Commission refines accessory-structure rules, agrees to take changes to public hearing

SPRINGDALE — The Springdale Planning Commission spent the April 16 meeting refining proposed revisions to Chapter 10-20 that regulate accessory buildings and structures and agreed to schedule the draft for public hearing.

Staff presented proposed new language in section 10-20-8 to allow property owners to request an exception to development standards for accessory structures when an exception would reduce the structure’s visual impact. "A property owner would need to provide a complete design development review package, showing how the accessory structure would be built in compliance with all standards," a staff presenter said, and additional required materials would include a site plan, grading plan, floor plans, building elevations, cross-sections and photo simulations from four directions for both the compliant and exception locations.

Commissioners discussed multiple elements: standardizing terminology (changing "accessory buildings" to "accessory structures" across the code), how to define front/lot orientation on Springdale’s irregular lots, whether a 1.5-times multiplier for setbacks should apply to front setbacks in the Valley Residential (VR) subzones, and parcel-size and structure-size thresholds used in a proposed table governing total allowable development. Commissioners expressed concern that applying the 1.5 multiplier to front setbacks in VR zones could push accessory buildings too far back (for example, increasing a 30-foot front setback to 45 feet or a 50-foot setback to 75 feet), and several members supported not applying the multiplier to front setbacks in the VR subzone while keeping it in Foothill Residential (FR) zones. The commission also agreed to permit a fifth accessory structure if at least one existing structure on the parcel is 200 square feet or less, rather than tying eligibility to build order.

Commissioners asked staff to clarify front-lot-line definitions elsewhere in the code rather than resolving that question inside the accessory-structure section; staff agreed to note that as a code-cleanup item. After discussion the commission indicated it was comfortable moving the revised accessory-structures language to a public hearing; staff will make the edits discussed and schedule the hearing.

No formal vote on ordinance adoption occurred; commission direction recorded in the transcript is to finalize the draft and bring it back at a public hearing.