Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission asks staff to draft ordinance allowing replacement within existing commercial footprints with constraints
Summary
Staff proposed letting noncompliant commercial buildings be replaced within their existing footprints (with limited height tolerance) while requiring other development standards to be met; the commission directed staff to draft ordinance language and cautioned against rules that could be gamed to expand building size or height over time.
SPRINGDALE — Planning staff presented a draft approach for how the town might treat noncompliant commercial properties: permit replacement within the existing footprint and roughly the same height (with a small construction allowance) while requiring compliance with landscaping, parking and other development standards.
Tom Dancy told the commission the commercial proposal mirrors the residential concept but is tailored to central and village commercial zones. "That structure could be replaced with a structure in the exact same footprint," Dancy said, adding staff drafted a modest allowance in height to "accommodate construction issues" such as modern roof trusses.
Commissioners supported the bulleted policy framework in principle but raised several cautions. Commissioner Terry Kruszewski questioned a recurring two‑foot allowance: if owners add two feet at each rebuild, buildings could gradually exceed desired heights. Commissioners suggested limiting any height allowance so it cannot be compounded on repeated rebuilds and recommended tying allowances to the original building height or the zone cap.
The commission also discussed logistics for redevelopments that span multiple parcels. Staff said the town's practice is to require parcel consolidation for redevelopment; commissioners explored whether footprint relocation to create parking and landscaping should be allowed when it preserves character without expanding overall development potential.
Consensus at the meeting was procedural: members signaled they were comfortable asking staff to draft ordinance language that would allow replacement in the same footprint (with clear limits on footprint alteration and on cumulative height increases) while requiring other code elements be brought into compliance. Staff emphasized these changes would be forward‑looking rather than retroactive and noted such rules are consequential because most future development in Springdale will be redevelopment rather than new builds.
Next step: staff will produce draft ordinance text reflecting the commission's direction for review at a future meeting.
