Springdale planning commission debates limits on accessory buildings for large parcels

Springdale Planning Commission members discussed proposed revisions to limit the total amount of development on residential properties and to reduce visual impacts from accessory buildings, and asked staff for further analysis, field review and draft language that addresses zone differences and visibility concerns.

Tom Kinston, presenting the staff proposal, summarized two alternate approaches to manage total accessory development: a base allowance (for example, 10,000 square feet) plus one additional structure whose allowable size depends on separation from other structures; or a rolling “per‑acre” control that caps developed square footage within any 1‑acre circle (staff used a 120‑foot radius circle in the draft example) so that very large parcels cannot cluster development in one area without limits.

Commissioners raised multiple concerns and refinements. Several argued that zone context matters: Foothill Residential (FR) zones require larger minimum lots (2 acres in FR‑2, 5 acres in FR‑5) specifically to reduce visible development, so accessory allowances should be scaled to the zone. Commissioners urged that any extra allowance for parcels larger than 5 acres should be conditioned so that additional buildings are not “view obstructing” or “high visual impact” (existing ordinance definitions used for visual impact tests were cited). Commissioners asked staff to ensure the rules would not incentivize heavy operational uses (large barns or garages that imply extensive traffic or commercial activity) or encourage subdivision circumventions.

Other points discussed: - Several commissioners said a simple limit on the number of accessory structures (for example a small fixed number of buildings in addition to the primary dwelling) would reduce the risk of many small sheds being used to create effectively unlimited development. - Commissioners expressed concern that basements and walk‑out basements are not currently counted toward visible square footage; several remarked that basements can double functional floor area even if not visible. - Road‑maintenance agreements and private‑road access were raised: commissioners worried that heavy accessory development concentrated at the end of a private road could increase traffic and maintenance burdens while owners might still pay equal shares under existing road‑maintenance agreements.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioners asked staff to refine the proposal and return with: (1) a comparison of how many existing parcels already approach or exceed the draft thresholds (Terry provided an inventory of large parcels by zone), (2) zone‑specific alternatives (separate columns or scales for VR, FR‑2 and FR‑5), (3) clear application of the town’s high‑visibility and view‑obstruction tests to any additional allowances, and (4) suggested limits on the number of accessory buildings or clearer classes of accessory structure. Commissioners also discussed conducting site visits (field trips, two commissioners at a time) to representative parcels to evaluate visibility and circle‑based approaches.

Context and background: Staff noted the town currently has no maximum number of accessory structures or a unified cap on total developed square footage; the draft aims to preserve the town’s village and foothill character while allowing reasonable accessory uses on larger parcels. Several commissioners emphasized that the objective is to avoid high visual impact from large estate‑scale accessory development while not unduly restricting long‑term owners of large parcels.

Next steps: Staff will prepare revised language and maps, and return with the requested inventory and examples for additional review and public meeting preparation.