Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission debates tighter rules for accessory structures to protect viewsheds and prevent overdevelopment
Summary
Commissioners spent most of the Nov. 6 meeting reviewing policy options to limit view impacts and overdevelopment from accessory structures, discussing height caps, setbacks, size limits tied to lot area, and placement standards; staff will return with statutory research and modeling before drafting ordinance language.
The Springdale Planning Commission devoted its Nov. 6 meeting to a detailed policy discussion about accessory buildings in residential zones, focusing on how to preserve viewsheds and prevent perceived overdevelopment as commissioners refine ordinance options.
Staff presented four general categories for policy action: regulating accessory-structure height, setbacks, size and placement on a lot. The presentation emphasized that the conversation targeted large accessory structures with roofs—garages, carports, workshops and RV barns—rather than small garden buildings.
Height: staff proposed three approaches: (1) clarify that the residential height bonus (a materials/colors incentive) does not apply to accessory structures, (2) require accessory structures to be no taller than the primary residence on the lot, or (3) require accessory structures to be a fixed amount lower than the principal structure (for example, three feet lower). Commissioners generally favored limiting accessory-structure height and expressed particular concern about allowing accessory structures to exploit the bonus intended for main houses.
Practical use cases, like RV or boat storage, prompted commissioners to consider minimums and exemptions; several members asked whether rules should differ for existing (legacy) houses and for new builds. Staff said state law limits municipal regulation of design elements such as colors or materials, and that staff would research whether color/material conditions could be required for accessory structures that did not previously sign the bonus agreement.
Setbacks and placement: commissioners supported increased setbacks for taller accessory structures—especially on high-visual-impact or view-obstructing lots—and discussed graduated setbacks keyed to a structure’s size or height. They also favored allowing applicants a pathway to seek conditional exceptions where terrain or other constraints make the least‑impact location impractical, provided objective metrics (for example, preserved percentage of undeveloped lot area or measurable view protection) were used to evaluate exceptions.
Size and overdevelopment: the commission discussed limiting accessory-structure size based on the property’s lot area or by capping the total square footage of accessory development on a lot. Staff reported there is prior modeling from an earlier commission on size ratios and agreed to bring that data and updated analysis back to the commission. Commissioners considered limiting the residential size bonus to the primary structure while capping accessory buildings to the base maximum (for example, 3,000 square feet) to avoid situations where accessory structures on a lot could cumulatively create an outsized development footprint.
Next steps: staff agreed to research state statutory constraints connected to the materials/colors bonus, to update and surface prior study data on accessory-structure size ratios, and to draft proposed ordinance language that would include objective metrics and clear criteria for exceptions. The commission requested the refined proposal return for deliberation at a future meeting.
Why it matters: proposed changes could alter what property owners may build in residential zones, affecting view corridors, neighborhood character and owners’ ability to store large vehicles or build large outbuildings. The commission sought policy options that preserve scenic resources while allowing reasonable property-owner uses.
