Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Item# 5.10 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Mayor and City Council <br />Scott Harlicker, Senior Plann~~ <br />October 18, 2004 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Case No. OA 04-03 <br />Request by City of Elk River for Ordinance Amendment <br /> <br />Reauest <br /> <br />Consider an ordinance amendment regarding fencing around pools <br /> <br />Attachment <br /> <br />. Current ordinance <br />. Proposed Ordinance <br /> <br />Overview <br /> <br />The current ordinance is not clear about fencing requirement around pools. Fencing is only <br />referenced as a note in the dimensional regulations chart. It only states that pools shall be <br />completely enclosed with an opaque chainlink or equivalent fence at least four feet high with <br />a lockable gate. <br /> <br />Issues <br /> <br />What is opaque? <br /> <br />It is not clear why this term is included. Is it to screen the pool or is it an attempt to make <br />the fence non-climbable. If a resident wants privacy they can install a stockade fence or <br />utilize landscaping. A four-foot high fence, even with slates, would still be climbable for a <br />determined child. At the Planning Commission meeting, it was suggested that one possible <br />reason for including the term opaque was to address the issue of "attractable nuisance". <br />