Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WA-15-03
¥City ofWheat Ridge The following case numbers relate to the construction of a 9' high electric fence on property located at 9850-9870 W. I-70 Frontage Road North. Case No. WA-14-11 was a request for approval of a fence height variance to allow a 9' high electric fence. This case was approved to allow a fence height variance with the condition that the fence not be electrified. The applicant did not agree with this condition of approval and did not submit an appeal of the decision to the Board of Adjustment within the allotted timeframe. Case No. WZ-15-03 was a request for approval of an interpretation by the Board of Adjustment as to what constitutes a dangerous/non-dangerous fence. The BOA found in favor of Staff's recommendation that an electric fence constitutes a safety hazard so a permit for construction of a fence could not be issued. Case No. ZOA-18-03 was an amendment to the zoning code relative to section 26-603/fencing allowing electrified fences in certain situation s with approval of a Special Use Permit (SUP). Case No. SUP-18-03 was a request to allow an electrified fence at 9850-9870 W. I-70 Frontage Road North. This case was approved and a permit for construction of the fence was issued on September 27, 2018 (permit #201802371). A A WA ------ City of3- -Wheatge - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO:Board o f 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 ofAdjustment meeting, Case No. WA-15-03, an application forappeal of an administrative zoning decision relative to the separation of an electric security fence and an existing perimeter fence for property located at 9850-9870 W. I-70 Frontage Road, was denied. Upon request of the applicant and a motion made by BOA, the City Attorney was directed to prepare findings of fact relative to the public hearing and outcome of the request to be reviewed 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. SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to adopt the Resolution, Findings of Fact and Decision for Case No. WA-15-03 prepared by the City Attorney and as presented in the May 28,2015 meeting packet." L / BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Resolution No. 02, Series 2015 Case No. WA-15-03: Application by Electric Guard Dog RESOLUTION, FINDINGS AND DECISION 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: FINDINGS 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. 1 6. The Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 26-603 regulates fencing within the City. It designates permitted fence heights, controls sight distance and specifies where fencing may be installed. Section 26-603.D governs the types of fencing that may and may not be installed in the City, and provides in pertinent part as follows: Section 26-603.D Fences and divisional walls permitted 1. masonry walls 2. ornamental iron 3. woven wire and chain-link 4. wood 5. hedges 6. barbed wire... E. Fence types prohibited 1. Any fence, within the opinion 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 that electric fences are not allowed within the City based upon a concern for public safety and the potential for human or animal exposure to a dangerous fence. In this case, staff communicated to the Applicant that the fence was prohibited based upon safety concerns with the proximity of the electric fence with a one-foot separation from the chain-link perimeter fence and that this was especially critical with respect to the Pennington Elementary School which abuts the property on two sides. 8. The Applicant applied for an administrative variance pursuant to Code Section 26-115 to permit the poles for the new electrical system to be nine feet in height rather than 10 feet; it being a standard per the Code that a perimeter fence is limited to six feet in height. Pursuant to Code Section 26-115.C, a request for a nine foot-high fence could be granted administratively as it would be a 50% or smaller variance. 9. The variance application captioned Case No. WA-14-11 was processed administratively and was referred 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's chief building official, expressed concern for the electric fence unless a three-foot setback was required for the electric fence from the perimeter chain-link fence. The Jefferson County School District also expressed that the electric fence which would visibly be the same, should 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 r -2- 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. 2. Use 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 .1 -3- which hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the subject property. 13.The Applicant is requesting an interpretation from the Board of Adjustment that an electric fence separated by only one foot from a perimeter fence does not constitute a public safety hazard and is therefore not prohibited by the Code of Laws. 14.The Board's jurisdiction with respect to this case is limited to a determination of whether the City staff interpretation of the safety of the electric fence located within one foot of the perimeter fence (which staff has determined to be unsafe) rather than three feet from the perimeter fence (which the staff has determined to be safe) should be upheld or not. No other aspects of the Applicant's project are at issue. 15.Pursuant to Code Section 26-109, proper public notice was given for a public hearing on the application for an interpretation before the Board of Adjustment on April 23, 2015 at 7:00 PM. The Board conducted the public hearing at that time. 16.The following persons testified at the hearing: for the City, Senior Planner Meredith Reckert, Community Development Director Kenneth Johnstone and Police Chief Daniel Brennan. The Board was advised at the hearing by City Attorney Gerald Dahl. For the property owner: Randy Ketelsen. For Electric Guard Dog: Cynthia Williams. 17. The City staff submitted a PowerPoint presentation and a written staff report authored by Meredith Reckert and titled "City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division Staff Report: Case No. WA-15-03\Electric Guard Dog." 18. The Applicant submitted the following documents: 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 I. -4- 19. Meredith Reckert testified with respect to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws and its prohibition of electric fences as fences which, under Code Section 26-603.E.1 in the opinion the Chief Building Official, Public Works Director, and Chief of Police, would constitute a hazard to the health or safety of any person. 20. Meredith Reckert testified that the Applicant's proposed separation of one foot from the perimeter fence would be unsafe because of the potential for persons to reach through the chain-link and touch the electrified fence and for persons to be capable of being entrapped between the chain-link perimeter fence and the electrified fence without the opportunity to then escape. 21. Mr. Johnstone testified that there are a number of different permitted fences that are listed in the Code by example. The list has not necessarily been used as prohibitive for other fences that are not listed. The Code is silent with respect 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. 22. Police Chief Dan Brennan responded to a public safety statement by a Board Member. He testified that the Police Department had a Verified Alarm Response Policy and did not respond to all alarm calls. Chief Brennan noted that 97% of alarm calls were false alarms and that unless an alarm was verified by another system or person, there was no guarantee that the Police Department would immediately respond to any alarm generated by the proposed electric fence. Patrol officers could use their decision or knowledge of crime in an area to make a determination of their need to respond. Chief Brennan also expressed concern for public safety with a fence in such close proximity to a school, playgrounds and motel. 23. Mr. Ketelsen testified to the history of the Ketelsen operation within the City and in particular to the increasing amount of theft and vandalism occurring because of the outdoor storage of campers on the lot. Mr. Ketelsen testified that while he has worked with the Wheat Ridge Police Department, it has not been possible to stem the increasing theft and for this reason he turned to Electric Guard Dog as a means to do so. He further testified that the proposed electrified and security monitoring fence would be safe because a one-foot separation was the "industry-standard" and that in his opinion, it was impossible for any person to fit within the one-foot separation proposed. 24. Ms. Williams testified on behalf of Electric Guard Dog, emphasizing that the fence as proposed was to be constructed according to industry standards, that the Wisconsin study by Professor Webster supported the safety of the fence and that the fence would serve as a monitoring fence in addition to an electric deterrent. She further testified that the fence would not be electrified in the portion of the perimeter adjacent to the Pennington Elementary School property. 25. After hearing testimony from all parties, the Board Chair closed the hearing and the following motion was made: i -5- 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): Members Present Votes Needed to Approve 8 6 7 6 6 5 5 4 All other actions shall be taken by majority vote of the members present. 29. Because eight members of the Board of Adjustment were present and voting, a super majority of six votes was needed to grant the appeal pursuant to Code Section 2-62(d)(3). If a motion fails to receive the required super majority of members present and voting, ["t]he action will be deemed equivalent to a denial, and a resolution denying such application or appeal shall be formally entered upon the record." Code Section 2-62(d)(3). DECISION -6- 1. The Board finds the testimony of the City staff credible and the recommendations in the "City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division Staff Report: Case No. WA-15-03\Electric Guard Dog" to be justified. 2. Based upon the entire record presented at the public hearing and the relevant portions of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, the Board finds that the application of Electric Guard Dog under Case No. WA-15-03 for appeal of an administrative zoning determination related to separation between electric security fence and an existing perimeter fence in Case No. WA-14-11) 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 _ this day of May, 2015. in favor and against, By the Board: Thomas Abbot, Chair ATTEST: Kim Waggoner, Secretary to the Board ,1 -7 - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 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 Ketelsen Campers of Colorado 9870 W 48th Ave Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Michael Pate/Carol Bausinger Electric Guard Dog, LLC PO Box 21832 Columbia, South Carolina 29221 Kim Waggoner -8- City of0VVheat12*lge TO: CASE MANAGER: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED: LOCATION OF REQUEST: APPLICANT (S): OWNER (S): APPROXIMATE AREA: PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE: 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 9850-70 West I-70 Frontage Road South Michel Pate/Carol Bausinger for Electric Guard Dog Randy Ketelsen for Ketelsen Campers of Colorado 10 Acres Commercial-One, Planned Industrial Development and Planned Commercial Development Recreation Vehicle Sales and Storage ENTER INTO RECORD: (X)CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) (X) ZONING ORDINANCE DIGITAL PRESENTATION See attached vicinity map Board of Adjustment 1 Case No. WA-15-03 /Electric Guard Dog L A 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 l' 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 of Adjustment 2 Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog There are several existing buildings on the north side o f 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 o f 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 o f theft and vandalism crimes with sustained losses iii excess of $100,000. The areas most targeted are on the east, south and west sides ofthe 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 iii 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. Ni'. 7 i $. 1 /r f Most property crime occurs along the west and southeast sections of the properties designated in green. Board ofAdjustment 3 Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog 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 o f 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 o f 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 i f 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 al' 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 qf Adjustment 4 Case No. WA-15-03/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. 5. Hedges. 6. Barbed wire: a. Barbed wire shall be permitted only in the Agricultural One 04-1) 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. Barbedwireshall bepermitted incommercial, industrialand public facilities (P-Fj zone districts where placed on top of a six-foot-high fence or higher where permitted. Barbed wire placed on top ofafence shall not be counted toward the height of afence. 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. Staffhad determined that the fence was prohibited based on safety concerns with the proximity ofthe electric fence with al' 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 5 Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog However, Staff communicated a willingness to consider allowing the electric fence if additional separation was provided. A3' 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 a3' 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 o f the administrative decision. The applicant failed to file an appeal within the ten-day timeframe. Therefore, the administrative condition ofthe 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 al' 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 6 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 determination that an electric fence with al' 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, ifthe Board overturns staff's determination, an electric fence with al' separation is safe and would be allowed on all properties zoned commercially or industrially. In addition, the Board is only empowered as to whether Staff's interpretation ofthe 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 submitted 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 o f 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. Staffrecommends 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 7 Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog Existing hotel 4 immill'Metriligi'Ullm i p;.-2 -: 16' R i. . 22EUW·'t:.L:Eid C„1*1/ 1 ' 13 PanmdonElementary i.-t •- --> 3,6.-56'"69' Ihi- land 1!.<*771 E==.21 ./* Id' W-2. 0161 fi4. m L-J / Actlity fields owned by Jefferson County Exhibit 1 - aerial vicinity map Board oj Adjustment 8 Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog Site 1 LI 1,44 " r -I:#&.5-:564=.- - -I.---Il. - I.-4 =-1. eUIZI=2=2m . 7451 047201 610-4725 -11. al | m '111 4.. f ' - . $.0 ;'*fR-3 1 . 01X 2/ U r C 01617 - - 4 04600 -0.9 /.Uihial|limil B -lifhl590n.1=.11- AD 09859 i J1 'Pil"91'lillimil ETir -P iClit J F-- R-3 1 ...T 1-C 0+317„J -'1,8 425 It "IIR-231 O 4, re.NE. =Tr 0.--6 1.1.....lkilmdill.1-1 Exhibit 2 - zoning map Board of Adjustment g Case No. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog .2 Site The #1 Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. 121 Executive Center Drive • Suite 230 Columbia, SC 29210 Phone: (803) 404-6189 I Fax: (803) 404-5378 Electric Guard Dog for Ketelsen Camper - Separation Justification Narrative Ketelsen Camper has chosen Electric Guard Dog as their exterjor security provider to install a 9-foot security fence. The 9-foot security fence is partially sensor along the elementary school portion withthe remainder being voltage and was approved by the City of Wheat Ridge November 20, 2014. As acondition of the installation, the City's Police Department stipulated a 3-foot separation between theperimeter fence and the Electric Guard Dog security fence. This narrative is to provide details toconvey the necessity of a separation of no more than 12 inches. Ketelsen Camper has an existing perimeter solid wood and chain link with slatting fencing around theproperty. Per the International Electric Code (IEC) 60335.2.76, the opening of the perimeter fence should be no greater than 130 mm (5.12 inches) to install the electric (12V DC battery) fence. Theexisting perimeter fence meets the criteria and provides the proper safety barrier. The IEC recommended separation between the perimeter and security fences are within the requiredrange of 100 mm (3.94 inches) and 200 mm (7.87 inches). Since we don't operate under the metricsystem, it is the standard among jurisdictions to accept the 12-inch separation as an adequateseparation between the perimeter fence and apparatus to prevent accidental engaging of the electric fence. Anything over that is an unnecessarily taking of business storage property. As studied and reported on from the renowned John G. Webster, Professor Emeritus of Biomedical Engineering of the University of Wisconsin, foremost expert on pulsed electricity, the electric securityfence provided by Electric Guard Dog is safe. The Webster Safety Document is a comprehensiveelectric security system report and included with this narrative for reference. At the time of this review, the City has yet to provide evidence or case studies to the contrary. The Electric Guard Dog security system has minimal impact to surrounding properties. It does notinterfere or affect the current Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM) principles as set forth by the City of Wheat Ridge. EXHIBIT 3 The #1 TheR Deter,ent Sentice in the U.S. 121 Executive Center Drive • Suite 230 Columbia, SC 29210 Phone: (803) 404-6189 I Fax: (803) 404-5378 Electric Guard Dog, LLC - Interpretation of The City of Wheat Ridge - Municode Section 26-603.E Fence Types Prohibited. #1 Section 26-603.E.Fence types prohibited. 1. Anyfence, ifinthe opinion ofthe chiefbuilding inspector, public works director, orchiefof policethat would constitute a hazard to the health or safety qfany person. Electric Guard Dog is requesting the Board ofAdjustment of The City of Wheat Ridge, to reconsider the Power of Safetyopinion given by City Staff to restrict the separation between a perimeter fence and security fence provided by ElectricGuard Dog. The separation being deemed safe by City Staffis 36-inches and is based upon opinion. Electric Guard Dog'smaximum separation is 12-inches and is scientifically proven to be 100% safe. This is verified by the NationallyRecognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) with MetLabs to the IEC standards; the only recognized standard for electricfences in the world. This re4uest is being made in reference to Case #WA 1411 and the narrative is to provide details toconvey the hecessity of a separation of no more than 12-inches. The Electric Guard Dog security system is a primary low voltage (12V), battery powered (DC), independent oftheelectrical grid, self-contained system that has a variety of functions to it which make for a 100% medically safe andextremely effective crime deterrent. This system is typically 10-feet high and is installed approximately 4-12-inches insideof the existing perimeter fence. It is comprised of 20, 12.5 gauge, galvanized steel wires which are run horizontally to theheight of 10'. In our system the first layer of protection (visual deterrent) is our signage (located every 50') whichadvertises that it is an electric fence. This deters most would-be criminals. Most existing perimeter barriers are of solid wood, wrought iron, brick or chain link with slatting or mesh screeningfencing around the property. The International Electrotechnical Commission Standard 60335.2.76 (attached), the openingofthe perimeter fence should be no greater than 130 mm (5.12 inches). Existing perimeter fences meet these criteria andprovide the proper safety barriers. If the two fences were to be 36-inches apart from each other, it would create anopportunity to manipulate the device. Also, a financial burden is placed on the property owner by taking away real estateused to conduct business. As studied and reported on from the renowned John G. Webster, Professor Emeritus of Biomedical Engineering of theUniversity of Wisconsin, foremost expert on pulsed electricity, the electric security fence provided by Electric Guard Dogis safe. The Webster Safety Document (attached) is a comprehensive electric security system report and included with thisnarrative for reference. At the time the decision made by the City, there have been no case studies or no evidence, or nofactual basis to deny a standard installation of the electric security fence. The Electric Guard Dog security system has minimal impact to surrounding properties and is ] 00% safe and securityeffective. For funher reference, attached are permits from other surrounding Colorado jurisdictions. Thank you. DENVER FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 745 W Colfax AVE P.O. Box 40385 Denver, CO 80204 720-913-3458 PERMIT NO: 145586 FIRE PROTECTION FOR OCCUPANT' ID: 18953 Issued To:ELECTRIC GUARD DOG, LLC. P.O. BOX 21832 COLUMBIA, SC 29221 CONTACT: CAROL BAUSINGER PHN: 803-404-6189 Site:4920 N WASHINGTON ST Issued On: 07/01/2014 for the period of 07/01/2014 through 07/01/2015 Code Description of Occupancy or Operation 81 ELECTRIC FENCE Permit Fee $ 150.00 SPECIFICS AND CONDITIONS: Electric Guard Dog Perimeter Security Fence System: 12-volt direct current CDC) power source Provision for approved shutdown of fence power for emergency access. Property owner and fence manufacturer 24 hour contact information shall be provided in an approved location for emergency access. - Procedures for facility inspection shall be developed and maintained on-site.- Specific approval by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) for the use of the equipment under the relevant codes and standards and for the application of use at a specified location. - Provisions for fire drills and evacuation plan procedures, as applicable. - Installer certification issued by the fence manufacturer. - Lease agreement with equipment manufacturer to include equipment maintenance plan and associated services. - Electric fence shall be located within the perimeter of a non-electrified fence not less than six feet tall. - Electric fence and all associated operational components shall remain the property of the manufacturer and be maintained by same or manufacturer approved contractor. - Property owner and fence manufacturer shall maintain liability insurance of at least one million dollars ($1,000.000) 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 obtain permit from the Fire Department.- Upon cancellation/termination of the equipment lease, all electric fence components shall be removed and the Fire Department notified.- All equipment shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions and appropriate equipment listings. There shall be NO EXCEPTIONS to this requirement.- Warning signage shall be posted in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and not more than 150 ft spacing. 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 07/02/2014 with Ck NO. 22748 by JOSEPH L GONZALES - THANK YOU. Please place this permit in a conspicuous place. Your copies of our recent fire inspections must also be kept readily availablefor our review. Questions should be directed to the Denver Fire Prevention Bureau at the phone number shown above. This permit shall not be construed to mean approval of any violation of the Fire/Building Code(s) and Standards adopted by the City and County of Denver, if such violations exist. I--•.•.-.%w• '- .r;•••..•'* •r,t".f.·41M*2?MUnRZf=mc·•te:,mj,mtm*¤,mel,r.-m'00Fm'**2"ee¥-Twe':9-"tr,1.7 -*** el - DENVER FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 745 W Colfax AVE P.O. Box 40385 Denver, CO 80204 720-913-3458 PERMIT NO: 145586 FIRE PROTECTION FOR OCCUPANT ID· 18953 Issued To:ELECTRIC GUARD DOG, LLC. P.O. BOX 21832 COLUMBIA. SC 29221 CONTACT: CAROL BAUSINGER PHN: 803-404-6189 Site:4920 N WASHINGTON ST Issued On: 07/01/2014 for the period of 07/01/2014 through 07/01/2015 Code Description of Occupancy or Operation Permit Fee - Height 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 $150.00 This is your actual PERMIT. This is not an Invoice. DO NOT SEND MONEY ! Our records indicate the permit fee shownabove was credited to your account on 07/02/2014 with Ck NO. 22748 by JOSEPH L GONZALES- THANK YOU. Please place this permit in a conspicuous place. Your copies of our recent fire inspections must also be kept readily availablefor our review. Ouestions should be directed to the Denver Fire Prevention Bureau at the phone number shown above. This permit shall not be construed to mean approval of any violation of the Fire/Building Code(s) and Standards adopted by theCity and County of Denver, if such violations exist. From:Bodriouez. Beatrice - Development Services TO:CamLiatmit=[ Subject:Bldg Permit #P2014A445427 - 4920 Vasquez blvd Date:Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:44:09 AM Attachments: imaGe001.ona imagn"Quag *P2014A445427* 4920 N WASHINGTON ST P2014A445427 $39.50 Zoning 02 Jun 2014 OPIans To Logged In Inspector?Project: Code for Fee Log#: Exemption 1 st Review Date: Building Permit Authorizations Contractor Information OZoning License #: Bl Engineering Name: Bl Permit Sect.Address: Contact: Zoning Authorization ®Approved Zone Approved Date 07/24/2014 Zone Approved By RodriBM Elin*act Fees Phone: License Status: Lie Expires: Site Contact: License Types Use Proposed by This Application OAddition OFence E]Shed OGarage W]New 10'fence m.,¤,emNFI,9»m¥Ee,--Il....P-N•/3¢4IDeL!, „ a • 94' - ». ,p.L D ,,MWL• 9r·1 DENVER THEA"LE H." cir¥ April 7, 2014 CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY FIRE • POLICE • SHERIFF 9-1-1 • COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS CRIME PREVENTION & CONTROL • SAFE CITY Office of Fire Prevention Denver Fire Department 745 W. Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80204 Phone: (720) 913-3474 Fax: (720) 913-3596 *=y----'- --7--1--artmem6·91'.'llunwr,ru/nT:FIrl Sean Maley, Vice President CRL Associates Inc. 1625 Broadway #700 Denver, CO80202 Dear Sean: RE: ELECIRIC FENCE - UNITED RENTALS - 11250 E. 40™ AVENUE Attached is the complete approval package for the Electric Guard Dog Perimeter Security Fence Systemfor United Rentals at 11250 E. 40'h Avenue submitted by your office for City approval. (The address on the submitted plans was listed as 11200 E. 40" Ave,,but 11250 E, 4om Ave. is the correct address.) This package includes the City and County of Denver policy that was developed following approval of the Electric.Guard Dog Administrative Modification for an exception to Denver Fite Code Section 316.4.1. Thank you and please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions you or your client may have. Sinceret¥, Joseph L. Gonzales Division Chief cc: George Morkovin, P.E., Fire Protection Engineer Rodney Sherrod, Ueutenant DENVER FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 745 W Colfax AVE P.O. Box 40385 Denver, CO 80204 720-913-3458 PERMIT NO: 145645 FIRE PROTECTION FOR OCCUPANT ID: 19407 Issued To:United Rentals 11250 E. 40th Avenue Denver, CO 80239 Contact: Ray Medrano 303-944-2310 remedrano@ur.com Site:11250 E 40TH AVE Issued On: 04/07/2014 for the period of 04/07/2014 through 05/01/2015 Code Description of Occupancy or Operation 81 ELECTRIC FENCE Permit Fee $ 150.00 SPECIFICS AND CONDITIONS: Electric Guard Dog Perimeter Security Fence System: 12-volt direct current CDC) power source - Provision for approved shutdown of fence power for emergency access. Property owner and fence manufacturer 24 hour contact information shall be provided in an approved location for emergency access. - Procedures for facility inspection shall be developed and maintained on-site.- Specific approval by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) for the use of the equipment under·the relevant codes and standards and for the application of use at a specified location. - Provisions for fire drills and evacuation plan procedures, as applicabte. - Installer certification issued by the fence manufacturer. - Lease agreement with equipment manufacturer to include equipment maintenance plan and associated services. - Electric fence shall be located within the perimeter of a non-electrified fence not less than six feet tall. Electric fence and all associated operational components shall remain the property of the manufacturer and be maintained by same or manufacturer approved contractor. - Property owner and fence manufacturer shall maintain liability insurance of at least one million dollars ($1,000.000) 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 obtain permit from the Fire Department. - Upon cancellation/termination of the equipment lease, all electric fence components shall be removed and the Fire Department notified. - All equipment shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions and appropriate equipment listings. There shall be NO EXCEPTIONS to this requirement. - Warning signage shall be posted in accordance with manufacturefs recommendations and not more than 150 ft spacing. This is your actual PERMIT. This is not an Invoice. DO NOT SEND MONEY! Our recoids indicate the permit fee shownabove was credited toyouraccounton 04/07/2014 with Ck NO. PENDING by JOSEPH L GONZALES -THANK YOU. Please place this permit in a conspicuous place. Your copies of our recent fire inspections muht also be kept readily availablefor our review. Questions should be directed to the Denver Fire Prevention Bureau at the phone number shown above. This permit shaU not be construed to mean approval of any violation of the Fire/Building Code(s) and Standards adopted by the City and County of Denver, if#Uch violations exist. Ile,/7/99#9'.:pn ....5,642··'-A?i.·91;4.' AR 1//*0/m?>97©·9MMNM•3/3.6/3,"ve,Vnme!*9,·miee/•*efMr,miferw-r,5-r-m,-Ar·:.1-•!,Mr'rmM DENVER FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU 745 W Colfax AVE P.O. Box 40385 Denver, CO 80204 720-913-3458 PERMIT NO: 145645 FIRE PROTECrION FOR OCCUPANT ID: 19407 Issued To: United Rentals 11250 E. 40th Avenue Denver, CO 80239 Contact: Ray Medrano 303-944-2310 remedrano@ur. com Site:11250 E 40TH AVE Issued On: 04/07/2014 for the period of 04/07/2014 through 05/01/2015 Code Description of Occupancy or Operation Permit Fee - Height ofelecnic fence shall not exceed ten ket - Anhtialinspection ofsecurity fence system shall be conducted by Fire Prevention Division pen#inel. Total Permit Fees $150.00 This is your actual PERMIT. This is not an Invoice. DO NOT SEND MONEY! Our·records indicate the permit fee shownabove was credited to your accounton 04/07/2014 with Ck NO. PENDING by JOSEPH L GONZALES- THANKYOU. Please place this permit in a conspicuous place. Youreopies,ofourfecent:fire inspections must also be kept readily availablefor our review. Questions should be directed to the Denver Fire Prevention Bureau at the phone number shown above. This permit shall not be construed tomean approval of any violation of the Fire/Building Codets) and Standards adopted by theCity and County of Denver, if such violations exist. 1· DENVER FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU P.O. Box 40385 Denver, CO 80204 720-913-3458 335783 ACCOUNT NO. RIMF01 FIRE PROTECTION PERMIT NO: 145645 FOR OCCUPANT ]D: 19407 Issued To: United Rentals 11250 E. 40th Avenue j Denver, CO 80239 Contact: Ray Medrano 303-944-23]0 remedrano@uncom Site Phone: 303-576-3500 Fax:303-576-3555 Site:11250 E 40TH AVE Issued On: 04/07/2014 for the period of 04/07/2014 through 05/01/2015 Code Description of Occupancy or Operation 81 ELECTRIC FENCE Permit Fee $ 150.00 SPECIFICS AND CONDITIONS: Electtic Guard Dog Perimeter Security Fence System: 12-volt direct current (DC) power source - Provision for approved shutdown of fence power for emergency access. Property owner and fence manufacturer 24 hour contact information shall be provided in an approved location for emergency access. - Procedures for facility inspection shall be developed and maintained on-site. - Specific approval by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory 04RTL) for the use of the equipment under the relevant codes and standards and for the application of use at a specified location. . Provisions for fire drills and evacuation plan procedures, as applicable. - Installer certification issued by the fence manufacturer. - Lease agreement with equipment manufacturer to include equipment maintenance plan and associated services. - Electric fence shall be located within the perimeter ofa non-electrified fence not less than six feet tall. - Electric fence and all associated operational components shall remain the property of the manufacturer and be maintained by same or manufacturer approved contractor. - Property owner and fence manufacturer shall maintain liability insurance of at least one million dollars ($1.000,000) for accident or personal injury as a result of the fence. - Upon transfer ofproputy, new ownership shall agree to conditions for use ofthe electric fence and obtain permit from the Fire Department. - Upon cancellation/tennination of the equipment lease, all electric fence components shall be removed and the Fire Department notified. - Ali equipment shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions and appropriate equipment listings. There shall be NO EXCEPTIONS to this requirement. This is your INVOICE for this fire protection permit. The actual permit will be issued when the total permit fee, shown above, has beenpaid, and all conditions specified above are met. Please make your check payable to: DENVER MANAGER OF FINANCE and PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF INVOICE WITH PAn,ENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS ATTN: PERMITS. This invoice shall not be construed to mean approval of any violation of the Fire/Bullding Cocle(s) and Standards adopted by the City and County of Denver. if such viotations exist. Questions regarding this Involce should be directed to the Fire Prevention Bureau at the.phone number shown above, 1 --.*....DraN,89MtNee,./smtomopt-.98717?:,;le!9SPIFF?!57=Y•57'N*.9,31/re·I/%Pe' DENVER FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU P.O. Box 40385 Denver, CO 80204 720-913-3458 INVOICE NO: 335783 ACCOUNT?40. RIMF01 FIRE PROTECTION PERMIT NO:FOR OCCUPANT ID: 19407 Issued To: United Rentals 11250 E. 40th Avenue Denver, CO 80239 Contact: Ray Medrano 303-944-2310 remedrano@ur.com Site Phone: 303-576-3500 Fax:303-576-3555 Site:11250 E 40TH AVE Issued On: 04/07/2014 for the period of 04/07/2014 through 05/01/2015 Code Description of Occupancy or Operation Permit Fee - Warning signage shall be posted in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and notmorethan 150 R spacing. - Height of electric fence shall not exceed ten feet, - Annual inspection of security fence system shall be conducted by Fire Prevention Division pet#onhel. Total Permit Fees $150.00 This is your INVOICE for this fire protection permit. Theactual permitwill be issued when the total permit fee. shown above. has beenpaid, and all conditions specified above are met Please make your check payable to. DENVER MANAGER OF FINANCE and PLEASE RETURN A COPY OF INVOICE WITH PAYMENT TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS ATTN: PERMITS. This invoice shall not be construed to mean approval of any violation of the Fire/Building Code<s) and Standards adopted by theCity and County of Denver. if such violations exist. Questions regarding this invoice should be directed to the Fire Prevention Bureau at the phone number shown above. * FIRE D-Ve, Fle De•61-t Fire Prevention Division DEPARTMENT DENVER PUBUC SAFETY 745 West Colfax Avenue Denver, CO 80204 p: 720.913.3474 f: 720.913.3596 madon¥*er_zzilkaU1-M'j, March 20, 2014 Sean Maley, Vice President CRL Associates, Inc. 1625 Broadway #700 Denver, CO 80202 Dear Sean: RE:ELECTRIC GUARD DOG PERIMETER SECURITY FENCE SYSTEM In response to your letter of March 10 and the application from Nicholas Jasper, we have read these documents and offer this response. As of this date NFPA does not regulate direct-current electrical devices but research on an addendum to NFPA 70, National Electrical Code, is under way for such regulation in 2016. As you know, both AC and DC current can produce injury to living tissues. At this time, we can approve your request for an administrative modification as submitted. All safeguards and processes listed in your letter of March 10 must be observed. Each individual site requires a submittal of design drawings and specifications, and every installation will require an annual permit from DFD, which will trigger an annual inspection. This is to ensure that every system remains in accordance with the requirements. One detail missing from the initial application, which must be Included in future specific submittals, is the battery system class. Thank you for going through this process, and please let me know if I can be of assistance in any other way. Sincerely ¢Uilorkovin, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer 66seph L. W>nzales Division Chief FORCITYSERVICESVISrr 1 CALL DenverGo¥.org 1 311 /01-/..2./Immey!*RE0,M!,mk,MIE'S!.-)-*I.mm**g'ahemu.V..#.Il CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER POUCY DENVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Subject:ELECTRIC FENCES Reference: Denver Fire Code 316.4.1 Denver Building Code 312.2.3 Approved:r ' Jos*h L. Go Number: 316-1 Effective Date: March 20, 2014 #ales, Division Chief Page 1 of 2 This policy is meant to provide basic information for the most common conditionsand situations. In any given occupancy, many other Fire Code requirements may be enforced. General Information City and County of Denver Fire Code Section 316.4.1 prohibits the installation of electricsecurity fences because such fences can produce injury to living tissue. However,exceptions to this prohibition can be approved by the Fire Department on a case-by-casebasis for security fences that comply with the requirements outlined in this policy. Foreach individual site, design drawihgs and specifications must be submitted and anindividual operational permit for the installation, operation, maintenance, and repair ofthe fence will be required from the Fire Prevention Division. A Building Department permit is also required for fences in excess of four feet in height. Design All fences shall be designed in accordance with International Building Code Sections1609 and 1807. Only fences powered by a 12 volt direct current (DC) power source shall beconsidered. The following shall be required for approval of an electrified fence: . Provision for approved shutdown of fence power for emergency access. Propertyowner and fence manufacturer 24-hour contact information shall be provided in anapproved location for emergency access. . Procedures for facility inspection shall be developed and majntained on-site.. Specific approval by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) for theuse of the equipment under the relevant codes and standards and for the application of use at a specified location. . Provisions for fire drills and evacuation plan procedures, as applicable.. Installer certification issued by the fence manufacturer. . Lease agreement with equipment manufacturer to include equipmentmaintenance plan and associated services. . Electric fence shall be located within the perimeter of a non-electrified fence not less than six feet tall. . Electric fence and all associated operational components shall remain theproperty of the manufacturer and be maintained by same or manufacturerapproved contractor. V ADAMS COUNTY BUILDING SECTION BUILDING PERMIT i TH** PERM{r mlfED FORt OWNER RLYER HOLD{NOS-1,1£ -- -* -4 -- ........1 ....*I. -I 11)* ELECTRIC FENCE ADDRESS 2150 W 60™ AVE GENERAL CONTRACTOR ELECIER QUARD.90*,ll¢-. _ _. _FERM*T MBER DATE ISSUED 07/140014 POST 71113 CARD AT OR NEAR THE FRONT OF THE BUU.DING.BDP14-1303 INGPIC:nON WILL NOT U MADE UNUSS THE€ARD IS POSTED " ,--©_--1*1_NOTPOUR CONCRETE UNTILINSPECTEDAND APPROVED ¥¥PE OF INSPECTION S REQUIRED INSPECTION *aCODE DATEOFINSPECTION INSPECTOICSSIONATURE 100,1,No <'Al#*ONS El lou O ENG*NEER INSPECTED *611*UNFOM©*NO 0 1 30 0 ENC»INEER INSPEC¥20 WEATHER PROOFING O 120 0 ENGINEER INSPECTED UNDERGROUND FLUMB#NG O 130 StrRUCTURAL ELOOR 0 140 ROUGH El.ECTRICAL O BY STATE PERMIT ROUGH FIRE DISTRICT O BY FIRE DiSTRICT PERMT EXTERJOR SHEATHING 0150 ALL ROUGH*CAS 0160 (111,180, 110. 200) ROUGH FKAMING O 170 ROUGH PLUMBING o iSO ROUGH HEANNG O 190 ROUGH GASUNE 0200 INSULATION O 20S DRYWALL 0 210 LA 11+1*' IR F 0 220 CaLING GRID .O 230 SHOWER RECEPTOR 0 240 F,NAL LLECT,UCAL 0 8¥ STATE pe•Mer FINAl FfRE t*ST*ICT O 8¥ FIRE Ots™•CT P-:F CONSTRUCTION iNG,NEERING O PRIOR TO F INAL. 720*8114:4 ,PLANNING DEPARTMENT O PRIOR TO FFNAL 72*m-B SlORMWATE* MANAO*MENT : ¤ PRIOR TO FNAL 720234911 PRIOR TO FINAL)*&101*4$,6 411•COUNTY HEALTH C] PRIOH TOFINALjocti,DiNG FINAL ¢NSPECTION l E 300 1This catd mult be sigaed by 11% required *ps,0.0 & der•*une•ts,viot to ** or final,nspeemonOocupancy or * prior m applt,ved tinil inspection 540 11•Maitted Under pen,ky orflae and ofder kiv.cate Notify Bwilding Se,tion iwemy-four (24) houn in advance 41 im,pectio. ty.,]Nng iheim"mt"A#&*#6*'Mu:glim 4 94·49193.:N:J.-4/:1.4--A'igh . 1.1 31 CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER POLICY DENVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Subject: ELECTRIC FENCES Number: 316-1 Effective Date: March 20, 2014 Page 2 of 2 . Property owner and fence manufacturer shall maintain liability insurance of at least one million dollars ($1.000,000) 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 obtain permit from the Fire Department. . Upon cancellation/termination of the equipment lease, a!! electric fence components shall be removed and the Fire Department notified. . All equipment shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's installation instructions and appropriate equipment listings. There shall be NO EXCEPTIONS to this requirement. . Warning signage shall be posted in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations, with not more than 150 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 DOCUMENT · "..9.....'ll......v•.e...t CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER POUCY DENVER FIRE DEPARTMENT Subject:ELECTRIC FENCES Reference: Denver Fire Code 316A.1 Denver Building Code 312.2,3 Approved: a 1.A -. 7Jos#h L. GoQBles, Division Chief Number: 316-1 Effective Date: March 20, 2014 Page 1 of 2 This policy is meant to provide basic information for the most common conditionsand situations. In any given occupancy, many other Fire Code requirements maybe enforced. General information Cityand County of Denver Fire Code Section 316.4.1 prohibits the installation of electricsecurity fences because such fences can produce injury to living tissue. However,exceptions to this prohibition can be approved by the Fire Department on a case-brcase basis for security fences that comply with the' requirements outlined in this policy. Foreach individual site, design drawings; and specifications must be submitted and anindividual operational permit for tile installation, operation, maintenance, and repair ofthe fence will be required from the Fire Prevention Division. A Building Department permit is also required for fences in excess of four feet in height. Design Atl fences shall be designed in accordance with International Building Code Sections1609 anti 1807. Only fences powered by a 12 volt direct current (DC) power source shall beconsidered. The following shall be required for approval of an electrified fence: . Provision for approved shutdown of fence power for emergency access. Propertyowner and fence manufacturer 24-hour contact information shall beprovided in anapproved location for emergency aceess. . Procedures for facility inspection shall be developed an¢1 maintained on-site.. Specific approval by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) for theuse of the equipment under the relevant codes and standards and for the application of use at a specified location. . Provisions for fire„drills and evacuation plan procedures, as applicable,. Installer certification issued by the fence manufacturer. • Lease agreement with equipment manufacturer to include equipmentmaintenance plan and associated services. . Electric fence shall be located within the perimeter of a non-electrified fence notless than six feet tall. . Electric fence and all associated operational components shall remain theproperty of the manufacturer and be maintained by same or manufacturer approved contractor. / TH:. UN,yo.SITY' WISCONSIN MAD'SONSafety of electric security fencesJohn G.Webster Professor Emeritus of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison Madison Wl 53706 Electric current shocks us, not voltageMost of us can remember receiving an electric shock; it can happen during a regular day.How can that happen and when? Walking across a comet during dry weather, then touching adoorknob and feeling n spark that jumps to the doorknob is a very common way. Placing a fingerinside of a lamp socket that inadvertently was turned on is yet another. Touching the spark plugin a car or lawn mower has happened to many people as well. But why are we all still alive afterreceiving these electric shocks during a regular day? Weares/ill alive because even though thevoltage is high. not enough flectric current jlowed through our heart.Even when the voltage is high, when the current flows for only a very short duration wecan not be electrocuted. Furthermore, il is even hard to get:electrocuted in the home because thepower line voltage of 120 volts can't drive enough continuous current through the high resistanceof our dry skin. Kitchens and bathrooms falt in a different category; they are dangerous placesbecause our skin may be wet When our skin is wet, our skin resistance is low and permits alarge electric current to flow through the body as shown ih Figure 1.A large enough current cancause ventricular fibrillation. During ventricular fibrillation the pumpingaction of the heartceases and death occurs within minutes unless treated. In the United States. approximately 1000deaths per year occurin accidents that involve cord-connected appliances in kitchens. bathrooms,and other wet locations. W V m,11, Firmnmft, 111 i -0-,$>n':442314;*Mizi:*C1497*wu'4 W Hz ,:39 1.9, 2,54%t-3. €: i. 4. nfemholdef",6Eption 1 ¢ 1111 1 *R"d./4 /,11111 1 0 1 Ililli ,11 1 litill 1 1 itt 1 /111 mA tO mA 100 mA 1 A 10 4·100 AGO-Hit curfent, ms Figure 1 Physiological effects of electricity. Threshold or estimated mean values are given foreach effect in a 70 kg human fora l-to 3s exposure to 60 Hz current applied via copper wiresgrasped by the hands. From W. A. Olson, Electrical Safety, in J. G. Webster (ed.), Medicalhts/,wnentation Appticidion and Design, 3,11. ed., New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1998.Department of Biomedical Engineering2130 Engineering Centers Building University of Wisconsin-Madison 1550 Engineenng Drive Madison, Wisconsin 53 706-1 609608/263-4660 Fax: 608/265-9239 Email: bmeeengr.wise:.edu httpt//www.bme.wise.eduf -i- e ....w.:4-1-AN·W*-F®.,eMW:¢344*bM.%*.*4:6,3ew...16.2*e*„AW•*iS*A„· »-. nv ··- . ·· · · .. ....... f 2 Short duration pulses are safer than continuous electric current Figure 2 shows that shock durations longer than 1 second are the most dangerous. Notethat as the shock duration is shortened to 0.2 seconds, it requires much more electric current tocause ventricular fibrillation. Electric security fences have taken advantage of this fact byshortening their shock duration to an even shorter duration of about 0.0003 seconds. Therefore,electric security fences are safe and do not lead to ventricular fibrillation due to the short 0.0003 second shock duration. . 5000 - Fibrillation threshold 2000- 1000 - 500 - 200 - 100 - • 94 kg pony + 12 kg dog • tO kg dog 0 7.5 kg dog • 6.0 kg dog x 5.0 kg dog , 50-1 ..bl.<4 20 - 10 1 11 11 0,1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 Shock dulation, secondsFigure 2 Thresholds for ventricular fibrillation in animals for 60-Hz ac current. Duration ofcurrent (0.2 to 5 s) and weight of animal body were varied. Fibrillation current versus shockduration for a 70 kg human is about 100 milliamperes for 5 second shock duration. It increases toabout 800 milliamperes for 0.3 second shock duration. From L. A. Geddes, /EEE Trans. Biomed Eng., 1973, 20,465-468. Electricity near the heart is most dangerousThere are four situations where electricity may be applied close to the heart.(t) Figure3(b) shows when a catheter tube is threaded through a vein into the heart, any accidental currentis focused within the heart and a small current can cause ventricular fibrillation. (2) Cardiacpacemakers also pass electric current inside the heart, but the current is kept so small thatventricular fibrillation does not occur. (3) A Taser weapon may rarely shoot a dart between theribs very close to the heart and apply a 0.Of)01 second pulse, but this has not been shown to causeventricular fibritlation. Typically when a person takes an overdose of drugs, he creates adisturbance, police are called, the person refuses to obey, the police Taser him, afterwards hedies of a drug overdose, and the newspapers report, "Man dies after Taser shot." (4) Adefibrillator applies a 0.005 second, 40 ampere electric current. This causes massive heartcontraction that can change ventricular fibrillation to normal rhythm and save a life. '--**--/*.P'f'E-Mr;-553.e,em,.•ger-liy-i'·IM••D'$'J;,92· Lead 111 8 Lead 111 Macroshuck Micrushock 'L r'MUI 1 3331 ¥4J < Heart I A voltage C - Catheter I ac7 voltage /He.1 1 A 19 Figure 3 Effect of entry points on current distribution. (a) Macroshock externally appliedcurrent spreads throughout the body, (b) Microshock, all the current applied through anintracardiac catheter flows through the heart. From R J. Weibell, "Electrical Safety in the Hospital," Annals of8iomedical Engineering, 1974, 2, 126-148. When comparing an electric security fence to the above examples, we know that anelectric security fence is similar to Figure 3(a). Why do we know that? If a person contacts an electric fence, electric current is concentrated in the limbs and causes a deterrent shock; when it continues to pass through the torso, it spreads out and becomes more diffuse. Therefore as shownin Figure 3(a) and in Figure 2 electric security fences are safe because the deterrent shock spreads out and becomes more diffuse and is of a very short duration. Only power lines cause ventricular fibrillation Table 1 shows that short duration electric pulses, even though applied near the heart donot cause ventricular fibrillation. In contrast, the continuous current from power lines kills 1000 persons per year. Table 1 Only power lines cause ventricular fibrillation Duration of Current Likely to be pulse in in applied near seconds amperes heart? Power lines Continuous 0.1 No Electric 0.0003 10 No security fence 0.8 times/sec Taser 0.0001 2 May be 19 times/sec Cardiac 0.001 0.005 Yes pacemaker 1 time/sec Defibrillator 0.005 40 Yes 1 tinne Spark plug 0.00002 0.2 No 1 time I)oorknob 0.00002 0.2 No 1 time Caused ventricular fibrillation? 1000 per year No No No Cures ventricular fibrillation No No 3 Sentry Security Systems, LLC position on the relationship of security fences to codes and standards Electric fencing is used safely throughout the world, with applications for both animal control and commercialsecurity. In a commercial security setting. securily fences deter crime and help apprehend criminals. The merepresence of a security fence discourages unlawful entry, theft and the destruction ofproperty. Additionally. it iseasier to apprehend the determined criminal because the owner and police are notified instantaneously when thecriminal distorts or breaks the fence. Security fences also protect the people who work at a site, providing business owners and employees significant peace ofmind. The security fence sold by Sentry Security Systems is powered by a 12 volt DC marine (or similar) battery. TheNational Electric Code does not cover battery powered products such as smoke alarms. Therefore, the security fence sold by Sentry Security Systems is not covered by the NEC. There is in fact no US standard that addresses security fences whether main or battery powered. UL 69addresses animal control fences but not security fences. There iss however, a good international standard - 1EC 60335-2-76 - that addresses security fences. This standard is attached for your information. We respectfully request that you detennine that, as a battery powered device, security fences do not fall undcr the National Electric Code. 1 'si,mmea...ri'•I/*KI-a..%.......plir/¥7>7/'llet'll.w'.95¢'ll Safety of electric fence energizers Amit J. Nimunkarl and John G. Websterl 1Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin, 1550 Engineering Drive, Madison, WI 53706 USA. E-mail: Webster@ener.wisc.edu (John G. Webster) Tel 608-263-1574, Fax 608-265-9239 Abstract The strength-duration curve for tissue excitation can be modeled by a parallel resistor-capacitor circuit that has a time constant. We tested five electric fence energizers to determinetheir current-versus-time waveforms. We estimated their safety characteristics using the existingIEC standard and propose a new standard. The investigator would discharge the device into apassive resistor-capacitor circuit and measure the resulting maximum voltage. If the maximumvoltage does not exceed a limit, the device passes the test. Key words: strength,·duration curve, cardiac stimulation, ventricular fibrillation, electric safety,electric fence energizers, standards. 1. Introduction The vast majority of work on electric safety has been done using power line frequencies such as60 Iii Thus most standards for electric safety apply to continuous 60 Hz current applied hand tohand. A separate class of electric devices applies electric current as single or a train of shortpulses, such as are fbund in electric fence energizers (EFEs). A standard that specifically appliesto EFEs is IEC (2006). To estimate the ventricular fibrillation (VF) risk of EFEs, we use the excitation behavior ofexcitable cells. Geddes and Baker (1989) presented the cell membraneexcitation model (Analytical Strength--Duration Curve model) by a lumped parallel resistance-capacitance (RC) circuit This model determines the cell excitation thresholds for varyingrectangular pulse durations by assigning the strength-duration·rheobase currents, chronaxie, andtime constants (Geddes and Baker, 1989). Though this model was originally developed based onthe experimental results ofrectangular pulses, the effectiveness ofapplying this model for otherwaveforms has been discussed (IEC 1987, Jones and Geddes 1977). The charge-duration curve,derived from the strength-duration curve, has been shown in sound agreement with variousexperimental results for irregular waveforms. This permits calculating the VF excitationthreshold of EFEs with various nonrectangular waveforms. We present measurements on electricfence energizers and discuss their possibility of inducing VF. 2. Mathematical background and calculation procedures Based on the cell membrane excitation model (Weiss-Lapique model), Geddes and Baker (1989)developed a lumped RC model (analytical strength-duration curve) to describe the membraneexcitation behavior. This model has been widely used in various fields in electrophysiology tocalculate the excitation threshold. Figure 1 shows the normalized strength-duration curve fbrcurrent (4 charge (Q) and energy (U). The expression ofcharge is also known as the charge-duration curve which is important for short duration stimulation , 1 DO 1 (13 1 1 1 & 03 0001 0.01 0.1 10 10 100 Duration d/, Figure 1. Normalized analytical strength-duration curve for current 1, charge Q, and energy U The x axis shows the normalized duration of d/r. Note that for d << T Q is constant and the most appropriate variable for estimating cell excitation. (from Geddes and Baker, 1989). The equation for the strength-duration curve is (Geddes and Baker, 1989), t Av =IRO-e r), 0) where I is a step current intensity, R is the shunt resistance, Av is the depolarization potential threshold which is about 20 mV tbr myocardial cells, r is the RC time constant, and t is the time 1 is applied.Ifwe let the stimulation duration go to infinity, the threshold current is defined as the rheobase current U = b).If we substitute Iin equation (1) by b and define the threshold current 4 = av/R for the stimulation with duration d Equation (1) becomes,Id= b m1-e r We can calculate the threshold charge (Qd) by integrating equation (2) and it becomes, ,»· I,''4 0.·»U t....p>:u'·,n:TW,«- .....,0. :*em I/*ime.Nf=.·I For short duration stimulation (d << r ) with duration shorter than 0.1 times the RC timeconstant, equation (3) can be approximated by equation (4) and it yields equation (5), d a1.e 1 2-, (4)T Qd = bt (5) Equation (5) suggests that the charge excitation threshold for short duration stimulation isconstant and equals the product of the RC time constant T and the rheobase b. Ged<les andBouriand (1985) showed that the charge-duration curve for single rectangular, trapezoidal, halfsinusoid and critically damped waveforms had a good agreement for short duration stimulations.Therdfore we used the same model to estimate thresholds for stimulation sources where I was not constant, under the same stimulation setting. Cardiac cell excitation has been intensively studied at the 60 Hz power line frequencybecause most accidental electrocutions occur with 60 Hz current which has a longer durationrelative to the cardiac cell time constant ofabout 2 ms. However, EFEs operate with pulsedurations much shorter than the time constant. 3. Methods Figure 2 shows our experimental test set-up. The EFEs under test consist of Gallagher Group LtdPowerPlus B600 (EFEI), Gallagher Group Ltd PowerPlus B280 (EFE2), Speedrite HPB (EFE311ntellishock 20B (EFEA) and Blitzer 8902 (EFE5) EFEs. The short duration electrical pulsesfrom these EFEs are passed though a series of eleven 47 O (ARCOL D4.29, HS5047 R F)resistors which measure 518 0, which represents approximately the internal resistance of thehuman body. It is further connected to two 18 fURH 10 207 DALE 10 W 3%) resistorsconnected in parallel which measure 9.08 Q. This is used as the sensing resistor across which theoscilloscope measures the output voltage. For these very short pulses it is important to usenoninductive resistors because the same current flowing through a resistor that has substantialinductance will measure a larger current than a resistor that is noninductive, To reduceelectroinagnetic interference, a faraday cage, covered with aluminum foil, was connected toground. 'This diverted the electromagnetic interference to ground. The data were collected inEXCEL fbrmat from a disk in the Agilent 54621 oscilloscope. The calculations for differentparameters presented in Table 1 and the Figures 3-5 were plotted using MATLAB. 3 bd Qd='dd=d'(3) --- 1-e r Electric Fence //Enernizer 1 1 12,= 4-0 / 2 pF =d= re. W. 9,1% -- - ./4. i64 1 :Oscilloscope2 R, R2 R3 R 1 .,O. , 610 i 9.08 0 5 Agilent 54621 i Leak Detector Aiuminum foil Faraday cage S2 : Aluminum foil - Figure 2. The EFE is selected by Sl.The current flows through a string of 47 0 resistors R,-R „ (total 518 fl) which approximates the internal body resistance of 500 Q. The 9.08 0 yields a low voltage that is measured by the oscilloscope. 3.1. Determination of current EFEs are used in conjunction with fences wires to form animal control fences and security fences. We tested five EFEs (EFEt-EFES) using the experimental set-up in Figure 2 and obtained the output currents shown in Figure 3. 14 • EFEl - EFE2 12- .....,EFE3'l ---EFIE* 10 - -EFES 8-li' I & 1\ E 0 4- 2- .2 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Time (ps} Figure 3. The output current waveform for five EFEs. EFEl yields about 7.75 A for 151 tls= 1170 FC, EFE2 yields about 3.34 A for 345 lis = 1150 FC, EFE3 yields about 5.69 A for 91 Lis = :r.··SFMN..././'.>9...I-;rM4 4 S3 518 pC, EFE4 yields about 1.25 A for 252 ps= 315 BC and EFE5 yields about 5.7 A ibr 137 ps= 781 FC. 4. Results Table 1 shows the approximate results for the rms current, power, duration and charge for all theEFEs. Table 1 Approximate results for all EFEs. EFEs EFEl EFE2 EFE3 EFE4 ECF5 Parameters Units A (IEC) Total Energy Aw. ms 7.94 4.04 3.10 042 4.6995% Energy Duration ps 129 346 91 253 1386 A 7.65 3.33 5.69 1.25 5.69IEC Standard 6, A 13.0 6.21 16.8 7.85 7.37Pass IEC Standard Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes B. Proposed standard Voltage V 3.88 2.91 NAv NAv NAvDuration ps 233 132 Current A 3.33 4.41 Charge PC 776 582 NA- not applicable, NAv- not available IEC (2006) defines in 3.116 "impulse duration: duration ofthat part ofthe impulse thatcontains 95% ofthe overall energy and is the shortest interval of integration of 12(t) that gives95% ofthe integration of PU) over the total impulse. I(t) is the impulse current as a function oftime." In 3.117 it defines "output current: r.nls. value ofthe output current per impulsecalculated over the impulse duration." In 3.118 it defines "standard load: load consisting ofanon-inductive resistor of 500 0 3= 2.5 0 and a variable resistor that is adjusted so as to maximizethe energy per impulse or output current in the 500 0 resistor, as applicable." In 22.108,"Energizer output characteristics shall be such that - the impulse repetition rate shall not exceed1 Hz; - the impulse duration of the impulse in the 5000 component ofthe standard load shallnot exceed 10 ms; - for energy limited energizers the energy/impulse in the 500 0 component ofthe standard load shall not exceed 5 J; The energy/impulse is the energy measured in the impulseover the impulse duration. - for current limited energizers the output current in the 5000component of the standard load shall not exceed for an impulse duration of greater than 0.1 ms,the value specified by the characteristic limit line detailed in Figure 102; an impulse·duration ofnot greater than 0.1 ms, 15 700 mA. The equation ofthe line relating impulse duration Ons) tooutput current (mA) for 1 000 mA < output current < 15 700 mA, is given by impulse duration =41.885 x 10 x (output current)-134." We used these definitions and calculated the total energy,the shortest duration where 95% of the total energy occurs, the rms current for that duration fromFigure 3 for the EFEs (EFEl-EFE5). Similarly we calculated the output current using therelationship impulse duration = 41.885 x 103 x (output current)-134, pmvided by the IEC for allthe EFEs (EFEI-EFE5). Table 1 lists these under the heading "A. (IEC)". Table 1 shows that allthe EFEs pass the IEC standard. 5 5. Proposed new standard IEC (2006) uses the rms current for the shortest duration where 95% of the total energy occurs as the standard to determine if the EFE is safe for use. Geddes and Baker (1989) have shown that for pulses shorter than the cardiac cell time constant of 2 ms, the electric charge is the quantity that excites the cells. We propose a simple experimental set-up shown in Figure 2 to determine the maximum amount ofcharge that would flow from the EFEs and cause cardiac cell excitation. The cardiac cell is modeled as an RC circuit in Fig. 2 with R = 9.08 0 and C = 200 pF(GECONOL 9757511FC 200 pF &10% 250 VPK) with the RCtime constant of 1.82 ms. For the EFEs (EFEl and EFE2) the switches Sl and 94 are closed. This allows the 200 MF capacitor to charge rapidly (about 100 Fs) and discharge fairly slowly (r=RC = 1.82 ms). Figures 4 and 5 show the voltage vs time waveforms for the different EFEs. The test was not performed for electric fence energizers EFE3-EFES. 4 i -EFE1 3.5 3- 2.5 - 1- 0.5 - . . 1 1-0.5 1500 2000 2500 30000 500 1000 Time Ws) Figure 4. Output voltage waveform for EFEl. The maximal charge that flows through thecardiac cell model is given by Q = CK= 200 FiF x 3.88 V = 775 FlC, the current during which thecapacitor charges to maximal value is given by I = CP'/T = (200 uP x 3.88 V)/233 ps = 3.33 A. -'-4-,--M'-I-----nh,0.1mil1,0-0.'m.r,!W,8*W·te,?JeleLpJ-1-#**!2*%m!mF%7!WeM0%!rlWafra·meaey)7-00t';-·1137·,t"r'7·% f'SE'P·9"·I { 6 3 2.5- 2- 1.5- 1- 0.5 - 0 4.5 0 100 200 Voltage M 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Time (ps) Figure 5. Output voltage waveform for the electric fence energizers EFE20 The maximal chargethat flows through the cardiac cell model is given by Q = CF= 200 FF x 2.91 V = 582 KC, thecurrent during which the capacitor charges to maximal value is given by I = CRT = (200 FF x 2.91 V)/132 Ms = 4.41 A. 6. Discussion Geddes and Baker (1989) have shown that for pulses shorter than the cardiac cell time constantof2 ms, the electric charge is the quantity that excites cardiac cells. Because the first half wave isthe largest, the charge integrated in the first half wave determines cardiac cell excitation. Thenext halfwave discharges the cardiac cell capacitance and does not contribute to cardiac cell excitation. Thus we list integral /(t) = charge Q in Table 1. ]EC (2006) integrates P(t), which is roughly equal to /(t). Their Figure 102 roughlyfellows charge. We propose revising EFE standards for measuring current to determine a safety standardto prevent VF. The new standard would measure cardiac cell excitation. It would not require thecomplex calculations required to determine "The current which flows during the time period inwhich 95 percent o f the output energy (is delivered)." It would use a simple circuit similar to thatin Figure 2 composed ofresistors and a capacitor. The investigator would discharge the deviceinto the circuit and measure the maximum voltage. Ifthe maximum voltage does not exceed 5 V(as a conservative estimate), the IEEE passes the test. The 500 O resistor closely approximates theresistance ofthe body and determines the current that flows through the body. Acknowledgements We thank L Burke O'Neal and Silas Bemardoni for their help and suggestions. References 7 -EFE2 1 Geddes L A, and Baker L E 1989 Principles of applied biomedical instrumentation Okew York: John Wiley & Sons) pp 458-61 Ceddes L A and Bourland J D 1985 The strength-duration curve. IEEE. Trans. Biomed Eng. 32(6) 458-9 IEC \987 International Electrotechnical Commission IEC Report: gects of current passing through the human bo* GEC 60479-2) pp 47 IEC 1006 Household and similar etectrica! appliances - Safety - Part 2-76: Particular requirementsfor electric/ence energizers, (IEC 60335-2-76, Edition 2.1) Jones M and Geddes L A 1977 Strength duration curves for cardiac pacemaking and ventricular fibrillation Cardiovasc. Res. Center Bull. 15 101-12 5'm/4$52- i. 8 NORME CEI INTERNATIONALE IEC INTERNATIONAL 60335-2-76 STANDARD Edition 2.1 2006-04 Edition 2:2002 consoliddie par ramendement 1:2006Edition 2:2002 consolidated with amendment 1:2006 Appareils 61ectrodomestiques et analogues - Sacurita - Partie 2-76: Ragles particuliares pour les *lectrificateurs de c16tures Household and similar electrical appliances -Safety - Part 2-76: Particular requirements for electric fence energizers IEC Numdro de reMrence Reference number CEI/IEC 60335-2-76:2002+Al:2006 Customer: robert colton - No. of User(S): 1 - Company:Order No.: WS-2007-009528 - IMPORTANT: This Gte Is copyright of IEC, Geneva, Switzerland. All rights reserved.This file Is subject to a licence agreement Enquiries to Email: dustserv@lec.ch -Tel.: +41 22 919 02 11 60335-2-76 IEC:2002+Al:2006 - 49 - 22.108 Energizer output characteristics shall be such that - the impulse repetition rate shall not exceed 1 Hz:- the impulse duration of the impulse in the 500 A component of the standard load shall not exceed 10 ms; - for energy limited energlzers the energy/impulse in the 500 component of the standard load shall not exceed 5 J;NOTE The energy/impube is the energy measured in the impulse over the Impulse duration. - for current limited energizers the output current in the 500 A component of the standard load shall not exceed for O an impulse duration of greater than 0,1 ms, the value specified by the characteristjc limit line detailed in Figure 102; O an impulse duration of not greater than 0,1 ms, 15 700 mA.Compliance is checked by measurement when the energizer is supplied with the voltage in 11.5, the energizer being operated under conditions of normal operation but with thestandard load connected to its output terminals. When measuring the impulse repetition rate the standard load is not connected. 60335-2-76 A IEC:2002+Al:2006 - 51 -The measurements are made using a measuring arrangement with an input impedance consisting of a non-inductive resistance of not less than 1 Mt in parallel with a capacitance of not more than 100 pF. *-..:um'M'rB-/**K-2ft7™2*eal.69·r·t»5„?7»-M?¥amm'98"8'Tre.Me ·,7,--,7··9:me.I¥r- .-m//---%*-E-8/@0,4--- 60335-2-76 © IEC:2002+Al:2006 -61 - 100 10 - 0,1 0,01 h 100 1000 10 000 100 000 Output current (mA)lee 322,9 NOTE The equation of the line relating impulse duration (ms) to output current (mA) for 1 000 mA < outputcurrent< 15 700 mA, is given by Impulse duration = 41,885 x 103 x (output current)-1.34 Figure 102 - Current limited energlzer characteristic limit line Customer: robert calton - No. of User(s): 1 - Company:Order No.: WS-2007-009528 - IMPORTAME This nle is copyright of IEC, Geneva, Switzerland Alltights reserved.This fileissubject to alicence agreement. Enquiriesto Emn't: custserv@lec.ch-Tel, +41 22 919 02 11 60335-2-76 © IEC:2002+Al:2006 -81 - Annex CC (informative) Installation of electric security fences CC.1 General An electric security fence should be installed so that, under normal conditions of operation. !persons are protebted against inadvertent contact with pulsed conductors. 1 NOTE 1 This requirement is primarily Intended to establish that a desirable level of safety is present or is being i maintained in the physical barrier. NOTE 2 When selecting the type of physical barrier, the likely presence of young children should be a factor in i considering the size of openings. CC.2 Location of electric security fence The electric fence should be separated from the public access area by means of a physical barrier. Where an electric fence is installed in an elevated position, such as on the inner side of a window or skylight, the physical barrier may be less than 1,5 m high where it covers the whole of the electric fence. If the bottom of the window or skylight is within a distance of1.5 m from the floor or access level then the physical barrier need only extend up to a height i of 1,5 m above the fioor or access level. CC.3 Prohibited zone for pulsed conductors I Pulsed conductors shall not be installed within the shaded zone shown in Figure CC1. NOTE 1 Where an electric security fence is planned to run close to a site boundary, the relevant government 'authority should be consulted before installation begins, i NOTE 2 Typical electric security fence installations are shown in Figure CC2 and Figure CC3. 1 CC.4 Separation between electric fence and physical barrier Where a physical barrier is installed in compliance with CC.3 at least one dimension in any iopening should be not greater than 130 mm and the separation between the electric fence iand the physical barrier should be I - within the range of 100 mm 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 1 000 mm where any opening in the physical barrier has Elli dimensions i greater than 50 mm; - less than 200 mm or greater than 1 000 mm where the physical barrier does not have any openings. NOTE 1 These restrictions are intended to reduce the possibility of persons making inadverlent contact with thepoised conductors and to prevent them from becoming wedged between the electric fence and the physicalbarrier, thereby being exposed to multiple shocks from the energizer NOTE 2 The separation is the perpendicular distance between the electric fence and the'physical barrier. Customer: robert catton - No. of User(sk 1 - Company: ,Order No.: WS-2007-009528 - IMPOR¥ANT: This file is copylight of IEC, Geneva, Switze,land. Allrights reserved.This file is subject to a licence agreement. Enquiries to Email: 6ustserv@iec,ch-Tel.:+41 22 919 02 11 . . A- . a. . ...M,4 4........%....../.P"kr"'·w,el-/2.:.*·'erP/D5„?mm57™•."Neamn..9....tan•0„5=w»6.. 60335-2-76 © IEC:2002+Al:2006 -83- CC.5 Prohibited mounting Electric fence conductors should not be mounted on a support used for any overhead power line. CC.6 Operation of electric security fence The conductors of an electric fence should not be energized unless all authorized persons,within or enlering the secure area, have been informed of its location. Where there is a risk of persons being injured by a secondary cause, appropriate additionalsafety precautions should be taken. NOTE An example of a secondary cause is where a person may be expected to fall from a surface if contact ismade with pulsed conductors. Customer: robert catton - No. of User(s): 1 - Company:Order No. WS-2007-009528 - IMPORTANT: This file is copyright of IEC. Garieva, Switterland. Atl rights reserved.This file is subject to a licence agreement Enquiries to Emalt custserv@lec.ch -Tel.: +41 22 919 02 11 60335-2-76 © IEC:2002+Al:2006 -85- E '015105 Key A = Secure area B - Public access area 1 Physical barrier Prohibited area Electric security fence Figure CC. 1 - Prohibited area for pulse conductors Customer. robert calton - No. 01 User(sk 1 - Company:Order No. WS-2007-009528 - IMPORTANT: Thisnle is copyrightof IEC, Geneva. Switzerland. All rights reserved.This file Is subject to a licence agreement Enquilies to Email: custserv@lec.ch -Tel.: +41229190211 ., Il,, ' ....% . 14.. i.·,- „,Y .U' ...00/m;29™29/»me»I./.mt/'F.M€-m,u„.7-5/t/'MM•·'"M•'!=TWAN,I'. . 1 60335-2-76 © IEC:2002+Al:2006 07 - MM MMMrM M M 70 MM i Mn M MMM M 1 500 mm min.IMM MAM M 1 500 mm min. C E En;WEPEE %55;re-7 Mla ZNFACm FrAVEuV 8:Ng=ge ===12 21 C () A MM h @ "MM BMM M 1 500 mm min.WUUWWUW 1 500 mm min. U Wn'ZEE WPAY&.N Em NRN BREFF - tEC 1820/05 Key A = Secure area B = Public access area C = Barrier where required 1 = Electric security fence 2 = Physical barrier Figure CC.2 - Typical constructions where an electric security fence is exposed to the public Customer: robert calton - No. of User(s): 1 - Company: Order No.: WS-2007-009528 IMPORTANT: This rle is copyright of IEC. Geneva Switzerland. Allrights reserved.This file is subject to a licence agreement. Enquiries to Emat custserv@iec.ch - fel.: +41 22 91902 11 . 60335.2-76 © IEC:2002+Al:2006 -89- -r 6.4 @ 4 IEC 1821/05 Key A = Secure area B = Public access area C = Barrier where required D = Glass window pane E = Skylight in roof 1 = Electric security fence 2 = Physical barrier Figure CC.3 - Typical fence constructions where the electric security fence is installed in windows and skylights Customer. robert calton - No. of User(s): 1 - Company:Order No.: WS-2007-009528- IMPORTANT: This file is copyright of IEC, Geneva, Switzerland. All Mghts reserved.This file is subject to a licence agreement Enquifies to Emall: custserv@iec.ch -Tel.: +41229190211 1 60335-2-76 © IEC:2002+Al:2006 -91 - Bibliography The bibliography of Part 1 is applicable except as follows. Addition: IEC 60335-2-86,Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 2-86: Particularrequirements for electric fishing machines \EC 50335-2-87, Household and similar electrical appliances - Safety - Part 2-87. Particularrequirements for electric animal stunning equipment Customer. robert calton - No. of User(s): 1 - Company:order No.: WS-2007-009528 - IMPORTANT: Th,s file is copyright of IEC, Geneva, Switzerland. All rights reserved.This file is subject to e licence agreement Enquiries to Email: custserv@iec.ch - Teld +41 22 91902 11 SITE PLAN LEGEND .)7 0//MinGRAPHIC SCALE REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE A ----.... a-Z-% --- --2,4-*. 1.... ;SECURITY SYSTEM -0.- ..m<'p, A 2 tich - 60 n. -------..0 KETELSON CAMPERS ----------c,C- remn- 9870 1-70 FRONTAGE ROAD 8GOLDEN, CO 80401 ™ . -1 - -ac-1 ./• •r 33 1 -7 -z . - ... i b .'h83 33 .1·. 8 8 --... § .. /-7.1 - *1 .- EEMW=0612* '€- "C T .'C' 00"'-C--• Cl tai*•9 60©8-c 0, r -,r•- SEECE#lia :-- C»-ad t•®m-5 c» 0€ --tr• -i E, E. 1KOONU 6 i zi ;' gi 1 Cl P-- -i6 E9 23- 1.g FE 1%@E-1 :2 & 2.. -- - 1 Url ----- 402; - 21*M 3,1,. @ niz i6i i; E 'rn g =!'1 1)41'. 4 /a) I 4% -LU4 4 K 4, 0 4%6 i , i' :q:€---- 1- 1 3I . L--- 0 1 gs:d 6i 777 gM g d r RONTAGE trunw ,/ -i Eii --... -65 7 U =13i: 3 6EL10 1 31 1 IS cii :q .g 3 DEVELOPER W C-* 1 OCU™ 50 ..r : PROJECT DATA e -1H & 0/// 1.'C;0/51/2 C-lt--/ -,01 f••C) t -64 -#27 10•Er. h. ib 1 rmnwrvt E=-£.ev . //-m-//-2/1/ /-ZZ2-"-01 / OW t. ./- -0 00 =1 9. CO€*t t.... C-·. ./ --5,= C-· 'oc ../0 ...n ==2 , § *SR N-02 2N g .0 I - >1 VAR 1 1. 2(14 e., 0,157746 -Crve-7€ 'r'<5 sec-OV 2,1-"46 Pri·vr-r• r„Cr Nec-O•.27-745 -rt'vrri Pr••Ce MOC-Ov 55NMWOn:A '- .*I...- ./"./,/,'./..$6:r'/i../i."'7&.0,../VICINITY MAP *09 9 SCA-E 1 OF 3 1 *luo'.Cm/'/- C DIA. (MIN.) SCH. 40 -1 STEEL POLE. Fy=35 ks; \ PER ASTU A252, GRADE 2 WITH CAP 1-1/2= DIA. (MIN.)7FIBERGLASS POLE. TENCOM (OR EQUIV.) Fu=25.000 PS, 7.-70' WIRES PER INSTALLAnON - INSTRUCDONS (TYP.) \WIRES PER INSTALLATION - - INSTRUCnONS (TYP.) c _txib,ING GRADE . , EXISnNG GRADE- ------- 2.500 PSI MIN - -- 4 CONCRETE 1 -t3 STRANDS OF WIRE -" -\'3*== D10 EXTENDED C MIN.-29-73, NOPE:FOR ANCHOR 0-BC CO,SIRUCTON. STEEL POLE ILL NE SUPPORTED EXTERNALLY TO ASSURE 2-6#N SPAC»IC FROW DOTTOW OF FOOT»•C ' 1 9 UIN. STEEL POLE DETAIL FIBERGLASS POLE DETAI L NTS N TS 40! _ Ul 10 0- ROU- iPI IVI' MCIO• - UT,11. E..0.... 3..1 -6-t>-Ho,A ........1 - ......1' 1- C.011 0 r- Pual " HOT 0 0• 0-0%,n "/S O' b•1 •0•1 r© 1,1•,NT Gootili iC>i 171•T-GIl= --«)--HOT ALARMED AND MONITORED .0 0. r-" T..1 16 C>- le, 3 I./.-0 .CM ./.'TE... r 15 -)407 .1 1 2e4 7,000 1 .1.... W....'.. .14 0 - 1 111. Wa--0 5•GIC -M' . -&0 -- 00 It 17 -•C•u ./1 0 -MOT E / n. MA-U" DISTA// *40¥ -- k 1 8.8 5 b. 1.1.•04.¥ Ve./ L...6.0/ S•ouo I ..m'InD. so .... 1 1 OWI $•Gal '1/0-G W &110 1-64 9£)- Z m B 5 #¥ p S .....0..........0-..U •lut/O ou™- ./ .</ e Al. W"-IG le.$ t.OULD - 1 0- <)-,r'-l)'33 p. - =No.OuNTED Dir.11. W.5 12 & 1, 7 5 ?62 0 O--/9/ 8 /2 6 EALARMADO Y SUPERVISADO ' ty ¥ :GE 2. i PELIG iii] Cerca Elarica.1'AES /. 3 {773-1 1 i 0- .0, 0 -0.280™ ENGLS,4 NO -Ah94 bERSON , TH -,Am-t .-..SION- IL BI PLACED CillY GO rECT •AnkAL U 52*=' MAR 11.2014 WA EXAMPLE WARNING SIGNS WIRE CONNECTIONS 2 OF 3 NTS NTS t 1 -CM EXT™SION ExE cit:HAM5-"•GS 174- ABERGLASS POLE GATE / OUTSIDE WOuNT THREE EMPTY GALVANIZE) SILVER 11 1 BOXES TO A DAIR OF- 3• GALVAAIZED EVT IBUCE BANDS BUCE BANDS ,VOUNTED I l ELECTRONICS ELECTRICAL CONDUIT STEEL PXES. ' THE BOTTOW OF THE LOWEST BOX WUS- 30 AT i=2: =LONG ENO1 1.Nos LEAST 2 rEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AND TFE IAlouND POLE POLES MUS- BE ANCHORED AT LEAST 5'-61 6 BELOW GROUND .EVEL . 1 t G/0-0 IGI ,%-11 • GIOUNDED TOTo,00,1 CHA1 LmI GATE - 10.4 •-4 11©2) i Z · E ij 2mfvo'- 04-4 U.. aATICON $•-9 -11 14.-I•-d.,0.-bibeL 1.................... SOLAR PANE.-5 SIREN TYP (2) PLCS - ALARy +ANEL (24'x361 - BAT-ERY (24'X36")- CONTRO-LER (24%36)- 3 0 GALV. EWT ELECTRICAL CONDUIT TYP (2) PLCS- k Z -L CATE <Al /1-L .07 .rrECT r.42-0.X - 7 4 CAtS) GATE DETAIL 4 75 ' r2 <-VME RUN CHAU 1 -E@-39€---All =pos,d -re 8 reou•- 3/4E •lectrical M locond • - /1 L r r \1 L 10€...1 IN 50• FI Al- W 1 411 OUTDOOR :\LAIVA .0, itt 121 KeND / Krnwrro• CO?IMULLER (ill'/Et DO.<) EXISTNG GRADE 2.500 PSI (MIN) CONCRETE INP- 1 T g 10 Cond 1. i *154334; U 1 11 , u J CO< 7 75 Z e i 0 /2 Ge-® 100$ BARE C-ER I< 0 Tvo 90- :Co-'NOE \EAPPESt /61 3.1 / AE S-EEL DOLE DETA L 1-11 F.Id FENG*--- 5 2 1 + i€ Z. g Io Roi I : 5 i E. 1 1 il Ze E i *1·MAR.11.2014 •C,d VA 1 Fs/•4: THE •0*TED Elf:™0•CS *1 01 LOCATED A- -LAST 20' r..C» Ff rt•,2 ...rWIRE RUN DETAILS 3 OF 32•SCIA-:it nECT*C»•CS LOCATO € SLE-ECT TO sri C)01•*S . NTS WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MOTION TEMPLATE CASE NO: WA-15-03 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, ChiefBuilding 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. 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 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 ofthe regulations governing the City of Wheat Ridge, I, therefore, move to adopt a Resolution APPROVING Case No. WA-15-03 Ifthereare reasons, state "for the following reasons...'7 . PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT April 23, 2015 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-14-11) 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 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 1 foot on property located at 9850 - 9870 West 1-70 Frontage Road South. (Please print) Name Address In Favor/Opposed J -- City ofW he at Kidge LETTER NOTICE CERTIFICATION (as required pursuant to Code Section 26-109.D) Case No.: WA-15-03 Date of Board of Adjustment hearing: April 23, 2015 1 Kim Waggoner, Administrative Assistant, Community Development Department, hereby certify that I mailed a total of 111 letters on April 8, 2015 to the attached recipient list at least 15 days prior to a scheduled public hearing. Signature: VV Date:4 (Elly Ak., City of-Wheat Ridge POSTING CERTIFICATION CASE NO. WA-15-03/Electric Guard Dog PLANNING COMMISSION / CITY COUNCIL / BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (Circle One) HEARING DATE:_April 23, 2015 I. ti',AA.rci CO /)42 1 1-+5 (n a iii e) relidingat-7970- £4 -1570 Dc-Fvii c /1,n-4-6 *3595 A) f-1/k/,4, i £4-0 (address)Ly tic_N g 1 eu toga-a_ as the applicant for Case No. WA-15-03, hereby certify that I have posted the Notice of Public Hearing at 9850-9870 West 1-70 Frontage Road South on this day of 23 ,20/5- , and do hereby certify that said sign has been posted and remained in place for fifteen (15) days prior to and including the scheduled day of public hearing o f this case. The sign was posted in the position shown on the map below. 7 Signature.e=€--,----0'- NOTE: This form must be submitted at the public hearing on this case and will be placed in the applicant's case file at the Community Development Department. See attached L A 4 U 1, 1k -"--1. 4-lz --*teffOONEBRAMIm!70.OFF.EBRAMP-- I04795 14£i ; 1 %24iiyiRi'e iFF-FINTAGE Rol -4.- -. M• 1 1 i. f ''e f3 I D - 047001 lia imic==am El. EIUZf;!Ir7098801q.r,£ :.*di I ./.0&£1781- Il r'.10#Pji]' E-=,!m:,!E9*#mfYy04617 /Ye• .&I 10330/ C , 1111*:<99'IN;#85, IWIED,561 6!04590!1 045651 04550 | It011-im.-=41 1 1 11 { 1 0,665 | 04665 1 04635 F-04635- 0461 09890 04590 04565 04465 #4 lilli ta /984 1.' L '04483*4 00506 1'011. 11 !. Ill_ 11 1:,1 09995 1- =28 ! 111 / 1 10 1 -mp kAE .Tti.%"la t 09859 Meredith Reckert From:Huxley Robert B <rhuxley@jeffco.k12.co.us> Sent:Monday, April 20, 2015 9:28 AM To:Meredith Reckert Subject:RE: electric fence Meredith, Thanks for the clarification on the fence: 9 ft. tall and non-electrified fence adjacent to Pennington's property line. Children and adults reaching the electrified fence from the Pennington property would not be an issue in this case, although children and adults reaching the electrified fence at other locations may still be a concern. As you know children are very curious and their safety should be a top priority on and off Jeffco school sites. Bruce Bruce Huxley, R.A. LEED AP, CEFPI Director, Planning and Property Construction Management Jeffco Public Schools Office: 303-982-2340 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, do not review, distribute, or copy the message or any attachments. Immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. From: Meredith Reckert [mailto:mreckert@ci.wheatridge.co. usl Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:23 AM To: Huxley Robert B Subject: RE: electric fence Hi, Bruce The fence is proposed to be 9' in height. The portion adjacent to Pennington will look the same as the rest but will not carry current. Nevertheless, we are still requesting a 3' offset from the perimeter fence. Let me know if you have additional questions. Meredith From: Huxley Robert B [mailto:rhuxlev@ieffco.k12.co.usl Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 8:54 AM To: Meredith Reckert Subject: RE: electric fence Meredith, E 1 . It was our understanding that there was agreement that the fence would be a non-electrified 9 ft. fence. It looks like this has changed? Also, we are concerned about maintenance of the strip of land between Jeffco's fence line and wherever the final security fencing will be placed. Thanks, Bruce Bruce Huxley, R.A. LEED AP, CEFPI Director, Planning and Property Construction Management Jeffco Public Schools Office: 303-982-2340 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, do not review, distribute, or copy the message or any attachments. Immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message. From: Meredith Reckert [mailto:mreckert@ci.wheatridge.co.usl Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 8:48 AM To: Huxley Robert B Subject: electric fence Hi, Bruce Lauren Mikulak provided me your name as a contact with Jefferson County schools property management. I just wanted to let you know that I had been corresponding with Brendan Willits earlier this year with regard to a situation with Pennington elementary here in Wheat Ridge. The adjacent property owner (Randy Ketelsen) would like to install an electronic security system around the perimeter of his property which is used as RV storage. The RV storage lot abuts Pennington on both the west and north sides. Essentially, an electric fence would be built inside an existing perimeter chain link fence. The security system contractor (Electric Guard Dog) typically installs the electric fence one foot inside the perimeter fence. Due to concerns for children, as well as adults, being able to reach through the chain link and touch the electric fence, the city is requiring a 3' offset. Mr. Ketelsen and his contractor have challenged the requirement for the 3' offset, claiming that the l' offset is not a safety concern. We are scheduled to go before the Board of Adjustment on April 23 for an interpretation as to the safety of the 1' fence offset versus the 3' fence offset. I wanted to give you a heads up in case you wanted to attend, express concerns, etc. This is a public hearing that will begin at 7 PM. Let me know if you have any questions. I have attached my latest correspondence with Brendan. Meredith Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner th7500W.29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Office Phone: 303-235-2848 FAX: 303-235-2857 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us t 2 Meredith Reckert From:Kenneth Johnstone Sent:Wednesday, April 01, 2015 12:46 PM To:Meredith Reckert Subject:RE: Electric Guard Dog Thanks. This is a tough one. 1 think we want to somehow incorporate the code language regarding it being determined to be unsafe. See below. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 rt-4--. . T,City Of 2 Ridge COMMUNITY DIVELOPMENT From: Meredith Reckert Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2015 11:10 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone Cc: Kim Waggoner; Joshua Botts Subject: RE: Electric Guard Dog Hi, Ken Here is the language I came up with for a description of the safety interpretation for Electric Guard Dog. This would be language also used for the official publication. Let me know if you have any changes. 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-14-11) 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 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 1 foot on property located at 9850 - 9870 West 1-70 Frontage Road South. Thanks! Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2848 FAX: 303-235-2857 City of-'7Wheat-1£coMMUNITY DEVELOPM,:™ aRidge From: Kim Waggoner Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 8:52 AM 2* 1 To: Joshua Botts; Meredith Reckert Subject: Electric Guard Dog I wanted to verify the language we would like to use for the description of the case and the publication. The following is the description on the application. Request for interpretation of safety as part of case #WA1411. Safety interpretation pertains to the separation of EGD security fence and existing perimeter fence. EGD's safety separation is 12-inches. Staff is requesting 3-feet without scientific evidence of safety being compromised. Here is the description for the Mandy Black case no. WA-14-09 An application filed by Mandy Black for an appeal of an administrative zoning determination related to wild animal rehabilitation in residential zone districts. The applicant is requesting an interpretation that would allow wild animal rehabilitation at 11781 W. 46th Avenue based on it being a similar use to the keeping of household pets and small animals and poultry as defined in Sections 26-123 and 26-606 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. Please advise Kim Waggoner Administrative Assistant 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Office Phone: 303-235-2846 Fax: 303-235-2846 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 46 40 ,¥ -cily or9 WheatR.idge--' OOMMUNITY DEVELOPMEFF CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business-confidential information. lt is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. lf you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any network to which your computer is connected. Thank you. 2 fnetiectric Guarau,* 0 The #1 Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. 121 Executive Center Drive • Suite 230 Columbia, SC 29210 Phone: (803) 404-6189 I Fax: (803) 404-5378 February 16, 2015 City o f Wheat Ridge Attn: Joshua Botts Community Development Dept7500 W. 2gth Avenue Wheat Ridge CO 80033-8001 RE:Interpretation of Fence Separation Ketelsen Campers 9870 W I-70 Service Road Mr. Botts: Please accept this package as the pre-application materials submittal for the above referenced location. Enclosed in the package are the following: 1. Narrative Statement 2. Check in the amount of $220.00 3. 3 setsofsiteplans (llxl7) 4. 3 sets of Webster Safety Document 5. 3 sets of IEC 60335.2.76 6. 5 sets of site plans (24x36) Please confirm receipt of this package. Michael Pate will be attending the pre-application meeting on Thursday, March 3rd at 2PM. Please let me know if there is anything additional needed. Have a great day! Thank.you, Carol Bausinger Compliance Manager The Electric Guard Dog The #1 Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. Perimeter Security that Stops Crime Before it Happens Joshua Botts From:Carol Bausinger <CBausinger@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com> Sent:Monday, March 30, 2015 8:19 AM To:Joshua Botts Subject:RE: Pre-Application Mtg w/ Electric Guard Dog Attachments:3-30-15 BOA Materials.pdf; IEC 60335-2-76 critical sections.pdf; Webster Safety Document.pdf Josh: Attached is the remainder of the submittal. I'm finishing up the initial letter but wanted to get this to you. We had server issues this morning - ugh! Please review and let me know if any changes should be made. Thanks again! C«,0 8 wtil 04- Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Carol Bausinger Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 2:20 PM To: 'Joshua Botts' Subject: RE: Pre-Application Mtg w/ Electric Guard Dog Josh: Attached is the Land Use application. Thank you, CArot 13#*V er Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Joshua Botts [mailto:jbotts@ci.wheatridae.co.usl Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 1:35 PM To: Carol Bausinger Subject: RE: Pre-Application Mtg w/ Electric Guard Dog http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/402/Variances See Variance Checklist Josh Botts Planner I Office Phone: 303-235-2849 'k., r Cily of-54 W heatRidge- COMMUNIn' DEVU.OPMJENT From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinaer@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.coml Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 10:40 AM To: Joshua Botts Subject: RE: Pre-Application Mtg w/ Electric Guard Dog 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT on April 23, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments.Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. The following petition shall be heard: 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-14-11) 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 o f 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 1 foot on property located at 9850 - 9870 West I-70 Frontage Road South and legally described as follows: Parcel 1: Lot 1, D & M Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, except those portions conveyed to the State Department of Highways by deeds recorded July 10, 1984 at Reception Numbers 84064492 and 84064495. Parcel 2: Lot 1, Block 1, Ketelsen Addition Minor Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. Parcel 3: Lot 2, Block 1, Ketelsen Addition Minor Subdivision, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. {Kim Waggoneir, Admit).Istrati¥* As$ist.(Int CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing to consider Case No. WA-15-03, a request 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 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 1 foot on property located at 9850 - 9870 West I-70 Frontage Road South. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers, Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on April 23, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. The full text of this notice is available in electronic form on the City's official website, www.ci.wheatridge.co.us, Legal Notices. Copies are also available in printed form in the Community Development Department. Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript, April 9,2015 City ofW heatRidge - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29'11 Ave.Wheat Ridge. CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 LETTER NOTICE (As required pursuant to Code Section 26-109. D) April 8,2015 Dear Property Owner: This is to inform you of Case No. WA-15-03, a request 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 o f 3 feet iii 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 1 foot on property located at 9850 - 9870 West I-70 Frontage Road South. This request is scheduled for a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Complex at 7500 West 29th Avenue. The schedule is as follows: Board of Adiustment April 23,2015 @ 7:00 p.m. As an area resident or interested party, you have the right to attend this Public Hearing and/or submit written comments. If you have any questions or desire to review any plans, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846. Thank you, City o f Wheat Ridge Planning Division Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of W-heat Ridge. If you need inclusion assistance, please call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting. WA 1503.doc Site Map The green line indicates the location of the proposed electric fence. GltAPM. SC- 8E SITE PLAN REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE A SECURITY SYSTEM KETELSON CAMPERS 98701-70 FRONT-AGE ROAD GOLDEN. CO 80401 -2-- LEGEND M. E,4,7-9- E·GaMFUGP -i j 14 ' .1. 0. ii U lit ME ;4 Eli .ti.- - --:4 i;i =Z* Li& :il 1.6. 11 .1 !, Electric Guard Do Te ?_:f;0it % M * -OJECI ..TA 1 49 1 H A·vt 1 4890 0992 I i. .111 123'-" L m L 1 9 ' i 04 , L..: ric,#,Ar, ...liw-1Vicinity Map u 1 Z» 1 , Alk.i.:i -'-- --A417: FROt·JTAGE iiI 047751 Nri N I04730 .ii@J!-(4 9I [047301)149518fo@z.:toEZE 'IMEMP.---.:grzpj«+ITWI.*414;Zili..... 'Alril 5 53242 0465010*42 11 -.17JI·IAVEI:,iLia£Z,- 4*4679 111 c:...b- 1/f'i I 0+3591/ . L·/- Luity. 0467,-i' C.=111 !'04084 41/:459% . 046400465,5:| 5.6 [04520]1045331 u4725 10 311[lw NEWl 2% 45851 • P"ohl! /41 /. ..4/ : 1-AX •u - sim i 4600 KIPLING LLC 1250 8TH ST MANHATTAN BEACH CA 92066 GOING GREEN LLC 4765 INDEPENDENCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 LEIGHT HAROLD C LEIGHT CAROLE Q 400 W 48TH AVE DENVER CO 80216 CONVENIENCE RETAILERS LLC 7180 KOLL CENTER PKWY 100 PLEASANTON CA 94566 RAHMANI AZAR GHOLAMREZA 10 E 120TH ' AVE NORTHGLENN CO 80233 LAG B OMER PARTNERSHIPMENORAH SIX LIMITED LIABILITY CO 1400 GLENARM PL 201 DENVER CO 80202 JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIST Rl 1829 DENVER WEST DR GOLDEN CO 80419 KETELSEN CAMPERS OF COLORADO INC 9870 W I-70 FRONTAGE RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 KETELSEN VENTURES LLC 9850 I-70 FRONTAGE RD WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 HOUGHTON ALAN J HOUGHTON KATIE F 8207 W BROOK DR LITTLETON CO 80128 TRISIMO MOTEL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLC THE RIVETT GROUP LLC PO BOX 4850 ABERDEEN SD 57402 LARSON JEANNE M 4697 INDEPENDENCE ST WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 BROADRIDGE SECURITIES PROCESSINGSOLUTIONS INC 2 JOURNAL SQUARE PLAZA JERSEY CITY NJ 7306 TACO BELL CORP TBC TAX UNIT# 16239 PO BOX 35370 LOUISVILLE KY 40232 SIMPSON VIRGINIA E SIMPSON DAVID 4693 INDEPENDENCE ST 2 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 GUY BRADLEY E GUY DANA M 4679 INDEPENDENCE ST 1 WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 INDEPENDENCE SQUARE CONDO OWNERS ASSC CHRISTY SCHAFER 2851 S PARKER RD 840 AURORA CO 80014 LIPPOTT ELSIE MARIEMUNSELL MARY LEE 6380 W 47TH PL WHEAT RIDGE CO 80033 Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 4600 KIPLING LLC JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIS* BROADRIDGE SECURITIES PROCE{SOLUTIONS INC -FFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIS- GOING GREEN LLC j KETELSEN CAMPERS OF COLORA[ -FFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL D15 TACO BELL CORP LEIGHT HAROLD C LEIGHT CAROLE Q JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIE KETELSEN VENTURES LLC | SIMPSON VIRGINIA E ISIMPSON DAVID .<%6600 KIPLING LLC " CONVENIENCE RETAILERS LLC | -JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIS- GUY BRADLEY E GUY DANA M HOUGHTON ALAN J HOUGHTON KATIE F --UEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DE RAHMANI AZAR GHOLAMREZA | -KETELSEN CAMPERS OF COLORA[ TRISIMO MOTEL DEVELOPMENT CQ „JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIS- LdEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOL DIS- INDEPENDENCE SQUARE CONDO C LAG B OMER PARTNERSHIP MENORAH SIX LIMITED LIABILI -4600 KIPLING LLC 4,0,1. --4600 KIPLING LLC *---KETELSEN CAMPERS OF COLORAC LARSON JEANNE M LIPPOTT ELSIE MARIE MUNSELL MARY LEE Company TBC TAX UNIT# 16239 THE RIVETT GROUP LL CHRISTY SCHAFER Mailing Address St Street Name IType 1250 i8TH ST 1829 DENVER WEST DR 2 JOURNAL SQUAR 1829 DENVER WEST DR 4765 INDEPENDENCE ST 9870 W 1-70 FRONTAGE RD 1829 DENVER WEST DR PO BOX 35370 400 W 48TH AVE 1829 DENVER WEST DR 9850 1-70 FRONTAGE RD 4693 INDEPENDENCE ST 1250 8TH ST 7180 KOLL CENTER PKWY 1829 DENVER WEST DR 4679 INDEPENDENCE ST 8207 W BROOK DR 1829 DENVER WEST DR 10 E 120TH AVE 9870 W 1-70 FRONTAGE RD PO BOX 4850 1829 DENVER WEST DR 1829 DENVER WEST DR 2851 S PARKER RD 1400 GLENARM PL 1250 8TH ST 1250 8TH ST 9870 W 1-70 FRONTAGE RD 4697 INDEPENDENCE ST 6380 W 47TH PL Unit City State MANHATTAN BECA GOLDEN CO JERSEY CITY NJ GOLDEN CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO GOLDEN CO LOUISVILLE KY DENVER CO GOLDEN CO WHEAT RIDGE CO 2 WHEAT RIDGE CO MANHATTAN BECA 100 PLEASANTON CA GOLDEN CO 1 WHEAT RIDGE CO LITTLETON CO GOLDEN CO NORTHGLENN CO WHEAT RIDGE CO ABERDEEN SD GOLDEN CO GOLDEN CO 840 AURORA CO 201 DENVER CO MANHATTAN BE CA MANHATTAN BE CA WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO Zip Property Address St 92066 4590 80419 4617 7306 4725 80419 4617 80033 4765 80033 9870 W 80419 4617 40232 4795 80216 4775 80419 4617 80033 9850 80033 4693 92066 4600 94566 4750 80419 4617 80033 4679 80128 4745 80419 4617 80233 4700 80033 9890 57402 10101 80419 4617 80419 4617 80014 80202 9830 W 92066 4650 92066 80033 9880 80033 4697 80033 4659 Street Name Type KIPLING ST INDEPENDENCIST INDEPENDENCi ST INDEPENDENCIST INDEPENDENCIST 1-70 FRONTAGE RD INDEPENDENCIST KIPLING IST KIPLING ST INDEPENDENC|ST 1 70 FRONTAGERD INDEPENDENCIST KIPLING KIPLING ST INDEPENDENCIST INDEPENDENCIST INDEPENDENCIST INDEPENDENCIST KIPLING ST 1-70 FRONTAGERD 1-70 FRONTAGE RD INDEPENDENCIST INDEPENDENCIST VACANT LAND I 1-70 FRONTAG@RD KIPLING ST VACANT LAND 1-70 FRONTAGERD INDEPENDENC ST INDEPENDENC ST City State WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO GOLDEN CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGECO WHEAT RIDGE;CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGEICO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGEICO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGECO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGEi CO WHEAT RIDGE'CO WHEAT RIDGE CO WHEAT RIDGE CO Zip Use 80033 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80401 €OMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 THOME 80033 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 THOME 80033,COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 COMMR 80033 80033 80033 80033 THOME 80033 THOME PL \1 \t fr H FAVE i#=-i714 g-rA»vg• 04891 ,MI · 095#07 ' P..g 4 7 101 - G"IN ..//1,1/,1 -L==9-2-r ilka,0- 8.1.'G 04851 ,- - .*,-3== 15{it*#YWY f 'Ff - .. -e- e -tt-=r -- -i' --11 Ali} 1 =<1 - * |=U 'lemili= ,- 1 -- 1-*Ze:,il2:Hill..=!31111 Ir_'204617=Em."Im/164"P. --W---1 --624 -0 EN.lulUJ1 ILI// 1= 04551 04565 04425 -13.. ./.i.19'll- I.. 0 04765!Illi*1kini-- 9»965.16'.4.The #1 Theft Deterrent Serviceinthe U.S. 121 Executive Center Drive • Suite 230 Columbia. SC 29210 Phone: (803) 404-6189 I Fax: (803) 404-5378 March 28,2015 City of Wheat Ridge Attn: Board ofAdjustment7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge CO 80033-8001 RE: Interpretation of The City of Wheat Ridge Municode Section 26-603.E Fence Types Prohibited. #1 Dear Board Members: The enclosed materials are provided to the Board of Adjustment to interpret the above referenced code. A decision has been made by City Staff (Power of Safety) to regulate the separation of an existing barrier fence and an electric security fence to be 36-inches. The following materials are provided for consideration of a new interpretation. 1. Narrative Statement 2. Check in the amount of $420.00 3. Webster Safety Document 4. IEC 60335.2.76 5. Permits for other Colorado jurisdictions This letter is also confirming the attendance of Director Michael Pate with Electric Guard Dog on Thursday, April 23rd,2015 for the Board of Adjustment meeting at 7pm. Thank you, Carol Bausinger Compliance Manager The Electric Guard Dog The #l Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. Perimeter Security that Stops Crime Before it Happens Corner Post Fence Installation INSTALLING -- 2/ - A STEEL POLE ---Addillillill'll :flit*Niaillill't: 1A %99€, - c POLE CAP 0 8" GAP t 5/16" x 2" n GALVANIZED BOLT8" GAP L 08" GAP - 8» GAP r- (D 0 @2)3):KETS O bAY -1-0 4 --EJU92--------8" GAP 0 SENTRY INSULATOR 00 Z 8" GAP £\O :9 - ci . ONE 3-PIECE -\ 4 8" GAP -BRACKET 1 5/16"U FOR EACH WIRE 8" GAP 0 (20 SETS PER POLE)GALVANIZED NUT 1 5 FT 8'GAP -Lf U 0.-4" GAP T U4"GAP 4- UU.1 4 4" GAP Ch, (D 4" GAP-f-I Install brackets FACING the diredion of pull,U 4. GAP L except when used as an End Pole.0 04" GAP C 1/1131/00 Z 4" GAP C 0 0014" GAP L I Install END POLE brackets FACING the 0 -4" GAP C direction of chain link Gate Pole =o GROUND LEVEL (6" maximum from Gale Pole). 5 FT CEMENT . Install ROLL GATE brackets FACING the FOOTING 4 direction of pull.41 I * - I Install CORNER POLE EYES»-r- DIG HOLE 115" WIDE \0-8" from Chain Linke Pole at 90° diagonally. , 1.lA Corner Post If the metal poles are scratched, paint them; especially in the front or by gates. 1961 y1.1 B Corner Post Bolts on bottom of insulators should be tight and insulatop must be able to spin, freely acting as a pulley. 1.1C Corner Post Install metal poles in MIDDLE of hole vs front or back of hole with concrete. Fill in hole with concrete to ground level. 1.1 D Corner Post The #2 wire must be hot in every seaion. The #1 wire must be flat on the ground. 1.l E Corner Post Medium springs are required on both ends of every section over 250 feet. Medium (Insulator) Spring Gate Spring Steel poles Fence Installation 1.2B Steel poles The steel pole has to be set in the correct place. There should be no more than 6 inches from the insulators on a steel pole beside the gate, and the fiberglass pole that is mounted on the gate. If the steel pole cannot be set close enough to the gate pole or against a building, due to concrete footers, etc., causing a potential breach of security, attach a fiberglass pole to the building or gate post to close any gaps. 1.2C Steel poles -Will. - -- eSteel posts should be installed with a slight .j#E'U7; back lean, depending on the soil condition, ,6*e•,1 crete dries, the poles will not lean into the / yard. Poles should be set 5 ft deep with a 15" hole minimum. Unstable soil conditions will require a better foundation.--------< 36.--r-- 4--121*.;,-://:,·Flf 4 1.2D Double Poles Every site regardless of size must havebreak down points for troubleshooting.,, No section can be longer that 1,000 feet I4I3* without a double bracket pole for a break Ck:,0* down spot../"*irm'*bivem :44*,3.40.. D-A»,10= .- ..y 1.2E Double Poles Cut off switches- are installed on the double bracketed pole and to bypass or isolate a section of fence. 0*,01.2F Short Sections A section of fence line that start and stops with footage of less than 251'. This section will have jumpers on each side, such as a section between two gates or a gate and a building or a roof sec- tion under 250ft. Short sections require springs on one end unless there is a 90 degree turn, in that case add a set of gate springs to the other end. r Fiberglass Post Fence Installation FIBERGLASS POLES RAPID TIGHTENERS & WARNING SIGNS TIGHTENERS • WIRE RAPID TIGHTENERS NO. RAPID TIGHTENERS ARE INSTALLED 20 IN EVERY SECTION - BETWEEN 6 INCHES AND 3 FEET FROM A FIBERGLASS POLE - TOWARD 19 THE CENTER OF THE PULL. 6IN 3 FT 1 MIN MAX GROUND .0 OT 4> 1¤ 16 HOT THE TIGHTENERS ARE ALTERNATED ...L' ..... ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE POLE TO PREVENT GROUNDS FROM 17 - HOT ,HITTING HOTS. WIRE SHOULD BE WRAPPED TWO OR THREE TIMES AROUND EACH TIGHTENER. , WARNING SIGNS WARNING SIGNS MUST BE INSTALLED EVERY 60 FEET, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN WARNING SIGNS. THE EXTERNALLY VISIBLE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE ALTERNATED, SO THAT EVERY SIGN SHOWING THE ENGLISH SIDE IS FOLLOWED BY ONE SHOWING THE SPANISH SIDE TO PEOPLE SITUATED OUTSIDE THE FENCE. 15 0-»T 14 O-HOT 13 - HOT 7,000 VOLTS 12 HOT 11 C- HOT6 IN MIN 3 FT 10 MAX HoT 9 O-GROUND ALL WARNING SIGNS SHOULD BE 1 8 Lk HoT MOUNTED BETWEEN WIRES 12 & 13.1 7 -GROUND 0-HOT 5: - C) GROUND 0-HoT FIBERGLASS POLES ,14 3 -GROUND FIBERGLASS POLES ARE SET AT A /0 2 HOTMAXIMUM of 30-FOOT INTERVALS. I T 18" THEY ARE ALWAYS PLACED DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF A PERIMETER POBT SO THEY CAN BE BRACED tO IHE PERIMETER POST, IF NECESSARY. 0 (MIN)THE BOTTOM WIRE SHOULD BE FLAT ON THE GROUND. = 1 on. 5 --r - 3 STRANDS OF WIRE KE- EXTENDED 4 INCHES FOR ANCHOR 1.3A Fiberglass line post Fibergiass straight line. Install metal poles, pull bottom wire, then install fiber right behind line so fiber are in a straight line. 1.3B Fiberglass line post Install rapid tightners in a safe, flat easily accessable area. 1.3C Fiberglass line post Pins installed in the fiberglass poles need to have the end facing into the yard, level with the ground. 1-INCH 1 -INCH DOUBLE EXTENSION EXTENSIONSide VIOW A SRINGS 1 94" FIBERGLASS POLE SPRINS PANELGATE40 -- "4 1 ?81 -=GATE GATE G-€=21 18 CBRACE BAFps -< I /BRACE BANDS r C.1 8 LJ [1.1 L.21 C C.t LONG ENDHIGH AS CZDPOSSIBLE I \-Aa BENDS AROUND POLE BRACE r /BANDS UNDER #9 C© ·' / tl F GROUND (G) WIRESGROUNDED TO TOP OF #1 *1 CHAIN UNK GATE (ON SPRING SIDE) 9 F Ilul G 1101 W 1101 V Ilot C Ilul -C 11.#1 #1 Hol -·---·---- #9 G--c: 1101 C=Cc 1101 C G--cr: 1101 C= C C 116,1 C= #1 C =_ (EED) (Enlarged Birds Eye View) GROUND (G) WIRES GROUNDED TO CHAIN LINK GATE (ON SPRING SIDE) 1. B,ace Bands are located on top of #1, under#9, and asd high on the chain linke as possible. A i 2. Springs are located on opposite side of lock. ,¥3. All contacts must include spring.4. All contacts must have boll through liberglass (no serews). 5. All Brace Bands hooked to chain link must have sel screw. *h 6. Every gate panel must have a sign.4704 7. All gate contacts must be secured in o manner thai ensures cont¢Qtwhen closed by a blind person. . r- Single Pane Gates Double Panel 2.A Gates Use splices on jumpers on gates, all other jumpers use joint clamps not splices. 2.B Gates Back side of roll gate must use steel pole not fiberglass pole. Gate must slide between elec- tric and perimeter fence. 2.C Gates Gates should close tightly without play. If customer closes his gate with a chain, ask to cut off any excess length, so chain only meets using last two linh. This will avoid chain tail shorting out gate and close tight enough to avoid wind pushing it open and losing contact. POOR GATE CONNECTIONS ARE A COMMON CAUSE OF FENCE ALARMS. 2.D Gates Current travels only one way through the gate. If it returns, then trench under gate wire #19 to 19 with weather heads on each side. 2.2 Double Panel t gyf Gates 1 '/ \147 GATE BRACKETS Though not restricted to usage on gates, Ihe brackets and brace bands (o.k.a. tension bands) used to secure fence posts and gate posts are collectively referred to as GATE BRACKETS throughout this guide. .EEnlifiFILTEj/1012711/# SET \ - -, screw - __--/ [0Specifically, two types of brackets *r (in many sizes) are used with our fence (see adiocent photo). N/k• * 1/ screw Jocatil• 9•Wtlkad Both types of brackets should always be installed in a manner that ensures the pins (bolts) used in connecting these brackets are parallel to the ground, with the open end facing the fence interior. .L 1 screw /2 SET screw te-P 1 - 41*j IJ.-I Gate Brackets Fence Installation 2.Oa Brackets INSTALLATION 2.0 A f Bypass Gates 2.3 Bypass Gates 44 e i Gates f t e,/ r-- -- Contacts 2.4A Contacts All contacts must have a bolt through the contact and fiberglass pole. All contacts must have a spring on one side. 2.4B Contacts Use a Y or straight bar contact at every gate connection. All contaas must involve a spring, no solid contacts. Spring should be extended no more than half distance of Y. Use a contact extension on every contact. Use the appropriate size extensions to closegaps at the gates + 04> 'Y' Contact i Straight Bar Contact Male Contact Extensions i 6 H Contact with 3"male contact 4.. 'Y' Contact with 3"male 4 contact extension r Y Contact Contact G' Gates Springs 2.5A Gate Springs Gate springs are used on every gate and all sections under 250 feet. Gate springs are required on both ends if there is a bend in the section. 2.5B Gate Springs "Air' gate springs. If gate loses tension, cut wire and re-pull. 1 3 \64 .'u'Zi;£ >f ¢ /3 3 Id.....IP*/ Fliwilimi./Ill'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll'll//1 Imm,41.Imm"*%#*FlAM"VL-=..0 I . .... - P ' -'-/ '4_ 2 - - 2 --- - - :I. . 2*Mi- 4 - 5./v<#i ..1.6 4 7. 1 2,f .r K I $44{9244042:46·i«4*22. r /1.. W#WWWA - uum- i ' 7.35 9 -x/'V'\Uthq/le. A -'.+ .VF/*SK:'/be -2 lk/N,//f . »1 ;2 0'y-- *: A"224.4. 4 24.* V 6/ ap«- - V. u.p/\ /\ 7 V /79 ¥-V V \4\151/'ll'll//Ill ' Ait,t)44**mi*i#*Ad#&*44 « 7\ A.4 + ...XXX* Gates I€ COREEILECTIIICALCOMPONENTS 3' Fence -- Voltage 12-Volt Energizer ALARM Battery Keypad a¥'< Fence & Gate Solar Panel Breakdown v » 9 Poin Gal}@1}110* lERIB 7'G-,A I.FLJ {-t.1) LE EEN,RY UCUNT, 95EWS ./. +0 0 -- Fence Controllers WIRE RUN 'SOUR CHART9%66- All exposed wirerequires 3/4' f electrical PVC 40 10 Cond * 2/4 10 Cond (If 50+ FT, Also Use 14/2) ALAHM PAI EL ¢F 14/2 10 Con 14OUTDOOR Box KEYPAD / KEYSWITCH #8 Copper Wire GROUND RODS +04 e0 COM fROLLER DILVER BOX) Grounding ControlConductor 10 FT · *-10 FT-. 10 Return 14/2 / Feed BATTERY FENCE 1 j Outside Mounted Electronics 3-Fence Controllers SOLAR ' : PANU(S) i PAIn(S)< rl"L! Alarm Mount three empty galvanized silver boxes to a pair of 1 6-foot tall 4x4 wood posts. 4 inches 3 12 Feej 4 inches 2 Galvanized Ground Rods Imininum 10 FT apart)2 F„} The bottom of the lowest box must be at least 2 feet above ground ... Panel ...and the posts must be C Gatvoniled Silver Box )anchored al least 4 feet below level. Battery A •,; The entire eleclronics( Galvaniz*d Silv*r Box ) *ensemble must be grounded to a series of Controller 6 three galvanized ground rods localed no less ihan ( Gahonized Si#ver 80* )10 feet from each other. Ground L-1 '0 * 7 6 4 19,2 1 --4x4 Posts ' e Lit (76'- 6/3¥¥¥14% Y g +0 . SOLAR>< PANEL(S) Dii*ki1 8 Cond T ALARM PANEL Solar Panel to Alarm Panel e SIREN BLUE: SP-BLUE:Tied to BLUE from 10 cond Silver Box ORANGE: SP+ORANGE: Tied to ORANGE from 10 cond Silver Box RED: Siren Tamper RED: Zone 5 (Siren Tamper) GREEN: Siren Tamper GREEN: COM through Resistor (Siren Tamper) WHITE: Siren +WHITE: Bell+ BLACK: Siren -BLACK: Bell- Solar Panels 3-Fence Controll 0 4, U 9. Meredith Reckert From:Carol Bausinger <CBausinger@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 03, 2015 8:26 AM To:Kenneth Johnstone CC Michael Pate; Daniel Brennan; John Schumacher; Meredith Reckert; Patrick Goff; Joshua Botts Subject:RE: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog Ken: Electric Guard Dog will apply to the BOA forthe interpretation of 26-603.E.1. Please provide the requirements at your earliest convenience. Thank you, Co.ret Ba·1*+64 ex Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us] Sent: Monday, January 26,2015 1:34 PM To: Carol Bausinger Cc: Michael Pate; Daniel Brennan; John Schumacher; Meredith Reckert; Patrick Goff; Joshua Botts Subject: RE: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog Carol, The process for you to appeal City staffs determination regarding the need for a 3-foot separation raised some questions that required us to forward to our City Attorney's office for advice. Following is the response we received from our City Attorney (text in italics),which outlines your appeal options. I have reviewed this email string and the relevant Code requirements. I conclude as follows: • The administrative variance granted on November 20, 2014 contained as a condition of approval that there be a three foot separation between the perimeter fence and the electric fence. • This condition could have been appealed to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) under 26-115.C(2) only if the applicant had filed a written appeal within ten days of the November 20 decision. This was not done, and as a consequence the November 20 decision is not now appealable to the BOA, nor is it capable of being challenged in district court, as the applicant has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies (the 10 day appeal to BOA). • A request for Interpretation by the BOA under Code 26-115.E is available under Code 26-114.E.1, because the language of 26-603.E.1 - that the fence in this case would "constitute a risk to the health and safety of any person," is being applied to a particular circumstance: the electric fence as proposed. I recognize that it is the Chief of Police and Chief Building Official making that determination in this instance, but it is the interpretation of that language as applied to the fence in question that has been made; these interpretations are subject to the BOA appeal process under 26- 115.E.1 • The applicant has three options at this point: 1 o Construct the fence with the three foot separation under the approved variance. o Not construct the fence. o Apply to the BOA, either: (1) for a variance of greater than 50% and attempt to get a different condition (or no condition) regarding the separation between the electric fence and the perimeter fence, or (2) for an interpretation that the electric fence, as proposed, would not constitute a threat to the health and safety of persons under 26-603.E.1 If you wish to pursue either of the two BOA appeal options outlined above, the next step would be to schedule a pre- application meeting where staff could review with you that process, submittal requirements, etc. Joshua Botts, Planner I for our department is responsible for coordinating those meetings. He can be reached at 303-235-2849. Please let me know if I can answer questions. Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 ¥41,City of*Wheat --COMMUNITY DEVELOPMovi Rklee From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinaer@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:24 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone Cc: Michael Pate Subject: RE: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog Mr. Johnstone: We have not heard from any of the City Staff to establish a mutually convenient time to further discuss the separation of the Electric Guard Dog security fence to be installed at Ketelsen Camper. As discussed previously, Electric Guard Dog does not agree to the 3-foot setback as a condition to issuing the permit. Our standard is 12-inches, there is no entrapment zone and the fence is only operational during non-business hours. Let me know if we can schedule a call before the end of the month. Otherwise, please either deny the 12-inch separation or approve it as there are no proven safety hazards. Co,rot 80,1*5·CM.*r Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kiohnstone@ci.wheatridae.co.usl Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1:11 PM To: Carol Bausinger Subject: Re: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog We will not be having a call this afternoon, as not all parties are available. I will forward your e-mail to the necessary parties to determine if there is any interest in revisiting our previous determination requiring 3 feet. If there is a desire to move forward quickly for your client as you mention in your e-mail, I would advise that you comply with the 3- foot separation that the City has previous determined to be necessary to ensure public safety. 1 2 Sent from my iPad On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:15 AM, "Carol Bausinger" <CBausinaer@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com> wrote: It would be beneficial to have all parties together for a call this afternoon to address the separation please. Anything larger than a 12" separation results in an entrapment zone and would also take away from the business. Mr. Ketelson's business will be closed for two weeks for the holiday and his location has been routinely burglarized during that time in the past. Co·ret, 130.,u+0•6r Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kiohnstone@ci.wheatridae.co.usl Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 10:26 AM To: Carol Bausinger Subject: RE: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog It would require several other individuals in addition to me who all have been involved in the making the decision relative to the 3-foot requirement. If you'll recall, the determination of the safety of the fence is left to the police chief, chief building official and public works director. I don't imagine I can assemble that group on short notice. Do you have a specific question relative to the voice mail I left? Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 <image001.jpg> From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinaer@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.coml Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 7:48 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog Ken: Thank you for returning my call. Will you have 15 minutes available this afternoon (2 or 3pm MTN) to speak with me and Michael Pate please? It will be regarding the 3 foot separation. Thank you, Co.rot 80*500•gar Compliance Manager Electric Guard Dog, LLC 121 Executive Center Drive, Suite 230, Columbia, SC 29210 Direct: 803-404-6189 I Fax: 803-404-5378 http://www.electricguarddog.com The Electric Guard Dog <image002.gif><image003.gif><image004.gif><image005.png> The #1 Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. Perimeter Security that Stops Crime Before it Happens 3 Meredith Reckert From:Gerald Dahl <GDahl@mdkrlaw.com> Sent:Friday, January 23, 2015 4:09 PM To:Kenneth Johnstone CC:Patrick Goff; John Schumacher; Meredith Reckert; Daniel Brennan Subject:RE: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog Ken, I have reviewed this email string and the relevant Code requirements. 1 conclude as follows: • The administrative variance granted on November 20, 2014 contained as a condition of approval that there be a three foot separation between the perimeter fence and the electric fence. • This condition could have been appealed to the Board of Adjustment under 26-115.C(2) only if the applicant had filed a written appeal within ten days of the November 20 decision. This was not done, and as a consequence the November 20 decision is not now appealable to the BOA, nor is it capable of being challenged in district court, as the applicant has failed to exhaust its administrative remedies (the 10 day appeal to BOA). • A request for Interpretation by the BOA under Code 26-115.E is available under Code 26-114.E.1, because the language of 26-603.E.1 - that the fence in this case would "constitute a risk to the health and safety of any person," is being applied to a particular circumstance: the electric fence as proposed. 1 recognize that it is the Chief of Police and Chief Building Official making that determination in this instance, but it is the interpretation of that language as applied to the fence in question that has been made; these interpretations are subject to the BOA appeal process under 26-115.E.1 • The applicant has three options at this point: o Construct the fence with the three foot separation under the approved variance. o Not construct the fence. o Apply to the BOA, either: (1) for a variance of greaterthan 50% and attempt to get a different condition(or no condition) regarding the separation between the electric fence and the perimeter fence,2) for an interpretation that the electric fence, as proposed, would not constitute a threat to the health andsafety of persons under 26-603.E.1 J/ 61- v-1 l/Le ) v-* 4.*-0-£ 1 1 6 epo-,0-1-7,1" Please let me know if this message raises questions. .i € 5+ -f- liouuXi-- 011·enCJ Regards, Gerald E. Dahl Ardah]@mdkrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 1530 16th Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-493-6670 Fax: 303-477-0965 www. mdkrlaw. com This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified 1 1 that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kiohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.usl Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 8:31 AM To: Gerald Dahl Cc: Patrick Goff; John Schumacher; Meredith Reckert; Daniel Brennan Subject: FW: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog Jerry, You'll see in the following e-mail that the Electric Guard Dog representatives are inquiring about how to get approval of a 12-inch separation between the existing perimeter and the proposed 9-foot electric fence. Staff has previously approved (November 20, 2014) a variance allowing a 9-foot fence with certain conditions, including a minimum 3-foot separation. Appeals of conditions on administrative variances must be made to the Board of Adjustment within 10 days of the administrative approval; so that option has lapsed. The conditioned variance is now valid for 6 months from the date of approval The determination of the need for a minimum 3-foot separation was made by the Chief of Police and Chief Building Official in reviewing public safety issues pertaining to electrified fences and the potential for human exposure. This determination was actually made much earlier in 2014, when the electric fence was initially proposed. The variance was actually for the height of 9 feet. Code section 26-603.E states the following: "Fence Types Prohibited: Any fence, if in the opinion of the chief building inspector, public works director or chief of police, that would constitute a hazard to the health or safety of any person." As we discussed briefly at the most recent CC meeting where electric fences were discussed, it is not clear to me whether an applicant would have an appeal right to the Board of Adjustment asto whetherthe determination of the CBO and Chief as to public safety. That appeal right (to the extent it exists) would come under Code section 26-115.E - Interpretations. The language in this section is limited in scope and pertains specifically to 1) "use determinations" which this is not; 2) certain determinations by the Public Works Director, which this is not; and, 3) interpretations of "the basic intent and purpose of words, phrases or paragraphs as applied to a specific proposal or instance". This last phrase may provide an opening for these folks to make an appeal to the BOA. Alternatively, 1 presume the appeal would be to Jefferson County District Court. I personally don't feel particularly comfortable with the Board of Adjustment having jurisdiction in this public safety arena. Can you please make a determination as to their appeal rights that we can then communicate back to them. Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 r city of95@"Nheat Ridge--*"-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinaer@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 3:24 PM 2 To: Kenneth Johnstone Cc: Michael Pate Subject: RE: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog Mr. Johnstone: We have not heard from any of the City Staff to establish a mutually convenient time to further discuss the separation of the Electric Guard Dog security fence to be installed at Ketelsen Camper. As discussed previously, Electric Guard Dog does not agree to the 3-foot setback as a condition to issuing the permit. Our standard is 12-inches, there is no entrapment zone and the fence is only operational during non-business hours. Let me know if we can schedule a call before the end of the month. Otherwise, please either deny the 12-inch separation or approve it as there are no proven safety hazards. Co,rot 80*500,Su- Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kiohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.usl Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 1: 11 PM To: Carol Bausinger Subject: Re: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog We will not be having a call this afternoon, as not all parties are available. I will forwa rd your e-mail to the necessary parties to determine if there is any interest in revisiting our previous determination requiring 3 feet. If there is a desire to move forward quickly for your client as you mention in your e-mail, I would advise that you comply with the 3- foot separation that the City has previous determined to be necessary to ensure public safety. Sent from my iPad On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:15 AM, "Carol Bausinger" <CBausinger@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com> wrote: It would be beneficial to have all parties together for a call this afternoon to address the separation please. Anything larger than a 12" separation results in an entrapment zone and would also take away from the business. Mr. Ketelson's business will be closed for two weeks for the holiday and his location has been routinely burglarized during that time in the past. Co.ret 130'165'C,t.ger Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kiohnstone@ci.wheatridae.co.usl Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 10:26 AM To: Carol Bausinger Subject: RE: Request for Call w/ Eledric Guard Dog It would require several other individuals in addition to me who all have been involved in the making the decision relative to the 3-foot requirement. If you'll recall, the determination of the safety of the fence is left to the police chief, chief building official and public works director. I don't imagine I can assemble that group on short notice. Do you have a specific question relative to the voice mail I left? Thanks. C 3 Kenneth Johnstone Fronn:Kenneth Johnstone Sent Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:11 AM To:Carol Bausinger Subject:Re: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog We will not be having a call this afternoon, as not all parties are available. I will forwardyour e-mail to the necessary parties to determine if there is any interest in revisiting our previous determination requiring 3 feet. If there is a desire to move forward quickly for your client as you mention in your e-mail, I would advise that you comply with the 3-foot separation that the City has previous determined to be necessary to ensure public safety. Sent from my iPad On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:15 AM, "Carol Bausinger" <CBausinaer@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com> wrote: It would be beneficial to have all parties together for a call this afternoon to address the separation please. Anything larger than a 12" separation results in an entrapment zone and would also take away from the business. Mr. Ketelson's business will be closed for two weeks for the holiday and his location has been routinely burglarized during that time in the past. Cirot 80·tq·Gger Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kiohnstone@d.wheatridae.co. us] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 10:26 AM To: Carol Bausinger Subject: RE: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog It would require several other individuals in addition to me who all have been involved in the making the decision relative to the 3-foot requirement. If you'll recall, the determination of the safety of the fence is left to the police chief, chief building official and public works director. I don't imagine I can assemble that group on short notice. Do you have a specific question relative to the voice mail I left? Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 <image001.jpg> From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinaer@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 7:48 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: Request for Call w/ Electric Guard Dog Ken: 1 Thank you for returning my call. Will you have 15 minutes available this afternoon (2 or 3pm MTN) to speak with me and Michael Pate please? It will be regarding the 3 foot separation. Thank you, Co·rot 13004*50<Ag e.r Compliance Manager Electric Guard Dog, LLC 121 Executive Center Drive, Suite 230, Columbia, SC 29210 Direct: 803-404-6189 I Fax: 803-404-5378 http://www.electricguarddog.com The Electric Guard Dog <image002.gif><image003.gif><image004.gif><image005.png> The #1 Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. Perimeter Security that Stops Crime Before it Happens 2 Meredith Reckert From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Meredith Reckert Wednesday, October 22, 2014 11:08 AM 'Carol Bausinger'; Michael Pate (mpate@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com) RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Jeffco response 10-14-14.pdf Hi, Carol and Michael I wanted to give you an update with regard to your request for installation of fencing and electronic security system on Randy Ketelsen's property at 9850-70 W. 1-70 Frontage Road. I have received a response from Brendan Willits of the Jefferson County School District. The school district has modified their response to indicate that they would have no objection to the 9' fence as long as the fence portion adjacent to their property is not capable of carrying electricity. Based on this, the City will reopen our review of the proposal. Please provide a response as to how you think you can provide assurance that this portion will remain non- electrified. Also, please verify the distance that the security system will be inset from the external fence. Attached is a copy of the letter from Mr. Willits dated October 14, 2014. Meredith Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2848 FAX: 303-235-2857 &41' V City of1- WheatRidge-' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinger@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 9:51 AM To: Meredith Reckert Subject: RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Good morning Meredith: Have you received any comments from any of the third party reviewers? Do you anticipate the project being approved this week? Thank you, Cofol, 80*5,De ef Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Carol Bausinger Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 12:25 PM To: 'Meredith Reckert' Subjed: RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Hi Meredith: Just checking in please. 1 Thank you, Co.ret 13 MiLV er Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Carol Bausinger Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 10: 12 AM To: 'Meredith Reckert' Subject: RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Good morning, Thank you; Randy will be happy to hearthat. Do you anticipate hearing back from them by a certain date? Co-,rot 80-ud,i# u- Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Meredith Reckert [mailto:mreckert@ci.wheatridae.co.usl Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 10: 10 AM To: Carol Bausinger Subject: RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit H i, Ca ro I Things are moving along with your revised request. I went ahead and referred your revised proposal to the outside agencies for their comment. I will let you and Michael know what kind of responses we get. M Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2848 FAX: 303-235-2857 4.41,City of97Wheat Rgge -/-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinger@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.coml Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:40 PM To: Meredith Reckert Subject: RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Hello Meredith: How things progressing this week? Thank you, Ca·ret 13 0·,*30%9 61' Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Meredith Reckert [mailto:mreckert@ci.wheatridae.co.usl Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 1:40 PM To: Carol Bausinger 2 Cc: Michael Pate Subjed: RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Sounds good, Carol. Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2848 FAX: 303-235-2857 City of517 WheatRidge,-''COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinaer@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.coml Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:54 AM To: Meredith Reckert Cc: Michael Pate Subject: RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Ok; no problem. 1'11 check back in with you next week. Thank you, CO/rot 8 MAL,01.9 W Compliance Manager Direct: 803-404-6189 From: Meredith Reckert [mailto:mreckert@ci.wheatridqe.co.usl Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:44 AM To: Carol Bausinger Cc: Michael Pate Subject: RE: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Hi, Carol I actually told Michael to hold offon the building permit submittal until I have a better handle on the status of the fence variance. Meredith Meredith Reckert, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2848 FAX: 303-235-2857 r LCity Of-*rWheat Ridge-/COMMUNITYDEVEU)PMENT From: Carol Bausinger [mailto:CBausinger@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.coml Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 8:41 AM To: Meredith Reckert Subject: EGD / Ketelsen Bldg Permit Good morning Meredith: 3 I. Per your conversation with Michael yesterday, attached is the completed Building Permit application. Please let me know if there are any funds due and I will overnight a check or pay via company credit card. Thank you, Ce·rot 80*5,096r Compliance Manager Electric Guard Dog, LLC 121 Executive Center Drive, Suite 230, Columbia, SC 29210 Direct: 803-404-6189 I Fax: 803-404-5378 http://www.electricguarddog.com The Electric Guard Dog •gam The #1 Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. Perimeter Security that Stops Crime Before it Happens 4 1 1 -9 - fr 'Pa.vt ( 1(0£I -t, I -L Kenneth Johnstone Frorn: Sent: To: CC: Subject: Attachments: Carol Bausinger <CBausinger@ELECTRICGUARDDOG.com> Monday, December 08, 2014 11:59 AM Joyce Jay; Jerry DiTullio; Tim Fitzgerald; George Pond; Zachary Urban; Kristi Davis; Genevieve Wooden; Tracy Langworthy Kenneth Johnstone; Daniel Brennan; Michael Pate; randyketelsen@ketelsen.com Sent on Behalf of M Pate: Electric Guard Dog / Ketelsen Camper Wheat Ridge.zip Mayor Joyce and City Council: I am writing as a security representative for Randy Ketelsen of Ketelsen Campers. I spoke briefly in front of the City Council back in late October to voice concerns over the City Staffs intransigence on granting a permit to Mr. Ketelsen for an alarmed electric security fence to secure his property. At that time the Chief of Police (Dan Brennan) and Chief Building Official, Ken Johnstone were holding the permit hostage until the local school district approved installation in violation of the City Staffs duty to serve the people of the City of Wheat Ridge and administer the zoning and building code as written. The Chief and CBO voiced concerns over safety that they felt had not been addressed. Not only had these concerns not been addressed, but they were completely ignored by the Chief and CBO. As of today the City Staff has made a decision to allow the operation of Mr. Ketelsen's alarmed electric fence under the condition that he separate the existing perimeter fence from the alarmed electric security fence by a minimum of THREE FEET for "safety concerns". This is an unnecessary restriction and in essence results in an impudent installation (installation of the alarmed electric security fence will not function as designed and will not result in the cessation of criminal activity) and an unnecessary taking of property to the tune of 9,186 square feet (this equals approximately four average dwellings in Wheat Ridge) in addition to the rearranging of the entire property/inventory. A totally unnecessary expense foisted on Mr. Ketelsen by the City Staff. The devices that Mr. Ketelsen wishes to deploy are tested by a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory as to the safety and efficacy of the product. The devices are installed to the recognized standards and are powered by a 12 volt battery, just like the one in most cars. The City Staff and the Chief have been provided all of these tests, standards, and scientific research. As of this writing, not one of the scientist, specialist, or technicians at the provided institutions (who are the preeminent specialist in their fields of expertise in pulsed electricity, testing, and standards) have been contacted by the City Staff. This is nothing short of a dereliction of responsibility to the people and citizens of Wheat Ridge. To make assumptions based on "feelings or perceptions", which the city staff has done, is unconscionable. Mr. Ketelsen is closing his business for the Holidays on December 21 for two weeks. As he testified in his earlier appearance before the council his business has been burglarized for almost $250,000.00 over the last several years and he needs the ability to protect his property. Increased patrols and attention by the police have not been effective due to the location and vulnerable configuration of his property. We would ask that the City Council direct the City Staff to approve the installation of the alarmed electric security fence according to the tested standards resulting in the installation of the alarmed electric security fence before December 21. This is done in Denver, Colorado Springs, Adams County, and a myriad of other jurisdictions in CO. The City Staffs belief in a boogey man and their ignorance of pulsed electric alarms and their unparalleled safety record should not be the guiding force in this decision. I am available for consultation at 803-422-3600. Regards, 1 Michael Pate Director of Business Development Sentry Security Systems, LLC Electric Guard Dog mpate@electricguarddog.com Phone: 803-404-6204 Cell: 803-422-3600 Fax: 803-404-5378 The Electric Guard Dog 000= The #1 Theft Deterrent Service in the U.S. Perimeter Security that Stops Crime Before it Happens 2 ' City of*0 WheatRidge LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Community Development Department 7500 West 2gth Avenue • Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 • Phone (303) 235-2846 (Please printer type all intbrmation) Applicant ELECTRIC GUARD DOG LLC Address 121 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR STE 230 Phone 803-404-6189 City COLUMBIA State SC Zip 29210 Fax Owner Address Phone City State Zip Fax Contact MICHAEL PATE / CAROL BAUSINGER Address 121 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR STE 230 Phone 803-404-6189 City COLUMBIA State SC Zip 29210 Fax (The person listed as contact will be contacted to answer questions regarding this application, provide additional information when necessary, post public hearing signs, will receive a copy of the staff report prior to Public Hearing, and shall be responsible fur tbrwarding all verbal and written communication to applicant and owner.) Location of request (address): Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request): Please refer to submitta[ checklists for complete application requirements: incomplete applications will not be accepted. O Change of zone or zone conditions O Consolidation Plat O Flood Plain Special Exception O Lot Line Adjustment O Planned Building Group O Special Use Permit O Conditional Use Permit O Site Plan approval O Concept Plan approval O Right of Way Vacation n Subdivision: Minor (5 lots or less) O Subdivision: Major (More than 5 lots) O Temporary Use, Building, Sign M Variance/Waiver (from Section 26-603.2 El ) O Other: Detailed description of request: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF SAFETY AS PART OF CASE #WA1411. SAFETY INTERPRETATION PERTAINS TO THE SEPARATION OF EGD SECURITY FENCE AND EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE. EGD'S SAFETY SEPARATION IS 12-INCHES, STAFF IS REQUESTING 3-FEET WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF SAFETY BEING COMPROMISED. Required information: Assessors Parcel Number: Current Zoning: Current Use: Size of Lot (acres or square footage): Proposed Zoning: Proposed Use: I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that in filing this application, I am acting with the knowledge and consent ofthose peyfbns listed above, without whose consent the requested action cannot law illy be accomplished. Applicants other than owners must submit powe,t ttor,ey.,trrIRE-Bviuwhich approved of this action on his beho. Notarized Signature of Applicant (-, 40(17 O 79.L..816/0,4State otf c,29HdA£ou ufF 49. 0..·E,ornm,i,>..,vo .... ... 4 0.0 0County of LEWA/blad } SS g ;* NOT '9,(P s- : 'A MS 9. rn 5 The foregoing instrument (Land Use Processing Application) was acknowledged by m kday of._ 1/1¢1(NA , 10 1 6 by · 00, CAROL\' 0Nott lie ""numit,H\*"'My commission expires 67/ /20/0 1S Auf rv Plk To be filled out by staff: Date received 3/17[tr Fee $920 Receipt No.CD#lili Case No.wA-13>03 Comp Plan Design.Quarter Section MapZoning Related Case No.Pre-App Mtg. Date s. r.tr Case Manager Bott.5 6 4 City of Wheat Ridge 02/23/2015 10:45 CDBA PRE-APP FEE/GUARD DOG/APP1511 CDA011060 AMOUNT FMSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES 200.00 PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CIECK: 24762 200.00 TOTAL 200.00 City of Wheat Ridge 02/23/2015 10337 CDBA PRE-APP FEE/GUARD DOG/APPrj.*aK\\ CDA811060 AMOUNT FMSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES 200.00 PAYMENT RECEIVED Al'IOUNT CHECK: 24762 200.00 TOTAL 200.00 Citz of Wheat Ridne 02/23/2015 1@i37 CDBA PRE-APP FEE/GUARD DOG. .1€\l CDA011060 AMOUNT FMSD ZONING APPLICATION FEES 200.00 PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT CHECK: 24762 200.00 TOTA[200.00 ERI Pre-App Data Form ¤8 23 PreappNo: t]APP1511 PreappDated j 3/5/2015 2 3? lf»'*nt)' '937' NC 7' ' /0, Applicaname: |Carol Bausinger for Electric Guard Dog ProjectStreemo: |9170 W. I-70 Service Rd. 1 PreappFeePd Preapree:> E -i NbhdineeurigDate: - -1 ©NbhdmeetingfeePd Nbhdmeetingfee: 50 Notes: X. .3,> Case #: j & Permit #: ] Record: M 4 575 of 575 | I M H:? * Unfilter-ed ,Search Case No.IWA1503 Date Received 3/27/2015 Related Cases f Case Planner Both Case Descriptior R equest for interpretation of safely as it pertains to the separation ol EGD security fence and existing perimeter fence. EDG's safety separation is 12 inches, the City is requesting 3 feet. Applicant Intermation Name Electric Guard Dog ILC - Name I Phone {803) 404-6189 -1 ,Address -121 Executive Center D r.,Suite 230 City Columbia State iSC : Zip 29210- 1 Owner Intermation Name ; Name k....„.'--'.'....'.-'.'.'....... ..'-'„'- --.. Phone Address City I State "-1 ZIP 1 1 Contact Intermatien Name Michael Pate Name Carol Bausinger Phone [803) 404·6189 ,Address 121 Executive Center Dr., Suite 23 City ;Columbia .State SC 1 Zip 29210- Preiect Information Address , - Street . =-- --- - - --- - -- - --< City State - Zp r--- 7 Location D escription I Proiect Name : Parcel No Qt; Section District No Parcel No. 1 1 Qtr Section:District No.: - El11------- fleviews &(App Date 3/5/20154 Neighborhood Meeting Date App No: APP1511 Il Review Type Review Body Review Date Disposition Comments Repoft - Public Hearing "€LBOA El 4/23/2015 [Ul "1§ 54 1 11 Gl LE Disposition Case Disposition 1 -- - - -G]isposition Date i Conditions 01 Approval 1 Notes I 1 1 -V # 1 0 rd # . Status Open s orage: j City ·of Wheat Rioce@4 'Jj.,20i5 08:57 CDBB04.4 fri. J .4-15-03/ELECTRIC GUARD D06WA:-15-03/ELECTR .- CDb011578 AMOUNTCD8011578 FMSD ZONING REIMBURSEMENT FEL 120.08 FMED L:-,+16 A;PLICATic. 2.- 0Hi 'J JN ,FMH ZONING APE, -PAT"AN FIFO j.02. MEIrrav :UNING REV®URSE:<ENT FEE 120.00 PAYMENT RECEIVED AMOUNT09.: 25133 :-.00L. 0 ,1 L ..j - 2 -4 .,Pl ---------------------------------- 420.091 1-,L M-'-/Tw=YMM=M--------' -' - ---'MOILL-U-- ' ------ ----- . LEGEND DAT-E.' DE,SOC'103'0 · * .u,-law,$,1 6 . GRAPHIC SCA $0 e tx + M r477r--7=- r ,i mir 7:= 44-4 1 *REQUEST TO A -1107-E A KETELSON CAMPERS SECURI- 2 SYQTEM inch - 50 :L t9870 1-70 FRONTAGE ROAD 95'E * . 1 . 1!Nt WBA= t•e*•c OMIN¥ E':570#5 0%0 *AU : S: ' N + e 2· e· t · -' ·- 1!· · ·/////7: red= EN, CO 80401 $ GOLD =. 9 1 j!12 1% t rt,4= R 0 d5 4 1 1 b i - -, 1 - t THE*£ TS %-2 trST.t,'5 330*9 01*% ADJACe,7 72 ¥4<. ©P'C©E:>9¥. *:0· 'S:ot·u co1'..fN 5 ecfc M<r42'SCD A.5 h PAD- 2- 3/.1 *ROyST. ¥ .../.'.1 - 4 !5 1 V L H ™EM '.Me ..,0 27*31-Rem..'.*A¥ 02. E.,SEV 73t,2 63'1 +I 0 - 40 -- 12' L 0CA2 74 -'€ 1'12 1. *.1, £: 43 U Fi.,Iig *re),7.11¢-*.*.4,/t,A.¢V™-1:. 'f,-10' 4 -g' C !5** Aftr <;**A-?4* 4,-„.- AW ..CS Pe-*C'* M 5 4,7 10'7i.C'j N #i 1 03···-'SAST , 0S o '1003 Zod. MPE ARL h 0 :1*- CANN OPO 1 -,Ix CR*34 ILCE %*g/rk ; 04 Ff wyfe·¥„1/.0 i h 11 AL'.1 20.42* AREA t,NOSS»E ¥t' tr WANTe:mLA'CS;ArrSEMYA-Od '45-0 1 E- A ]L·*42'5-Z*Of WA.N.-k/43' ASUCA·-04. 1/TRE:2 ty i .25 40 RESER¥*7:24% Fr-9 21.9,45 30'01% Sq H .tooli] 1 -- ..1.1.--' p 'W 9 iD 0.,Wr, 22-€ USS- *E el CE C V +CIO-00 Af-4 ,4 LAk -·67 0 ,/.7 .7 052:et- F.4 - 4 = 4-1 kM -- "-... £0 PJ r -5 .•6.· · A . C -' €7 - 1 + 1572 8 CE re--2 .-1 t =11 390 1 94 r r-4 13 m ' . A CD Nub, - 1- €0-2-- u .p: r / t. 1T #2 ._. ....i. ./'.I-. *.:Ill ./.- ./*'ll. 'll"ll ./'..#.I'.. I.... .'.I./.I ;I-- ' I.---'I-'-.I ./ . I /.I'--I-I- M I.-1i00 m .t 0 C = '. r. -2-- I. -1C= >< .lili i 1r- 00 I t .....4 2 44 .C 302 -1 I A ? p .L £-7 0(. O CD -*JE-/ M. 4i 0.4N |i . r.•rl ff r D 1 11 m 1 P 1i i id k t R E A=0 :ar f" 1 1-C 7 24. £ e C r.A,2 . . W .6 .Z ..1¥.t -- ----- 1-5 - I224 - ,-it.0 4. 4 0 .61 Ze , , E rn6 -- t,W It 14 C LU C F.%.3 Z t 1 % f6 1 E M r z. e =*h . C:= 'i, .· 39 94 - , : 1- "-32-f- 3-1@;> 16-- .1. ... ' ... 04 C' r va w, i 4.U r Z-2 Gr -0.4 ZfF S L.O E.R j':fl.' : ...h .1 I. I I ,i .CX 1 333.<'r 1%4, rn AD 2 . i e 1 :0 11 1 /* 1 - 31. 0 i C C 17-001 1 .1 all ..If/ * Y'13 22-7 iii.i.£ ,2 4 . e . .h../.-4,*AU-- - - -*---Nil- il- N E r.4 ™,m j 7 i 4 m ... 'jim k 0 1 - r 4 , 03 =· _ .. . „. ... . .l i ..Wa1ULU6U..1U4..d6U-Il.-- €ii, V -, ' ;5-4 . ./.%, t.- .1 63 1 - DEVELOPER O W cv L14 J - O -4 M N - - 49 :-C Z 0-g9 2 4 4 0 N ,e <9•725- C•-WerEPS M r i U !013 22 ' 9 0 i *94 52 1 i H *e' i r M'fkuc .2410, 3 li 6 ....0 1 4 • 11 ! t · b 0 00 e, p (M +IP PROJECT DATA E/SMS SCPEEN SE O,P Z¥ FENCE - .i 1%280 '.../*.=I. Ers™a .049'rE GRADE. (*,Avt:>1 1 SE€L¢?rY *8 1. 1-1- - -- 03$11,¢5 04'SYE-**r SPACE <PAVED) 1 & E,35 <95 5.CE/F.4-· -A --.-- CKS]74 5. 51.?IN 1= c#%6 # 1 77425 42, 7 CBJTE·0" #*.-1 ./ /6/./....0,02#06,70.743 =01.61- -a, .1,1#* . --......Erstvs o,s;1 ,Crk.X (P J'01 . -' -222=50£-02'.COZ 39-222-17-201 & 0= '0*EASS te 3§ • /- *iET *OMS IC.39 4 /- CR,053: .A3 H 92*=t roo-'vr: 1 5,•CO TO:AL V, tc': CC,ETE·:St 7..82:t CONEXAQ£ 2,11463 DCS-2 C. PR,OSED #50(7*t'ED: 36 SUCESma«Dy 1 - Spells I1 W:»1211# I .7.1 Cks: rpcfT - 95 7 1 UJ i i 1-001: Pl: 3 PROJECU % 4t 73 1 11 61 U r 9. 1 le"40' ..3 '01 CATE: MAR. .1 : SCALE: 1- = I J / 1, [Ill .1!nk . IrJ,Ill LIUJUIlmlr,Lt.U , . '-' ' - 2%721 jf-r 25 ¢5¥C •.ret C,¥rt FT-¥42 Fril,t-r CA'R:'f-r· ,-aEXeST¥T·15 reFUM- • L :J 4.- '· 4 U-L. 62 - L. e :' Lit /= # r . 1 111 '1 11111 7 Ill'll, I,ll•••lf,Il Il-; ·---;«·-p-·-im--r-*· ·-'L'--'-4*ft 411'70 /2-E LOG•¥045: SUL POLE: 70 1 tto..IM Ae™t·'NfL¢,,Ely /4 C *'>4 Seff Py C'' TZES) * E.k*Y 97 {C'R CZE''tt=) :th N rn·Z 0.-t re=-*Qi .TY *.At 77#EX -0 fi £0177 ·03'1#771UX,"ELY t.34€*1' M- 29.12 LOC.An.36 Uit¥ 51©07 OU;*ir r*.U 57-P'lly· 18 A..23€ 24 70 09.-ST Cor,loqr 1,1 & i . VICINITY MAP NOT -O SCALE ©url.t.'r 1 OF 3 1 * ii· 1 i .i.i·ii[ii ian.. i i.iiii i - i it 13'VT-T71Et31773-7-'Ji-77-'"-7T,-7-77--- 7-- --7- , .,.- .1 .-1.. L -----t--- --WIT-------Y' . 1.„74--.'-n' -1 - .' '----W -1 1 „1 . - , ,. A.... .... . .,..- ... ..1 'LA IlLILllillilu#IM4,1JWUaIll -· '·'- '*. .4-,;,.. -U,UfIlr,71.-il T -Il-¥- 'rE«««9'r«-9 "1 On L DATE / DESCRIPTION 2 4" DIA. (MIN.) SCI-1. 40 STEEL POLE, Fy= 35 ksi PER ASTNI A252, GRADE WITH CAP 1-1/2" DIA. (MIN.) FIBERGLASS POLE.7 TEN COM (OR EQUI V.) Fu=25,000 PSI 1 1 Awri .1, . WIRES PER INSTALLATION WIRES PER INSTALLATION . INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.)INSTRUCTIONS (TYP.) -- 7 --EXISTING GRADE ---7---EXISTING GRADE -- ------- ------ ...I' .--- ...... 'lilli- ..1 .-------- ....I .'-- ....'. '...- ' . h2,500 PSI MillCONCRETE · , . NOTE: DURING CONSTRUCTION, STEEL POLE WILL BE SUPPORTED EXTERNALLY TO ASSURE 20 WIN. SPACING FROM BOTTOM OF FOOTING. 3 STRANDS OF WIRE EXTENDED 4" MIN. ;r FOR ANCHOR -'9 15" MIN./ STEEL POLE DETAIL FIBEKGLASS POLE DETAIL NTS NTS M 91-Electric Guard Dog peoN PIO!JIFEd 809L £0Z6Z OS'Ejq ££99-98L- 08 :HNOHd SLES-to -€08 : RAPID TIGHTENERS 61 IN 3 FT INN MAX i N A.01 'ril .. RAPID TIGHTENERS ARE IN5TALLED IN EV[RY SECTION - BETWEEN 6 INCHES AND 3 FEET FROM A FiBERGLA55 POLE - TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE PUILL. THE TIGHTENERS ARE A![ TERNATED ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF THE POLE TO PREVENT GROUNDS FROM HITTING HOTS. 0- 0 ·· ·'A···'„.A- ·i·-A·.C'l'-/2'ckk·-NA .f , -'311·Ut.../ta.. i, 'id.4.;t/4.ij.lk·.8.· ··-· '1'c. -: · ..·2.7.8·· : v.,2'./.7.'T 'LSp'"·'r·J:·-2':rle.'.5.1"Z.YT'12.-·-"f'"t"·'T-227-I'N"i-5% ALARMED AND MONITORED I....1 -/.....1 3 L I E At· 9 01- *09*1*140.--0-IME £04¢p@**>0 WIRE SHOULD BE WRAF'FED TWO OR THREE TIMES , AROUND EACH TIGHTENER. , WARNING SIGNS WARNING SUGNS MU51' 66 INSTALLED EVERY 60 FE ET, WHICH m THE MAXIMUM D15'TANCE BETWEEN WARNING SIGNS. r. . 4-22/r, 9:,b-f#*...'lit.t<:Ir -1 El v,1/'.'.#,.rge./.*....'re.'F re•,4 WIRE NO, 20 19 17 16 15 h 13 i j 3 13 7 7,060 ; 1 Vocri i 1 'i 12 i 11 GROUND HOT HOT HoT HoT HOT HoT HoT0 HOT THE EXTERNALLY VISIBLE LANGUAGE 1 SHOULD BE ALTERNATED, SO THAT EVFRY %1GN SHOWING THE ENGLISH ' SIDE IS FOLLOWED BY ONE ? SHOWING THE SPANISH SIDE TO PEOPLE SITUATED OUTSIDE THE *ENCE. 1 All WARNING SIGNS SHOULD BE , MOUNTED BETWEEN WIRES 12 & 13. i·] W##Baceagil/15////#LA> 11.-4.;:--,p 10 9 8 7 6 6 IN + -MIN -0- 0 01 0 ALARMA[>0 Y SUPERVISA, -fr- ) # HOT HoT 5 23 8 GROUND GROUND HOT GROUND Y »- HOT GROUND HOT O-0 2 HOT .re'*#p*3.....-0---GEEMM 4. ,FFEE - 073 5'1 ' . :t / - .. · /$ I ' lu 0 E 0 LU Ill 0 Z 0 00 0 0 0 Z 111 4 W 1 -0 0 FRONTAGE ROAD 200 9 1.00-2 L-EZZ-6€ 9 200 ' LOO-t,0-ZZE-62 :Sll¥.Laa -IVOIdALL PROJECT: REQ ;311ll .133HS NOTE: BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSION OF THE "WARNING SIGN" WILL BE PLACED EVERY 60 FEET MAXIMUM.. 3 STRANDS OF WIRE EXIENDED 4 INCHES FOR ANCHOR DATE: MAR. 11,2014 SCALE: N/A EXAMPLE WARNING SIGNS WIKE CONNECTIONS N TS N TS Note: Section C fence wn be sensor only; it will not carry vo!tage. SHEET 2 OF 3 f · I-I:.'UZZLINILILILL.i,..L_Li, . " 'll' I _ tuzz,ZEi.,i. 27...U'Zorir. Sie, % gEANDS 4 f •- ··-%14•-uam*0C ve •1·"-A .'„·wrl , Cu. 1 ....f 14NCH 1-INCH EX'TENN'ON EXTENSION SORINGS 177 FIBERS'.ASS POLE SPRINGS De tint'E PAr :EL 67376 r VOUNTED * 1 · OUTSIDE un: V THREE EMPTY GA·LVANIZED 94_VE·R- 14:, ...f v I 7 -1 ... f 1 0toukb JU #'. il-,Ailt.: ur .0'*0 GALVA2170O EVT4 -..3j' ./ 1%f 8.9..AciE BANDS L_ 411 ,lf --' BRACE BANDS r- r -t- r- ",7- •· ··-' 6 1 r,'.4, In p V---I - -ilii __ t. CU i tr i i.,1 L Uodou'T S TE El p n, F. 9 TTOM 0 ,LOWEST BOX .MUS· 3r71 z·, --<241 1 XY. LONG END 1 + ;1!6 -,: i . . -- P . 11 .L 2%LEAST 2 .L -1 ABOVE GROUND LEVEL AND1 j X ! 1 No-* --: 1- f9 OLES MUST BE ANCHORED Al Lze.31 1 .. j RELOW GROUND LEVEL-,11 ..··· ·gt".· #I;r0»IU M i % %-: g kl-----W p 11 1A <41 E-,9 4 rihIPY.€ E 91*1.- 5*· 41-. iI .1 . 1 - -!2 11*... 4 1 4 GECONOED TO B=> - ... 1 ..... 1,<491 -- .............. 1 1.. . .- ........ kl 4 :-' ''"-' - '" Ve" --'-r. 1,49 GROUND,EC tO Jt.:,1 I ·r' f1 12 0%,1 CHAIN UNK GATE -4 -........ I iL ::Dll....... 1 ¥e' . ·· r'D CHA.14 UNK *ATE ,CON SMING SIN} A- . --/'1· -'*:-. "... -4,--=1 'ON Sr:ING S'03)·--I/,I·,3-m: d_L« 1 IL.M*L.•11 ·L & 1 , 1.Wi POSSELE & it # ··ii a L ELECTRONICS i F AT tROUND POLE i i ;0'her . .1f *r bif i . E =:40 8=6 c'*e lierted ¢! M ',59·· er #' 1 , :r:?:• *9. c:f 2 r. d M:4 en· 6*· dere te;, c: ret:Ij'#3 L. , f SOLAR PANE ..1 ...11 2. 5 8*s re teerted or oy'SHe r?de el bl 15 -iIr i illi; Ocr f :e: er,v.r: i„elt,i,jr: 5.F#rif 3.1 -!€ 4. N.; ectbdi m,•1 6•e 64! thf:15!k fie¢31:5' le© Trl *C,w!1.,0 . .1, 1.1 4IN5. 2.9 Epere- Eund,· heel es t e Rt:% ree h,e· triffs.5™.k 6. E're., r:h perel tr:e;* 6¥e fe' Sle, i t 4 ... 1L $411 .c·:rt.e .: f'ZT.351 b't 9·"5C7.'Imel # f rie--f, f: .0 FAMM *Y, F:t p6, eri: ir?;e 1:11.4* .M 1 1411 . .. , 1 0 0 ./ I r '· 001 SIREN1 r . tlr * „1*,l*7"'¥L . CAm ':.* JUNTs !0 . 1 L. N-OT j :rES: r +'4: T: 097.:. rv 7 n. E CLIS> 4 GATE DETACL NAL AK¥ MA:% LL I--'h#wl-.n•••A,11,¥-Mrm#/%T,-1-'.--r»Mr'.9..ri*I#II#-A (24 X36")=...=mtNTS . t e fc. · :% 1t · BATTERY e *..*.*. ' 1t 11 • 1/I'l/,I# 6- ./ (24' X3{ i '1.1, SotAr ' r . *- . .1.1- 3/i ' Pents), L.1 LCONTROLL H *tr; 4 101 Ei '1 tr 1 6/2 14 STAitAT All et·posed wire rectnres ..>j *4 ¢ 1 ectric,01 PVC m l CTRiCAL CONDUIT'4 ; LE 3* + 210 Cond1 0 30#ia**miam OUTCOCK 411: 1 BOX - 1 KMAD / s i KEYW#rot i i EXISTING 'GRADE ... ) 1 i 1 i E@ .ti 11 I Con d j E 4 f *L ri- i t 4 1.Ii -i YP (2) PLO jCond 1 -2 : .g W qC =:.,11.h.L , 1 O&1 CO Li edit ,-- 1 f T r, 1 U 2rh / 55 ' I f,+11 i -4 - 3. - i 4 L 91*:Fl -I ....i . -CAl I 0 1, 1 1 Yjll.-f tes 4%...#i W< 6 3 1 2.500 PSI (MIN) CO\ ..1 ..i :051e m1 9i COM f:{0112,4 0 . . . l ·". * ·•'1,O Ill M Iii Z /4- M 1ie. 1 t. {3*C, jiLVEZ 591 -1 Feed CR E TE 1 1 r- t I.'Tls W it 1- 20 -4 1. i . 1 L. 5 •4 1 31 Ro.05 EAR E CO(PER W:RE1.. 1 r 1,1- 4 .. 1*m--_- E l tm.-12--.' U 14/2 7 . : 1. - - .A M r i .. 0 40 411- 5 0 0,/04 - . Wmr· - 0 ©z IN 1 iUl '7 111 Nlil1.-1 -9, 0 E 1 9BATTERY ' i . mi 1, 12..t 3U1 HW .5411R Re CH 0 111 a ·t ..............aNui** . .=- ..4,7 f, .1.. 2 4 1.-6 - 11 1 9.:4I I.*---/ %5 2 4..0 .1 42-4-DOLE DETAIL i a i f 1/15/'4: THE UOUNTED El_ECTROC-CS *LL BE LOCATED A LEAST ZO' FROU TI. ENCE I jW?RE° RUN DETA/L5 DISCLA,VER: rLECTRONCS LOCAT'04 15 SUBECT TO STE COND#T10*45 1NTS * TV--Ty-77'7'-T---,"'I .I"-4.-LLU- ore MAR. 11, 2014 SOLE: N/A 4, OF 3 1 l -#,-I'll 1-1- 1 LU]] yz« -4 1 " - . 1 I_ 1.- I»»._Il-, .2,[laL J 1/ -......799./ 3.-M·. ·.I.:Div• I. ':.·..'. i 11 ...2.,..- 8/.U,LIU·,..J· M e Ti Site E(-4,21=22--2-12 ··i' w .*-' 7 41 ' . 4 Fre filit' i . ..... ..1 1 " :I'lod"021 ¤ViFAUNTA-GE ROE· ...,2#MMIIr, 0d665 ki2*6£211/weMN60=- I -/ 08/01 0d7d5 't Existing hotel :l Vacant ,/1./. 19 ; 2, developable IL land i Ir• . -·047001 040 Al#®ggii I /517'IL „ ...r 104670' 04590 04601 ....11,mI.m= =77=*F Pennington Elementary 1 L.V.11 IMAAM|' 111 ........r046559;61/ I G/186 04660 51 545 6450504480 1- t=410.1 3 '22221£11 =ErILE- 5 -11 ...P. -faltail 09859 09751 GEW 109709701 '3 WI kIT HAVE ......U.... A J 1 Activity fields owned by Jefferson County Exhibit 1 - aerial vicinity map