Planning commission reviews draft zoning ordinance; debates minimum dwelling sizes, ADU rules, accessory uses, height and setback changes, and parking for tour‑

The Orderville Planning and Zoning Commission spent most of its May 28 meeting reviewing a draft rewrite of the town’s zoning ordinance and discussing multiple specific provisions the commission wants changed before adopting a final code.

Commission members focused on several recurring topics: the draft’s 400‑square‑foot minimum for a primary dwelling; the size and treatment of accessory dwelling units (ADUs); whether various agricultural and ranch uses should be permitted or subject to conditional‑use review; raising the maximum building height from 25 to 30 feet to match existing practice; setbacks and rules for chicken coops; how ham‑radio towers and other transmitter structures should be handled; and parking rules for businesses and tour companies in the town center.

Minimum dwelling size and ADUs: Commissioners said a 400‑square‑foot minimum for a primary dwelling is unusually small and would effectively allow tiny homes as the town’s minimum single‑family dwelling. Several commissioners suggested raising the primary minimum (examples discussed included 600–800 square feet) with an ADU limited to a fraction (commonly half) of the primary dwelling. Staff noted state guidance that limits how municipalities may ban ADUs, and commissioners asked the town attorney for a specific legal opinion before finalizing limits.

Accessory uses and conditional uses: The draft included language that in several zones listed accessory dwellings both as permitted and as conditional uses; commissioners agreed that accessory buildings customarily incidental to single‑family uses should be permitted and that redundancy and contradictory listings should be cleaned up. Commissioners also discussed which ranch and equestrian uses (riding arenas, public stables, rodeo arenas) should remain conditional because of potential dust, noise and neighbor impacts, while smaller private animal shelters and tack sheds might remain permitted accessory buildings.

Height, setbacks and other technical changes: The draft still listed many zones with a 25‑foot maximum height even though the town has previously allowed homes taller than 25 feet; commissioners recommended changing the code to 30 feet (and ensuring the repeal/replace language updates every instance in the draft). They also proposed clearer setback and screening language for uses that can create nuisance impacts.

Chicken coops and small‑lot agriculture: The draft contained a 50‑foot setback from adjoining property lines for chicken coops in some zones; commissioners said that standard would make backyard coops impossible on many residential lots and suggested instead default setbacks consistent with ordinary accessory‑structure setbacks (for example a 10‑foot side/back setback) and additional rules for larger‑scale poultry operations (thresholds such as 20 birds could trigger more stringent separations or conditional use review).

Towers and communications equipment: Commissioners asked whether transmitter towers, repeaters or relay stations should remain conditional uses and suggested a clear height threshold (for example, conditional use required over a specified height such as 30 or 50 feet) while small receiver antennas attached to homes would remain permitted. Paul Fritz, a ham‑radio operator the commission plans to invite for technical input, was suggested as a consultant for that topic.

Parking, tours and downtown congestion: Commissioners discussed repeated parking shortfalls in the town center and said tour companies and other tourist‑facing businesses may need conditional‑use review so the commission can require adequate off‑street parking. Commissioners raised the Sinclair/gasoline‑station corner and the new pizza applicant as examples of sites with limited on‑site parking and suggested the town consider designating a public parking area near the pool or park to serve downtown businesses.

Urban‑wildland interface: Toward the end of the meeting staff said the State of Utah has directed municipalities to adopt urban‑wildland interface designations (low/medium/high risk) following recent wildfire seasons; commissioners discussed whether some homeowners’ CC&Rs that restrict vegetation clearing would create conflicts and said they will review the new state rules and how mitigation might be incentivized.

What’s next: The commission instructed staff to collate the commissioners’ suggested edits and forward them to the town’s ordinance drafter (identified in discussion as Brad Robbins) for a revised draft. Commissioners asked staff to return with legal input on ADU limits, clear cross‑references to conditional vs. permitted uses, and height/parking language to address tour‑company and downtown congestion issues before the commission’s next review.