Springdale planners consider removing ban on parking in special flood hazard area

Springdale Planning Commission members discussed whether to remove a code provision that bans parking spaces in the town's special flood hazard area and asked staff to research safety, liability and emergency-notification options before seeking public comment.

Town staff described the current rule and why it may produce an unintended outcome. Nam, a town staff member, told the commission that “chapter 13 e of the town's land use ordinance sets out how the town regulates, development in the flood plain” and that the town adopted those standards as a condition of participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. He said the town's off-street parking standards (chapter 23 of the land use ordinance) currently say “no parking spaces are allowed in or within 10 feet of the special flood hazard area.”

Why it matters: Staff said the disparate rules mean the town effectively requires parking to meet a higher standard than residences. Nam explained that requirement can push developers to place homes on the higher, safer portions of a site while putting parking in lower-risk areas, a layout staff called “counterintuitive.” That, commissioners said, could increase flood risk to homes.

Commissioners pressed staff on safety and liability. One commissioner asked whether allowing parking in the floodplain would create a town liability or require warning signs; Nam said the National Flood Insurance Program has no standards relating to parking and told the commission he did not believe the town would face mandatory obligations as a result. Commissioners also raised the public-safety concern that tourists and occasional visitors might not realize a lot can flood, and they asked whether the town’s emergency-notification systems (cell‑broadcast alerts, notices to businesses, or signage) could be used to warn drivers during flood events.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioners signaled they were generally comfortable removing the parking prohibition but asked staff to research (1) liability and signage issues, (2) emergency-notification best practices used by other communities, and (3) whether the town’s existing flood response procedures should explicitly include public parking areas. Nam said he would prepare findings and draft ordinance language for a future public meeting and pursue the emergency-preparedness research.

Context and background: The commission was told the prohibition originated from the town's floodplain rules tied to FEMA/National Flood Insurance Program standards; staff noted the town is an outlier in prohibiting parking in the flood hazard area, and that many other communities allow parking there. Commissioners also discussed whether mitigation or construction standards for parking lots in flood zones (asphalt, gravel, pavers, drainage) should differ from current rules; the group generally preferred leaving construction choices to site‑specific engineering and the developer.

What commissioners asked staff to return with: a written proposal to remove the specific parking prohibition from the ordinance (for a public meeting/public hearing), plus research on emergency notification options and any legal or operational obligations the town may incur if it permits parking in the flood hazard area.