HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/15City of'
Wh6atfqd
ge
AGENDA
May 28, 2015
Notice is hereby given of a public bearing to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Board of
Adjustment on May 28, 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
3. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing on the
agenda.)
4. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Continuation of Case No. WA -15-03: Findings of Fact regarding Board of Adjustment
action from public hearing on April 23, 2015,
B. Case No. WA -15-01: An application filed by Bill Fritz requesting approval for a 2 -foot fence
height variance (33.33%) from the 6 -foot standard resulting in an 8 -foot high privacy fence along
the west side of Yukon Grove Subdivision backing to Ridgeview Estates Subdivision (lots 1-14 of
the Yukon Grove Subdivision) and the east side of Yukon Grove (lots 15-20).
5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
6. QLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
A. Approval of Minutes — April 23, 2015
8. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City, of
lVheat Riche. Call -leather Geyer, Public,ln/brniation Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in
advance of meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
TO: Board of Adjustment
FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
DATE: May 22, 2015
SUBJECT: Case No. WA -15-03/ Electric Guard Dog
At the April 23, 2015 Board of Adjustment meeting, Case No. WA- 15-03, an application for
appeal of an administrative zoning decision relative to the separation of an electric security fen
and an existing perimeter fence for property located at 9850-9870 W. 1-70 Frontage Road, was
denied. I
Upon request of the applicant and a motion made by BOA, the City Attorney was directed to
!2=are findi s of fact relative to the
and adopted by the BOA at their May 28, 2015 meeting.
Attached please find a Resolution, Findings of Fact and Decision prepared by the City Attorney.
I move to adopt the Resolution, Findings of Fact and Decision for Case No. WA- J 5-03
prepared by the City Attorney and as presented in the May 28, 2015 meeting packet."
0 0
1991a • •
THIS MATTER comes on for hearing upon the application filed by Michael Pate/Carol
Bausinger on behalf of Electric Guard Dog, LLC (the "Applicant") for an interpretation
concerning the separation between an electric security fence and an existing perimeter
fence pursuant to Section 26-115.E of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code").
The Board of Adjustment (the "Board") having conducted public hearing on the
application on April 23, 2015, hereby enters the following Resolution, Findings and
Decision:
1. Michael Pate/Carol Bausinger. filed an application for an interpretation on
behalf of Electric Guard Dog, LLC concerning the separation between an electric
security fence and an existing perimeter fence.
2. The applicant, Electric Guard Dog, LLC installs electronic security
systems, primarily for commercial and industrial applications. Electric Guard Dog has
applied to install such a system on property owned by Ketelsen Campers, located within
the City on property zoned C-1.
3. The system would be comprised of electrical wire strung between 9 foot -
high poles. The wires would run close together, 3 to 6 inches apart. Cable support poles
would be spaced 10 feet apart behind an existing six foot -high chain-link fence.
4. The system's electric wires create a three ten thousandths of a second
electric shock, which is certified within OSHA safety standards by the International
Electrotechnical Commission. Along with an electric shock upon contact, the system is
linked to a central monitoring system. If contact is made, the central monitoring system
contacts the property owner to ask if police should be dispatched.
5. The 9 foot -high fence supporting the electric wires is proposed to be
installed around the rear and sides of the property with a 1 foot offset (inside of) the
existing perimeter chain-link fence.
6The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 26--603 regulates fencing withi"-q
the City. It designates permitted fence heights, controls sight distance and specifi
r
fame -In In
where fencing may be installed. Section 26-603.D governs the types of fencing th]
may and may not be installed in the City, and provides in #® part as follows.
I I � III I III III I lipliril
1masonry walls
2. ornamental iron
3. woven wire and chain-link
4. wood
5. hedges
6. barbed wire ...
1 .1
1. Any fence, within the opon of the Chief Building Official, 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.
7. Based upon Code Section 26-603.E.1, the Applicant was informed th
electric fences are not allowed within the City based upon a concern for public safe
and the potential for human or animal exposure to a dangerous fence. In this case, st
communicated to the Applicant that the fence was prohibited based upon safe
concerns with the proximity of the electric fence with a one -foot separation from t
chain-link perimeter fence and that this was especially critical with respect to t
Pennington Elementary School which abuts the property on two sides,
8. The Applicant applied for an administrative variance pursuant to Cod'
Section 26-115 to permit the poles for the new electrical system to be nine feet i
height rather than 10 feet; it being a standard per the Code that a perimeter fence
limited to six feet in height. Pursuant to Code Section 26-115.C, a request for a nin
foot -high fence could be granted administratively as it would be a 50% or small
variance.
9. The variance application captioned Case No. WA -14-11 was processe
administratively and was referred to the following agencies: Arvada Fire Protectio
District, Wheat Ridge Police Department, and Jefferson County School District. So
the Police Department and the School District, as well as the City's chief building offici
expressed concern for the electric fence unless a three-foot setback was required fj
the electric fence from the perimeter chain-link fence. The Jefferson County Scho
District also expressed that the electric fence which would visibly be the same, shou
not be capable of carrying an electric current or be next to the school property.
10. The Applicant's administrative variance application was approved by the
Community Development Department Director on November 20, 2014 and allowed a
M
fence height of 9 feet to permit the security system to be installed. The Community
Development Director placed three conditions on the approval of this administrative
variance:
i. the proposed fence be located three feet inside the existing perimeter
fence;
ii. the portion of the fence adjacent to the Pennington Elementary School
property being incapable of carrying a current;
iii. the system be turned on during hours only when the business itself is not
open.
11. The Applicant did not agree with the first condition: the required three-foot
separation between the existing perimeter fence and the electric fence, Pursuant to
Code Section 26-115.C.2, an appeal of conditions placed on an administrative variance
may be made to the Board of Adjustment only if a written appeal is submitted within 10
days of the administrative decision. The Applicant failed to file an appeal within the 10
day period, which expired on November 30, 2014. Under Code Section 26-115.C.2, the
administrative condition imposing the three-foot fence setback is no longer eligible for
appeal to the Board of Adjustment. In addition, a new application for substantially the
same development may not be refiled for one year. See, Code of Laws Section 26-
107.C.
12, On March 27, 2015, the applicant filed this request for an interpretation of
the provisions of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws by the Board of Adjustment, This
application is permitted and governed by Code Section 26-115.E, which provides:
E Interpretations. The board of adjustment is empowered to hold public
hearings to decide upon requests for interpretation of certain of the
provisions of this chapter in such a way as to carry out their intent and
purpose. This authority shall extend only to the following:
1, The basic intent and purpose of words ' phrases or paragraphs as
applied to a specific proposal or instance.
2Use of property as an "other similar use,," however in no instance
shall the board make an interpretation that a particular use may be
permitted in a zone district where that use is specifically enumerated
in a higher,* that is more intensive, zone district
3. Administrative decisions taken by the director of public works
following final approval by the planning commission or city council,
as appropriate, may be appealed to the board, which is empowered
to reverse or modify such decisions, in whole or in part, upon a
showing by the applicant that the effect of the director's decision
would impose a particular and unique hardship upon the owner of
the subject property, as distinguished from mere inconvenience, and
me
Rin. War:
which hardship has not been created by any person presently having
an interest in the subject property.
i. Electric Guard Dog for Ketelsen Campers -Separation Justification
Narrative (undated)
ii. Electric Guard Dog, LLC - interpretation of the City of Wheat Ridge
Muni Code Section 26-603.E fence types prohibited #1 (undated)
iii. Copy of Permit No. 145586 issued by the Denver Fire Prevention
Bureau dated July 1, 2014 (2 pages)
iv. Denver Permit No. B20148445427-4920 N. Washington Street
V. Denver approval package for electric fence at United Rentals -
11250 E. 40th Ave. ; Permit No. 145645
vi. Letter from Denver Fire Department dated March 20, 2014 to Sean
Maley, Vice President CRL Associates Inc. approving a request for
administrative modification and attaching Denver Fire Department
policy and building permit
vii. Study by John G Webster, Professor at University of Wisconsin,
Madison
viii. IEC Report No. 60335.2.7.6
ix. Site Plan of the subject property with electric fence sections
illustrated
ME
In
Motion by Member Bell, seconded by Member Page, to approve a resolution denying
the appeal for a zoning code interpretation of an administrative officer and upholding the
interpretation of the City staff that a one -foot separation between the perimeter fence
and electric fence constitutes a safety hazard and is not permitted.
26. After discussion, the motion failed on a vote of four in favor and four
against.
27, Motion was then made by Member Hovland, seconded by Member
Banghart, to approve the appeal by the applicant and overturn the staff determination
that an electric fence with a one -foot separation constitutes a safety hazard. Following
discussion, the Board voted five in favor and three against the motion.
28. Code Section 2-53(d) governs the voting requirements for variances and
interpretations by the Board of Adjustment:
2-53(d) Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, the following voting
rules shall be in effect for all matters requiring decision by the board of adjustment
to grant any variance, waiver, temporary building or use permit, any interpretation
or floodplain special exception permit (or for any matter requiring decision by the
planning commission or the city council under Section 26-6(D) of the Zoning
Ordinance of the city) -
29. Because eight members of the Board of Adjustment were present a
voting, a super majority of six votes was needed to grant the appeal pursuant to Cod
Section 2-62(d)(3). If a motion fails to receive the required super majority of membe
present and voting, ["tJhe action will be deemed equivalent to a denial, and a resoluti
denying such application or appeal shall be formally enteredupon the record." Co
Section 2-62(d)(3). I
0
I . The Board finds the testimony of the City staff credible and thl.-
recommendations in the "City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division Staff Report: Case No,
WA—I 5-03\Electric Guard Dog" to be justified.
2. Based upon the entire record presented at the public hearing and tht
relevant portions of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, the Board finds that the application
of Electric Guard Dog under Case No. WA -1 5-03 for appeal of an administrative zoning
determination related to separation between electric security fence and an existing
perimeter fence in Case No. WA—I 4-11) is hereby denied.
3. Upon request of the City Attorney, Board Member Page moved and Board
Member Bell seconded a motion to direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings
memorializing its decision for the Board's consideration at its next meeting. The motion
passed seven votes to one.
MOVED, SECONDED, AND ADOPTED by a vote of in favor and _ against,
this day of May, 2015.
g-JgI3=
I
Kim Waggoner, Secretary to the Board
I hereby certify that I placed a true and correct copy of the foregoing Resolution,
Findings and Decision to the following persons this day of , 2015 in
the United States mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Randy Ketelsen
9870 W 48th Ave
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Michael Pate/Carol Bausinger
Electric Guard Dog, LLC
PO Box 21832
Columbia, South Carolina 29221
IV
City of
-��Wh6at�� ic
CCIOIMXAMOLJM'ry DEVELOPMENT
TO: Board of Adjustment
FROM: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
DATE: May 22, 2015
SUBJECT: Appeal of Administrative Decisions —Case No. WA-1.5-Ol/Yukon Grove
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear
this case.
REQUEST:
The applicant, Bill Fritz for Yukon Grove LLC, is requesting approval of an, appeal to conditions
of approval and denial of two administrative variances. The property in question is zoned
Planned Residential Development (PRD) and is located at 7671 W. 32"d Avenue. The decisions
on appeal are approval of a fence height variance with conditions to allow an 8' high fence along
portions of the western perimeter and denial of a fence height variance to allow an 8' high fence
on the eastern perimeter of the property. (Exhibit 1, Letter qfappeal with nt'
ap
i
jus4fication) . plcas
BACKGROUND:
Exhibit I contains information about the history of the property, the proposed development and
original variance request. (Exhibit 2, May 8 staff report)
ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE PROCESS:
Section 26-115.E (Variances/waivers/temporary permits/interpretations) of the Wheat Ridge City
Code empowers the Community Development Director to hear and decide on variance requests
up to 50% of a development standard without need for a public hearing if specific conditions can
be met.
a. The variance does not exceed fifty (50) percent of the minimum or maximum
standard; and
b. It is determined that a majority of the criteria as set forth in Section 26-115.C.4
hereof, are substantially complied with and support the request; and
c. A I 0 -day noticing and posting occurs and that no objections have been received
during such I0 -day period.
d. That no additional dwelling units would result from approval of such variance.
e. That the variance would not allow an activity or development which is
prohibited in the zoning and development code.
A decision to deny a variance, or conditions of approval imposed on a variance by the
Community Development Director may be appealed to the Board of A(ijustment provided that
a written appeal is submitted by the applicant within ten (10) days of the decision,
ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL:
Case No. WA -15 -Cil is a request for approval of a 2' fence height variance to the 6' maximum
fence height to allow 8' high fences on property located at 7671 W. 32"d Avenue. The applicant
is proposing an 8' high privacy fence to be constructed along the western and eastern perimeters
of the property.
On May 13, 2015, the Community Development Director approved the fence height variance for
the fence on the west perimeter f6r the follow reasons. (Exhibit 3,,Resolution ofapproval)
1. There are unique circumstances due to the property shape and physical surroundings of
the property to the west.
2. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
3. The neighboring 8' fence could negatively impact the aesthetic of four of the western
lots.
With the following condition:
1. The 8' high fence be allowed only where it abuts the 8' high fence on the property to the
west.
The Community Development Director also denied a fence height variance on the eastern
boundary of the subdivision for the following reasons:
1. There are no unique circumstances.
2. The adjacent lot to the east with its mature trees already provides buffering.
The applicant does not agree on the limitations conditioning the variance approval, or the denial,
and has submitted an appeal of those determinations to the Board of Adjustment. Additional
justification for 8' fences along both the east and west has been provided by the developer.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION:
Based on the variance process and evaluation criteria contained in Section 26-115 of the Zoning
and Development Code, staff has approved the variance for the west side of the property with
conditions and has denied the variance on the east side of the property.
The Board of Adjustment has the authority to reexamine the decision made on May 13 and make
one of the following determinations regarding the fence height variance on the west:
1. Determine that the fence height variance should be granted consistent with Staff's action
on May 13 (allow the fence height variance only adjacent to the 8' fence on property to
the west); or,
2. Determine that the fence height variance should be allowed with other locational
conditions; or,
3. Determine that the fence height variance should be allowed along the entire western
perimeter; or,
4. Determine that the fence height variance should be denied,
2
The Board of Adjustment has the authority to reexamine the decision made on May 13 and make
one of the following determinations regarding the fence height variance on the east:
1. Determine that the fence height variance should be allowed along the entire eastern
perimeter; or,
2. Determine that the fence height variance should be allowed with other locational
conditions-, or,
3. Deten-nine that the fence height variance be denied consistent with Staff's action on May
13.
3
APPLICANT NAME: Bill Fritz for Yukon Grove, LLC
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 7671 W. 32nd Avenue
WHEREAS, the application Case No. WA- 15-01 was InOt eligiblefor administrafive review/
was deniedpermission by an administradve offlcerl,. and
WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA- 15-01 is an appeal to this Board from the
decision of an administrative officer; and
Trays required by law and in recognition that
there [were livere no] protests registered against it; and
WHEREAS the relief applied forlmaYlmay not] be granted without detriment to the public
welfare and without substantially impairing the intent andjc
-Mg
the City of Wheat Ridge
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Board: of Adjustment application Case No. W1
15-01 be, and hereby is, [APPRO VEDIDENIED].
TYPE OF VARIANCE: 2' fence height variance to allow an 8' high fence
M
I's
Date: -15-2015
TO: Community Development
From: Bill Fritz/Yukon Grove
Subject. Appeal of partial variance dental (case # W'A-15.01)
Yukon grove is requesting an appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a 2` fence height VOrlance for
the
property at 7671 W. 12"0 Ave, know as Yukon Grove.
The initial request was Partially approved. While this is important to the neighborhood,it also ate$
additional concerns and team the problem of road twist and quality of life unreso
The design and development of Yukon Grove(from both the developer and Wheat fudge planning dept,
working together) was to create an Upscale neighbodwodin a difficult location that will add value to the
City, current neighbors and the new home Owners. Key
components of a well planned community are
continuity, symmetry,homogeneity and quality of life. Having like kind but different height f* "$
contiguous as well asacrossthe Streetfrom one "Other and not eliminating road noise as much as
possible, is counterproductive to achieving the, best neighborhoodpossible.
R
Bill
a
Co 80260
EXIIIIa
a
Request for an 8 oN • privacy
West side of Property:
(720) 3140 1 w Denver, CO $025►4
5) This particular infill property will benefit from having a higher fence to obscure unsightly
neighbor fences. Also, many of the neighbors want the higher fence and want to take down
their fences (old, broken down, chain link) and have the benefit of just our fence to improve
their property.
6) This variance Will not be detrimental to the neighbors nor the public in general, it will not impair
any neighbors (they are in favor of a higher fence) nor have any adverse effect on public safety,
neighborhood values or development of adjacent property.
East side of Property:
City of
Wh6a-tP,,Ldgc
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT
TO: Community Development Director DATE: May 8, 2015
CASE MANAGER: Meredith Reckert
CASE NO. & NAME: WA-15-01/Yukon Grove
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a 2' fence height variance to allow an
8' high fence
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 7671 W. 32nd Avenue
APPLICANT/OWNER: Bill Fritz for Yukon Grove Development
APPROXIMATE AREA: 3.48 acres
PRESENT ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE:
ENTER INTO RECORD:
Planned Residential Development
Vacant
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove
EXHIBIT 2 1
JURISDICTION:
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to
make a determination regarding this request.
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to Section 26-603.A. of the zoning and
development code to increase the allowable height of a fence from 6' to 8'. The purpose
of the variance is to allow construction of a perimeter fence which provides additional
buffering for a new residential subdivision.
The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws allows 4' high fences from the front wall of a structure
to the front property line. The code generally permits fences 6' in height from the front
wall of structure along the sides to the rear property line. Any fence exceeding either of
the height regulations requires a variance.
Section 26-115.0 (Variances and Waivers) of the Wheat Ridge City Code allows that the
Director of Community Development (Director) may grant administrative variances from
the strict application of the zoning district development standards. Administrative
variances are allowed for up to 50% of the development standard.
II. CASE ANALYSIS
Property description/history
The subject property at 7671 W. 32nd Avenue is unusual in shape and is currently vacant.
The property extends north from 32"d Avenue and then "dog -legs" to the east and extends
further north with the northern property line angled and parallel to the Rocky Mountain
Ditch. The southeast corner of the property includes a "pole" portion which extends east
to Wadsworth and provides 60 feet of street frontage. (Exhibit 1, Aerial photo)
The property in question was recently rezoned from Residential -Two (R-2) to Planned
Residential Development (PRD) with the intent to develop the land into a new, small -lot
single family community A Specific Development Plan (SDP) and plat were approved in
December of 2014.
The new development will consist of twenty single family homes on lots which vary in
size from 3500 square feet to 6100 square feet. The lots feature shared driveways which
reduces the amount of impervious surface in the development and an area to be utilized
as community garden plots. Cottage style architecture will be used incorporating front
porches, corbels and gables. A full -width public street ending in a cul-de-sac bulb will
provide access to the new community. (Exhibit 2, SDP sheets)
Adjacent zoning and land use
Surrounding properties include a variety of land uses. To the west are parcels zoned R-2
including single and two-family homes. To the southeast at 32"d and Wadsworth are two
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove 2
multi -family apartment complexes zoned Residential -Three (R-3). Immediately to the
north, the property is bordered by the Rocky Mountain Ditch; across which there are
additional properties zoned R-2 and R-3. A vacant, heavily -wooded parcel zoned R-2
abuts the property to the east. Finally, to the south across W. 32nd Avenue is Crown Hill
Cemetery which is outside of the City of Wheat Ridge boundary and is part of
unincorporated Jefferson County. (Exhibit 3, Aerial Photo)
The applicant is requesting the variance to increase the height of a new perimeter privacy
fence from 6' to 8' along the entire east and west subdivision boundaries (Exhibit 4, Site
plan). The intent of the higher fence is to provide visual and noise buffering from
adjacent properties and area conditions.
The low density residential properties to the west have a mix of fence types and heights
in various states of repair. While the majority of the abutting property owners are
supportive of the new 6' privacy fence replacing their existing fences, the owner of 3300
Yarrow has requested his fence be left in place. The fence is 8' high and is dilapidated
with braces and other materials used to hold it up. The developers are concerned about
views from the back yards of at least four of the new lots where the existing 8' fence will
be taller than the permitted 6' fence. (Exhibit S, photos of western boundary)
The northeastern boundary of the subdivision abuts up to private property which is
vacant. Addressed as 3333 Wadsworth, the parcel is one acre in size and has a variety of
mature trees on it. Six lots in the new development would abut the 8' fence but would
still be roughly 150' from the Wadsworth right-of-way. (Exhibit 6, photos of eastern
boundary)
Other perimeter fencing will be split rail.
Public Notice Response
During the 10 -day noticing period, no written comments were received in regard to the
proposed fence height variance.
III. VARIANCE CRITERIA
Staff has the following criteria to evaluate variance requests and shall determine that the
majority of the "criteria for review" listed in Section 26-115.C.4 of the City Code have
been met (Exhibit 7, applicant letter). Staff provides the following review and analysis
of the variance criteria. Where possible, Staff distinguishes between the eastern and
western fences.
1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service
or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by
regulation for the district in which it is located.
If the variance is not granted, a 6' fence could still be built providing a level of
privacy in line with that allowed on other residential lots in the City.
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove 3
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality.
The variance is not likely to alter the essential character of the locality as there are
fences in the neighborhood which vary in height and materials. While the
proposed fence on the west will replace the abutting neighbors' fences and will
provide a cohesive view along the western boundary, it could result in a "canyon"
effect which is one of the primary reasons the city has a fence height maximum of
6'. The lots are small ranging in 3500 square feet in size to 6000 square feet and
the 8' fence may make the backyards seem smaller if the taller fence is built.
There is no solid fencing on the property to the east and while a higher fence
might help buffer noise from Wadsworth, the vacant property provides separation
and buffering already.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this
application, which would not be possible without the variance.
The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property which will be
developed into twenty new homes. Homes can still be built without a fence
height variance. The eastern row of lots will abut up to vacant property with
mature trees which in itself provide buffering.
Staff finds this criterion has not been met.
4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the
specific property involved results in a particular and unique hardship (upon
the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of
the regulations were carried out.
The topographical condition of the property does not create a unique hardship as
the property is relatively flat. However, the shape of the subdivision does have
some impact. The residence with the 8' fence is at a location where the property
"dog legs" to the east and as such, will abut four of the new lots.
There are no unique conditions on the property to the east.
Staff finds this criterion has been met for the fence on the west subject to certain
conditions. Staff concludes that the criterion has not been met for the fence on
the east.
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove 4
5. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person
presently having an interest in the property.
For the western fence, the hardship has been created by the property owner at
3300 Yukon Court. There is no hardship relative to the eastern fence.
Staff finds this criterion has been met for the fence on the west. Staff finds this
criterion has not been met for the fence on the east.
6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in
which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or
permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent
property, , impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or
increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or
substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the
neighborhood.
Granting of the variance would not negatively impact street congestion, fire
danger or the public safety. There could be negative consequences if the variance
is not granted by potentially reducing salability and value of the new lots along
the western subdivision boundary. An 8' fence could have a negative impact on
the amount of light and air to the new homes and the homes to the west.
Staff finds this criterion has been met for the fence on the west where it abuts the
adjacent 8' high fence. The criterion has not been met by the fence on the east.
7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request
are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property.
There are unique conditions for the western row of lots due to the jog in the
subdivision boundary which gives exposure to the house with the dilapidated 8'
fence from two sides. There are no unique conditions on the eastern boundary of
the subdivision.
Staff finds this criterion has been met for the fence on the west. Staff concludes
this criterion has not been met for the fence on the east.
8. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a
person with disabilities.
Accessibility requirements are not applicable to this situation.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
Case No. IVA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove
9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set
forth in the .Architectural and Site Design Manual.
The Architectural and Site Design Manual does not apply to fencing.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
IV. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Having found the application for the variance for the western fence abutting the adjoining
8' fence is in compliance with the majority of the applicable review criteria, staff
recommends approval of the 2' fence height variance along the western property
subdivision boundary. However, Staff has found that the criteria do not support the fence
height variance on the eastern boundary.
Because there are unique conditions which could negatively impact the developability of
lots on the western side of the subdivision, a recommendation of APPROVAL is given
for the following reasons:
1. There are unique circumstances due to the property shape and physical
surroundings of the property to the west.
2. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
3. The neighboring 8' fence could negatively impact the aesthetic of four of the
western lots.
With the following condition:
1. The 8' high fence be allowed only where it abuts the 8' high fence on the property
to the west.
Staff recommends DENIAL of the fence height variance on the eastern boundary of the
subdivision for the following reasons:
1. There are no unique circumstances.
2. The adjacent lot to the east with its mature trees already provides buffering.
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove 6
It -
8
Exhibit 2 — SDP sheets
.....�.- , ��m ....,
YUKON GROVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
NW 3. OF SECTION 26. T.3S . R 69W . OF THE 6T" P.M - - -
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON. STATE OF COLORADO
N
ire
r�`4 IAL
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritzfor Yukon Grove 8
11
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove
Exhibit 3 - Zoning Map
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove 10
Exhibit 4 — Site Plan
tiff
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove
c?
tiff
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove
Exhibit 5 — Views to the west
146; jo4cc w hel c 0,S,' le -.,--c i s reeWe y/
1
7jj Cc've4 U/1
S/0 xlr l'rt �G�SfiPUG/ iG/�
Cuss. No. I-VA-15-01/Fritz.ror Yukon Grove 12
i
4
1
/1 t
i
4
1
' Y f
��`' l�� � •�•
.
psi=[,.
j �
Exhibit 7 — Applicant letter
Request a variance for an 8 foot privacy fence.
Yukon Grove development is located in what the City of Wheat Ridge calls a transition property. It is
between busy streets (Wadstivorth and 32'0 Ave), multifami!y apartments )R-3 zoning) and R-2
residential properties. What Yukon Grove development is trying to accomplish is to upgrade the status
from a transition property to a new semi -custom 20 single family home enaave. This wilt be desirable
for the City, the neighbors and for people who want to live in a new affordable upscale Wheat Ridge
neighborhood. Yukon Grove has been designed to provide a 'cottage style urban living' with a beautiful
street- scape (due to shared driveways and rear entry garages), neighborhood garden, surrounded by
mature trees and 4 styes of homes with basements that can be uniquely personalized for each home
owner. In short, Yukon Grove is striving to provide a high quality living environment in a somewhat
difficult property location.
Yukon Grove is requesting a variance in the height of the fence from 6 foot to 8 foot for the following
reasons;
I l Yukon Grove will be more desirable to potent.al new home owners if they feel that it is a well
defined beautiful enclave and not viewing the neighbors' broken down fences. Thus, more
value added to both the development and the new home owners.
2) The fence would not alter the essential character of the locality but will enhance the uniqueness
of Yukon Grove. Many of the neighbors voiced their opinion in the neighborhood meeting that
they would like a fence higher than the standard 5 foot fence.
A neighbor in Ridgeview Estates (sides to Yukon Grove lot 6 and backs to lots 7,8,9) has a fence
that is in bad repair and very much an eye sore and is over 8 foot tall. The neighbor has been
contacted about removing his fence and taking advantage of our new fence, he however does
not want his current fence removed. It will easily be seen by the home owne's and visitors
entering Yukon Grove from 32nd Ave and very unattractive and undesirable for home owners
and visitors.
31 Yukon Grove LLC has committed to over 2 million dollars thus far for land pu,chase, zoning and
platting and development. This variance will help the overall value of Yukon Grove which Is
important to the developer, investors and important to the new home owners.
4) This particular infill property will benef:t from having a higher fence to obscure unsightly
neighbor fences and also offer more of a sound barrier from Wadsworth.
51 This variance will not be detrimental to the neighbors nor the public in general. It will not impair
any neighbors (they are in favor of a higher fence) nor have any adverse effect on public safety,
neighborhood values or development of adjacent property.
Case No. WA-15-01/Fritz for Yukon Grove 15
•
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29"b Ave. Wheat Ridge, Co 80033-8001 P: 3012351846 F: 301235.2857
Approval of Variance
WHEREAS, an application for a Valiance was submitted for the property locatedat
32nd Avenue referenced as Case No. WA-15-01/yUkOn Grove; and 7671
WHEREAS, City staff found basis
Sections 26- 115 of the Wheat Ridgfeor approval of the valiance, relying On criteria listed
file; and Code of Laws and on information submitted in the cinal
#
•
e applicalt6i
NOW THEREFORE, be it hereby resolved that a 2' fence height variance is gTanted for the
property located at 7671 W. 32d Avenue based on the following findings of fact:
I . There are unique circumstances due to the Property shape and physical surroundings of the
property to the west.
2. The variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
3. The neighboring 8' fence could negatively impact the aesthetic Of four of the western lots.
With the following condition:
L The 8' high fence be allowed only where it abuts the 8' high fen, on the property to the west.
Staffrecommends DENIAL of the fence height variance on the eastern boundary of the subdivision for
the following reasons:
1. There are no unique circumstances.
2. The adjacent lot to the east with its mature trees already Provides buffering.
i ('
JtlstOnC nunu�nity �Delop�ment DirectorD to
M&TA 1k0
WN I I POOT-M
11
il
0
11
A4'
W, City of
]�9rWh6a-t,kdgC
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Minutes of Meeting
April 23, 2015
The meeting was called to order by Chair ABBOTT
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West,
219111
Board Members Present:
No one wished
PUBLIC HEARING
p.m. in the City Council
ie, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Reckert, Sr. Planner
thl, City Attorney
Johnstone, Community Development
Director
Daniel Brennan, Chief of Police
Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary
A. Case No. WA -15-03: An application filed by Michael Pate/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- 14-11) 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 three feet in order for the
fence not to constitute a hazard to public health and safety. The applicant is
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 20115
requesting an interpretation that would allow an electric fence to be separated from
the existing perimeter fence by one foot on property located at 9850 — 9870 West 1-70
Frontage Road South.
The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She stated the applicant filed an appeal
of an administrative zoning decision relative to the separation of an electric security
fence and an existing perimeter fence. The applicant is requesting an interpretation
that would allow an electric fence to be separated from the existing perimeter fence
by one foot. She stated the role of the Board is to either uphold or overturn the
decision of the Community Development Director -c stated the interpretation
would be applied to all other industrial and
�"" R corr, q,121, properties in the city of
Wheat Ridge.
She stated the property has been ex
vandalism crimes. In effort to curb
electric security system.
Ms. Reckert indicated that since her eral
electric fences have beendeten-nined, no
safety issues and potenti"�' groan or
�",Ot p
shock from an electronic d�c
climate and weather condit
possible medic"tiditions.
The
interpret4l' , She refitted that
other classescommc I and ill
n trg nuic, �'kj
N mber of theft and
crime the' y would like to install an
N "HE
neat with the the early 1980's,
'0
)e allowed at all due to`rlcern
for public
ial exposure to a dangerfence. The
Mable.. The impact can vary based on
erson getting shocked along with any
or overturn staff's
ald apply city wide to certain
M=
ity Attorney, Gerald Dahl and
Johnstone at the staff table.
stated f"
0 oar&ia'�e is to deten-nine if a one foot separation is safe or not.
two option]
available"for decision on page seven of the staff report.
is are not al`l�frtion for this type of case.
Board Mel )*,HOYLAND asked why the applicant waited a year to reapply and
they whetherit is
y are asking for an interpretation as opposed to revisiting the
41,gg e
1.1
original variane ision.
Ms. Reckert replied affinnatively. It was indicated that the original variance
approval from staff occurred on November 20, 2014.
Board Member BANGHART asked if the municipal code allows electric fences.
Mr. Johnstone stated the code is silent to electric fences. There are a number of
different permitted fences that are listed in the code by example. The list has not
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015 2
necessarily been used as prohibitive for other fences that are not listed. The code is
silent to electric fences which is why an interpretation is needed as to when and under
what conditions an electric fence would or would not be permitted.
Mr. Dahl stated there is a provision in the code that lists prohibited fences referenced
in the staff report. A determination was made that the electric fence is a hazard. The
three foot separation was added as a condition to the variance to address the hazard of
public safety concern.
01 "1
Mr. Johnstone stated there was no extensivef',"
AN
ksm;". .
allow. The Chief made some inquiries to 01 '' riurl
The City and County of Denver in a general sense f
Fire Chief the discretion to approve them in certain
Board Member KUNTZ stated the co
with a three foot separatiog
It seems
Ms. Reckert replied that i=
commercial and industrial
six foot fence if Dointed in
gil;ipilipil
the Police Chief, CBO
on what other jurisdictions
s which do prohibit them.
p
",,,,Iectric fences but give the
i wire tcnc",',,mm certain cases
similar to thfiliovision
fences in residential settings. in
bed wire is allowed on top of a
wed on the subject property.
Ms. Reckert"Wd to bld staff's
e
p interpretation a negative vote would be
(4positive vote would be required,
. . . . 3a'ilii
. . . . . .
11� . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. ...
. . . . . . . . NO N'
'"indica, foot separation is okay. A no vote
is not okay.
additioli scussidWabout the interpretation.
Mr.tDah'l d
',,_ted tf.c -pretation decision will apply to the context in which the
i
application
S b t forth including the zone district which is a commercial
district.
Mr. Johnstone concurred. He stated a commercial district could abut a residential or
agricultural zoned property.
Randy Ketelsen
Ketelsen Campers of Colorado
9870 W 1-70 Service Road South
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015 3
Wheat Ridge, CO
Cynthia Williams
Electric Guard Dog
121 Executive Center Blvd.
Columbia, SC
Mr. Ketelsen expressed his appreciation for the cooperation with Community
Development and the Police Department to solve the crime issue at the property. He
stated the system is a two prong system. A shock is administered when two wires
make contact. It is also a monitoring security system. The police are called if the
alarm is activated. The system is a solar powered twelve volt system. It monitors and
reports infringements on the perimeter. Jgdustry standards tor this system for
effective use are a one foot separatio the exterior fence, The City of Wheat
R"I
Ridge approved the fence with a t Sot separation. The perimeter of the property
kR has a six foot high screened chain I around the thirteen acres. A person
would have criminal intent to touch t Y tern as
slatted screened chain link
perimeter fence is on the outside and t would be one foot on the
c UFF
inside. He indicated that they were the "I Meting, to ask the question about
reducing the separation frorn, thrope feet to 01
Board Member PAGE verific&thc exiting chain fin c is on the north, south, cast
and west side of the property. She asked the height of"H44" fence and if it is the same
height abutting the school.
Mr. Ketelsen replied yes, it is six feet tall, screened and it surrounds the entire
pr s property would not
The portion of the fence that, adjoins the Pennington'
,ffl# The monitoring systern will alert the police if it is touched and it is
nIv in o� at nion. He anticipates the electric fence will be on from 10:00
'rri. to 4:00 a'
..........
stated ie issue is that staffhas determined it to be a life safety hazard
atone'et. it is the same fence at one foot as it is at three feet.
The system
by multiple experts on pulsed electric security. She
referenced
in the packet including the ICC Standard. She stated
Electric Guard � `g ` es to the installation standard 60335-2-76. The standard
states the ele rity fence should be installed at three to eight inches from the
perimeter fence. Most jurisdictions allow one foot.
The electric fence will be inside private property. The standard requires a perimeter
non -electrified fence no less than six feet in height which will enclose the electric
fence. In this instance, the perimeter fence is slatted and totally screened. A three
foot distance creates an entrapment zone and would make it easy to get in between
the two fences. It also creates a non -maintainable area that becomes useless to the
property owner. These systems are used to protect outdoor storage. They are not for
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 231,2015 4
residential use. It is battery powered and does not plug into the grid. You cannot
reach through the screened fence. The studies show the system cannot cause
ventricular fibrillation. When touched it will give an unpleasant feeling but it cannot
injure you.
Board Member BELL asked about the two pronged system.
Mr. Ketelsen stated there are alternating wires. A person would have to touch the
ground wire and the lead wire to be shocked. The second function is a monitoring
system which would alert the police when the alarm is activated. It would be
installed in zones. The property that abuts Pennington Elementary would only have
the monitoring function.
Ms. Williams stated all zones would
Board Member BELL stated the i
parking lot. Is it possible to only
Mr. Ketelsen stated it is not a hazard
willing to compromise th
Board Member KUNTZ stab
to mitigate the hazard with a
(posed area is along the school yard and rear
' the monitoring function to avoid the hazard.
"Y'need is everywhere. H is
-n
Jtms
on I
a that abuts the school.
t, T_11111
the'M
s a hazard and they are willing
up it up. The City would not
the safety factors.
twelve vb4f,battery. It does not plug into the grid. The
ided. The City has detennined it is safe or it would not be
asked Mr. Ketelsen what his objection is to the three
Mr. Kettleson stated the industry standard for the most effective use of the system is
less than a one foot separation from the perimeter fence. Someone could get in
between the fences at three feet, the alarm would go off and the police would come.
No one can get in between a one foot separation or less but anyone could get into a
three foot separation. In addition, there would be a loss of usable land with a three
foot separation.
Chair ABBOTT asked staff about the rest of the city hearing on the outcome of the
case if the security fence is defined as non -lethal.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015 5
Mr. Dahl stated the interpretation would apply citywide but only in the context of this
application and the factors such as it is a commercial zone district, type of fence,
twelve volt, pulsed, warning signs, to the extent it adjoins school and it is only on at
night. It would apply to other operations in commercial zone districts with the same
conditions heard here.
Board Member FIC VLAND asked if the Board sided with the applicant, whether staff
could look at zoning code provisions to cover similar situations.
Mr. Johnstone replied that if the Board is supporti
reverse the interpretation, it would be appropriate
determination and the implications and let them d
of the fence code in regard to electric fences.
During the review, staff concluded tb,"
been a loi
fences were defacto prohibited. " affconsidered
electric fence, not only in this speci 1""Pstance but also
'Jt would,,g"op I
staff factored in on the interpretation ' -�,p
". �A pZ -, �,
11 "RIN 11§QN', IP
Ketelsen property.
The concern with the entrap
fence is the ability to get a,,�
would provide the ability to
rem
am
M
Mr. Ketelsen
the
the applicant's request to
,rise City Council of the
if that would cause a review
policy that electric
allowing an
cy perspective,
and not just the
[eter fence and the electric
The three foot separation
T stated there is less of chance of getting into the one foot
for concern. At one foot with an open
li the standard chain link distance. The
for the area of entrapment.
current is pulsed or if it is constant.
RICHMOND asked if anyone breached the existing perimeter fence
it or attempted to go under it.
Chair ABBOTT asked about the pulsed electricity.
Ms. Williams stated it is I/10,000 of a second.
Mr. Ketelsen commented on the notion of someone getting in between the one foot
separation area. He said the police will be alerted. The wires could be stretched and
a person could clear the fence and breach the perimeter however a person could not
exit the property in the same manner.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015 6
Board Member KUNTZ stated if this is approved and becomes popular, electric
fences could be the new thing for industrial and commercial parcels to install. He
opined one night of discussion is not enough to determine a citywide decision, City
Council should rule on something that could apply citywide.
Board Member PAGE stated it was unfortunate that the property owner would give
up so much property for a dead zone. The communities that are approving these
systems are subject to approval from the Fire Department not a citywide allowance,
Board Member KUNTZ stated had the ap
Board would have beard an appeal for the
Mr. Dahl stated the appeal right was
applicants choose to utilize the inten
Board Member HOVLAND a.
it have been site specific or an
Mr. Dahl replied it wot
while available throug 7
characteristics as heard
ed within the ten days, the
it would not apply citywide.
ue is available and the
instead.
a year ago, would
me property. , uh, interpretation
only under the conditions and
one a good job documenting
i't think be had beard anything
as opposed to the one foot
have been any other requests for an
requests over the years and the response has been
ND stated he thought the use of electric fences should be
because it could be a crime deterrent for the police
Board Member BANGHART reiterated the City has approved the electric fence. The
issue is the separation of one foot or three feet from the perimeter fence. She asked if
a precedent has been set for any commercial property similar to this one to have an
electric fence since the City approved the electric fence.
Mr. Dahl stated yes in, the sense it is an interpretation to the extent of whether staff's
decision on the one foot separation should be overturned.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015 7
Mr. Dahl clarified that had the applicant used his appeal rights it would have been at,
appeal of an administrative variance and it would not be an interpretation and the
request would have been reviewed on its own merits.
Mr. Johnstone added that in granting the variance staff was conscious in limiting the
variance to specific facts at hand in terms of the remoteness of the perimeter of the
site, the configuration of it, and the presence of vacant land next store. Much like the
findings of this evening, factors of this case may limit the future applicability of the
action the board will take tonight. .Ialdfi
Chief Brennan stated he did some research
where an electric fence can be an effective
consideration staff gave on this case based
location of property adjacent to a school at
ball fields are utilized often by the commui
perspective that this kind of an electric fen
circumstances of the property and concern
t, `6 fences. There are situations
noted in the packet. The
e 1) and crime issues is the
)laygrou 1,11.1,11ftennington School and the
y. The de i "I ,as not made on the
is an unsafe 11% --tit how the
regard to chil r hool also
expressed a concern. Staff
tried to find a win/win situation fora eC spected
business owner in the cif "ffigptric fences are primarily install ii s
trial areas
-7
such as truck stops, impodN't n
in areas where a lot of deliveries are made or
where large items are stow edxi
,A
He stated h have the il i IN
0
rKetelsen that lie anticipated the
policed , ent tavves, nrfi" I arm s in the community are
'off a
false ala he poll e s to veti fed alatins or knowledge of the
area,
exiled syi fir, Ketelsen for the loss of money and the
'he memets spoke of the implications of the decision and
the �visdotxt olltt the peted officials look into this furtlier
the motion template and the appellant names listed
on It To 11CCU IQ "UJI LJV6,
Ms. Reckei6t ted'al the
names in addition to Ms. Williams are eniptoyees oi
Electric Guar' nid it would be appropriate to use them.
Upon a motion by Board Member BELL and second by Board Member PAGE,
the following resolution was stated:
WHEREAS, Board of Adjustment Case No. WA -15-03 is an appeal to this board
from the zoning code interpretation of an administrative officer; and
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015 8
WHEREAS, the relief applied for may be granted without detriment to the
N i. U . 1. .
I therefore, move that the board deny the appeal and uphold staff's
,fetermination that an electric fence with a oue foot swarithirc emalill'i
Quo ITIVI R&F-Irliffirs IT111
Mr. Dahl stated the intent of the motion is unclear.
I therefore, move to adopt a resolution
the reasons set forth in the staff report
There was a discussion about the
10141MIEWIRM111
Mr. Dahl stated the motion
grant the appperaaj
J,
mit
it
determination t�t an
&htstitute a sa az
Is
no
s code interpretation for
thbtlftRfft's determination failed. In order to
is q
,p, ',;.,,A deni I is deemed without a
6IWake a motion to grant the
i a' in the appeal and overturning the staff's
fence with a one foot separation does not
by Bo#'dMember HOVLAND and seconded by Board Member
to ad ff"resolution approving Case No. 4'A-15-03.
about the motion and vote.
The Motion was approved by a vote of 5-3 with Board Members KUNTZ,
ABBOTT and BELL voting no. However, because a super -majority vote did
not occur, the request for interpretation is not approved.
Ms. Williams requested findings of fact.
Mr. Dahl stated he would be happy to prepare findings of fact which would be
available for review by the Board at the May 28, 2015 meeting.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015 9
ki
91
M
It was moved by Board Member PAGE and seconded by Board Member BELL
to have the City Attorney prepare findings of fact.
Motion approved 7-1 with Board Member KUNTZ voting no.
Mr. Kettelston stated he in more interested in finding of fact from the Board and not
the City Attorney.
Mr. Dahl stated the procedure is that lie will prepare findings of fact based upon the
record, The Board will vote on it at the next meeting. The hearing is closed and the
applicant is not permitted to have further individual conversations with the Board
mernbers—
Ms. Reckert stated the applicant has
Mr. Dahl stated the thirty day wi
findings of fact are approved.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARNO
Chair ABBOTT closed the
There was a dfi
before the next
1310SHIM
to district court.
is final when the
n, A trait ug session maybe scheduled
there are no cases scheduled.
she was present at the meeting but not on the list of
Member PAGE and seconded by Board Member
the minutes with the correction.
q1111liql1rill 11 11 q1:111111rill M=�1:1�111111ppq:im=
131111011 =111 11111111 : I!: I I I I Ez=
B. Election of Officers
Board Member HOV LAND was voted Chair.
Board Member KUNTZ was voted Vice Chair.
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015 10
annngxa•��
It was moved by Board Member FFOVLAND and seconded by Board Member
KUNTZ to adjourn the meeting.
The vote was unanimous and the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Thomas Abbott, Vice Chair
Board of Adjustment Minutes April 23, 2015
', Recording Secretary