Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Springdale planners review draft caps on total development and new viewshed setbacks for accessory buildings
Summary
Commissioners reviewed draft accessory-structure rules including a proposed cap on combined primary and accessory square footage by lot size and new setback rules tied to structure height and ridgeline/mesa edges; commissioners asked staff to revise numerical caps and replace a per-acre concentration rule with a distance‑between‑buildings approach.
The Springdale Planning Commission on Jan. 2 reviewed draft ordinance language proposing two major changes to accessory-structure regulation: (1) revised setbacks and viewshed protections tied to structure height and landscape features, and (2) a table-based cap limiting the total square footage of development (primary structure plus accessory structures) by lot-size bands.
Staff proposed two setback categories based on accessory-structure height, using 12 feet as a break point: structures 12 feet or less would meet standard setbacks for the zone, while structures taller than 12 feet would require 1.5 times the standard setback. Staff also proposed a view-angle rule requiring a horizontal setback roughly equal to a structure’s height from ridgelines, mesa edges and regulated 30% slopes, and clarified how the town defines 30% slopes for regulatory purposes.
On total development caps, staff presented a table that limits allowable combined square footage by property size and added a rule prohibiting more than a set amount of square footage within any one-acre portion to discourage concentration of development. Commissioners raised concerns that the per-acre approach could incentivize subdivision or be gamed by parceling property into artificial acre blocks. Several commissioners argued a better metric is the physical distance between buildings rather than how a parcel is divided on paper.
Commissioners debated adjustments to the numerical caps so that larger residential parcels receive more generous allowances if buildings are spaced sufficiently far apart. Paul Zimmerman proposed tying additional square-footage allowances to minimum separations (for example, allowing larger accessory buildings when structures are 500–1,000 feet apart). Staff took direction to revise the table numbers, change the concentration rule to focus on building separation distances, and return with updated draft language and visuals.
Commissioners also reviewed an exemption pathway for accessory-structure exceptions tied to existing variance standards, with staff emphasizing that the exemption is designed to preserve viewsheds rather than to create a bypass of the state variance process.
