Springdale Planning Commission refines accessory-structure rules, sends ADU recommendations to public hearing

SPRINGDALE, Utah ' The Springdale Planning Commission reviewed draft ordinances that would change how residential accessory structures are sized, sited and reviewed, and agreed to schedule a public hearing on housing-committee recommendations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

The commission met April 2 at Worth Canyon Community Center and spent the bulk of a two-hour work session on two linked but distinct items that both propose revisions to town code section 10-20-8: one item updates rules on the size, height and visual impact of accessory structures; the other contains ADU-related changes proposed by the housing committee. No final ordinances were adopted at the meeting.

The changes under review would: rename 10-20-8 to expand the topic from "accessory buildings" to "residential accessory structures"; create a new code section (proposed 10-20-16) establishing total allowable structure on a residential property; set baseline and bonus square-foot thresholds for large lots; remove a circle-radius distance alternative for bonus square footage; and add detailed direction on how exceptions are reviewed. The housing committee's recommendations would keep external ADUs limited to 1,500 square feet, set a 17-foot maximum ADU height (subject to being further limited by an existing zone height), require on-site parking for external ADUs, and require external ADUs only on properties of at least 0.5 acre.

Why it matters: the draft rules would affect whether and where homeowners can build large detached garages, barns and other accessory structures, and would clarify when an accessory structure can be used as an ADU, a guest house, or occupied by a nonpaying family member. Commissioners said the changes aim to limit skyline clutter and preserve views while allowing some flexibility on very large parcels.

Key details discussed - Separate but related items: Staff advised commissioners to evaluate each draft on its policy merits rather than try to reconcile all differences at once. "This is a work meeting, so you're just discussing them," staff member Tom Kinston said, underscoring that no final votes were expected that night. - Structure totals and bonuses: The draft places a 9,000-square-foot baseline for maximum allowable development across multiple accessory structures on large parcels, with an allowance for an additional building (commissioners discussed making the extra allowance 3,000 square feet rather than the earlier 4,000). The proposal removes a distance-based circle-radius alternative and instead applies visibility-based criteria to any additional square footage. - Visibility vs. distance: Commissioners debated replacing distance thresholds (for example, 500/1,000 feet) with a visibility-based test that would allow extra square footage only where the additional building would not be "high visual impact" or "view obstructing." Commissioner Terry Kruschke recommended tightening the exception-review submittal requirements and asked that applicants provide "a written description and drawings or photo simulations" so the commission can judge whether an exception actually reduces visual impact. - Height conflicts and ADUs: The housing committee proposes a 17-foot ADU height cap. Commissioners noted that the most restrictive applicable height would control in practice (for example, if a zone's high-visibility limit is 15 feet, that lower number would apply). Staff suggested the ADU language could say "maximum 17 feet, but no higher than otherwise regulated by this title," to avoid conflicts. - ADU size, parking and occupancy: The housing committee's draft keeps external ADUs at a 1,500-square-foot maximum, requires that on-site parking meet the needs of an external ADU (rather than relying on the one-space cap the state imposes for internal ADUs), clarifies an occupant/guest distinction (proposed guest period: 90 days), and reiterates that ADUs may not be sold or subdivided separately from the primary dwelling. - Exceptions and evidence: Commissioners asked staff to draft clearer submittal standards for exception requests (photo simulations, drawings, and neighbor-view perspectives) so the administrative decision can be made on a documented record. Staff cautioned against requiring neighbor approval, noting state law would not make that a legal requirement for land-use decisions.

Votes at a glance - Motion to approve agenda: Motion by Commissioner Jennifer McCullough; second by Commissioner Rich Swanson. Vote recorded: Jennifer McCullough, Terry Kruschke, Tom Kinston, Paul Zimmerman, Rich Swanson ' Aye. Outcome: approved. - Motion to approve minutes (March 5, March 12, March 19): Motion by Commissioner Jennifer McCullough; second by Commissioner Terry Kruschke. Vote recorded: Jennifer McCullough, Terry Kruschke, Tom Kinston, Paul Zimmerman, Rich Swanson ' Aye. Outcome: approved. - Motion to adjourn: Motion by Commissioner Terry Kruschke; second by Commissioner Rich Swanson. Vote recorded: Jennifer McCullough, Terry Kruschke, Tom Kinston, Rich Swanson ' Aye. Outcome: approved.

Next steps and staff direction - Staff will revise the accessory-structure draft to: replace distance-based bonus criteria with visibility-based limitations for additional square footage; clarify the exception submittal requirements (photo simulations/drawings and neighbor-perspective views); and refine language so that ADU height limits read as a maximum (17 feet) but remain subordinate to lower zone-specific height limits where applicable. - The commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing on the housing committee's ADU recommendations.

Context and background Commissioners and staff said the drafts build on months of prior work. The discussion revisited tradeoffs between preserving views and permitting larger accessory development on very large parcels. Commissioners consistently emphasized that the drafts are policy proposals that will next go to public hearing and then to the town council for any final ordinance adoption.

Ending Staff will return a revised ordinance draft and proposed submittal language for exception requests; the commission expects to consider the item again at a future work meeting before the scheduled public hearing.