Springdale planning commission recommends limits on accessory structures to protect village-scale views

SPRINGDALE, Utah — The Springdale Planning Commission on May 21 recommended that the town council adopt revisions to the town code that tighten rules for accessory structures on residential properties, aiming to preserve village scale and adjacent property views of Zion Canyon.

The commission’s recommendation covers two linked changes: new development standards for accessory structures (height, setbacks and placement) and a cap on total allowed development on a residential parcel, measured by square footage and the number of structures. The commission voted to send the ordinance changes in sections 10‑20‑8 and 10‑20‑17 to the town council. Motion: Terry Kruschke; second: Paul Zimmerman. Vote: Jennifer McCullough, Terry Kruschke, Tom Dancy, Paul Zimmerman and Rich Swanson — all aye.

Tom Dancy, identified in the meeting roll call as representing the town, summarized the proposal as a two‑part ordinance. “The first section contains development standards for new accessory structures,” Dancy said, noting the goal is “to minimize the visual impact such structures will have when viewed from adjacent properties.” The second section would establish a cap on the total square footage and on the total number of structures allowed on a property, with the cap scaled to zone and parcel size.

Key provisions presented to the commission include raising setbacks for accessory structures taller than 12 feet, locating accessory structures to preserve views from adjacent properties, setting height limits for lots with high visual impact, and a procedure by which the planning commission may grant exceptions when an exception would reduce visual impacts. Dancy also described the cap on total development and the limit on the total number of structures, including the primary dwelling and all accessory buildings.

Commission members said earlier analyses showed few existing properties would be out of compliance as they are currently built. One commissioner voiced a reservation that the ordinance “takes away the ability for residents to some rights for development,” but added, “I’m not overly concerned with that because I think we’ve done a lot of due diligence.” Rich Swanson, who introduced the topic to the commission previously, said he was “very happy with the way it’s gone.” No members of the public spoke during the public hearing.

The recommendation cites support in the Springdale General Plan, specifically subgoals A3, B2 and B1 of the Land Use and Town Appearance section, to encourage development that is “light on the land” and to minimize visual impacts on Zion Canyon ridgelines and viewscapes. The commission’s motion text and findings refer to those plan provisions when recommending the code changes to the town council.

Next steps: The commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the Springdale Town Council for consideration; the commission did not set a council hearing date during the meeting. The ordinance is a planning‑commission initiative, so if the council chooses not to adopt the changes, no further action by the commission would be required.