Springdale planners debate whether to clarify rules for pools in property setbacks

Springdale Planning Commission members opened a discussion about whether the town’s zoning code should explicitly address swimming pools and setbacks, and asked staff to return with draft language that reflects commissioners’ preferred options.

Tom Kinston, a Planning Commissioner, explained the issue: the town’s setback definition bars “any building or structure or parking area from the finished grade upward,” but in‑ground pools are largely horizontal and flush with grade, so the code is unclear whether they must be kept out of setback areas. Kinston said the commission should pick among three general approaches: prohibit pools in setbacks; allow pools with a fixed small setback (commonly 3–5 feet in other Utah jurisdictions); or use a case‑by‑case rule such as a 45‑degree setback line tied to pool depth.

Commissioners weighed safety, neighborhood impacts and practical site constraints. Several members noted that pool equipment—pumps and mechanicals—typically extend vertically and are already covered by setback and screening rules (similar to AC units). Commissioners also pointed to practical limits imposed by excavation (you cannot over‑excavate past a property line) and cited examples from other local cities where 3–5 foot setbacks or a 45‑degree down‑slope rule are used. One commissioner noted commercial recreational facilities already have larger setbacks under recent code changes.

Key options discussed: - A fixed small setback (5 feet) from side property lines, which several commissioners said feels like a reasonable minimum; other communities use 3–5 feet. - A 45‑degree rule measured from adjacent footings (so an 8‑foot‑deep pool would require an 8‑foot offset); commissioners discussed combining a 45‑degree rule with a minimum (for example, no closer than 5 feet). - Aligning pool setbacks with existing building setback rules (so a pool would follow the same front/side/rear setback as the primary structure) or exempt planned developments/building pads where house placement is already constrained.

Commissioners also raised safety near roads and driveways: members suggested additional requirements if a pool is located inside a setback that adjoins a road, including mandatory fencing even if an automatic safety cover is used. Staff noted building code already requires pool security via either a fence or an automatic cover; commissioners discussed whether front‑yard pools or pools adjacent to private/shared driveways require different treatment.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioners asked staff to return with draft ordinance language that presents the options discussed (minimum setback options of 5 feet and 10 feet, a 45‑degree alternative, exceptions for planned developments/building pads, and special treatment for pools adjacent to roads). Staff will bring those options to a future public meeting for formal action.

Context: Commissioners noted variability among zones (for example, VR‑B side setbacks can be 5 feet on one side and 10 on the other) and asked staff to ensure any pool rule would not conflict with existing zone standards. They also asked staff to check building code references for pool barriers and equipment.