in Figure 2 to determine
the maximum amount of charge that would flow from the EFEs and cause cardiac cell excitation.
The cardiac cell is modeled as an RC circuit in Fig. 2 with R = 9.08 0 and C = 200 gF
(GECONOL 975751 IFC 200 gF X10% 250 VPK) with the RC time constant of 1.82 ms. For the
EFEs (EFE1 and EFE2) the switches S1 and S4 are closed. This allows the 200 gF capacitor to
charge rapidly (about 100 gs) and discharge fairly slowly (z= RC = 1.82 ms). Figures 4 and 5
show the voltage vs time waveforms for the different EFEs. The test was not performed for
electric fence energizers EFE3—EFE5.
7
ti)
-EFE1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Time (yes)
Figure 4. Output voltage waveform for EFEL The maximal charge that flows through the
cardiac cell model is given by Q = CV = 200 gF x 3.88 V = 775 VC, the current during which the
capacitor charges to maximal value is given by I = CVIT = (200 gF x 3.88 V)/233 gs = 3.33 A.
0.5
900 9nn ann Ann ann Ann mann s n
Time (µs)
-EFE2
Figure 5. Output voltage waveform for the electric fence energizers EFE2. The maximal charge
that flows through the cardiac cell model is given by Q = CV= 200 µF X 2.91 V = 582 µC, the
current during which the capacitor charges to maximal value is given by I = MT = (200 [LF X
2.91 V)I132 µs = 4.41 A.
6. Discussion
Geddes and Baker (1989) have shown that for pulses shorter than the cardiac cell time constant
of 2 ms, the electric charge is the quantity that excites cardiac cells. Because the first half wave is
the largest, the charge integrated in the first half wave determines cardiac cell excitation. The
next half wave discharges the cardiac cell capacitance and does not contribute to cardiac cell
excitation. Thus we list integral I(t) = charge Q in Table 1.
lEC (2006) integrates h(t), which is roughly equal to I(t). Their Figure 102 roughly
follows charge.
We propose revising EFE standards for measuring current to determine a safety standard
to prevent VF. The new standard would measure cardiac cell excitation. It would not require the
complex calculations required to determine "The current which flows during the time period in
which 95 percent of the output energy (is delivered)." It would use a simple circuit similar to that
in Figure 2 composed of resistors and a capacitor. The investigator would discharge the device
into the circuit and measure the maximum voltage. If the maximum voltage does not exceed 5 V
(as a conservative estimate), the EFE passes the test. The 500 0 resistor closely approximates the
resistance of the body and determines the current that flows through the body.
Acknowledgements
We thank L Burke O'Neal and Silas Bernardoni for their help and suggestions.
References
8
Geddes L A, and Baker L E 1989 Principles of applied biomedical instrumentation (New York:
John Wiley & Sons) pp 458-61
Geddes L A and Bourland J D 1985 The strength -duration curve. IEEE. Trans. Biomed. Eng.
32(6) 458-9
IEC 1987 International Electrotechnical Commission IEC Report: Effects of current passing
through the human body (IEC 60479-2) pp 47
IEC 2006 Household and similar electrical appliances — Safety — Part 2-76: Particular
requirementsfor eleciric_fence energizers, (IEC 60335-2-76, Edition 2.1)
Jones M and Geddes L A 1977 Strength duration curves for cardiac pacemaking and ventricular
fibrillation Cardiovasc. Res. Center Bull. 15 101-12
Kenneth Johnstone
From:
Scott Ohm <scott@groundedbydesign.com>
Sent:
Thursday, June 7, 2018 8:58 AM
To:
Kenneth Johnstone
Cc:
Meredith Reckert
Subject:
Case ZOA-18-03 electric fences
Ken,
below is a link to California's electrified security fence code:
https://le info.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtml?bill id=201520160SB582
These are some questions that I may ask at the P.C. meeting tonight and do not require a response at this time:
If the Board of adjustment recommended a 3 foot separation from a 6ft perimeter fence for safety concerns, why
has this been omitted from the ordinance?
What is the repetition & duration rate of the electric impulse?
Why has signage at intervals been omitted from the ordinance?
Why is there no International Standard IEC referenced?
Is 9ft height an electrified security fence industry standard?
An electrified security fence is not the same as a cattle electric fence. Why does the ordinance not state
`electrified security fence'?
Thank you,
Scott Ohm, RLA Colorado #830
CLARB Certified Landscape Architect #10006
Principal
Grounded By Design, LLC.
Office: 303.872.7807
Wheat Ridge, CO
3:�e"L' 2.
City of
iR�
Wheatj�idge
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
40
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council,
(r�
FROM: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director L\
1
THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager
DATE: May 15, 2018 (for May 21 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Electrically Charged Fences — Special Use Permit Ordinance
ISSUE:
The City recently received a request to install an electrically charged fence around the perimeter
of the Ketelsen Camper sales facility off Kipling and the I-70 South Frontage Road. A similar
request had been initiated in 2014. Historically, the City has determined such fences to be
prohibited in the City based on a finding that they represent "a hazard to the health or safety of
any person." Council requested discussion of the topic and an initial discussion occurred at the
May 7, 2018 Study Session.
PRIOR ACTIONS:
The consensus direction from Council at the May 7 study session was for staff to draft an
ordinance that would allow such fences to be permitted in certain parts of the City upon
review and approval of a special use permit (SUP).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There would be minimal direct financial impact to the City, other than the fees and use tax
associated with building permits for said fences. Private property owners may see financial
benefit in the form of reduced property theft and vandalism.
BACKGROUND:
As stated above, historically, staff has interpreted electric fences to be a prohibited fence type.
Chapter 26-603 of the Code defines various types of permitted fences, including: masonry walls,
ornamental iron, woven wire and chain link (with some limitations), wood, hedges, and barbed
wire (with some limitations). The code also defines fence types prohibited: "any fence, if in the
opinion of the chief building inspector, public works director or chief of police that would
constitute a hazard to the health or safety of any person." Based on this language, electric fences
have been treated as a prohibited fence type.
In the May 7, 2018 staff memo, staff provided some anecdotal information as to how other
jurisdictions address electrified fences. While many jurisdictions choose to prohibit these fences
entirely, several also allow them, though generally in limited locations. As directed at the study
session, the City Attorney has drafted an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code to allow
electrically charged fences, at a maximum height of 9 feet, through review and approval of a
special use permit application.
Staff felt it would be appropriate to somewhat limit the scope of where such fences could be
installed in the City. The special use permit review process in itself is limiting. Each such
application needs to be evaluated relative to the extent which said application is consistent with
the nine (9) criteria for review found in Section 26-114. Further, we have proposed that they be
allowed only in the following zone districts: Commercial -One, Commercial -Two,
Industrial/Employment, Planned Commercial and Planned Industrial. In defining "electrically
charged fences," staff's draft language also suggests such fences are permitted "where
necessitated by a demonstrated need for heightened security due to the nature of the use
surrounded by the fence, based upon such circumstances as excessive criminal or theft activity
and the like."
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff is requesting consensus direction from City Council on the draft ordinance regarding
electrically charged fences. If Council so directs, a 1St reading on the ordinance could be
scheduled for June 11, a Planning Commission public hearing could be conducted on June 21
and a City Council public hearing could be conducted on June 25, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Ordinance
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
COUNCIL BILL NO.
ORDINANCE NO.
Series 2018
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE
OF LAWS CONCERNING ELECTRICALLY CHARGED FENCES
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers
conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and C.R.S. § 31-23-101, the City,
acting through its City Council (the "Council"), is authorized to adopt ordinances for the
protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and
WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority, the City Council has previously
adopted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code") entitled zoning and
development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend said Chapter 26 to provide for the
regulation of electrically charged fences as a special use in certain zone districts and
under specific conditions to ensure the safety and security of property owners and the
general public.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 26-123 of the Code is amended by the addition of the
following definition to be placed in the appropriate alphabetical order:
Electrically charged fence. A fence not exceeding 9 feet in height which is
constructed for the purpose of carrying and supporting wires which are electrically
charged so as to deter unauthorized persons from climbing on or over such fence,
which fence shall be erected in association with other perimeter fencing, and which
may be permitted only as a special use under section 26-114 where necessitated
by a demonstrated need for heightened security due to the nature of the use
surrounded by the fence, based upon such circumstances as excessive criminal
or theft activity and the like.
Section 2. Section 26-114 (special uses) of the Code, subsection B
(Applicability) is amended to read as follows:
B. Applicability. The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all uses listed
as "special uses" within the provisions set forth for any particular zone district.
REVIEW OF A SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FOR AN ELECTRICALLY
CHARGED FENCE IS PERMITTED IN THE ZONE DISTRICTS LISTED IN
ARTICLE 2 OF THIS CHAPTER, AND IN ADDITION THERETO, THE PLANNED
ATTACHMENT 1
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (PCD) AND THE PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
(PID).
Section 3. Section 26-204 of the Code is amended by including "electrically
charged fence" within the Table of Uses -Commercial and Industrial Districts, to permit
such use as a special use (S) in the C-1, C-2 and I—E zone districts.
Section 4. Section 26-313 of the Code, concerning Planned Commercial
Development (PCD) district regulations, is amended by the addition of a new subsection
J, to read as follows:
J. "In addition to other uses permitted in the PCD district, electrically charged
fences are permitted as special uses upon approval of a special use permit under
Section 26-114."
Section 5. Section 26-314 of the Code, Planned Industrial Development (PID),
is amended by the addition of a new subsection I to read as follows:
I. "In addition to other uses permitted in the PID district, electrically charged
fences are permitted as special uses upon approval of a special use permit
under Section 26-114."
Section 6. Section 26-603 of the Code is amended by the addition of a new
subsection J, to read:
J. "Notwithstanding this section, an electrically charged fence, if approved as a
special use pursuant to section 26-114, may be constructed to a maximum
height of 9 feet."
Section 7. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section,
subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not
be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption, as
permitted by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to
on this day of , 2018, ordered published in full in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing and consideration on
final passage set for , 2018 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of 5 2018.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2018.
Bud Starker, Mayor
ATTEST:
Janelle Shaver, City Clerk
Approved as to Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
First Publication:
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
Published:
Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
41.
City Of
Wheat�,Aie
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager
DATE: April 27, 2018 (for May 7 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Electric Fences
ISSUE:
The City has recently been approached by an electric fencing company with a proposal to
construct an electric fence around the perimeter of the Ketelsen Camper property off of Kipling.
Camping World now operates the business through a long-term lease, though it is still owned by
the Ketelsens. The same parties have approached staff previously, when the Ketelsens were still
also the operators of the property. That history is important and is discussed in the "Background"
section of this memo.
Historically, the City has interpreted the zoning code to prohibit electric fences, deeming them
unsafe and therefore a prohibited fence type. This interpretation of the City Code is also
discussed more fully in the Background section of this memo.
PRIOR ACTIONS:
None by City Council.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There would be minimal direct financial impact to the City, other than the fees and use tax
associated with a building permit, should Council's direction be to allow electric fences in some
manner.
BACKGROUND:
As stated above, historically, staff has interpreted electric fences to be a prohibited fence type.
Chapter 26-603 of the Code defines various types of permitted fences, including: masonry walls,
ornamental iron, wove wire and chain link (with some limitations), wood, hedges, and barbed
wire (with some limitations). The code also defines fence types prohibited: "any fence, if in the
opinion of the chief building inspector, public works director or chief of police that would
constitute a hazard to the health or safety of any person." Based on this language, electric fences
have been treated as a prohibited fence type.
In spring 2014, city staff was approached by Electric Guard Dog (EGD), an electric fence
company based in South Carolina, on behalf of Ketelsen Campers. Ketelsen had been
Memo - Electric Fences
May 7, 2018
Page 2
experiencing after hours break-ins and they were requesting a ten -foot tall electric fence, to be
located around the entire perimeter of their property. Initially, staff informed them that electric
fences were prohibited for public safety reasons.
They persisted in their request and of course staff was certainly sympathetic to the desire to
reduce the criminal activities occurring at a longstanding Wheat Ridge business. Ultimately, a
variance request was submitted and administratively approved by the Community Development
Director for a nine -foot (50% maximum administrative variance) electric fence, with three
conditions:
• That said fence be setback three feet behind the existing six-foot chain link fence
• That it only be turned on after normal business hours
• That it not be electrified where adjacent to the Pennington Elementary School to the
south
The thinking behind the first condition was two -fold: 1) it would generally prevent someone
from being able to reach through the chain link fence and be exposed to the electrification; and
2) it would avoid a situation where someone would climb the six-foot fence and become
entrapped between the two fences and not have room to separate themselves from extended
duration contact with the electrified fence. The school district had been contacted during the
variance application process and they initially expressed great concern with the potential for an
electric fence in this location; however, they found this compromise design to be acceptable.
The applicant generally objected to the conditions, including the three-foot separation as they
had requested a one -foot separation for various reasons. They did not appeal the variance
decision or conditions of approval. In 2015, EGD applied to the Board of Adjustment for an
interpretation that an electric fence located only 1 -foot from a perimeter fence constituted a
safety hazard and therefore was prohibited. The BOA denied their interpretation and essentially
affirmed the staff recommendation that a three-foot separation was required to not create a safety
concern.
Earlier this year, Camping World (Ketelsen) and EGD approached their District IV
Councilpersons to re-engage the City in options for obtaining approval of an electric fence.
Criminal activities and break-ins have increased recently. The Councilmembers then set up a
meeting with the City Manager, other City Staff, store manager and EGD representatives. EGD
is generally proposing a nine -foot fence around the entire perimeter of the property, to be inset
four to eight inches from the existing fence and to be turned on after normal business hours. Staff
agreed to look at options for reconsidering the previous actions.
Subsequently the City Manager and Community Development Director engaged the City
Attorney to consider options that could be offered to the property owner. The City Attorney
determined that because the BOA decision affirmed the requirement for a three-foot set back of
the electric fence, that it would be very difficult to overturn that determination through an
administrative action, such as consideration of a new variance application.
Memo - Electric Fences
May 7, 2018
Page 3
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the City Attorney's determination, staff is requesting direction from City Council,
whether Council wishes to consider a legislative approach to allowing electric fences. If a
legislative solution were to be pursued, it would also be an opportunity to further evaluate in
what locations and under what circumstance or design parameters electric fences might be
allowed in other locations within the City.
The City has also initiated a City Attorney and City Manager listserve request to identify in what
manner other Colorado jurisdictions regulate electric fences. As of the writing of this staff memo
the following information was received:
• Alamosa prohibits electric fences expect in the agricultural zone district
• Arvada prohibits electric fences throughout the city
• Aurora prohibits electric fences throughout the city
• Boulder allows electric fences, with a permit, only in certain zone districts and under
certain conditions
• Durango prohibits electric fences throughout the city
• Edgewater prohibits electric fences anywhere in the city
• Englewood prohibits electric fences throughout the city
• Ft. Collins prohibits electric fences throughout the city
• Golden prohibits electric fences unless specifically permitted in a PUD ODP or required
by the city as a condition of a SUP
• Greeley allows electric fences, with a permit, under certain conditions
• Lakewood allows electric fences only for livestock under certain conditions
• Ridgway allows electric fences only if their location is made inaccessible to persons who
would not know that the fence is electrified
• Westminster prohibits electric fences throughout the city
Electric Fences
• City Code does not specifically address or regulate electric fences
• Historically, the City has interpreted the Code to prohibit the installation of electric
fences, deeming them to represent "a hazard to a person's health or safety" and as such
are by definition in the code are deemed to be "prohibited"
• Back in 2014, Ketelsen Campers and a company by the name of Electric Guard Dog
approached the City about installing an perimeter electric fence at Ketelsen Camper
location just off Kipling
• Initially, they were given longstanding answer, which is that electric fences are not
allowed
• However, they persisted and ultimately, staff approved an administrative variance that
would have allowed a 9 -foot electric fence under 3 conditions:
o That it be setback 3 feet inside of the existing 6 -foot chain link fence, for safety
reasons
o That it only be turned on after normal business hours
o That it not be electrified on the property line adjacent to the neighboring
elementary school
• The applicant generally objected to those conditions, in particular the 3 -foot setback
requirement — they did not appeal to the Board of Adjustment
• Later, in 2015, EGD appealed staff s interpretation of the code that an electric fence not
meeting these requirements would be considered a public safety hazard and therefore
prohibited — the Board affirmed staff s interpretation
• Earlier this year, EGD and Ketelsen (now operated by Camping World) approached their
District IV councilmembers with their desire for an electric fence
• It should be noted that vandalism and property theft have increased in recent months
• We then coordinated a meeting with appropriate city staff and discussed options for
reconsidering a variance request or a potential legislative discussion with City Council
• Our City Attorney has determined that consideration of another administrative variance is
very difficult, because the BOA affirmation of staff determination on the design
requirements for an electric fence effectively made that policy into law
• So, we are here before you tonight to gauge whether Council is interested adopting
legislative to potentially allow electric fences in some manner and in some locations
• We have done some initial research into how other communities regulate electric fences
and we included that in the packet memo
Kenneth Johnstone
From: Kenneth Johnstone
Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:14 AM
To: Kenneth Johnstone
Subject: City Council - May 7, 2018
City Council - May 7, 2018
All present
Michael Pate, EGD/Camping World - described technology
Charley Meyers - e -bikes, supports change in policy, bike JEFFCO,
Mike Rabor, Evergreen, e -bike technology description
Al Gallo, District I, e -bike rider on CC trail
Joyce, e -bikes,
Scott, Harlan Streetscape maintenance,
- Pond, need to figure out long term maintenance, identify resources
- Mathews, joint maintenance with Lakeside
- Fitzgerald, historic maintenance understanding
- Duran, cooperative solution
- Urban,
- Davis, happy medium,
- Dozeman, burden should not fall too heavily on homeowners/property owners
SUPs
- Fitzgerald, duration of approvals
- Hoppe, recent approvals in Fruitdale subarea plan, automotive uses recently
- Duran, orchard district,
- Urban, opposed
- Mathews, what exactly is an orchard district?,
- Pond, loosen up the language of substantial compliance language - "generally consistent with
applicable sections of adopted subarea plans and the city's comprehensive plan"
- Dozeman, comp plan is a guiding document, not a regulatory document, 44th is a very
commercial road and land uses are consistent with that
- Hoppe, discretionary uses
1
- Duran,
- Fitzgerald, unhappy camper, duration of SUP is a concern for him,
- Pond, don't be afraid to place time limits
- Mathews,
- Hoppe, consensus to direct staff, new language
Electric Fences
- Pond, doesn't like the legislative solution, Dahl response, possibly SUP for these fences
- Mathews, clarifying comments on design details of fence
- Urban, wants to support business, find a way to move it forward, SUP possibly
- Hoppe, any other options?
- Dahl,
- Davis, find a solution, curious whether other cities allow these as "electric alarms",
- Mathews, we allow barbed wire fences, which are more dangerous
- Dozeman, crime a real issue in the area, school willing to compromise, supports SUP
- Mathews, how quickly
- June 11 1st, June 21st PC, June 25 PH
- Fitzgerald, EGD not compromising,
- Dozeman consensus for SUP
Freestanding ERs
- Duran, cost for out of network care.
- Davis, need is questionable, restrict if not completely disallow,
- Mathews, two pronged approach, would support total prohibition
- Hoppe, limited amount of land left to "use" - need to use it correctly, possibly don't allow at
all,
- Dozeman, why not expressly define them as prohibited
- Pond, look at options, up to an including prohibition,
- Urban, regulate and license, statement of need, operating requirements, emergency medical
treatment and labor act
- Fitzgerald,
- Duran, look at Arvada's reg's
- Option 2 consensus to move forward
Sent from my iPad
i
Kenneth Johnstone
From: Janeece Hoppe
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 10:21 AM
To: Janelle Shaver; Kenneth Johnstone
Subject: Re: wording
Hello! " The proposed special -use promotes goals and outcomes with applicable portions of the city's
comprehensive plan and any sub -area plan applicable to the subject property"
Hope this helps!
Sent_ fi-oin my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID
Janelle Shaver <jshaver@ci.wheatridge.co.us> wrote:
Hi Janeece. If you provided wording to Ken for the consensus on the 91h criteria for SUP's, could you send that to me as
well.
Thanks. Janelle
Janelle Shaver
City Clerk
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Office Phone: 303-235-2823
Fax: 303-235-2823
www.ci.wheatridse.co.us
City of
Wheat idge
y(.)IIIcr of aiir C11) C1 RF.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business -confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any
network to which your computer is connected. Thank you.
Clerk Shaver shared that the issue of how to handle the median between Wheat Ridge
and Lakeside was debated 20 years ago; it is still the same issue.
7C3. Special Use Permit Review Criteria — Ken Johnstone
ouncilmembers Hoppe and Duran had requested a discussion about adding another
criterion to the Special Use Permit (SUP) review process.
Mr. Johnstone explained that SUP's are typically reviewed and approved
administratively by the Community Development Director (Mr. Johnstone) in all but
three cases:
• If the CDD finds that one or more of the criteria for review are not met,
If a written objection is received during the public noticing period,
0 If the CDD recommends a condition of approval, to which the applicant objects.
In those instances, SUPs are forwarded to City Council to be heard at a public hearing.
To protect the public interest it may be wise to consider if a particular use is in
compliance with the Comprehensive plan or any subarea plan.
The City Attorney's office has drafted an additional, ninth criterion which would read as
follows: "The proposed special use is in substantial confonnance with applicable
portions of the City's Comprehensive Plan and any sub area plan applicable to the
subject property." It's a fairly straightforward ordinance change that can come to
Council quickly.
Discussion followed.
There have been two SUP's granted recently in the Fruitdale District that were not in
conformance with the Fruitdale subarea plan.
E If we have subarea plans we should follow them. Citizens contributed to them.
SUP's are, by definition, for special uses, so the extra criterion is not necessary. A
special use does not meet criteria because it is special. Council should decide if the
use is appropriate.
• It is hard to define what an "Orchard District" is.
"Substantial conformance" is not specific enough.
Better to ask, "Does it promote the goals and outcomes of the subarea plan?".
Comprehensive Plans and subarea plans should be guiding documents, but not set
in stone. We shouldn't be too restrictive.
SUP's are discretionary uses. They need not meet all the criteria to be approved.
Having Item 9 will remind the Council to be mindful of the goals of a subarea plan. It
would just be another thing to consider. Staff/Council can still grant the SUP.
This doesn't go far enough to prevent certain uses.
There are still property rights to consider.
Don't want this to stop the process before it comes to Council.
Councilmember Hoppe asked for consensus to direct staff to add the 9th criteria and
take it to the Planning Commission. The vote was 6-2.
L—= -i
4. Amendment to Code to allow electric fences under certain conditions – Ken
Johnstone
Mr. Johnstone explained that our code is silent on electric fences, but historicallky
has been interpreted to prohibit electric fences.
He went through the process that took place in 2014 when Ketelsen Campers asked
to erect a 10 foot electric fence one foot inside their chain link fence, to stem the
large amount of criminal activity on their property. The adjacent school, Pennington
Elementary, had input; and an administrative variance was granted. The Board of
Adjustments ruled that Ketelsen's could have a 9 foot electric fence placed 3 feet
inside their regular chain-link fence, and the fence could not be erected adjacent to
the school. Ultimately Ketelsen's did not erect the fence because the portion
adjacent to the school was not allowed to be electrified.
Ketelsen Campers continues to be owned by the Ketelsen's, but is operated with a
long term lease by Camping World and retains the name Ketelsen Campers.
Criminal activity has increased recently and the new owners would like to erect an
electric fence. District IV councilmembers arranged a meeting between staff, the
owners and the fence company, Electric Guard Dog. A legislative solution is
recommended to solve the issue of electric fences.
Discussion followed. Areas of concerns and comments included:
Let the BOA handle it on a case by case basis.
• Mr. Dahl advised that the BOA interpretations are reasonable and would be hard
to overturn. A Special Use Permit is an option.
• Electric fences are allowed in Aurora and are called electric alarms.
The 3 foot area is a no -man's land which not only needs to be mowed, but also
provides more room that is helpful for an intruder,
Live dog guards are deemed not to be a safe solution due to liability issues.
• Security cameras are on sight, but they are not preventive.
They aren't really fences – just horizontal wires. The voltage is not as strong as
cattle fences.
• We should support all our businesses that choose to operate here and generate
sales tax.
Mr. Dahl advised that an SUP would take care of this one property (adjacent to a
school), but since all circumstances are different, a legislative answer may not be
the best solution.
a Would like more information on the different approaches taken by other cities.
9 Cities label these fences with different names.
STUDY SESSION NOTES
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
City Council Chambers 7500 W. 290' Avenue
May 7, 2018
Mayor Starker called the Study Session to order at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Monica Duran, Janeece Hoppe, Kristi Davis, Tim Fitzgerald,
Zachary Urban, Larry Mathews, Leah Dozeman, and George Pond (arrived late)
Also present: City Clerk, Janelle Shaver; City Manager, Patrick Goff; City Attorney,
Jerry Dahl; Parks and Recreation Director, Joyce Manwaring; Public Works Director,
Scott Brink; Community Development Director, Ken Johnstone; Police Chief, Daniel
Brennan; interested citizens.
CITIZEN COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS
Michael Pate (Columbia, South Carolina) represents the electric fence company
involved with Agenda Item 4. He spoke about battery powered electric fences. He
explained how they work and that they would be charged to 7,000 volts. They would be
set up behind a secondary perimeter fence. Signs are in English and Spanish. It is a
safe device. The devices are tested for safety by a firm in Germany. Camping World
has purchased Ketelsen Campers. They have recently sustained very costly damage
from break-ins. Thieves have caused shut -downs of Pennington Elementary due to
robbers escaping through school property.
Questions were asked of Mr. Pate:
• The power can be on a timer. It is a very sophisticated system.
• A human, on -sight security guard cannot cover the area. /the area is too big and
there are too many potential places of entry.
• Cameras are in place, but that doesn't stop burglars.
• The electricity can be turned off during school hours.
Charlie Myers (WR) is with Bike Jeffco and the Wheat Ridge ATAT. They reached out
to People for Bikes from Boulder and E -bike Outfitters. He told the Council that a -bikes
are not a fad; it is a growing market. Riders include 60% retired seniors, 30%
commuters, and 10% people who are disabled in some way. E -bikes are getting more
people out onto the trails. They don't want to see a patchwork of ordinances. They
would like to connect with other communities so there is consistency. Reckless a -bike
riders have not been seen in any surveys. Bike Jeffco and ATAT would like to help.
Mike Raber (Evergreen) has testified to the legislature that the majority of a -bike users
are seniors. They are fun to ride. They appeal to seniors for the ability to climb hills. It
is a mobility choice for people with disabilities. In the state bill a -bikes are subject to the
same rules as regular bikes.
Art Gallo (WR) is an a -bike rider. He said the Clear Creek Trail is great. He knows
there are bad actors out there because he commutes to Aurora by bike. The concept of
an a -bike is a pedal assist. Class 1 can go 20. Class 2 has a throttle. Class 3 can go
faster. He believes Classes 1 and 2 would be appropriate on the Clear Creek Trail.
1. Staff Report(s)
a) Code change to allow electric bikes on Clear Creek Trail — Joyce
Manwaring
Joyce Manwaring had some opening remarks about the first draft of the ordinance that
has been prepared to allow a -bikes on the trail. They have started with definitions and
posted speeds. The goal is consistency.
Discussion followed. Points included:
• Ms. Manwaring will be meeting with other trails directors on Wednesday.
• Exact numbers for demand are unknown, but it is clear they are becoming more
popular.
• Our section of Clear Creek Trail has signage that is consistent with that of Golden.
• Clear Creek Trail is part of the regional trail system which will ultimately be the
Peaks to Plain Trail. The goal is a consistent experience.
• We have only a few medians in the trail.
• Recharging station are not considered at this time.
• Current enforcement is soft. CSO's do visit the trail.
• Mr. Dahl's office authored the ordinance.
• The Colorado Model Traffic Code is referenced for consistency.
• Motorized vehicles are not allowed on the trail. We will be addressing scooters and
electric wheelchairs in the coming weeks..
• Mr. Dahl advised that it will be a simple matter of a clear definition so there is no
confusion with motorized vehicles.
• There were comments about the definition of vehicles.
• Bikes must conform to the same rules as cars regarding movement. They do not
need the same equipment as other motorized vehicles (licenses, lights, turn signals,
etc.).
Councilmember Hoppe received consensus to direct staff to move forward with an
amendment to Chapter 17 Code of Laws concerning motorized bicycles, and that points
of tonight's discussion and some wordsmithing be included.
2. Harlan Street Streetscape Maintenance — Scott Brink
take it to the Planning Commission. The vote was 6-2.
4. Amendment to Code to allow electric fences under certain conditions — Ken
Johnstone
Mr. Johnstone explained that our code is silent on electric fences, but historicallky
_NF has been interpreted to prohibit electric fences.
He went through the process that took place in 2014 when Ketelsen Campers asked
to erect a 10 foot electric fence one foot inside their chain link fence, to stem the
large amount of criminal activity on their property. The adjacent school, Pennington
Elementary, had input; and an administrative variance was granted. The Board of
Adjustments ruled that Ketelsen's could have a 9 foot electric fence placed 3 feet
inside their regular chain-link fence, and the fence could not be erected adjacent to
the school. Ultimately Ketelsen's did not erect the fence because the portion
adjacent to the school was not allowed to be electrified.
Ketelsen Campers continues to be owned by the Ketelsen's, but is operated with a
long term lease by Camping World and retains the name Ketelsen Campers.
Criminal activity has increased recently and the new owners would like to erect an
electric fence. District IV councilmembers arranged a meeting between staff, the
owners and the fence company, Electric Guard Dog. A legislative solution is
recommended to solve the issue of electric fences.
Discussion followed. Areas of concerns and comments included:
• Let the BOA handle it on a case by case basis.
• Mr. Dahl advised that the BOA interpretations are reasonable and would be hard
to overturn. A Special Use Permit is an option.
• Electric fences are allowed in Aurora and are called electric alarms.
• The 3 foot area is a no -man's land which not only needs to be mowed, but also
provides more room that is helpful for an intruder,
• Live dog guards are deemed not to be a safe solution due to liability issues.
• Security cameras are on sight, but they are not preventive.
• They aren't really fences — just horizontal wires. The voltage is not as strong as
cattle fences.
• We should support all our businesses that choose to operate here and generate
sales tax.
• Mr. Dahl advised that an SUP would take care of this one property (adjacent to a
school), but since all circumstances are different, a legislative answer may not be
the best solution.
• Would like more information on the different approaches taken by other cities.
• Cities label these fences with different names.
• Having the fence off during school hours satisfies the school.
• Conditions of qa
• An SUP could regulate the zone districts where they are allowed, hours of
operation, the distance from the outer fence, and the height.
• A timeline for getting this enacted as soon as possible was discussed.
Chief Brennan reported on the location from a police perspective.
• This location has had 10 significant break-ins since the first of the year. Crime at the
Camping World at 4100 Youngfield is not as severe.
• There has only been one lockdown at Pennington and it was not related to anything
at Ketelsen Campers.
• The 1-70/Kipling corridor is a hot spot for crime and there is an increase in transient
population.
Mr. Goff stressed again that the school is agreeable to an electric fence now -- if it is
shut off during school hours.
Councilmember Dozeman received consensus to direct staff to create an ordinance to
allow electric fences with a Special Use Permit. The vote was 7-1.
5. Free Standing Emergency Rooms — Ken Johnstone
Mr. Johnstone explained that the City has had a series of temporary moratoria on free
standing emergency rooms as we wait for the state legislature to act. Very recently two
bills were passed and signed into law that apply to freestanding ER's, but they will not
really help with regulatory decisions we need to make.
Carol Salzman from Lutheran Hospital reported that unfortunately the most recent bill,
the one that would have affected cities and licensure, did not pass out of committee.
Mr. Johnstone explained that freestanding ER's are deemed to be more like a hospital
than a medical office. He provided the nuances of what zones they can be located in.
We can probably do some things regarding licensing.
Options for location include:
#1 Do nothing. When the moratorium expires freestanding ER's would be allowed in
Mixed Use -Commercial zone districts, which are prevalent on Wadsworth.
#2 Begin a process to adopt local regulations for freestanding ER's. There is time to
take this to the Planning Commission for a public hearing before it comes to City
Council and do it all before the current moratorium expires in August.
#3 Extend the moratorium. This is possible, but not recommended since the legislature
has failed to act on this for the last three sessions.
One appropriate requirement would be a demonstration of need.
City of
W heat Midge
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
DATE: March 28, 2018
SUBJECT: Electric Guard Dog
The intent of this memorandum is to relate the list of events occurring from 2014 — 2016
regarding Ketelsen Campers and Electric Guard Dog (EGD).
Code of Laws
Section 26-603 of the Zoning and Development Code regulates fencing within the City. It
designates permitted fence heights, controls sight distance and specifies where fencing can be
installed. Section 26-603.D. indicates the types of fencing that can be installed and those, which
cannot.
It has been the position of City personnel that electric fences constitute a hazard and are therefore
not allowed in the City of Wheat Ridge. This is based on concern for public safety issues and the
potential for human or animal exposure to a dangerous fence.
The maximum fence height for most properties is limited to 6'.
Subject Property
The property at 9850-70 West I-70 Frontage Road South is comprised of four parcels with 10
acres of area and is used for Recreation Vehicle (RV) sales, service and storage. There are
several existing buildings on the north side of the property with frontage on the south I-70
frontage road used for office, display and maintenance. Two vacant parcels extending almost
one quarter of a mile to the south are used for open RV storage. The storage areas are
encompassed with a 6' high chain link fence.
Adjacent zoning and land use
The property has a mix of land uses surrounding it. On the south and southwestern portion, it is
abutted by vacant land. The south I-70 Frontage Road with I-70 beyond abuts the property on
the north. To the east are commercial uses zoned C-1 and PID. Further to the south but still on
the eastern side is the Pennington Elementary school with associated grounds and activity fields.
�11�nG��
�i
1
�v D
7
The city was approached in the spring of 2014 with an inquiry regarding installation of an
electronic security system for the Ketelsen property. It was indicated by the property
owner that other forms of security (cameras, nighttime security officers and dogs) have
been ineffective. A 10' high electric fence was proposed to be installed around the rear
and sides of the property with a 1' inset from the perimeter chain link fence. The
proposed fence was not compliant with the fence height maximum and Staff's policy
regarding electric fences.
No security system was proposed to be installed in the front of the property. The security
system adjacent to the portion that abuts Pennington Elementary would appear to be
intact but would not be powered based on the expressed safety concerns or perceived
safety concerns of the City and school district.
While attachment to a 10' high fence is optimal, the security system company indicated
that their system could operate on a 9' high fence, which would constitute a 50% variance
and be eligible for administrative review. Staff also communicated a willingness to
consider allowing the electric fence if additional separation was provided. A 3'
separation would be supported as this would exceed the arm length of both children and
adults who may inadvertently or purposely extend an arm through the chain-link. The
WR Police Department, the school district and the Chief Building Official, supported the
3' separation.
Case No. WA -14- 11 was approved by the Community Development Director to allow a
fence height variance of 9' from the maximum height of 6' to allow the security system
to be installed on the new 9' high fence. Three conditions were placed on the approval:
2
1. The proposed fence be located 3' inside the existing perimeter fence.
2. The portion of the fence adjacent to the Pennington Elementary school property be
incapable of carrying a current.
3. The system be turned on during business off -hours only.
The applicant did not agree with the condition for the required 3' separation between the
existing perimeter fence and the electric fence. Pursuant to 26-115, a decision to deny an
administrative variance or to appeal conditions placed on an approval by the Community
Development Director may be appealed to the Board of Adjustment. The applicant must
submit a written appeal within ten days of the administrative decision. The applicant
failed to file an appeal within the ten-day timeframe. Therefore, the administrative
condition of the 3' fence setback was no longer eligible for appeal.
• In 2015, EGD filed an application to the Board of Adjustment for an interpretation that an
electric fence separated by only 1' from a perimeter fence does not constitute a public
safety hazard and is therefore, not prohibited.
The Board of Adjustment denied the interpretation on April 23, 2015.
• In September of 2015, Electric Guard Dog submitted new information regarding the
impact of repeating electrical currents. City staff reviewed the information but maintained
the position that we would not support the fence construction unless it was separated
from the chainlink fence by 3'.
• Our last communication with EGD was in January 2016 with the same position.
3
Kenneth Johnstone
From: Kenneth Johnstone
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 2:49 PM
To: Gerald E. Dahl (gdahl@mdkrlaw.com)
Cc: Patrick Goff; Daniel Brennan; Meredith Reckert; Scott Cutler; Scott Brink
Subject: Electric Guard Dog Fence at Ketelsen Campers
Jerry,
I don't recall whether you were at all "in the loop" when we received a proposal several years
ago to install a 10 -foot tall perimeter electric fence at Ketelsen Campers off of Kipling in Wheat
Ridge. Here's the summary of the history and at the end a question for you, because "they're
back."
• Electric Guard Dog (EGD) is an electric fence company out of South Carolina
• Ketelsen campers has on and off had high instances of property theft and damage from
people trespassing in their large storage lot, the back of which is also adjacent to
Pennington Elementary
• In Spring 2014, EGD approached staff on behalf of Ketelsen to install a 10 -foot electric
perimeter fence to be located on all perimeter property lines of the storage lot. The
fence was proposed to be inset 1 -foot behind an existing six-foot, wood slatted chain
link fence
• Staff informed them that historically, staff's interpretation had been that electric fences
were prohibited in Wheat Ridge, being considered a "prohibited fence", which are
defined as follows in Section 26-603.E: "Any fence, if in the opinion of the chief building
inspector, public works director or chief of police, that would constitute a hazard to the
health or safety of any person."
• Initially, we determined it to be prohibited, but they were persistent, and of course we
were certainly sympathetic to the desire to reduce the criminal activities occurring at a
longstanding Wheat Ridge business
• Ultimately a variance request was submitted and as Community Development Director, I
approved a variance for a 9 -foot fence (50% maximum admin variance), on the
condition that it be set back 3 feet behind the chain link fence, be turned off during
normal business hours and not be electrified adjacent to the school site
• The logic behind the setback was two -fold: 1) it would generally prevent someone from
being able to reach through the chain link fence and be exposed to the electrification;
and 2) it would avoid a situation where someone would climb the chain link fence and
become entrapped between the two and not have room to separate in order to avoid
extended duration contact with the electrified fence
• The school district had been contacted as part of the variance application process and
they initially expressed great concern, but were willing to agree to this compromise
position
• The applicant generally objected to the separation condition, but did not appeal my
decision to the Board of Adjustment
• In 2015, EGD applied to the BOA for an interpretation that an electric fence located 1 -
foot from a perimeter fence is not a safety hazard and therefore, not prohibited. The
BOA denied that interpretation on April 23, 2015
• They have had on and off communications with staff since and our position has not
changed
• EGD and Ketelsen (now operated by Camping World) have lobbied their Council District
members, who are very sympathetic to the requested fence. Said CM's have reached
out to the City Manager to find a solution, who also is generally sympathetic and
seeking ways to make this happen, given the property damage and theft issues that are
continuing and have recently increased somewhat
• We met with all parties last Friday and generally agreed we would work to explore ways
to get this fence approved, presumably, at the time, through another variance process,
again involving the school district
• Since the meeting, it has occurred to me that to get this approved (at a proposed height
of 9 feet and a separation of 4-8 inches) would potentially violate the previous 2015
interpretation of this as a prohibited fence, which, essentially affirmed the conditions
that had been placed on their administrative variance approval, notably, the 3 -foot
minimum separation
• Any ideas on a process to move forward, preferably one that is as expeditious as
possible at the City Manager's request?
• As a policy matter, the Councilors may bring this topic forward as a legislative matter, so
that there is clarity how these decisions would apply more broadly in the community
Please let me know if you have questions. I look forward to your response.
Ken Johnstone, AICP
Community Development Director
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Office Phone: 303-235-2844
Fax: 303-234-2824
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
cayof
W heat idc
C.c)MMUNITY Divilorml Ni----
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business -confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any
network to which your computer is connected. Thank you.
q