07-08-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In reviewing our ordinance (copy attached as Exhibit #3), we have incorporated provisions for fencing the perimeter to secure pools. However, one resident has mentioned that a four -foot high fence does not provide much security. (Staff is currently researching other cities' ordinances to see if different standards are in play.) The ordinance also requires "maintenance" but how to handle a pool that is not being maintained is a concern; i.e. we don't want to just cite someone for a violation that can take months in the court system and not always result in an acceptable outcome. Should unmaintained pools be excavated and filled? If so, when do we considered a pool abandoned? Or, how long does someone have to put an unused pool back in service. Another complicating factor is some pools need to have water in them to maintain structural integrity while others do not. Does that make a difference whereby we should involve a pool expert to tell us on a case by case basis what needs to be done to put a pool back in operation? If filling them is too extreme a consequence, is covering them acceptable; i.e. would one know the difference from a pool that is being used and one that is not in use if it were covered? The City Attorney has been involved in researching this topic and will be present at Wednesday'sworkshop to assist in the discussion. Staff is looking for direction as to how you would like us to proceed in this matter. If this is a concern we want to deal with, we may have to beef up the maintenance standards or the required corrective measures to enable us to solve this problems. Housing Maintenance Issues: Another recurring code enforcement issue that arises from time to time is housing maintenance concerns. In some cases, people point out that a neighboring property is lacking in maintenance that detracts from neighborhood appearance and quality of life. These concerns focus on the need for paint, shingles, the repair of damaged siding or facia/soffits, driveway condition, decks, or other deferred maintenance issues. In some cases, existing codes enable us to seek corrective action such as damage fences (our code on fences requires maintenance and repair) or the reinstallation of front steps (covered by the building code). But in many of the issues brought to our attention, our codes do not speak to specific corrective actions. We have attached some photos (Exhibit #4) that depict the concerns expressed by recent citizen contacts. One exception is seriously dilapidated structures that can be addressed under the Hazardous Building Statutes. We have used that a few times over the years to correct extreme situations. Another exception could be covered by the nuisance ordinance provision 601. 050.c. (Exhibit #5) The problem with this approach comes in determining the work needed to be done, valuing that work and then applying it against the original permit value. Furthermore, if we abate, 10 days is the maximum term for corrective action (601.070). This is not an adequate time period