Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission explores caps on accessory structures, debates 6,500 vs. 9,000 square-foot tiers
Summary
Springdale commissioners reviewed staff analysis of existing properties and discussed a tiered cap on total building area to limit oversized accessory buildings. Staff will return with revised language reflecting commission direction.
The Springdale Planning Commission on March 5 continued a months-long discussion about accessory structures, view-shed protections and proposed limits on total building area for residential parcels.
Staff presented an analysis of existing properties by zone and parcel size and proposed tiered maximums for total building area. Commissioners narrowed toward a structure that would set graduated caps by parcel-size tiers and discussed specific numeric thresholds (6,000–6,500 square feet for smaller parcels; 7,500 for mid-sized parcels; and 9,000 for the largest parcels) while debating whether to keep or drop an alternate allowance that would permit additional buildings outside a set radius.
Tom Kinston (building inspector/town staff) and staff provided a parcel-level analysis showing relatively few existing developed lots would become nonconforming under various cap scenarios. Several commissioners, including Paul Zimerman and Rich Swanson, said they favored preventing incremental increases in accessory development that would change the town’s village character. Commissioner Terry Kruschke and others urged caution about making too many small distinctions (for example, whether a lot of 2.01 acres should be treated differently than a 1.99-acre legacy lot) and asked staff to consider slightly higher thresholds — for example, 6,500 square feet instead of 6,000 — to reduce the number of immediate nonconforming properties.
Commissioners debated how to treat planned developments (FRPD). Staff suggested a practical approach for PDs: compute the total dedicated open space and allocate per-lot acreage so that planned-development lots fall into the appropriate tier; commissioners also discussed simply assigning a single cap (7,500 square feet) for all PD lots to avoid overregulation above existing homeowner-association rules.
Two related questions framed much of the discussion: (1) whether the commission should adopt a strict numerical cap now to prevent future large accessory development, and (2) whether to include exceptions or an “or” clause that would allow additional structures when lots and neighbors are sufficiently distant. That circle-or-exception language generated the most disagreement; after discussion the commission signaled it preferred to remove the vague radius-based exception and asked staff to prepare a cleaned draft that: (a) uses tiered caps, (b) treats basements per current code (walkout basements counted in building area, others excluded unless specified), and (c) applies a 7,500-square-foot cap to planned-development lots unless the commission chooses otherwise.
Commissioners did not adopt a final numeric package at the March 5 meeting. Staff will revise the draft to reflect the commission’s direction (including the 6,500 vs. 6,000 discussion, the PD treatment and clarification on basements and walkouts) and return the item for further review and a subsequent public hearing.
