Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting March 26, 2025 Cedar Falls, Iowa MINUTES The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission met in regular session on March 26, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall. The following Commission members were present: Alberhasky, Grybovych, Hartley, Johnson, Moser, Sorensen, Stalnaker and Watkins. Henderson was absent. Karen Howard, Planning and Community Services Manager, and Chris Sevy, Planner II were also present. 1.) Chair Hartley noted the Minutes from the February 26, 2025 regular meeting are presented. Alberhasky made a motion to approve the Minutes as presented. Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Alberhasky, Grybovych, Hartley, Johnson, Moser, Sorensen, Stalnaker and Watkins), and 0 nays. 2.) The first item of business was a zoning code text amendment regarding outdoor swimming pool regulations (TA24-005). Chair Hartley introduced the item and Mr. Sevy provided background information. He explained that there has been a request to change some standards in the code regarding swimming pools. He discussed what the code typically regulates regarding swimming pools, which includes where the pool can go, what the setbacks should be, the size, and a fence or barrier requirement to prevent unintended use. An application was received requesting to allow the use of an ASTM Automatic Safety Pool Cover in lieu of a fence. Mr. Sevy discussed the issues with the current ordinance including its placement within the code, lack of differentiation between expectations for kiddie pools and larger standard swimming pools, the current 2-foot setback requirement, and considerations for double-fronting lots. He spoke about the current code requirements versus the proposed requirements and provided an explanation for what a double-fronting lot is. The code amendments were being presented for initial review and discussion at that time. If the Commission was supportive of the general approach, staff would recommend setting a public hearing. Stalnaker asked if there were any stipulations regarding the pool being covered when not in use and whether it is something that should be part of the code. Mr. Sevy noted that essentially it is the responsibility of the homeowner to keep it closed the same as with a fence and keeping the gate closed. Sevy said there was some discussion among staff about including a requirement to close when not in use but that provision would place more liability on the City for monitoring and policing where liability already tends to be a motivating factor for homeowners. The City has not a lot of ability to monitor without complaints being made. If there is a consistent problem, there is certainly the ability to change the code if needed. But as it stands, these are civil matters that rest on the liability of the home-owner. Sorensen and Stalnaker had questions regarding the setbacks, as well as when a building permit is required. Mr. Sevy and Ms. Howard responded to those questions. Watkins asked about adding further clarification to what could work as fencing as well as exterior lighting. Moser feels that the fence should be required with or without the cover. Watkins proposed adding language stating that above ground pools with a deck and railings around them could be considered the same as a fence. She also felt it should be clarified that the fence can be at the property line and not just around the pool itself and that the gate should be self-latching. Ms. Howard clarified that the language, as written would count a fence 1  at the property line or the enclosure of a railing around a pool deck as long as the enclosure meets the 4-foot requirement and is a reasonable barrier to entry. Moser doesn’t like the idea of having a pool cover without a fence. There was further discussion about 4 ft. fencing as well. Ms. Howard asked for feedback as to whether the Commission was comfortable with a 4 ft. fence. All were okay with this requirement. Ms. Howard asked for a show of hands of anyone who is okay with the exemption for using the cover and no fence. Hartley was the only hand raised and a couple others indicated potential to be in favor. Johnson asked if there were additional safeguards beyond opening and closing the cover with a key (such as automatically closing at a specific time). Staff will research further the available options, or the pool contractor will hopefully be able to attend next time to provide some clarity on potential features of these pool covers. Hartley made a motion to set a public hearing for April 9. Sorensen seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Alberhasky, Grybovych, Hartley, Johnson, Moser, Sorensen, Stalnaker and Watkins), and 0 nays. 3.) As there were no further comments, Moser made a motion to adjourn. Alberhasky seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with 8 ayes (Alberhasky, Grybovych, Hartley, Johnson, Moser, Sorensen, Stalnaker and Watkins), and 0 nays. The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Howard Joanne Goodrich Community Services Manager Administrative Assistant 2