Springdale planners refine rules for accessory structures; consider cap on total development

Springdale Planning Commission members on Dec. 4 reviewed draft ordinance language to restrict the height and placement of accessory structures that can affect canyon and valley views and discussed options to limit the aggregate amount of development allowed on a property.

Tom Dancy, the town planner, told the commission the draft reflects three goals the commission previously endorsed: treat different accessory structures differently, protect important viewsheds and consider limits on total development on a lot. The draft would bar residential height bonuses from applying to accessory structures and, on designated high‑visual‑impact lots, would limit accessory structures so they are not taller than the primary residence, Dancy said.

Commissioners focused on ‘graduated setbacks’—larger setbacks for taller accessory structures—and on a practical breakpoint between shorter and taller accessory buildings. "I think 12 feet is a reasonable breakpoint," said Commissioner Paul Zimmerman, who argued a two‑category approach (normal setback vs. a larger setback multiplier for taller structures) keeps the ordinance simpler. Several commissioners said a 1.5 multiplier for the larger‑structure setback better protects views than the 1.25 figure shown in the packet. Staff agreed to propose refined numbers.

The commission also discussed methods to measure visual impact on ridgelines and mesas. One practical option staff proposed was a height‑equals‑distance rule—set an accessory structure back from a mesa or ridgeline by at least the height of the structure—rather than a fixed 50‑foot rule or time‑consuming “pole” (poll) tests to determine sightlines. "If it's 12 feet high and set back 12 feet from the edge of the mesa, you're not going to see it from below," Dancy said.

Members debated an exception/exemption process patterned on the town’s grading ordinance. Under the proposed language, a property owner would first have to demonstrate they could legally build a conforming accessory structure; only then could the planning commission consider an exception if the alternate placement demonstrably reduced visual impact. Dancy reminded the commission that the planning commission cannot grant variances; the appeal authority must address variances.

On the second topic—limiting the total amount of development on a property—commissioners signaled a preference for readable, administrable rules over reproducing the complex, equation‑heavy approach previously studied. "The equation is too complex and it would be hard for the public to understand," Commissioner Tom Kinston said. Alternatives discussed included a simple square‑feet‑per‑acre standard, a graduated table by lot size, or a hybrid that uses a base amount with additional square footage per acre above a threshold. Commissioners also cautioned against creating perverse incentives to subdivide large parcels to increase aggregate allowed building area, and asked staff to draft options that avoid that outcome.

The commission asked staff to return with clearer ordinance text, revised setback multipliers and numeric breakpoints (e.g., 12–13 feet) for the next meeting. Dancy said he would clean up the language and present concrete numbers and examples for follow‑up consideration.

The discussion will return to a future meeting where the commission will be expected to decide on final language before forwarding a proposal to the town council.