Commission considers allowing noncomplying commercial buildings to rebuild within existing footprints

The Planning Commission discussed a staff proposal to permit noncomplying commercial buildings to be rebuilt within their existing footprint and generally the same height, while bringing parking and landscaping into compliance upon redevelopment.

Thomas Dansie summarized the intent to preserve Springdale's village character while enabling property owners to renovate: under the draft approach, "commercial buildings that were non-compliant with setbacks [could] be rebuilt within the same footprint and generally the same height, whether removal was voluntary or involuntary," but any expansion of building area while retaining the non-complying setback would not be allowed. The draft also included a clause that the height of a reconstructed building "must not exceed the height of the existing building plus two feet (and in all cases must additionally comply with the current building height)."

Commissioners probed possible loopholes. Mr. Kruschke observed the two-foot allowance could be exploited through incremental additions, expressing concern that "somebody could add two feet incrementally until they were at the building height restriction of 26 feet." Commissioners discussed whether limited relocation within the existing footprint, or constructing a smaller building within that footprint, could create space for required parking and landscaping. Staff emphasized that the draft was intentionally written to prevent expansion of non-complying setbacks and that exact language and limits (including the two-foot provision) would be clarified in a subsequent ordinance draft.

No vote was taken; the Commission directed staff to refine the draft ordinance language and provide clarifying verbiage and examples for how the footprint, height allowance, parking, and landscaping rules would operate.