Loading...
7.b)1) Staff Report-Pool Ordinance � `�) � ��� ��. �. � SCANDIA Staff Report Date of Meeting: July 16, 2013 To: City Council From: Kristina Handt, City Administrator Re: Pool Ordinance Agenda Item #: 7.b)1) Background: At the June meeting the Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance to allow the option of a pool cover if it met certain standards in instead of a fence around the pool. The public hearing was held at the July 3, 2013 Planning Commission. One member of the public, John Krueger, spoke in favor of it. The Planning Commission recommended not changing the existing ordinance. Proposal Details: Sherri's previous report is included which provides more details. Fiscal Impact: NA Options: 1) Approve Ordinance No. 141 2) Amend and then Approve Ordinance No. 141 3) If Ordinance No. 141 is not approved, the Council will need to state their finding of facts for denying the request submitted by the Melbys. The applicants gave their written agreement to extend the 120 day review time to allow the Council to vote on this issue at its July meeting. Further delay would not be available without written permission from the applicants. Recommendation: Option 1. CITY OF SCANDIA ORDINANCE NO.: 141 AN ORDINANCE AMEENDINGS ORDINANCE NO: 122, THE CITY OF SCANDIA DEVELOMENT CODE The City Council of the City of Scandia, Washington County, Minnesota hereby ordains: Sectionl. Amendment. Ordinance 122, the City of Scandia Development code, Chapter Two, Section 4.24, Swimming Pools, shall be amended to read as follows 4.24. Swimmin� (1) Required Permits. A building permit shall be required for any swimming pool with a capacity of over three thousand(3,000)gallons or with a depth of over three and one- half(3.5) feet of water. An application for a building permit shall include a site plan showing: The type and size of pool, location of pool, location of house, garage, fencing or safetv cover and other improvements on the lot, location of structures on all adjacent lots, location of filter unit,pump and writing indicating the type of such units, location of back-flush and drainage outlets, grading plan, finished elevations and final treatment(decking, landscaping, etc.)around the pool, location of existing overhead and underground wiring, utility easements,trees and similar features, and location of any water heating units. (2) Performance Standards. (A) Pools shall not be located within twenty(20)feet of any septic tank/drainfield nor within six(6) feet of any principal structure or frost footing. Pools shall not be located within any required front or side yard setbacks. (B) Pools shall not be located beneath overhead utility lines nor over underground utility lines of any types. (C) Pools shall not be located within any private or public utility,walkway, drainage or other easement. (D) In the case of in-ground pools, necessary precautions shall be taken during the construction to avoid damage, hazards or inconvenience to adjacent or nearby property and assure that proper care shall be taken in stockpiling excavated material to avoid erosion,dust or other infringements upon adjacent property. (E) All access for construction shall be over the owner's land and due care shall be taken to avoid damage to public streets and adjacent private or public property. (F) To the extent feasible, back-flush water or water from pool drainage shall be directed onto the owner's property or into approved public drainageways. Water shall not drain onto adjacent or nearby private land. (G) The filter unit, pump, heating unit and any other noise-making mechanical equipment shall be located at least fifty(50)feet from any adjacent or nearby residential structure and not closer than ten(10)feet to any lot line. (H) Lighting for the pool shall be directed toward the pool and not toward adjacent property. (I) A structure or safety fence of a non-climbable type at least four(4)feet in height, with a self-closing and latching gate shall completely enclose the pool, but shall not be located within any required yard areas; or A pool cover or other protective device approved bv the Citv shall be an acceptable enclosure so lon�as the de erg e of protection afforded bv the substituted device or structures is not less than the protection afforded b �� the enclosure, gate and latch described above far fences;the device complies with the American Societv for Testin�and Materials(ASTM) Standard F1346-91 �2003) or most recent ASTM standard; and is sufficient to support the wei�ht of 500 pounds minimum and completely covers or encloses the pool. The ��licant shall submit documentation verifving that the proposed cover meets the required standard. The substitution with such a pool cover or other erotective device shall be done bv the issuance of a Building Permit. (J) Water in the pool shall be maintained in a suitable manner to avoid health hazards of any type. (K) All wiring, installation of heating units, grading, installation of pipes and all other installations and construction shall be subject to inspection. Section 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption and publication according to law. Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Scandia this 16th day of July, 2013. Randall Simonson, Mayor ATTEST: Kristina Handt, Administrator/Clerk � 444 Cedar Street,Suite 1500 Saint Poul,N�I 55101 651.292.4400 � tkda.com e°�+ �. TKDA Memorandum To: Scandia City Council Reference: Melby Code Amendment Kristina Handt, City Request Administrator Copies To: Jeff and Bea Melby, Applicants Keith Wille, Building Inspector Project No.: 15253.005 From: Sherri Buss, Planner Routing: Date: May 8, 2013 SUBJECT: Melby Request for Development Code Amendment MEETING DATE: May 21, 2013 LOCATION: 19450 Parkview Lane North Scandia, Minnesota APPLICANT: Jeff and Bea Melby ZONING: General Rural (GR) District 120-DAY PERIOD: May 13, 2013 ITEMS REVIEWED: Application and related information submitted March 14, 2013 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: The applicants are proposing to install an in-ground pool at their residence. They wish to use an automatic pool safety cover in place of the fence required by the City's ordinance. The applicants are requesting that the City amend its Development Code to allow the use of pool safety covers as an alternative to the Code's fence requirement. The pool safety cover that the Melbys proposed is described in the materials attached. It is designed in accord with the standards of the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM). The ASTM is an international society of engineers, scientists and professionals that regularly develop standards for products, materials and systems that are used in construction and An employee owned company promoting affirmative action and equal opportunity Melby Code Amendment Scandia City Council Page 2 May 21,2013 manufacturing. The ASTM standards are frequently cited in ordinances and materials specifications. CURRENT CODE REQUIREMENT The construction and perFormance standards for swimming pools are included in Chapter 2 of the Development Code, Section 4.24. Item I of that section requires that "A structure or safety fence of a non-climbable type at/east 4 feet in height, with a self-closing and latching gate shall completely enclose the pool, but shall not be located within any required yard areas." The City reviewed the fencing requirement approximately five years ago when another resident requested that a cover be allowed as an alternative to the required fence. The Planning Commission recommended no change in the requirement at that time. The Melbys suggested that recent changes in the design of automated pool covers have made them an acceptable alternative to a fence in many communities, and request that the City consider changing its ordinance to allow this alternative. The Planning Commission reviewed the materials that the Melby's submitted regarding automated poll covers that meet American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) standards, and requested that the Planner gather information from other communities in order to understand their rationale for requiring fences or permitting automated pool covers as an alternative. The next section includes a summary of the information gathered and presented to the Commission. CURRENT CODES IN OTHER COMMUNITIES Many cities and townships in the Metro Area, including Forest Lake, Woodbury, May and Stillwater Townships, now allow alternatives to the fencing previously required for swimming pools. A list of communities in the Metro Area that allow an automated safety cover without fencing is included in the packet of materials that the applicants submitted. The communities have changed their ordinances to allow automated pool covers as technology has changed to make the covers safer. Other communities, including the Cities of Stillwater and Hugo, have opted to continue to require fencing. Comments from each of the communities on their code requirements for pool safety devices include the following: Citv of Woodburv—the City recently updated its ordinance related to swimming pools. Staff comments include the following: • The City's ordinance generally requires fencing for pool safety. The City is concerned that some types of pool covers are not strong enough to walk across, and may collect rainwater. • However, the City's Building Inspector may approve the use of a pool cover if the applicant can show that the cover will not collect rain water, and if people can stand/walk on it without affecting the seal or without causing it to collect water. Specific language in the ordinance that allows the exception is the following: o The council may permit other protective devices or structures to be used so long as the degree of protection afforded by the substitute devices or structures is not less than the degree of protection afforded by the fence, gate and latch described in this article. , } Melby Code Amendment Scandia City Council Page 3 May 21, 2013 Jack Kramer Buildinq Official for Stillwater Township, Citv of Grant, Citv of Stacv. Citv of Tavlors Falls, Lent Township–Jack indicated that each of the communities he works with allows residents to use either an automated pool cover that meets the ASTM standard or a fence for pool safety. He noted the following: • He believes that the automated covers that meet ASTM standards provide the same level of protection as a fence. The covers have the additional advantage of keeping the chemicals in the pool. • Neither option is completely fool-proof. The most important element of protection is parents and homeowners being responsible for small children. Jack noted data that says that in the U.S., 98% of pool fatalities among young children occur at their own homes or at the homes of friends and relatives. Only 2% of fatalities occur from small children wandering onto neighboring properties. • The communities he works for have opted to give homeowners the choice between the options. • His comments are based on personal as well as professional experience. He stood on the covers that meet ASTM standards and verified to his satisfaction that the seals hold and the covers don't hold water. Keith Wille, Buildinq Official for Forest Lake and Scandia—Keith indicated that Forest Lake allows him to make the judgment about whether a pool cover can be used rather than a fence. He is comfortable with automated covers that meet the ASTM standard. Keith indicated that requests for the automated covers that meet ASTM standards is relatively rare, as they are more expensive to install than fences. Keith indicated to the Planner that he is comfortable with the use of safety covers for swimming pools as an alternative to the fencing currently required in the code, as long as the requirements include the following: • The code should specify that the cover allowed is an "Automatic Swimming Pool Cover" rather than covers that use straps and springs to hold the covers in place. • The code should require that the covers allowed meet the ASTM F1346-91 (2003) standard for safety covers for swimming pools Mav Township. May Township's code allows the use of a pool cover as an acceptable enclosure if it complies with the ASTM Standard F1346. A copy of the ordinance is attached. The ordinance states that "A pool cover or other protective device approved by the Town Building Official shall be an acceptable enclosure so long as the degree of profection afforded by the substituted devices or structures is not less than the protection afforded by the enclosure, gate and latch described above (for fences) and complies with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in compliance wifh sfandard F1346-91(2003), and is sufficient to support the weight of 500 Ibs minimum and complefely cover or enclose the pool. The substitution with such a poo/cover or other protective device shall be done by the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance or Building Permit. Citv of Huq�The City's Building Official indicated that Hugo's ordinance requires fencing. He noted the following: • Most pool covers cannot document that they would hold up if multiple people walked or fell on them. • He would be willing to approve a pool cover if a licensed engineer would certify that the cover would hold up for the long term, particularly with the weight of multiple people. (Planners comment: in practice, it would be very difficult to get an engineer to certify a product that he/she had not designed, and if he/she had no control over installation.) � 1 Melby Code Amendment Scandia City Council Page 4 May 21,2013 Citv of Stil/water--Stillwater completed a lengthy process to consider the City's ordinance requirements for pool safety. Bill Turnblad, the City's Community Development Director, summarized this information in conversations with the Planner. Some of the key points include the following: • The City looked at pool safety recommendations from the ASTM (American Society for Testing Materials), CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission), and CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). • The ASTM recommends a "layers of protection" approach that encourages redundancies in protection. It established a point system that gives values to a variety of protection options. The ASTM recommends that the protection elements used get at least 7 points, but 8 points or more are recommended. A safety fence with a self-closing and self- latching gate, such as the one required in the Scandia code, gets 6 points. An automatic pool safety cover that meets ASTM standards gets 3 points. So neither approach meets their recommended standard—multiple devices, such as self-latching and self-closing doors on the house with a fence, or a fence combined with a pool cover, need to utilized to achieve the recommended standard,. • The CPCS recommends a barrier, such as a fence that completely surrounds the pool and obstructs access. If the wall of a dwelling is part of the barrier, the house doors should have alarms or the pool should also have a safety cover. (Most ordinances, including Scandia's do not include this provision.) They emphasize that barriers do not substitute for diligent supervision of small children. • The CDC recommends a pool fence, and recommends considering installing other barriers along with the fence. Stillwater Planninq Commission and Staff Recommendations • The City's Planning Commission recommended 4-2 to continue to allow pool safety covers as sufficient protection, and recommended that the code should specify that "power safety covers" compliant with ASTM F 1346-91 (Re-approved 2003) are required. • The City's Pool Discussion Group (council member, residents, and staffl was split on whether to allow a safety cover as sufficient for pool safety. They ultimately recommended that a vertical safety enclosure be required (fence, walls); that safety covers in addition to a fence would be optional; and that existing pools with covers would be "grandfathered" and would not be required to add a fence. • The City staff discussed whether the ordinance should require the "layered" approach recommended by ASTM. They concluded that it was too complex, both for residents trying to interpret the code and for building inspectors trying to administer the code. • Staff and Pool Discussion Group recommendations for the fence requirement were based on the following: o Fencing was generally rated as safer than the pool covers by the standards organizations. o People in Stillwater are used to fences around yards, so the requirement does not seem difficult to most people. o Fencing does not require a specialist to maintain it or keep it working over the long term, though the City acknowledged that fences and gates do require maintenance and the City does not inspect them unless it receives complaints. • Staff also noted that the City does not require fencing around landscape pools or water features. He said that staff think that swimming pools are potentially more attractive to toddlers than landscape water features. 1 ;,:' Melby Code Amendment Scandia City Councii Page 5 May 21, 2013 • We discussed the tendency of communities with large lots to be more comfortable with the automatic safety covers than communities with "urban" lot sizes. Toddlers may be less likely to wander unsupervised onto other properties in communities or zoning districts with large lots. Additional Information Provided bv Jeff Melbv. Jeff Melby provided some additional information to follow up on a Commission question asked at the April Planning Commission meeting. His email noted that the ASTM-recommended covers can easily be closed or opened manually if electric power is lost. He can provide a copy of the owner's manual that describes the manual operation of the cover. CITY ATTORNEY AND INSURER COMMENTS ON OPTIONS Nick Vivian, the City Attorney, indicated that he had no substantive changes to the information that was provided from other communities. He noted that communities from around the area have taken different approaches to address this issue depending upon whether they trust the ASTM standards. The Attorney indicated that this is a policy issue for the City at this point. There is sufficient evidence to support retaining the fencing requirement and sufficient support for the City allow the automatic pool covers as a substitute for the fencing requirement. Attorney Vivian noted that the City could seek additional information from an expert in the industry if they are not confident in the information they have regarding the pool covers. He noted that if the City is not confident, they may simply retain the fencing requirement. Residents can always install an automatic cover, but could still be required to fence the area. Finally, he noted that if the City is going to allow automatic covers, he strongly recommends that each cover require a COC or a Building Permit and be approved in advance by the Building Official. At a minimum, there needs to be some official review or oversight of the cover being installed to confirm the ASTM standards have been met. Kristina Handt contacted the City's insurance provider regarding this issue. Jackie Torgerson of Berkeley Risk Administration Company suggested that if the City is considering changing the code, its insurer would suggest including a requirement that the fence or pool cover needs to comply with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Safety Barrier Guidelines and should also conform to ASTM F 1346-91. She indicated that if either the fencing or pool cover complies with these guidelines, she did not believe that the City could be liable, and that liability would fall on the homeowner. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the zoning amendment request at its meeting on April 2. Only a few comments were presented, both favoring and opposing the proposed change in the code. The Commission discussed the proposed amendment further at its meeting on May 7. Some Commission members noted that it was a difficult issue. The Commission voted to recommend that the Council maintain the current requirements in the ordinance, and made the following comments: � , �1 Melby Code Amendment Scandia City Council Page 6 May 21,2013 • In general, fences with a self-locking gate received a higher safety rating than pool covers. They concluded that fences can provide a higher level of safety for small children than pool covers alone. • While the ASTM has recommended "layers of coverage" as the safest approach, and the Commission concluded that this is would provide a higher degree of safety, they were not comfortable with changing the ordinance to require both fences and covers due to the cost of this option. • The Commission is not comfortable with changing the ordinance to trust the Building Inspector's analysis and decision on pool cover applications, as Woodbury did. COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND ACTION The Council may review the information provided by the Melbys and City staff, and the Planning Commission's recommendation. Options to consider include the following: • Make no change to the current ordinance. The City would continue to require "a structure or safety fence of a non-climbable type at least 4 feet in height, with a self- closing and latching gate shall completely enclose the pool." • Recommend that the ordinance be amended to allow automatic safety covers or a fence. The amendment language could be similar to the language that May Township uses that requires that "A pool cover or other protective device approved by the Town Building Official shall be an acceptable enclosure so long as the degree of protection afforded by the substitufed devices or structures is not less than the protection afforded by the enclosure, gate and latch described above (for fences) and complies with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) in compliance with standard F1346-9 (2003 or most recent standard), and is sufficient fo support a weight of 500 Ibs minimum and completely cover or enclose the pool. The substitution with such a pool cover or other protective device shall be done by the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance or a Building Permit." • Recommend that the ordinance be amended to allow the Building Official to allow automated pool covers, similar to the language from the City of Woodbury zoning ordinance: "The council may permit other protective devices or structures to be used so long as the degree of protection afforded by the substitute devices or structures is not /ess than the degree of protection afforded by the fence, gate and latch described in this article." • Require both a fence and a pool cover or other additional protection to meet the ASTM "layers of protection" recommendations. Staff request that the Council discuss this issue and make a recommendation at the meeting on May 21. If the Council recommends that the ordinance be amended, staff will create a draft ordinance based on the Council's recommendations. The draft ordinance could be scheduled for a public hearing at the June Planning Commission meeting. If the Council recommends that the Melbys' request for an ordinance amendment be denied, it should include findings for the denial. �. 1 ��