Springdale planning commission approves reconfigured plans for Palmer property, requires mitigation for operations building

SPRINGDALE, Feb. 19, 2025 — The Springdale Planning Commission voted to approve reconfigured plans for the Palmer property at 75 Manzanita Drive, with a condition that the applicant develop and obtain Planning Commission approval of a mitigation plan addressing the operations building before construction of that building.

The commission’s motion, made by Planning Commissioner Terry Kruske and seconded by Paul Zimmerman, found that the reconfigured plans meet the requirements of the mutual release and settlement agreement of 1995 and the town ordinances in effect on Jan. 24, 1992, as referenced by that agreement. The vote was recorded as Tanner Paxton, aye; Terry Kruske, aye; Tom Kinston, aye; Paul Zimmerman, aye; Rich Swanson, aye; the motion passed.

The reconfigured submittal reduces overall transient lodging density from what the 1995 agreement would allow and lays out a campus of lodging, restaurants, a spa, event space, an operations building and support facilities. The plans before the commission show 84 transient lodging units and site elements including a central lawn, restaurants, a lobby and laundry.

Town staff explained that the parcel is governed by a 1995 settlement agreement that, in some places, defers to the zoning ordinance that was in effect on Jan. 24, 1992, but in many respects the settlement agreement’s specific standards control. Staff contact Nyle Connolly told the commission that the developers have voluntarily designed many elements to comply with current ordinances where feasible and that, once the development receives certificates of occupancy, future redevelopment would be subject to then-current town ordinances.

On technical issues, town staff and consultants said reserved water connections referenced in the settlement agreement have been incorporated into the town’s water planning and water rights accounting. On access and emergency response, consultant Jared Bates of Rosenberg Associates stated, “The fire lane is 20 feet wide,” and said the main entrance off Manzanita would be a wider commercial entrance (about 32 feet) while a north entrance would function as a one-way service access.

Much of the commission’s discussion focused on the operations building’s proximity to existing homes on Manzanita Drive. Commissioners and neighbors raised concerns about potential view blockage and visual or light impacts. Commissioners noted the building is approximately 20 feet tall and about 10 feet from the property line; one commissioner observed that the operation building’s wall is roughly 50 feet from the Dennett House and about 80 feet from the Stansfield property’s front porch, which could materially affect views.

Garrett Jones of Lake Flato Architects described the project’s design approach as “fundamentally rooted in landscape and site and environment and climate,” and said the team was "really excited to show this to y'all." He and other members of the design team said they are open to screening and stepping the building’s elevations and that they have sought to preserve large on-site trees that constrain relocation options. Landscape consultant Adam Barb described use of a stabilized (grass-paved) shoulder on the north road to accommodate emergency access and noted that vegetative screening and an earthen berm are proposed adjacent to the Manzanita parking area to block headlights.

Commissioners discussed a narrow deed gap described in the meeting as a parcel of "no man's land" that has been used as informal access. Consultants warned that swapping or reconfiguring that strip toward the river would likely trigger floodplain, erosion hazard and tree-preservation constraints and might reduce developability; staff told the commission the commission could not require improvements on property not included in the applicant’s parcel.

Staff clarified process issues: there will be no additional design development review (DDR) for these reconfigured plans; building permits will be reviewed by staff. The commission may, however, attach conditions to the reconfigured-plan approval that require the applicant to present mitigation proposals to the commission for approval prior to constructing the operations building.

The motion adopted by the commission included several conditions: specifications for concrete color, a requirement that materials, gates and fences comply with the architectural standards attached as an exhibit to the settlement agreement, and the mitigation plan requirement. As stated during the motion, the commission required that "the applicant will develop a mitigation plan to minimize the impact of the operations building on neighboring properties on Manzanita Drive to limit the visual and light impact on the neighbors," and that the mitigation plan must comply with the settlement agreement’s architectural standards and be presented to the Planning Commission for approval before constructing the operations building. The motion also specified the mitigation condition would not hold up the remainder of the project; other buildings may proceed through the town’s building-permit process.

Next steps: the applicant will return to the Planning Commission with an operations-building mitigation plan for approval before beginning construction of that building; staff will process building permits for other portions of the project consistent with the settlement agreement and town procedures.

Reporting on the meeting: staff contact for the item was Nyle Connolly; the applicant is Robin Palmer and the project team included Garrett Jones (Lake Flato Architects), Adam Barb (landscape consultant), Jared Bates (Rosenberg Associates) and Michael Bridal (Lake Flato project team).