Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission votes to recommend denial of proposed reduction to pool fence height
Summary
Commissioners voted to recommend denial of an ordinance amendment that would have allowed a four‑foot pool fence if combined with a qualifying safety cover; discussion centered on safety, enforceability and maintenance, and the denial carried with one commissioner opposed.
City Planner Kim Lindquist presented a proposed text amendment to Subdivision 51.03 C7.e1)(5) that would allow a four‑foot pool fence (instead of the current five‑foot minimum) if the pool also used a qualifying secondary safety measure such as an automatic safety cover. Lindquist noted several other communities allow reduced fence heights when additional safety measures are provided and said qualifying covers would be required to meet applicable safety standards and to be secured when pools are not in use.
Commissioners pressed staff on safety and enforcement: Building Official Scott Dornfeld said the five‑foot standard has been longstanding and is commonly reflected in ornamental fencing products; Commissioner Mike Maharas asked about maintenance and housing of automatic covers; Commissioner Joe Tipka and Commissioner Josh Gehlen questioned how staff would determine whether covers were in use when pools were not actively supervised. Phil Kern said the ordinance's purpose is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.
After discussion and no public comment, the commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed amendment and to maintain the current five‑foot pool fencing requirement. The motion carried; the minutes record one opposed commissioner (Lexa Isles) but do not provide a full roll‑call tally. Commissioners cited concerns about consistency, enforceability and long‑term effectiveness as reasons for the denial.
