Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council amends Title 19 to add trampoline parks and bounce houses, narrows zones and tweaks definition
Summary
The council adopted changes to Title 19 (land development code) to define and regulate trampoline courts, trampoline parks and bounce houses, removing the proposed allowance in regional commercial and business park zones and simplifying the bounce‑house definition.
The Saratoga Springs City Council on April 20 adopted amendments to Title 19 of the city’s Land Development Code to add definitions and parking standards for trampoline courts, trampoline parks and bounce houses, and to specify where those uses are permitted.
Planning staff explained the changes were prompted by recent inquiries from operators and by an as‑built exception granted for a trampoline court in North Shore. The ordinance adds definitions for “bounce house,” “trampoline court” and “trampoline park,” establishes a parking standard of one stall per 400 square feet (roughly 2.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet) and lists permitted zoning districts. Councilmembers debated the wording of the bounce‑house definition; Councilmember Comber questioned why the definition said “especially used by children” and urged broader, less prescriptive language; councilmembers agreed to remove that phrase.
Councilman Macomber moved to approve Business Item 2 with staff findings and conditions and with two additional changes: (1) remove regional commercial and business park zones from the list of permitted zones for these uses; and (2) change the bounce‑house definition to “a springy inflatable structure used for recreational jumping for a fee.” Councilman Carn seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
Council members discussed where trampoline parks and bounce houses should be allowed and whether those uses are desirable near retail corridors. Councilman Carn noted concerns about siting such uses in commercial zones where the city prefers retail that generates sales tax; Councilman Macomber and others suggested leaving industrial or light‑industrial zones as primary locations. Staff suggested the added parking ratio provides a buffer over the single past parking determination and will reduce ad‑hoc parking exceptions.
The ordinance change directs staff to update use tables and the code text accordingly and will apply to future land‑use applications. No specific operator application was before the council; the amendments are intended to eliminate repetitive parking determinations and clarify allowed locations.
