Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/23/15City of ]`� 6atf<icjgc BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA April 23, 2015 Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of Adjustment on April 23, 2015, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 W. 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1... CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 1 PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing oil the agenda.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WA -15-03: An application filed by Carol Bausinger for Electric Guard Dog for an appeal of an administrative zoning determination related to the separation between an electric security fence and an existing perimeter fence (Case No, WA -14-1 1) pursuant to Section 26-603.E (Fence types prohibited). The City's Police Chief and Chief Building Official have determined that an electric fence must be separated from an external fence a minimum of 3 feet in order for the fence not to constitute a hazard to public health and safety. The applicant is requesting an interpretation that would allow an electric fence to be separated from the existing perimeter fence by I foot on property located at 9850 - 9870 West 1-70 Frontage Road South. 5. CLOSETHE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes — January 22, 2015 B. Election of Officers S. ADJOURNMENT Individuals ivith disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public ineetings sponsored 1?y the Cit -y of 144heat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public I rination f Q 11fo ficer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in adl,,ance q1'a meeting (f you are interested in participatinq and need inclusion assistance. City of 9rwh6,atR_i0gc Mel CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME ACTION REQUESTED: CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT Board of Adjustment MEETING DATE: April 14, 2015 Meredith Reckert WA -15-03 / Electric Guard Dog Appeal of an administrative zoning determination related to the safety of an electric security fence LOCATION OF REQUEST: 9850-70 West I-70 Frontage Road South APPLICANT (S): Michel Pate/Carol Bausinger for Electric Guard Dog OWNER (S): Randy Ketelsen for Ketelsen Campers of Colorado APPROXIMATE AREA: 10 Acres PRESENT ZONING: Commercial -One, Planned Industrial Development and Planned Commercial Development PRESENT LAND USE: Recreation Vehicle Sales and Storage ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA -15-03 /Electric Guard Dog (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION See attached vicinity map JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicants, Carol Bausinger and Michael Pate for Electric Guard Dog, have filed an appeal of an administrative zoning decision relative to the separation between an electric security fence and an existing perimeter fence pursuant to Section 26-603.E (fence types prohibited). The City's Chief of Police, Chief Building Official and Community Development Director have determined that an electric fence must be separated from an external fence a minimum of 3 feet in order for the fence not to constitute a hazard to public health and safety and therefore, not permitted. The applicant is requesting an interpretation that would allow an electric fence to be separated from the existing perimeter fence by 1 foot. The property in question is the Ketelsen Camper property at 9850-70 West I-70 Frontage Road South. The purpose of the appeal is to allow the applicant to install an electronic security system around the perimeter of the existing RV sales and storage lots with only V of separation from an external chain link fence. Section 26-115.E (Variances/waivers/temporary permits/interpretations) of the Wheat Ridge City Code empowers the Board of Adjustment to hear and decide on requests for interpretation of the zoning code in such a way as to carry out the intent and purpose of the subject provisions. The authority of the Board extends to three types of code interpretations: 1. The basic intent and purpose of words, phrases or paragraphs as applied to a specific proposal or instance. 2. Use of a property as an "other similar use". 3. The ability to reverse or modify a decision by an administrative officer, upon a showing by the applicant that the effect of the decision would impose a particular and unique hardship upon the owner. In this case, the Board is being asked to reverse or modify the decision by an administrative officer with regard to the safety of an electric fence. Unlike with variances, the Board will not be analyzing any criteria. Rather, the Board must decide to either uphold or to overturn the determination of the Community Development Director. If the determination is overturned, the Board's code interpretation will apply not only to the subject property but also to all commercial and industrial properties in the City of Wheat Ridge. This is further explained in the case analysis below. II. CASE ANALYSIS Property description The property in question is comprised of four parcels with 10 acres of area and a mix of zonings including Commercial -One (C-1), Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and Planned Industrial Development (PID). The property is used for Recreation Vehicle (RV) sales, service and storage. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog 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. The combined total of the building area is 38,000 square feet. 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. (Exhibit 1, aerial photo) Adjacent zoning and land use The property has a mix of zonings and land uses surrounding it. On the south and southwestern portion it is abutted by vacant land zoned NC, A-1 and PCD. Further north on the western side is a hotel and a fueling station. Both of these properties are zoned C-1. 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 owned by Jefferson County. These parcels are zoned A-1 and R-2. (Exhibit 2, zoning map) Background Ketelsen Campers has been located in the City of Wheat Ridge for over 30 years. In recent years, the property has been experiencing an increasing number of them and vandalism crimes with sustained losses in excess of $100,000. The areas most targeted are on the east, south and west sides of the property. The inventory storage areas which comprise 5.5 acres are devoid of structures and have become prime targets due to lack of lighting and visual access. In addition to vandalism to the RV units in open storage, the western building has also been vandalized in the area between the "crook" of the building and the rear of the hotel to the west. The property owner, Mr. Ketelsen, had been working with the Wheat Ridge Police Department to target these crime areas, has filed a number of police reports and has consulted with the police department regarding property protection and crime prevention. In an effort to curb property crime the owner is would like to install an electronic security system. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog Most property crime occurs along the west and southeast sections of the properties designated in green. The property owner would like to install the security fence along the western, southern and eastern property lines designated in blue. 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. The system would be comprised of electrical wires strung between 10' high poles. The wires would run close together, usually 3-6 inches apart. Cable support poles would be spaced 10' apart, behind an existing 6' high chain link fence. The electric fence poles would be spaced every ten feet to support the electric cables. The system provides electric wires that create a 3/10,000th of a second electric shock, which is certified within OSHA Safety Standards by the International Electro -technical commission. Along with an electric shock upon contact, the system is linked to a central monitoring station. If contact is made, than the central monitoring system contacts the property owner to ask if the police should be dispatched. The system is both solar and battery powered. It is turned on and off via a key pad or with smart phone access. The 10' high fence was proposed to be installed around the rear and sides of the property with a 1' offset from the perimeter chain link fence. 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 will appear to be intact but will 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 can operate on a 9' high fence which would constitute a 50% variance and be eligible for administrative review. Board of Adjustment Case No. WA-I5-03/Electric Guard Dog 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 can't. Section 26-603.D. Fences and divisional walls permitted. .1. Masonry walls. 2. Ornamental iron. 3. Woven wire and chain-link. 4. Wood. S. Hedges. 6. Barbed wire: a. Barbed wire shall be permitted only in the Agricultural One (A-1) zone district, or within any zone district if located within floodplain areas, or in residential zones, for the keeping of large animals where allowed, provided any barbed wire is located at least three (3) feet inside of another permitted fence and that the other fence is at least forty-two (42) inches high; or b. Barbed wire shall be permitted in commercial, industrial and public facilities (PF) zone districts where placed on top of a six -foot -high fence or higher where permitted. Barbed wire placed on top of a fence shall not be counted toward the height of a fence. The barbed wire placed on top of a fence shall not be greater than two (2) feet in height and shall point inwards towards the property. In the public facilities zone district, where barbed wire fencing is used next to existing residential development, consideration shall be given to minimize the impact through buffering. E. Fence types prohibited 1. 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; and 2. Any fence which does not comply with the provisions hereof, unless a variance has been approved. It has been the position of City personnel that electric fences are not allowed in the City of Wheat Ridge in accordance with Section 26-603.E.1. This is based on concern for public safety issues and the potential for human or animal exposure to a dangerous fence. The shock from an electronic device is not always predictable. Any device with an electric current (even if it's pulsating) can be a health concern if contact is made. The impact on a person can vary based on climate and weather conditions, size of the person getting shocked and medical conditions. City personnel met numerous times with the owner and applicant to discuss the proposed electrical security/fencing system. Staff had determined that the fence was prohibited based on safety concerns with the proximity of the electric fence with a 1' separation from the chain link perimeter fence. This was especially critical with the Pennington Elementary school abutting the storage lot on two sides. Board ofAdjustment Case No. JVA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog However, Staff 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. Another concern about the 1' separation is the potential for the two fences to become an entrapment area which could result in numerous electric shocks to someone trapped between them. Staff also indicated that an administrate variance could be considered to allow the poles for the new electrical system to be 9' in height versus 10'. It is standard per code that a perimeter fence is limited to 6' in height. A request for a 9' high fence could be granted administratively as it would be a 50% variance. As part of the review process for the variance, planning staff referred the case to the following agencies: Arvada Fire Protection District, Wheat Ridge Police Department and Jefferson County School District. Both the police department and the school district, as well as the City Chief Building Official, expressed concern for the electric fence unless a 3' setback was required from the perimeter. Jefferson County School District also expressed that the electric fence which would be visibly the same, should not be capable of carrying an electric current where next to the school property. 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: 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. A written appeal must be submitted by the applicant 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 is no longer eligible for appeal. In addition, a new application for substantially the same development process may not be refiled within one year. Determination and Appeal Based on the existing provisions in Chapter 26 and with the expertise of city personnel, staff concludes that an electric fence with a 1' setback from a perimeter fence constitutes a safety hazard. Both the City's Police Chief and Chief Building Official have determined that an electric fence must be separated from an external fence a minimum of 3 feet in order for the fence to not constitute a hazard to public health and safety. The applicant is requesting an interpretation from the Board of Adjustment making a finding that an electric fence separated by only 1' from a perimeter fence does not constitute a public safety hazard and is therefore not prohibited. Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog 1. The Board may deny the appeal and uphold staff s determination that an electric fence with a 1' separation constitutes a safety hazard. or, 2. The Board may approve the appeal and overturn staff s detennination that an electric fence with a 1' separation does not constitute a safety hazard. It should be noted that an interpretation of the Board of Adjustment applies not simply to the subject property, but it applies city-wide. In other words, if the Board overturns staff s determination, an electric fence with a 1' separation is safe and would be allowed on all properties zoned commercially or industrially. In addition, the Board is only empowered as to whether Staffs interpretation of the safety of the fence should be upheld or not. Decisions as to the appropriateness of the fence location (in terms of adjacent development), use of the property and pole height should not be considered. The applicants have included in their submittal the following documents attached. (Exhibit 3, applicant's submittal documents): Application Narrative University of Wisconsin study IEC Report 60335.2.7.6. Site plan with fence sections Much of the applicants' submittal is similar to what we contained in their variance application. Those documents include the site plan with fence sections and the University of Wisconsin study. The application narrative includes other permits for properties located in the City of Denver and Adams County. Staff would note that the IEC (International Electric Code) has not been adopted by the City of Wheat Ridge, but the NEC (National Electric Code) has. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Staff concludes, based on an analysis of the municipal code and recommendations from the Police Chief and Chief Building Official that the 1' separation of the electronic fence from perimeter fence constitutes a health and safety hazard. Staff recommends denial of the appeal for the following reasons: 1. A 1' separation would allow someone to reach through a perimeter fence and touch the electric fence. 2. The 1' separation could result in an area of entrapment between the two fences. 3. The impact from an electric shock is unpredictable and can vary based on climate and weather conditions, size of the person getting shocked and medical conditions. 4. If staff s determination is overruled, similar fences could be erected in the City's commercial and industrial zone districts. Attachments: 1. Exhibits 1 — 3 2. Resolution Template Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -I 5-03/Electric Guard Dog Exhibit 1- aerial vicinity map Board ofAdjustment Case No. WA-I5-03/Electric Guard Dog Exhibit 2 - zoning map Board of Adiustment Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog 40,000C % lk A The #1 Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. 17.1 Executive Ceritii(tifive * Suite 230 Columbia, SC 29210 Phone: (903) 404-61891 f* *�4)"4M Electric.G"uard Dog forKeWlsen Campl�r - Separati'" justi," ati n N r e, Ketelsen Camper rnvidert� install a O -66t EXHIBIT 3 r7��' 7j�,, � # 11 J!, 1 111 PM71 M-WPWI effective. For further reference, attached are permits from other surrounding Colorado jurisdictions, DENVER FtRE PREVENTION BUREAU 74�* 61INix AVE PA Doi 40*5 tien�ir, CO $0104 !IOM344M 0 4 A PERM& NO. 14 row PR ViJk Occull'Aw 16 i 8953 Issued To, ELEcrRIC GUARD DOG, LLC. P.OOX 21832 COLUMBIA, SC 29221 CONTACT: CAROL BAUSINGER PHN: 803-404-6189 site. 4920 N WASHINGTON ST Issued On: 07/01/2014' fbi4e fietiod Of 07/kliou through 07/01/2015 De�ri"-ction of Occupano or Operation 81 ELECTRIC FENCE $ 150.00 SPECIFICS AND CONDITIONS - Electric Guard Dog Perimeter Security Fence System: 12 -volt direct current (DC) power source his permit in a conspicuous place. our coples o for our review, Quegiotts should be a direttki to the. Denver fire, pres�ttnton Bureu at the phone number shown above. A 4Standards adonved bv the City and Cmjn�� of Denver, if such violations exist. 745 W Colfax AVE P.O. Box 40385 Deaver, CO 80204 720-913-3458 PERMIT NO: 145586 FIRE PROTECTION FOR( PANT tt)� 18953 Issued To: ELECTRIC GUARD DOG, LLC. P.O. BOX 21832 COLUMBIA, SC 29221 CONTACT: CAROL BAUSINGER PFIN: 803-404-6189 Site: 4920 N WASHINGTON ST Issued Ou: 07/01/2014 for the period of 07/01/2014 through 07/01/2015 Code Deseription of Occupancy or Operation Permit Fee Heigbt of electric fence shall not, exceed ten feet Annual inspection of security fence system shall be conducted by Fire Prevention Division personnel. Denver Zoning and Building Department approval required, Total Permit Fees S 150-00 This is your actual PERMIT. This is not an Invoice' DO NOT SEND MONEY! Our records indicate the permit fee shown above was credited to your account on 07/02PM14 withCkNO.22748 by JOSEPH 1, GONZALES - THANK YOU, Please place this permit in a conspicuous place. Your copies of out recent fire inspections must also be kept readily available for our review, Questions sbould be directed to the Denver Fire Prevention Bureau at the phone number shown above. This permit shall not be construed to mean a ' v I City and County of Denver, if such violations exist, sub 8149 Penit P2 14 5 #27.4920 V p sy, My 24, 2014 A4: AM A , . M u * 4920 N WASHINGTON P2014 X4454 7 $39.50 Zoning 02 .dun 2014 ElPlansTo Lagged In Inspector? Project: Code for Fee L ► : Exemption I st Review Date - Building Permit Contractor Information Authorizations License Name: A .4----. Contact: Pane: License Status. Lie L Pares: Site Contact: License 'Types use Proposed by This Application +F k` CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER 6060fFire Prevention 3t Denver ♦ :: DEPARTMENT O DENVER FIRE 0 POLICE 0 SHERIFF Per� CD SOM phone: t720) gt3� M r CRL Associates Inc. 1625 Broadway0 Denver,...: Dear Sean: ELECTRIC FENCE -U - 11250 E. 4e AVENUE Attached is the:complete approval package for the Electric Guard Dog Perimeter eter Security fence System for united Rentals at 11250 E. 4CPAver submitted your office for City approval. (The address on the submitted plans was listed as 11200 E 4& Ave., brat,1250 E.4& Ave. is the correct address:) This package includes the City and County of Denver policy that was developed following approval of the Electric -Guard ministrative Modification for an exception to Denver; ire Code Section 315:4:x,. Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you or your client may have. Sincerely, 6 a-Q� Joseph L Gonzales Division Chief cc: George Morkovin, p.., Fire protection Engineer Rodney Sherrod, Lieutenant DEN`VEWKREf"VE_WW 745V1Wf"XV9 b ba PERMIT NO: 145645 FIRE PRO'NCTION FOR tJPANT itis 19407 Issued To. United Rentals 1250 E 40th avenue Denver, CO 80231 Contact: t: Ray Medrano 303-X144-2310 rentedrano@ur-oom site: 11250 E 40THAVE Issued On: 04/07/2014 fi*lhe «« of 4" 0112015 + pancy or Qps I nm_ ELL TRC FENCE 15 . SPECIFICS AND CONDITIONS* Electric Guard Dog Perimeter Security Ferree System, 12 -volt direct current t power source -Provision for uporoved shutdown of film0power for emergency access. Property owner and fence manufacturer 24 out contact infornounin shall be Provided in on approved loc I emergency access, Procedures for facility inspection shallbe developed and maintained on-site. bfor "h use of the ep ent underthe relevant codes►s and for the application of use 0 a Specified location. - provisions for fire drills and evacuation plan procedures, as applicable, - installer cenification issued by the fence manufacturer. - Lease agreement with equipment man ,. include equipment maintenance plan and associated serOce& - Electric fenceshall be located within the Perimeter of a non-etectrified fence not less than six feet talf, in ifthe roRaM of the manufactuort and be maintained by same or manufacturer approved contractor. - Property owner and fence mandfactowshall maintain liability insurance of at least one million dollars ($1.000,000) for accident or personal injury as a result of the fence. e electric fence and obtain pernut from the Fire Department. - Upon cancollation/termination of the equipment Ickw, all electric fence components shall be removed and the Fire fiepartment notified. lotion instructions and wmtwiate'ry lj,qffrgsThere shall be, NO EXCEPTIONS to this "airement. - waftdolI sillaal "I be posted in accordance with manufaciturill tecommetalations and not more than 150 ft spacing. lip .« "°« Plew place this permit inz tantspic"s place. Your copies of our recent fire inspections must also be ):ept Pitsdil)i oval for out ni Qu6snowshovild be directed faft Denver fire ptiventlionan 4 the of* b This permit shall not be gonsproed to allean approval ofany violation of the Five(Pirilding Code(s) And b b. City and County of Detivei� if $66 violations exist. US W CONX AVE M I DeOiri ! on" 72"1344�8 PERMff 145645 FIRE PROTU ' ON POP OCCUVANT JDA, 19407 Issued To: Un t d entttls 1250 & 40th Avenue Denver, CO 80239 Contact RayMedmno 303-944-2310 rtattx Issued On: 04/07/2014 1& the poriod04/0"15 ai; of +_ # c i r"fft � 1441A Uelectric lance shallnot exceed too 1�cL Annual ,. be i tfire prevention Total Permit Fm $ 150.00 This is your actual PERMIT. IT. "Ilia as not an Invoice, EN ArtONEYI Out records indicate the permit fee shown above was credited to your account on 04/0V2014 with Ck .No. Ni NC by JOSEPH L GONZALES - THANK YOU. Please place this permit in a conspicuous place:*Dpics Of Our fcoant:rVeinspections must also be kept„readity available for out review. st ons should bedirected to the Deaver Fire Prevention Bureau at the phone number shown bo This pennit shall not be consrnwd to mean approval of any violation or the Fir atildin ” s d Standardso4opted by the City and County of Deaver, if such violations exist. DENVER FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU AWAWM NO: P.O. Box 40395 335783 Deaver, CO 902-04 720-913-3458 ACCOUNTNth. RIMFOI FIRE PROTECTION PERMIT NO: 145645 FOR OCCUPANT ID: 19407 United Rentals Contact: Ray Med rano 303-944-2310 remedmno@ur.00m Site Phom 303-576-3500 Fax:303-576-3555 Site: 11250 E 40TH AVE issued On: 04/0br* *od Of 407MH ffitO* 05/014015 Code, Dewr!*ption#f,90#pa#�gyorqkt��n���� 777- $I ELEMI&P!NlItt t DENVER FIRE PREVENTION ENTIClN i A l INVOICE O: P.O. Box 40385 Deaver, CO 80204 335783 720- ACCOUNT . RIMF01 FIRE PROTECTION PERMIT O FOR OCCUPANT ID- 1'9407 Issued To: United Rentals 11250 E. 40th Avenue Denver, CO 811239 Contact, Ray Medroto 303-944-23 10 N1,1391111 Site: 11250 E 40AVE Issued On. /117/21114 for the period of 04/07/2014 through U# 1 Codi tis v c�C C r u ar i% 1t Fee - Wooing signapc slssilll be posted in accordance with manulbotumes recommendations and not more than ISO It - Height of electric fence shall not exceed - Annual inspection of wurity tencc system sisal be conducted byFire Prevention1 *"son personnel, Total "P" it FeesI r s » K- a TNS ♦:M` t F'.1F tooonsVoed 0' e. 4064of any *Oawn ;«. b Y R 6 4 Y Vie`. Y :# 9 i:'d 4 x i' City YCourty of . Questions "k. M:'+F 01ti IFN' A R RS N W'ito the Re Ora9` # 4. .:ar K,. shownt4.:e FIRE DEPARTMENT DENVER alt SAFETY Mato 20, 2014 CAL Associates, Inc. Broadway Denver, CO 000 ot Fite P"verdion DlvWon "745 We# Wax Avenue 00 04 x "T20,913 74 .9 .3596 a► rr *« r + e^ a° � a ! • • ori t i� t e� • e . irti, mph , nes Fire Protection Engineer Division Chief This policy Is meant to provide USIg informaijon for the Mosto and :; In any given occupancy, many other Fire Code requiremanjs may be enforced. �a s r • • a: + t� k+• • »• ► -�� • �e •. • a- • r .r s x� •e • ••, • � ar s 11 e* r s -1 fill .aa e s rt t� • -a a� s • �,� �,. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER POLICY DENVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Subject: ELECTRIC FENCES 4 Pne 2 of 2 Number: EffecOvs Date: Mamh 20,201 • Property owner AW fence manufacturer shall maintain liability insurance of at least one million dollars ($I,WO,000) for accident or personal injury as a result of the fence. • Upon transfer of property, new ownership shall agree to conditions for use of the electric fence and obtaini permit from the Fire Department • Upon canceffation/termination of the equipment lease, A# electric fence components shall be removed and the Fire Department notirled. • All equipment shall be Installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions and appropriate equipment listings. There shall be N_Q U&MMMA to this requirernerpt. • Warning signage shall be posted in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations, with not more than ISO feet of distance between signs •Height of electric fence shall not exceed ten feet. Annual inspection of security fence system shall be conducted by Fire Prevention Division personnel. END OF OOCUWISNT ELECTPJC FENCES a +`a°a► .a a a a a a a t. a +� a r • a a a , a a w r a W fix " * r,w� rt! OMMt itt A r. t 00 A Figure 1 Physiological eflects Of electricity. Th hold or estimated mean valties'are given for each t in A 70 k9 human for a i -to 3s exposure to 60 Hz current applied via copper w ire r s d by the Nun& From W. A. Olson, Medrical Safety, in J. G. WCbstet (ed), Muco ' tt "nenr "O" a "IfOn arta Defign. T4. ., New York: John Whey & Sans, I 99g. DePartMeot Of biomedical Engineering 30 Engineering Centers Building UlliversitYO(Wisconsin-Wdisom 1550 Engineering DriveMach, 6W-63-4660 Fax. -92 r, ii. an*#we" sc, t2�a:i t)rne,NvI � # { =t i P Short duration pulses art sIOer than continuous electric current figure 2 shows that shock durations longer than I second are the most dangerous. Note Seconds, it requires much more electric current to that as the shock duration is shorten to 0• es ha taken advantage of this fact by cause ventricular fibrifflaiinn? Electric security fenc u ve� t 0 0003 ds. Therefore, . . . . . . . . . . . to an even shorter d ration Of Opit secon electric security fences are safe and do not lea(I to • vent second shock duration. . Lcad III 1000 r 1, threshold 2000 1000 Lead III * 94 k& pony + 12 kK dog * 10kg4n# $00 0 7,5 k& do$ 0 6,0 kg do$ x 6.0 k8 dog 200 100 so 20 - 10 s'nock Figure 2 Threshold$ for ventricular fibrillation in animals for 60 -Hz ac current. Duration of current (0.2 to 5 s) and weight of animal body were varied. Fibrillation current versus shock, duration for a 70 kg human is about too 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 may be applied close to the heart. (1) Figure There are four situations where electricity 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. E ^� ^� ^�� <2«« © <<�■<z�� � <» t:<.«< z..: ».. z�. <<tv•©©®°��-'«<w »4«, ,::v\-�� Sentry Security ye , LLC posiflon on the relationship of securityfences to codes and standards Electric fencing is uwd safely Ovoughout the world, with _. ♦ deter crime and help WrehaW he * •�` rr a r� a ♦,�t - t• � a Safety of electric fence energizers Antit J. Nimunkarl and John G. Websterl IDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, 1550 Engineering Driv Madison, WI 53706 USA E-mail: WcbsterQcM.Mj§g_,edM (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 deterrmine their safaty eb"tprist4 VS44 * exist, IEC standard and Propose a new standard. The investigator "old discharge the device into a passive resistor -capacitor circuit and measure i the rAsnjtjng maximurn voltage. If the maximum voltage does, not exceed a limit, the device passes the test. electric knee enogi*r$i standards. gwrl-�� I-MMON& i 6 1 11 1 1 1 1 11111111111 1 1 111111plip I 1� 14 300 —300 100 too 30— —30 10 I X 3 03 4001 OZI at 10 to 100 Dmtion d1r Figure 1. Normalized analytical strength -duration curve for current 1, charge Q, and energy U. The x axis shows the normalized duration of d1r. Note that fora <<,r, 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), where I is a step current intensity, R is the shunt resistance, Av is the depoltuizAtion potential threshold which is about 20 mV for myocardial cells, r is the" time constant, and i is the time I is applied. If we let the stimulation duration go to infinity, the threshold current is defined as the rheobasecurrent Q = 4). If we substitute I in equation (1) by b and defWe the threshold Current Id A --VR for the stimulation with duration d Equation (1) becomes, Id b d (2) r am, �: Mmizmm�� 0 Ick = be M For # # # duration constant,#:. approximated equation (4) a# it yieldsequation 1► , Equation (5) suggests that the charge excitation threshold for short duration staimlation is constant and equals the product of the RC Oino constant r and the theobase b. Geddes and Bourland (1985) showed that curve for single trapezoidal, half smusoid and critically damped waveforms had a good for short duration stitnulatioig constant, under same sthimlation Cardiac#n has been intensivtl� studied at the 60 liz power line fi-equency because mst accidental electrocutionsoccur with 60 Hz current, which has a longerduration relative to the cardiac * ell time constant of about 12 ms. HPWPyvr� EFEs qpoar�with pulse # i t a L; 1t _ 3.. ne i of _.Mry _ _.,_. : _ _.. __.r.:;� �.m... Taser R2 R3 Oscilloscope Agilata t? i .rda [2 Leak ' tor Detector Numinum foil Alt rrrltaU .i Figure 2. The EFE is selected by SI. The current flows through asstring of 47 firesistors Rjj a (total 518 which approximates the internal body resistance of 500 fI The 9M Q yields a low voltage that is measured by the oscilloscope. 11. Determination ofeurrent EFEs are used in conjunction with fences wires to form animalcontrol fences d security fences, We tested flve EFEs EFEI E using the experimental set -u in Figure re d obtained the output currents shown in Figure 3. S♦ —' 10- 4- 2- 0 a4x 000 1200 tri} Figure 3. The output current waveform for five EFEs. EFEI yields about 7.75 A for 151 its 1170 gC, EFE2 yields about 3.34 A for 345 lis = 1150 pC, EFE3 yields about 5.69 A for 91 PS 0 R S. Proposed new standard as 3 2. �s .s 1000 Ism 20002600 3000 Ti Figure 4. output voltage waveformdor EFE , The maxinW charge that flows through the cardiac cellmodel is given b CV 200 pF,x 3.88 V 775 4C, the current during which the capacitor us to muximalvalue given by I = C I" 00 pF x 3.98 V)/233 gs 3.33 A. 6 Z F1 ure S. OutputvolLage waveform for the electric fence ene 04 —711 , JX 9 -CA* .- flowsthat rugh the cardiac cell modelby 11 current during which the capacitor charges I'm tiff U= t �i ,w s t r � ; ♦ ♦ � t s; t t „,. .. m t t: • ti is .: t ' �., t ♦ , � � . pip lip Acknowledgements 0 s� +r , �: ✓ t' r r "� � v e � r : wr • +► . • s « NORME CEI INTERNATIONALE IEC INTERNATIONAL 60335-2-76 STANDARD Edition 2.1 2006-04 Edition 2:2002 consolidike per I'as endement 1:2006 Edition 2:2002 consolidated with amendment 1:2006 de cl6tures Household w • similar electrical appliances Safety - Num6ro de Reference �> No.WCompany: OMer 0-, F t .:_ , . a t * r r • -r R 60336-2-76 A t C: t 1100 — 61 The measurements are en do using s measuring amengement with an input impedance ' consisting of a non -inductive resistance of not toss then I MA in parallel with a capacitancef not More than 100 PF. E IE ME 0,0 t 900 1000 10 000 400 000 Output currant (MA) we NOTE The equation of the line relating iatputso duration (ms) to output current (m) for 1 000 mA c output current x 16 "Kill mA, Is given by amputaa} duration = 41,$80 x 103 x (output current) -I,34 Figure 102 Current limited energizer tharooterlstle limit line � t'... t t ., •a 60335-2-76 0 1 .2 2+*1:2006 -81- Annex X31 - Annex CC (informative) .1 General barrier,maintained in the physical barrior. NOTE 2 When selecting the type of physical presenceof young, thilliten should.• a factor in considering openings, InstalledWhere an electric fonl:# Is in an elevated position, a window or skylight.physicalbarrier may be less than 1,5 m -r h where It covers the whole of the electric fencC if the bottom of the window or skylight Is Within a distance of 1,5 m from the floor or physical barrier need only t to a a « of 1,5 m above« or access level. Pulsed conductors • be Installed within the shaded zone shown NOTE I What# On electric 410--utitY f01000 is planned to run close to a site boundary, the relevant government NOTE 2 Typical atertric security tents installations are shown• ! Figure 1111111 ills Ill •ka„' ♦µsnoula be i it t mm ano Me Sepatallun *”Wei I end the physical barrier should be - within the range of 100 min to 200 mm or greater than 1000 mm where at least one dimension In each opening in the physical barrier is not greater than 130 mm; - greater than 1000 mm where any opening In the physical barrier has all dimensions greater than 60 mm; - less than 200 mm or greater than 1000 mm where the physical barrier does not have any openings. trial thereby being exposed to Multiple $,hock$ from the ofterall NOTE 2 The separation is the perpendicular distance between the sihill feneo and the ph"Ical barrier, CC.5 Prohibited mounting Electric fence conductorsshould not be mounted on a support used for any overhead power line. CCA Operation of electric security fence The conductors of an electric fence should not be energized unless all authorized persons, within or entering the secure area, have been informed of its location, Where there is as risk of persons being injured by a secondary cause, appropriate additional safety precautions should be taken. NOTE n exempla of a secondary cause to whetir e person may be expected to fail from a surface it contact Is made vAth puna d conductors. .... �y.. + �.. 60335-2-76 i! t1 4� ISIOM Key SocureWOO Public atc $ or" Physical barr#ar Prohibited area Electric aecurtty tar#ce Figaro CC Prohlb too area for pulse conductor Custorrier robert caftan - No. u# is r No.: 7 6 • WANT. €d tot of3 , rad. A , s�ritaab i+�a #a »i`ei.�difta�92 .i s 1I itr m man Eel m m m Key Secure area Public octets r C x Barrier where required 1 a Electric security toots * Physical barrier ♦ x ♦ it x.: x xCompany: order i i * "'N`*:' m * xs of a: xx This foe is sut>jeo to a licence x • x{s7 02 U J m -89— QNCI @ 0 tI- mom 939MMIM Key A = Seoure area 8 = Public access area C = Ba"ier where required 0 z Glass window pane E z Skylight in root 1 zMectrit security (#no# 2 - Physical border Figure CC.3 — Typical fence constructions where the slootric security fence Is Installed in windows and skylights Custorner robed cafton -too, of Usgsq: 1- c4ruirany: Order No.. W$-2D0T-0M2S - IMP 'ANT, This Me isto of IEC, Goom. Swft:tW4vW, All d9to reservod This Me is sukriect to a ficatice agrooment EnqWrtoa to E= ria Tel.: +4122 919 X1211 V71= IEC 60335-2-86, Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 2-86: Particular requirements for electric fishing machines IEC 60335-2-87, Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 2-87., Particular requirements for Otectric animal stunning equipment NO KILSWLILILM: =-jigjj�� GRAPHIC SCALE SITE PLAN REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE A SECURITY SYSTEM KETELSON CAMPERS 98701-70 FRONTAGE ROAD GOLDEN, CO 80401 O Rpol E�yr 1 j app ■ �F a4 1 t p1p� soma" IPQ AQ �R L a' :z�an= es r.w a..; i � mAavi KAW" •D.Ct .aaeQsls 7Pm• t w l I.T1t T7Z J s L/ PQIO - f.51.0 a?Q as rT--- i Its 3 I r 8 - Ito SITE PLAN REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE A SECURITY SYSTEM KETELSON CAMPERS 98701-70 FRONTAGE ROAD GOLDEN, CO 80401 O Rpol E�yr 1 j app ■ �F a4 1 t p1p� soma" IPQ AQ �R L a' :z�an= es r.w a..; i � mAavi KAW" •D.Ct .aaeQsls 7Pm• t w l I.T1t T7Z J s L/ PQIO - f.51.0 a?Q C I neo/ PL� . rnix low" � L *r nsR'a e.s� IR t!i "W'.L MRJ Li /C\w•o[ M.W1 PROJECT DATA R mm-•@-M-WAw J TII-•s-r • •PRIM V ./- W, -an u/- R •Po &ALM"form.•: MAW VW a• r�.'o cs+o s^•. x ft•II —aVm s s►•m .tr-y f4 - 'r •Pcf � MM w M u .*0 re.rn• a L.D. = I "um • MIT R an wIIM •in .. unv r.vr.t- C.P. : >, L av- - - .,.cicrl •.. s� PY1a \lt 6 .0 IlS`UL t- 1 7r. s arc -0-9= R W •vc+� •c ser o.ur u Qm .a K , O•-0-.•• ? l•i.n1 *R rt .0 �ir�P OI ZY 7�•t I.�cri A \( w�a+ Iii 00 Y[�t� alf Yr•r[� •P ItO.•\PeI .aI ••.Ii "aiRs a V% e+c. •IAuc u DEVELOPER waW -0 c aaaw m IO.P VICINrrr ~ 40T *0 SCAT N I • aiIos.Ps-o. O 0 cu � z�ias h yting V - Ezii W w i W h pN h S C U W < o N < n O m •a W 7 < z� O 00 Ir IL U S b 0 J O OJ m 0- O L e a » VAR- 11.2.Ia WA.L IT . S?' F"'I OF 3 as rT--- i Its 3 I r - Ito 1 I �a= wsr M T _ J z Z 70 1-4 mm --—— — — — — —— .ti 1 w►m� A � Z C I neo/ PL� . rnix low" � L *r nsR'a e.s� IR t!i "W'.L MRJ Li /C\w•o[ M.W1 PROJECT DATA R mm-•@-M-WAw J TII-•s-r • •PRIM V ./- W, -an u/- R •Po &ALM"form.•: MAW VW a• r�.'o cs+o s^•. x ft•II —aVm s s►•m .tr-y f4 - 'r •Pcf � MM w M u .*0 re.rn• a L.D. = I "um • MIT R an wIIM •in .. unv r.vr.t- C.P. : >, L av- - - .,.cicrl •.. s� PY1a \lt 6 .0 IlS`UL t- 1 7r. s arc -0-9= R W •vc+� •c ser o.ur u Qm .a K , O•-0-.•• ? l•i.n1 *R rt .0 �ir�P OI ZY 7�•t I.�cri A \( w�a+ Iii 00 Y[�t� alf Yr•r[� •P ItO.•\PeI .aI ••.Ii "aiRs a V% e+c. •IAuc u DEVELOPER waW -0 c aaaw m IO.P VICINrrr ~ 40T *0 SCAT N I • aiIos.Ps-o. O 0 cu � z�ias h yting V - Ezii W w i W h pN h S C U W < o N < n O m •a W 7 < z� O 00 Ir IL U S b 0 J O OJ m 0- O L e a » VAR- 11.2.Ia WA.L IT . S?' F"'I OF 3 1" Df A. t m.) cru in STEEL POLE. Fr PER ASTM A252 W1 TH CAP IWRES PER INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.) 2.500 PSI MIN. CONCR£ TE NO JOE: DUM.VC C04STRLPCTKOC S'FR POLE M SLP" -ED EIRRMLLT f0 ASSUME ; SPAC04 MON 90"CN 0< TOOTO.C. VSMG GRADE 2 15" MIN. h 5TEEL POLE DETAIL NTS I J 1 1 1 .1 1 w R4Rilmil, ALARMED AND MONITORED 7900 V TMB1lctrkr�I vlw ALARMADO Y SUPERVISADO �411HJIT WmarawN. AOR: 60f" O.Q.9. 00 SPAk94 V[RSIM 07 W '6tlO 4 SW *%- fL PYLA= EVWv 00 fM MAN"" EXAMPLE WARNING SIGNS NTS 1-1/2- DIA. (MIN.) - FIBERGLASS POLE. TENCOM (OR EOUIV.) Fu=25.000 PSI —10 W►RES PER INSTALLATION - INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.) o; EXISTING GRADE 2 3 STRANDS OF WIRE EXTENDED s' MIN. FOR ANCHOR ` FI13ERGLA55 POLE DETAIL NTS • • TMrmtef f1�w� •wtnftl�f �" JOw JOAN V Cwuo w Mf. mcm" - r TRIM W •A N 6 mom "l"nft" 1• 1101 no a.m. of rr wnL T-..a.•a...w w unwno 1f MOr O.. 0..01..1 ums a .w .a. W ro "",a Goo~ no.. 17 -- — O MOt .nwr4 ..On olql rY.w 1..ou.e r r.�..a0 1 • - - NOI 33p 0z� ..arr 1Ac1. nan.r.. iEOr —0 f � --- fMitf 14 _—. -- "OT tr....G so" r.n. r .s .u.0N n ID atn V. 1! . r4 kwumu M ss*wa _ IL w.ww w.rrno Sya 12 -- O_ t«. tm—,, YY.I t.•aw.c WUL WA Swue r .1m—no. to nu• 1) NOT .v.lr 1.GM 11mm..G 1.e1 � wun.ns n or Y.O..M M Lrw. 1M b 10 - MOI rOwl rwne o .....wc. • Geouro A., wrrr0 S� r. X. r f Mtn rownO KM Wp W Wn 12 a 13 7 - Gt.ONMO . — MOI f NOW.O MOT 2C -Aft ! MOr amoump ��� illt�lt fl 4 11W0ft1 • • WIRE CONNECTION5 2 OF 3 NTS tl V l�. W •A N 3, 0 d W olql Z 1 33p 0z� —0 L JAL E� � CJOI O d �I I _ IL Orc_ P&W 11, 2014 WUL WA sET • WIRE CONNECTION5 2 OF 3 NTS I. bm`iwWw+d/1.i►e,owadwowbdab D&aMi1► 1 1py a bale w teesi dh of 1s& 1 Y �.ww use iii tplsF l r w.Ns no la bob amo mgia I" to ma.4 S r Ewe I" s dab Y tw hsw sI OEM A b"rib /wigoo Vweiya 7. ■ vk memo tole It wwww 0 s � ow � mw i dmw w • bow pea CATE WM^*3 ELL 40T ARICT r_v:•.0tt•^ , t C Tms) GATE DETAIL Nrs » lift RUN cum AM t tp- wre 7 - reaui•es lft' eMarxd IVC 10CM/ 10 Coved to m. R Ar an ism 0Lr*— :1� Bw Km" KMWrTC- WIRE RUN DETAILS NIS =LDAP_ aic-vecs LCCArCh a SALEtT TO T -K C9t�7PS CU—SIDE MOUNTED ELECTRONICS SOLAR PANE_ TWEE EMPTY GALVANIZE) SILVER BOXES TO A PAIR OF 3'0 GALVAKI2 D EMT ELEC-RICAL CONDUIT STEEL POLES. r -4E BOTTOM OF THE LOWEST BOX MUS- 3E AT LEAST 2 'EZ --T ABOVE GROUND LEV:L AND Tl -E POLES MUS- BE ANCHORED AT LAST 5'-6' BELOW GROUND -EVEL moo ALARM PANEi (24'X367 BAT -ERY -�- (24'X36') CONTR0IER (24'X36') ( I 3'o GALV. EMIT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT L TYP (2) PLCS 2.500 PSI (MIN) COVCRET= _O TYD BOT.. FCO'INGS S—E=L DOLE DETAIL ir` (P1RES: 16711� 5 TwC YOW'LD E1LC7KO M K► K LOCJATMS A• ,!AST 2W FVW '7f 9D4 • • WE VA0. 11, 20N scu NA "t- 3OF3 •MtCw 1. "m Do~ �1 Swwcs°�1 FISIOGLASS PW 5 05ATE sw. view 13 g e 138 BRACE BANDS - BRACE BANDS worm o Low ENO p- — - �NA�ouwoos Pw IA ,lnptt nO �y -I. _. _. - r _r • men by w•.. ice lofGl woo = • m��� •� Geawo (0) was •~. • 1p OF •l Q ChAet tN Gitt lI•�`-•-- `_ -. N i y cm M umm 4,f (O.d s•etVG laa) {►-• I1 --1' 1- — • low wwoo WN) I. bm`iwWw+d/1.i►e,owadwowbdab D&aMi1► 1 1py a bale w teesi dh of 1s& 1 Y �.ww use iii tplsF l r w.Ns no la bob amo mgia I" to ma.4 S r Ewe I" s dab Y tw hsw sI OEM A b"rib /wigoo Vweiya 7. ■ vk memo tole It wwww 0 s � ow � mw i dmw w • bow pea CATE WM^*3 ELL 40T ARICT r_v:•.0tt•^ , t C Tms) GATE DETAIL Nrs » lift RUN cum AM t tp- wre 7 - reaui•es lft' eMarxd IVC 10CM/ 10 Coved to m. R Ar an ism 0Lr*— :1� Bw Km" KMWrTC- WIRE RUN DETAILS NIS =LDAP_ aic-vecs LCCArCh a SALEtT TO T -K C9t�7PS CU—SIDE MOUNTED ELECTRONICS SOLAR PANE_ TWEE EMPTY GALVANIZE) SILVER BOXES TO A PAIR OF 3'0 GALVAKI2 D EMT ELEC-RICAL CONDUIT STEEL POLES. r -4E BOTTOM OF THE LOWEST BOX MUS- 3E AT LEAST 2 'EZ --T ABOVE GROUND LEV:L AND Tl -E POLES MUS- BE ANCHORED AT LAST 5'-6' BELOW GROUND -EVEL moo ALARM PANEi (24'X367 BAT -ERY -�- (24'X36') CONTR0IER (24'X36') ( I 3'o GALV. EMIT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT L TYP (2) PLCS 2.500 PSI (MIN) COVCRET= _O TYD BOT.. FCO'INGS S—E=L DOLE DETAIL ir` (P1RES: 16711� 5 TwC YOW'LD E1LC7KO M K► K LOCJATMS A• ,!AST 2W FVW '7f 9D4 • • WE VA0. 11, 20N scu NA "t- 3OF3 CASE NO: WA -1 -03 APPLICANT NAME: Carol Bausinger and Michael Pate for Electric Guard Dog TYPE OF REQUEST: This request is an appeal of an administrative zoning decision relative to the separation between an electric security fence and an existing perimeter fence pursuant to Section 26-603.E (fence types prohibited). The City's Chief of Police, Chief Building Official and Community Development Director have determined that an electric fence must be separated from an external fence a minimum of 3 feet in order for the fence not to constitute a hazard to public health and safety and therefore, not permitted. The applicant is requesting an interpretation that would allow an electric fence to be separated from the existing perimeter fence by I foot, zoning code interpretation of an administrative officer; and WHEREAS, the property has been posted the fifteen days required by law; and WHEREAS, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the public welfare and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge, 1, therefore, move to adopt a Resolution APPROVING Case No. WA- 15-03 ff there are reasons, state "for the following reasons. . .'7 kkd City of t BOARD OF .ADJUSTMENT Minutes of Meetir January 22, 2015 1. CALL L MET TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair A131 )'rr at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the MunicipalBuilding, 7500 "Nest 29'x' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Board Members Present: Janet Bell Paul 1-loviand David Kuntz Betty Jo Page Thomas Abbott Alternates Present: Dan Bradford X Xa -1m_ -1 , .-* ',V -1W Board Menibers Absent: Lily M T�l J. PU LI FORUM No one wished to speak at this time. 4. PUBLIC HEARING' ,ieo 'hitc, Planner 11 th Reckert, Sr. planner `ag oner, Recording Secretary A. Case No. WA -1446: An application filed by James and Georganne Zei cr for ,approval of all 8.6% lot coverage variance and a 10 -foot side setback variance (100%) from the 10 -foot standard resulting in38.6% lot coverage and a' 0 -foot side setback for an existing attached carport: The case was presented by Sara White. She entered the contents of the case file and packet materials, the zoning ordinance and the digital presentation into the record. She stated all appropriate notification mid posting requirements have been met and advised the board there was jurisdiction to hear the case.' She provided copies o Board of Aq ustment Minutes January 2, 2015 1 additional letters of support that were received after the staff report had been completed and delivered to the Board Members. She reviewed the digital presentation. Chair ABBOTT asked if the narnes from the letters of support were cross referenced with the petition. Ms. White replied no. Board Member KUNTZ inquired how the City received the complaint. Ms. White stated the city received an anonymous verbal complaint and the applicant came to the Planning Zoning office after beim notified by the subdivision's Homeowners Association (HOA), Included in the BOA packet was an attachment marked as Exhibit 7 which is the applicant's response to the variance evaluation criteria.. In regard to Exhibit 7, the applicant stated it was the intent of the builder to provideadditional RV parking a4jacent to the garage, Chair A ICA , , `'a'sked if this was approved by the developer or the City. Ms. White replied the pity code allows storage of two recreational vehicles on private property. They mylae stored within the side yard with no setback requirements. There are rear yadd setback requirements. RV parking is permitted but the existing structure was not approved by the City. The RV parking provisions are city-wide; there W' no additional RV parking provisions as part of the subject subdivision. Board Member f3ANCHART asked if the ►a kin pad counted as building coverage. Ms. White replied the pad does not uric toward the building coverage. It does apply when it a roof is added to; the strut Board Member G IFFET,I tngpired how inany situations like this exist in the City. Ms. White replied the City does t rt b ve an official count. Ms Reckert stated it is frequently seen with siorage sheds asiffiey do not require a permit if they are less than 120 square feet in size. Board Member GR'IFF TI -I asked what the applicant would need to dei if the variance is approved. Ms. White replied the applicant would need to submit engineered plans to the building department for a building permit. lis. Heckert stated the fees may be doubled sine the structure was built prior to submitting plans. Board Member BANGHART queried if the variance would still be heard by the Board of Adjustment if a permit was issued. ` Ms. White stated a variance would need to be approved by the BOA before a building pe nit coup be issued as the applicant is requesting a 100% variance,' greater than what is allowed to be approved administratively. Board Member KUNTZ inquired if precedence is being set if the Board. of Adjustment approves the variance. lis. White stated the Board reviews cases based on the individual merits of each case, so there would be no precedence established. Board of Adjustment Minutes January 22, 2015 2 Chair ABBOTT directed the members to state any unique attributes (if any are found) in the motion. Chair ABBOTT asked if the subdivision has an HOA and if so does it require input for the structure. Ms. White replied there is all HOA. They sent a letter to tine applicant asking the applicant to legalize the; structure with the City. Board Member BANGHR,r dated the developer was thinking ahead when the pad was designated for parking. She asked if the City has considered protective coverings in weather hazard areas. Ms. Reckert stated the property was rezoned and subdivided in 1988. Because the property is coned i2. -1A, there was no planned development approval which specifically identifiedthis area for RV parking, Staff has interpreted that the pad was meant for an auxiliary space, not necessarily RV parking, Board 'Member 1 " ` stated the property to the north has a large side yard. lie asked if they submitted a letter of support. _Ms. White stated the :structure is not in the neighbor's side yard and it doesn't prevent the neighbor fi°om building; something in that arca.. They did not submit a letter' of support. James Zeiger 3932 Simms St, Mr. Zeiger stated the house and concrete pad were guilt in 1991 with the intent that the pad be for utility vehicle parking. lie purchased tine property in 2004 because: of the additional parking due to the concrete pati. He didn't know a permit was needed for the: carport structure. °T`hey gave experienced a lot of harsh weather. He previously rented a storage unit to protect his vehicles. He erected the structure clue MW does staff look npact to the vehicles' and the storage crests. tated the Board dues not have the,power to change the code nor code violations. The City relies on input from citizens. storage. Board Member PA( eiger was p�eviou rules and re ulafior ots in the subdivision are small and have no room for vehicle referred to one of the letters ofsuppoi t which stated Ms. on the HOA Board. She should have been aware of the HOA Mr. Zeiger stated he did not submit plans to the Architectural Committee for review. He said the HOA has no problems with the aesthetics. They would life the structure to be permitted with a building; permit.' Board Member PAGE asked Mr. Zeiger how long after the structure was erected did he receive the letter from the HOA and if he submitted any plans to the; Architectural Committee. i -le replied perhaps 30, 45 but not more than. 60. He has not submitted any documents to the Architectural Committee. Hoard of Adjustment Minutes January 22, ` 01 3 Board Member H VLAND stated a professional contractor would have encouraged a building permit. Mr. Zei er stated a friend built it. Board Member KUNTZ asked if the rear property owner can see the structure and asked if there are any sine yard casements. Mr. Zeiger stated there is a 10 -foot setback on the rear for fare code. Ms. Reckert stated most residential subdivisions have a 1 0 -foot front and -foot side easement for utilities. There are probably blyy o utilities in the casements on the property. Board Member KU`N,rz inquired about the downspouts on the structure that seem to be pointed north, directing runoff to the neighbor's yard. He asked if there was a drainage swale. Mr. Zeiger stated the roof is tilted to the west for the specific put -pose of guiding the water to the front concrete and not to the rear or the sides. In response to a question from Board Member l U TZ, lir. ,Zeiger stated all the residents ori"Simms Street signed the petition with the exception of one. Board Member KUNTZ asked if the structure is insured. Mr. Zeiger replied it is his intent to have the insurance replace if it is damaged by a hail storm. Sandra Henderson 4052 Simms St. Ms. Henderson stated she drives by the structure daily and doers not notice it. She has no qualms with it, it is acceptable to the neighbors + d the HOA. Susan Wood s. Wood lives on the property it is adiacent to her vard. The garage, She voiced her c h`the staff recommendatii eyed in the record Exhibit to the north. She stated the structure is fully visible Zeigers don't see the structures as it on the side* of ares about noise, setback expectations and concurred She asked the Board to deny the request. She ,ome photos of the structure from her property. Board Member HOVLAND asked if the structure: is more obtrusive than looking at a vehicle. Ms "wool stated it is equally obtrusive as an Rig is not a permanent structure. Board Member PAGE asked if the structure was new and if it previously had an awning. Ms. Wood stated the carport was added this srunmer. Joe Meigs 3936 Sirmns St. Mr. Meigs stated the structure is very °visible from his property. It is above the fence line and dominates the area. He stated he was at one time the President of the HOA and it is a known fact that a review process is in place. Any chwiges are required to Board of Adjustment Minutes January 22, 2015 4 be reviewed by the Architectural Committee. fie stated there was no communication from the Ze;ers about the structure, He entered in the record Exhibit C, a letter from the HOA which stated, "The structure must be approved by the committee." Board Mernber PAGE asked how long it tools to build the structure. Mr. Meigs replied two days. In response to a question from Board Member PAGE, Mr. Meigs stated the HO called the City shortly after the `structure was built. Board Member G IFF"T T'LI asked ifthere was any I communication about the structure from time Zeigers prior to it being built, Mr. Mcigs stated no. There was some discussion about metal l stru tures, metal siding is not allowed but a metal roof would. Board Member BELL stated the HOA process was not followed and the applicant did not get a building em rtit:: he issue is the 4ft1teture not the parking pad. Board" Me Ms. whib The plans pad was pi for special ober GR1FFET"T in a re about the re x*enced RV parking in Exhibit 7. s mw acaved lead. Vis. Reckce stated the property w° began 'in I S... generally a,plat demes not include u ably intend' d for n ai diary parking'space. Ther t parking. s platted in 1986 and restrictions. The are no provisions Ms. Teckert stated County Clerk and R.ecn 'e' s Office. Most typically they address maintenance of common elements such as detention ponds and strectseape landscaping in the right- of-way. if ht-of=way. Chair ABBOTT stated the focus of the hearings is the structure not the concrete pact. Board Member BRED stated the structure was built without a permit. Ms. White stated the side setbacks and lot coverage are the focus of the hearing. Ann Greenfield 05 Simmons St. Ms. Greenfield is the current HOA President. She stated the HOA has decided to not make a decision before the City as they didn't know what the process entails and did not want to come to any conclusions.` he HOA board has not discussed this since Board of Adjustment Minutes January 22, 2015 July and has no opinion. She is unaware of the mentioned petition. If they BOA approves the request the Architectural Committee will negotiate to with the Zei ers. Board Member KUNTZ inquired about the applicants" Exhibit 7, Criteria 3 which states the structure is acceptable to the HOA. He asked if that is a misrepresentation. Ms. Greenfield stated yes.. Mr. ; ei er stated he is comfortable with HOA discussions about aesthetics. He stated he submitted information to the MOA and was not aware ofthe next step with the I -I A.. He stated the structure was expensive to build. Upon a notion by Board Member HO AND and second by hoard Member BELL, the following motion was stated: WHEREAS, AS, application Case No. WA -14-16 was not eligible for administrative review; and setback variance (1001% coverage a" ", ati-foot si FOR THE FOLLOWIP thout detriment to the 1. The property would continue to yield a reasonable return in use without the variance. . "rhe investment allowed by the variances would not be substantial. . The physical surrounding and situation of the property result in an inconvenience, but not a hardship. . The alleged hardship was created by a person presently having interest in the property. WITH TIIF FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The structure be removed within 30 days. Motion was approved by a vote of -0. Board of adjustment Minutes January 22, 2015 6 a 6. 7. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair ABBOT' 1' closed the public hearing, OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of Minutes -- September 25, 2014 It was moved by Board Member HOVLAND PAGE to approve the minutes as written. Th BANGHART, GRIFFETH AND BRADFOR B. Resolution 011-2015 It was moved by Board Member PAGE anti,4 BANGHART to approve Resolution 01-2015, Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meetinj Motion approved 8-0 by Board Member A 5-0-3 with Members by Board Member ition Desi vpati nL, a Public C. Ms. Reckeit stated the Chair and Vice Chair will be elected in March after D. Chair ABBOTT asked about the 11 0� ffm M e is an opening in District I. Dye Enterprises. Ms. Reckert stated she In so soon, an original City Council member recently GRIFFETH and BRADFORD for 7. ADJOURNMENT Chair ABBOTT adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Thomas Abbott, Chair Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary Board of Adjustment Minutes January 22, 2015 7