Cedar Falls planning commission backs 4-foot fence or ASTM-certified powered pool cover; also recommends mandatory 4-foot fence alternative

The Cedar Falls Planning and Zoning Commission on April 9 recommended that City Council consider two amendments to the city zoning code that would change residential pool safety and setback rules: (1) allow either a 4-foot fence or an ASTM‑rated powered pool cover to satisfy the barrier requirement, and (2) alternatively, adopt a mandatory 4-foot fence standard.

The recommendation matters because the proposed changes would replace the city’s current 5-foot fence requirement and clarify multiple setback and installation questions that staff said have caused conflicts and uncertainty for homeowners. City planning staff presented the amendment after a pool contractor and a Cedar Falls homeowner requested an exception to the existing rule so a powered safety cover could be used in cases where a 5-foot fence is infeasible.

City planning staff said the current code is older and inconsistent with building-code practice and insurance standards. The draft amendment would reduce the fence-height requirement from 5 feet to 4 feet or allow a powered safety cover that meets American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) safety standards. Staff also proposed adjusting setback rules: the code currently allows a 2-foot setback; the draft would require a 5-foot setback to the pool deck and 10 feet to the pool edge in most cases, and it clarifies that pools with water deeper than 24 inches are covered by the rules. Staff highlighted a recurring practical problem: 30-foot drainage easements in some lots make fence placement impossible, leaving homeowners with no option under the current ordinance.

Homeowner Ryan Borgward, 4426 Windwood Drive, told the commission his lot cannot accommodate a 5-foot fence and said safety motivated his request. "Safety trumps everything," Borgward said, adding that he researched industry practice and that ASTM‑rated covers are designed to prevent unintended entry.

Steve McCulloch, representing Pool Tech of Cedar Rapids, described how modern powered covers meet several safety criteria used by jurisdictions that permit covers in lieu of fences: load capacity, limited perimeter deflection, and mechanical safeguards on operation. "You have to keep your finger on the button. So if you take your finger off, it stops," McCulloch said, describing an operational requirement for many automated covers and the locked control boxes typically used to prevent unauthorized operation.

Commission discussion ranged from support for the cover option to concerns about human error if owners fail to close a cover. Several commissioners said the cover may be effective and noted that many cities and the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code allow an ASTM‑rated cover in place of a fence; others favored retaining a physical, always-present barrier. After discussion the commission voted to recommend both options to council so the City Council may consider either approach.

Votes at a glance

- Motion 1 — Recommend code amendment allowing a 4-foot fence or an ASTM‑rated powered pool cover to meet the pool barrier requirement: passed (motion carries). Final recorded roll call: Commissioner Alberhasky — aye; Commissioner Hartley — aye; Commissioner Henderson — aye; Commissioner Johnson — aye; Commissioner Moser — aye; Commissioner Sorensen — aye; Commissioner Watkins — aye.

- Motion 2 — Recommend code amendment requiring a mandatory 4-foot fence (no cover exception): passed (motion carries). Final recorded roll call:Commissioner Alberhasky — aye; Commissioner Hartley — aye; Commissioner Henderson — aye; Commissioner Johnson — aye; Commissioner Moser — aye; Commissioner Sorensen — aye; Commissioner Watkins — aye.

The commission directed staff to forward both positive recommendations to City Council. Staff noted the City Council will set a public hearing at the April 21 council meeting and that the formal hearing before Council will occur in May.

Clarifying technical details discussed at the meeting included the following: the proposed fence‑height standard would align with many Iowa jurisdictions and the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code at 4 feet; the draft clarifies that the barrier requirement applies to pools with depth greater than 24 inches and would not apply to spas or hot tubs that have a locking lid; the code currently allows a 2‑foot setback and the proposal raises that to 5 feet for pool decks and 10 feet to the pool edge in most cases; and typical drainage easements are 30 feet wide, which can prevent construction of a perimeter fence. Commissioners and petitioners provided approximate cost comparisons during public comment: one homeowner said raising an existing chain‑link fence to 5 feet was quoted at about $9,000, a wooden option about $25,000 and a vinyl option about $58,000; an automated cover quote was described in the range of $20,000–$25,000 (figures provided by speakers, approximate).

The commission’s recommendation now moves to City Council, which will hold its public hearing and consider whether to adopt the code amendment. The city planner said staff will present both options so council may select either approach or take a different course.