HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_09 21 1993LITTLE ROCR PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
SUMMARI AND MINUTE RECORD
SEPTEMBER 21,1993
12:30 P.M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was Present being eight (8)in number.
II.ADproval of the Minutes of the August 10,1993 meeting.
The Minutes of the Previous Meeting were aDDrovedassubmittedbyavoteof8eyes,0 nays and 3 absent.
Members Present:Brad WalkerBillPutnamJerilynNicholson
Kathleen Oleson
Jim VonTungelnJoeHirschSels
Ronald Woods
Ramsay Ball
Members Absent:Emmett Willis,Jr.
John McDaniel
Diane Chachere
City Attorney:Steyhen Giles
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 21,1993
K32LKQXKER:
1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to provide for permanent use ofbanners,pennants,flashing lights and other promotional.
2.Zoning and Floodway Ordinance Amendment to adopt standards setforthbyF.E.M.A.
Draft 2
08/20/93
September 21,1993
~JIgX:Ordinance Amendment (Zoning)Little Rock Sign Regulations
JgQHJT:To Amend the Zoning Ordinance provisions regulatingtemporarydevices,pennants,banners and festoons usedbycommercialestablishmentsforspecialevents,salesorotherstaticdisplay.
JTTP~RQRg:
This amendment proposal was prepared by staff after receiptofarequestfromtheautodealersandothersalongSouthUniversityAvenue.
These several businesses have experienced rejection ofnumerousspecialeventdevicesthatareprohibitedby thesignregulations.
The preliminary staff assessment of the request produced anapproachtoordinancewhichwefeelwillanswertherequest.
The text changes or additions will consist of these severalelements:
(1)The current language in Sec.36-543.will be modifiedtoclarifythetitle.The need is to broaden "signs"in that title to include "other sale promotion devices.
(2)A new paragraph will be added to Sec.36-557.(d)toprovideforpermanentplacement.This provision wouldpermitexistingC-Z,C-3 and C-4 commercial zonedpropertiesandrecognizednonconformingC-Z,C-3 and C-4 uses to erect,place or attach pennants,banners,festoons,etc.to existing structures or asfreestanding.
(3)The current language in Section 36-547 will be modifiedtopermitanexceptionforusesinC-2.C-3 or C-4zoningdistrictsornonconformingC-2,C-3 or C-4 uses.
The exception will parallel that offered by the changeproposedforSection36-557(d)and will permitpermanentflashing,animated,oscillating or rotatingelementsinonpremisesigns.
September 21,1993
I 1 n
TAFF E NDATI
The staff received this issue from the Board of DirectorS withinstructionstoexplorenewtechnologiesthatrelatetothisindustryandproposenecessaryamendmentstothecodetoaccommodatethechanges.
We have reviewed application and procedure as well as enforcementhistory.The result was that the arguments presented by theproponentsdonotconvinceusthatweshouldrelaxthecurrentstandardswhichhaveservedtheCitywellovertheyears.
The draft ordinance will at the very least return clutter,distraction and traffic hazards to the streets of Little Rock.Avisittonearbycommunitieswillrevealthatmostoftheconsumerattractiondevices,pennants,streamers,etc.;obstruct views ofabusinessand/or outdoor product displays.
The staff feels that a return to by right or unrestricted use ofattractiondevicesisnotinthebestinterestsofthecommunityasawhole.Considering all the efforts to obtain and maintainsignificantlandscapingcitywide,this ordinance amendment isinappropriateandunnecessary.
Staff recommends that the amendment be denied and that LittleRockmaintainsitsrecenthistoryofupgradingcommunityappearance.
PLGC I I ATI (SEPTEMBER 21,1993)
The Chairman,Brad Walker,identified the issue and made severalcommentsregardingtheplanningCommission's appreciation forattendancebythemanypeoplepresenttodealwiththisissue.Chairman walker then asked the staff to present the staffcomments.Jim Lawson,Director of Neighborhoods and Planning,offered the following statement.
This application was not a typical item.In thepackageprovidedforthecommissiontodayarelettersfromthepersonsrequestingthisordinancereview.These requests were generally from propertyownersandbusinessoperatorsintheSouthUniversityAvenue,being predominately automobilerelated.They felt unable to compete with out lyingdealersandadjacentcommunitieswithoututilizationofthetypesofdevicessuggestedbythisordinance.
2
September 21.1993
m 0 1 n
When these letters of request were submitted to the Little RockBoardofDirectors,the issue was forwarded to the Planning Staffforpurposesofreviewandholdingthepublichearing.
Lawson pointed out that there are several issues to be dealt withtoday.The first of which deals with temporary signs.Anotherissuetohediscussedwouldbemessagehoards.Mr.LawsonofferedsomebackgroundonthemessageboardissuebypointingouttheBoardofAdjustment's involvement by allowing specificchangeinthepulseorsequencingofmessagesonelectronicboards.
Lawson continued his commentary by stating that these signs wereveryexpensivesuchastheoneSportsUnlimitedonSouthUniversitynowoperates.He said staff wanted to take a look attheseandthemoderntechnologyinvolved.Lawson stated he feltthatthiswasimportantsincetheordinancenowprohibitsthesesignswiththeexceptionoftheminortimechangeallowedbytheBoardofAdjustment.
Lawson then proceeded to outline what he felt was the thirdelementinthisordinancereviewprocess.This being theflashingorrotatingsigns,as our ordinance now defines them.He offered an example of this as a sign in the Southwest CityShoppingCenterandwasrecentlyreviewedbystaff.The ownerproposedalargesignandbuildingmountedwherethecolorsofthesignwouldbeinterchangeableandflashfromonecolortoanother.Lawson,from staff's viewpoint,pointed out the hearingtodayisanopenendedreviewprocessdesignedtoreceivecommentfromanyoneinterestedinthisissue.
Additionally,staff had prepared and will present for theCommissionandotherpersonspresentavideorepresenting what wefeeltobethekindofissuesinvolvedintheordinanceamendmentproposal,Lawson also included comment that this is a typicalPlanningCommissionagendapreviewsuchaspreparedbythestaffpriortoeachofthePlanningCommissionpublichearings.
Richard Wood.of staff,activated the video monitor and playedthetapeusedasagendapreview.
Following the video tape review,Mr.Lawson again addressed theCommissionandtheaudience.He stated that the item,aspresentedtotheCommission,should be a public hearing item forpurposesofreceivingcommenthuttherequestshouldbedeferredinlinewiththerequestofMr.Morgan,owner of ServiceChevrolet.and others unable to attend today's meeting.LawsonsuggestedthattheitembedeferredtothenextPlansHearingwhichwillheNovember2,1993 at 12:30 p.m.
He continued and stated that staff had held a meeting with thesignindustrymanufacturingpersonstodeterminetheirinputinthisissue,especially with regard to electronic message boards.3
September 21,1993
I 1 n
Lawson closed his comments stating staff does not expect a voteoractionbytheCommissionattoday's meeting.
Chairman Walker then posed the guestion,"Will the staff at theendofthediscussionstodaybringfortharecommendationforspecificactiononthisrequest."
Discussion continued between Chairman walker and Lawson.It waspointedoutthatalthoughstaff's current recommendation isdenial,which is based on the approach outlined within thecurrentdraft.Lawson stated that staff wishes to work throughtheprocesstobetterdefinetheissuesandlearnmoreaboutthetypeofmaterialsanddevicesthatarereguiredbytheindustryandtheirapplication.Chairman Walker stated that he simplywantedtounderstandthatstaffisagreeabletocontinueworkingonthisiteminadynamicmannertowardthepotentialofpossiblyrecommendingsomechangestotheordinance.
Lawson clarified the staff's position somewhat by stating thatstaffremainsopposedtotheusageofpennants,festoons and thattypeofprohibiteddevice.However,the staff is interested inworkingwiththesignindustryonreaderboardsandtechnologybasedmessagedevices.If staff does hear something in thecontextoftoday's hearing which indicates something we couldperhapsbecomeinvolvedin,then we will do so.He furtherstatedthatstaffiscomfortablewiththecurrentregulations astheyarewritten.
Chairman Walker stated he had a significant number of cards thathadbeensubmittedfrompersonsinattendancewishingtoaddressthisissue.He outlined the normal procedure for these kinds ofhearingsbeingthepresentationbystaffandmaterialtobediscussedfollowedbyanapplicantandthenbyotherinterestedpartiesorobjectors.
There being no one present as an applicant,Chairman Walker askedDirectorJoanAdcock,who was present,if she wished to addresstheCommissionatthistime.She deferred to a later point inthehearing.
The Chairman then asked David Zakazlejski,the first,to comeforwardandmakehiscomments.
Mr.Zakazlejski was present representing Coulson Oil Company.Heofferedcommentsinsupportofchangesintheordinancetoallowthekindofitemsthatareoutlinedinthedraft.He stated thathiscompanydoesasignificantamountofadvertisingthroughoutthestateandothermediadoesnotalwaysservetheirneeds,especially with neighborhood relationships and neighborhoodstations.He offered other strong supporting comments for thisordinanceproposal.
4
September 21,1993
I
The Chairman then recognized Mike Graves representing a bannersalesfirmwhichutilizeschangeablecopybanners.He commentedontheextentoftheuseofhiscompany's products in this regionandthecountry.His comments were centered on what he perceivedtobearestraintofthesmallerbusinessuseforthistypeofdevicetocompetewiththeirlargercompetitors.He felt,in theinterestoffaircompetitionthattheordinanceshouldbechanged.
Chairman Walker then asked for opposition to comment on thisissue.
Mr.Paul Crawford came forward representing Hillcrest ResidentsAssociation.His comments were primarily in regard to theattractivenessoftheCityandmaintainingthecurrentordinancetoavoidtheproliferationoftheunsightly.Mr.Crawford feltchangessuchasthoseindicatedintheordinanceasdraftedwouldcostclutter,traffic problems and distraction.He suggestedthattheCityshouldgointoathirdpartystudytolookat theseelectronicmessageboardsandsimilarboardstogainproperunderstandingofwhatisinvolvedbeforechangingregulations.
Chairman walker then asked Mr.Crawford if the association hadtakenapositionrelativetowhatzoningclassificationsmayormaynotbeoffensiveasfarasallowingthesetypesofsignsanddevices.
Mr.Crawford responded by stating that the association did hold adiscussiononthissubjectanddecidedthecurrentordinanceisdraftedisthemannerinwhichtheydesiretomaintainregulation.
The Chairman then called on Mr.Sill Wiedower.
Mr.Wiedower represented the Quapaw Quarter Association.He alsoidentifiedhimselfasamemberoftheQuapawQuarterHoard.HewentontostatethattheQuapawQuarterareahasallthreeoftheaffectedzoningdistrictsinvolvedinthisordinanceproposal.He stated that they could see no benefit to their areafromtheordinancechangesasproposed.His comments werespecificallydirectedtowardthemaintenanceofthecurrentordinance.His personal opinion was that the current ordinanceisdoingagoodjobatreductioninclutterandmaintainingattractiveneighborhoods.
Mr.Wiedower stated this ordinance is doing a lot of good muchlikethelandscapeordinanceandchangesbeingproposedwould beastepbackward.
Chairman Walker then asked Cheryl Nichols to come forward.
5
September 21,1993
1 m n
Cheryl Nichols,Executive Director of the Quapaw QuartersAssociation,expanded on the comments of Mr.Wiedower.Sheexpressedconcernfortheareastobeeffectedbythis.heingmostareasofthecity.Since this ordinance does notspecificallylimitthekindofpromotionalactivities proposed tomajorthoroughfare,there are numerous commercial developmentareasinthecitywhichwillalsobeallowedthistypeofactivity.She stated the association felt that flashing lightsandrotatingsignswouldhaveadetrimentaleffectonneighborhoods.
She pointed out that in neighborhoods such as Hillcrest,which isnowarecognizedhistoricarea,there are strips of commercialzoning.The association's interest is not limited to QuapawQuarterareabuttheyareinterestedinneighborhoodsthroughoutthecityasfarasassuringqualitydevelopmentandappearance.She felt that the attractiveness of the city is one of thosefeatureswhichhelpstodrawindustryandtourists.She feltthatmanyofLittleRock's many attractive neighborhoods shouldnotbeunderminedbytheactionsofthecitygovernmentsuchasproposedinthisordinance.For the last ten years plus thecity's commercial business areas seem to have gotten along justfinewithoutthetypeofclutterthatisnowproposed.
Ms.Nichols also pointed out that she and the association feltthiswouldbeastepbackwardtoaccomplishthis.Therefore,sheaskedtheCommissiontorecommenddenialoftheseproposedchanges.
Chairman Walker then asked for Mark Patton to come forward andspeak.
Mr.Patton represented Sports Unlimited,a business on SouthUniversityAvenue.He stated that for the record a correction astothetimingindicatedbyMr.Lawson for changeable copy andelectronicsigns.He indicated the ordinance now provided forfivesecondintervalratherthanthetwostated.
Mr.patton stated that he did not believe the sign they operatewouldbeanymoreofasafetyhazardtothepasserbythananyotherdetractionsincetheyalreadyhaveyourattention.Heindicatedtheissueishowfarawayfromtheirbusinesscan theyfirstattractbytheirsignage.What they place on the board is,they feel,as important as the manner in which it is displayed.Mr.Patton indicated that their business was not a print mediaadvertisingbusiness,and this type of signage is a principalmeansofcontactwiththeircustomers.
He indicated he would like to have the sign restrictions on theletteringlifted.
6
September 21,1993
I m n
After brief commentary by the Chairman concerning,the possibleprocedureforthehearing,Commissioner Oleson posed a questiontoMr.Patton as whether or not his company was aware of the signregulationsontheoccasionthattheypurchasedanderectedthissign
Mr.Patton responded by saying they were aware the restrictions.
Chairman Walker then asked Ruth Bell,of the League of womenVoters,to come forward.
Mrs.Bell had a prepared statement from the League of WomenVotersaswellaspersonalcommentsandobservations.She readthematerialintotherecord.The statement offered by Mrs.BellgenerallycenteredaroundtheLeague's feeling that the ordinanceamendmentwouldbeselfdefeatingforadvertisingforbusinessesduetothepotentialforcompetitionandobstructionofeachotherssignageandattractiondevices.
The statement also offered that these ordinance amendments wouldbecounterproductivetothecity's effort to attract business andconventionstotheCityofLittleRockaswellasbeingdetrimentaltotheappearanceofthecommunityasawhole.
Mrs.Bell's statement concerning flashing lights was that,theywereexceedinglydistracting.
Chairman Walker then asked for David Bourne,a representative oftheCapitalviewandStiftStationNeighborhood.
Mr.Bourne stated his personal point of view was.that,thesetypesofchangestothecurrentsignordinancewouldseverelyaffectthequalityoflifeintheCityofLittleRock,not onlytheCapitalView-Stift Station neighborhoods.He offeredadditionalcommentsabouttheeffectsoftourismandnationalexposure.
The Chairman then recognized Mr.Barry Haas.
Mr.Haas stated that he was appearing and representing himself asawestLittleRockbusinessman.He offered comments concerninganarticlepresentedbytheArkansasDemocratGazetteandtheDailyRecordconcerningtheordinanceproposals.He stated thathefeltthearticlemustsurelybeanerror.
Mr.Haas offered additional comments concerning appearance of thecityrelativetoothersandalsoacommentaryonaproposedexpansionoftheStatehouseConventionandtheeffectofthistypeofordinanceamendmentonvisitors.Mr.Haas offered thatthePlanningCommissionshouldraisethestandardsofthecityforpurposesofvisibilityandadvertisingratherthanlowerthem.
7
September 21,1993
I m n
Chairman walker then asked for Mr.George Wittenberg.whorepresentedtheDonagheyprojecttoofferhiscomments.
Mr.Wittenberg was not in attendance at the meeting butrepresentedbySusanBordainwhocameforwardandindicated she
was speaking in behalf of Mr.Wittenberg.
Ms.Bordain read a lengthy letter from Mr.Wittenberg concerninghiscredentialsandconnectionswiththeUniversityofArkansasatLittleRockandhisopinionsconcerningmodificationsofthesignordinance.
Chairman Walker then asked for Charlotte Crawford,an owner inHillcrest.
Ms,Crawford's comments were that she opposed change in theordinanceonabasisofattractivenessandmaintenanceoftheappearanceofthecity.
The Chairman then asked Phil Smith,who represented Walt BennettFord,to come forward as being for the ordinance amendmentchanges.
Mr.Smith commented on his concerns for the ordinance amendmentsbedirectedtotheproblemsonSouthUniversityAvenue.HeidentifiedtheHillcrestareaasbeingonehewouldnotproposeforabroadchangeinsignageorlesseningoftherestrictions.Mr.Smith offered several comments on the specific area aroundWaltBennettFord.He stated problems with city enforcement aswellasmaintenanceoftheappearanceofthepropertiesadjacent.
Mr.Smith stated his primary problem was,any time they proposedacarnivalorfestivetypeatmosphereontheirpremises,theywerenotpermittedafreeformapproachtosimplyerectingthosedevicesandmaterialsprovidedbytheFordMotorCompany.Hestatedhisdealershipwouldnotwanttokeepthesekindofdevicesinplaceonthepremisesfull-time.He closed hisremarksbystatingthathewastotallyinfavorofaneasing orlesseningoftherestrictionstoallowthoseautomobilerelatedbusinessesonSouthUniversityAvenuetooperateatamorecompetitivelevel.However,he supported Hillcrest propertyowners'tatement concerning the broad spread of these kinds ofadvertisingandpromotiondevicesinalldistricts.
Commissioner Nicholson then asked a Guestion of staff concerningspecialeventsandthetimeperiodpermittedforthoseactivities.
Jim Lawson asked for Kenny Scott,of staff,to address theGuestion.
8
September 21,1993
1
Mr.Scott outlined the ordinance provisions providing for grandopeningsfornewbusinessesandthetwoallowablespecialeventperiodsforanybusinessduringeachcalendaryear.He furtherstatedthatthistypeofpromotionaldevicewaslimitedtoabannersignorafreestandingsandwichsign.In response toseveralquestionsfromtheChairmanandothercommissioners,Mr.Scott identified the ordinance allowable for new businessesandspecialeventsastothetimeandphasingforthoseevents.
Chairman Walker then asked Mr.Phil Smith if had a response tothestatementsmade.
Mr.Smith responded by saying,"the current ordinance simply doesnotallowenoughfreguencyofinstallationtobeeffective."Hestatedthatthefestivalatmospherethattheydesireneededtobeaccomplishedatleastonceamonth.
He then offered extensive commentary on the provision of bannersandsignsbytheFordMotorCompanyforspecialeventsandtheirusagethroughoutthecountryandpotentialapplicationhere.
A general discussion then followed between several commissionersandMr.Smith relative to the ordinance and its effect andspecificapplicationforSouthUniversityAvenue.
In response to a question asked by Commissioner Nicholson,Mr.Smith stated that he perceived the problem and the reason foraskingordinancechangestobeoneofoverzealouscitystaffwritingticketsandconstantlypatrollingUniversityAvenuelookingforviolations.Also,the frustration of the businessownersalongthatcorridorwithdealingwiththisonadayto daybasis.
A lengthy discussion was then held with various personsdiscussingallaspectsofthisproposalinagiveandtakeformat.The primary concern from Mr.Smith's point of view wasthatSouthUniversitywasdifferentfromtherestofthecityandhecouldnotspeakforotherautodealerswhichhadnotsubmittedlettersinsupportofthisissue.
The chairman then recognized City Director Joan Adcock and askedifshehadastatementorquestions.
Director Adcock offered issue of this issue and how it developedassherecalleddealtprimarilywithadealershipandavisittothatdealershipsiteonSouthUniversity.The conversation heldbyherandanotherdirectorwiththisdealerconcernedaproposaltoerectpennantsandatentformationfortheplacementofvehiclesbeneath.In closing her statement on the history of thebeginningsofthisissue,she offered a comment that she couldnotunderstandhowfromherinitialinvolvementinconversationwithMr.Dawson that issue has now reached the point that it aswiththeordinancethatisproposed.
9
September 21,1993
I 1 n
Ms.Adock went on to describe her experiences with signage withvarioustenantswithintheSouthwestCityMallShoppingCenter,specifically the one replacing the former Target Store location.
Commissioner VonTungeln then ask a question as to whether or notastudyhadbeenperformedtodetermineacauserelationshipbetweenthetypeofdisplayproposedandbusinessactivity.Specifically,to determine why businesses are leaving LittleRock.His comments led to a discussion with Director AdcockconcerningsomeoftheproblemsthatshefeelshavedrivenbusinessesfromLittleRock.
Director Adcock stated that one of those persons having to dealwithsidewalksalesigns.She continued by offering her ownexperiencesintheSouthwestCityShoppingCenter.
A general discussion then moved to special event signs andbannersagainreferencingMr.Scott's comments about thetimeframespermitted.The discussion centered around how many apersoncouldhaveandhowfrequently.Staff informed theCommissionthattherewasnolimitonthesizeofthebannersonlyarestrictiononthenumberofoccasionsperyearandthenumberofdaysallowableoneachoccasion.
A lengthy discussion then followed involving CommissionerNicholsonandDirectorAdcock.The basis of the conversation waswhatcouldandshouldhavebeendonetoapproachthisordinancesubmittal.
Director Adcock felt there should have been more staff contactwiththeindustry.
In response to this conversation,Jim Lawson,Director ofNeighborhoodsandPlanning,stated that staff had sentinvitationstothesignindustrytoinvitethemtoadiscussionoftheissue.Nowever,there were only two persons who attendedthemeeting.At that meeting,staff discussed at length the newtechnologyandreaderboardsandelectronicmessagesigns.Thespecificquestionwasplacedtotheinterestedrepresentativesaboutbanners,pennants and such.They responded by saying thattheyhadlittleornointerestinthis.They explained sincethesekindofdevicesarepromotional,typically from nationalbusinessoffices,they rarely become involved in these kind ofsignjobs.
Commissioner Nicholson then offered a comment to the audience,specifically the proponents of the ordinance amendments.Shestatedthatshewouldappreciateknowingfromthemspecificallywhattheydesiredasaproductofthisordinanceamendment.
10
September 21,1993
1 m ~1 n
Director Adcock's response to the guestion was she expected thePlanningCommissiontoholdapublichearingandreceivecommentsfromvariousinterestedpersons,and have staff develop thoseissuesandthenpresenttheCommission's recommendation to theCityBoard.
Commissioner Nicholson pointed out this process could be verytimeconsuminginordertoproperlyaccomplishthetask,and itcouldnotbeaccomplishedinapublichearingformatsuchasbeingheldatthistime.
Chairman Walker then offered a lengthy comment on the processnormallyemployedbythePlanningCommissiontodeveloprecommendationstotheCityBoard.He closed his comments byaskingDirectorAdcockifsheorDirectorPriesthadadditionalthoughtsonhowtheplacementoftheserestrictionswithinthezoningdistrictsmightbeaccomplished.
Director Adcock's response was these modifications should belimitedtothelargebusinessesalonglargethoroughfaresand forautodealerships.
The Chairman then recognized Mr.Dick Layton,representing hisautodealership.
Mr.Layton offered comments concerning his dealership and itsappearanceandhistorywiththeCityofLittleRockrelative tovariousadvertisingapproachestakenbythecompany.Heidentifiedhisspecificneedintheformofbannersignage asbeingthosespecialeventssuchas"oil change special".Heofferedcommentthathesupportedtheuseofbannersdonein goodtaste.He stated the real need was something that you would putuponaFridayafternoonandtakeitdownbeforeMondaymorning.He stated that he did not have specific answers to the questions,but there had to be a middle ground for the issue.
Commissioner Putnam then offered for the record some history ofSouthUniversityAvenueandhisexperienceintherealestatebusiness.
Jim Lawson then offered comments on the staff's receipt of thisissueandstatedthatstaffdidrecognizethatitwasfromagroupofpropertyownersalongSouthUniversityAvenue.LawsonstatedtherewasnowaytodoasignordinancewhereyousetaseparatesetofstandardsforatrafficcorridorsuchasSouthUniversityAvenueanddisallowthesameeffectinotherareasofthecity.
Lawson pointed out that what Mr.Putnam was suggesting in hiscommentswasanoverlayofSouthUniversity,specifically dealingwiththissubjectandiftheCommissionsodesireswecouldreviewthatforsubmittaltotheCommission.
11
September 21,1993
I n
The Chairman then suggested that in an 1 1/2 hour conversationthateveryonehashadtheirsayontheissueanditappearsthattheordinancebeforetheCommissionisnotonethatthestaffcouldrecommend.He stated that what the Commission needed to doatthistimewassetaschedulefordealingwiththereviewofthisordinance.
Commissioner VonTungeln then offered a lengthy statementconcerningwhathefeltwastheCommission's position relative tospeciallegislationforoneareaandtheeffectonotherareasoftheCityshouldtheycomeinandaskforthesamelatitudeindealingwithsignage.He stated that he agreed with CommissionerNicholsonthatweshouldnotsimplythrowourordinanceoutandleaveitopensimplybecauseofProthroJunctionorotherareasofthePulaskiCounty.People could then do as they please.
He directed a comment to the Chairman,suggesting that theCommissionestablishaprocessandbeginreviewwithsome of thepeoplepresenttoday,perhaps participating in the discussion.Commissioner VonTungeln stated the Plans Committee would be happytoguidethatprocess.
The Chairman responded by uuestioning whether 4 month form of theusualprocesswouldbesufficienttoproduceaproduct.He alsosuggestedthatMr.Wittenberg and his crew should alsoparticipateinthisprocessandoffertheircommentary andexpertise.
Richard Wood,of the staff,offered for the viewing audience aswellasthosepresent,in the meeting,that he would like to havemorefeedbackfromthemanymailoutsandfrompersonsviewingthemeetingtoday.The information would be the kind of signages,typical events,the length of activity that would be involved.He stated this kind of information is invaluable in drafting acomplicatedordinanceandknowingwhatdirectionthatyouaretakingtheordinance.
Chairman Walker then stated to the Plans Committee that if theywouldacceptthatfourmonthchargethentheCommissioncouldmoveforwardonthisbasis.
The Chairman closed the public hearing on this issue moving tothenextitem.
12
Draft 2
08/20/93
AN ORDINANCB AMENDING CHAPTER 36
OF THB CODB OF ORDINANCES OF THB
CITY OF LITTLB ROCK,ARKANSAS
PROVIDING FOR MODIFICATION OF THB
PROHIBITED SIGNS PROVISIONS,
DECLARING AN BMBRGENCY AND FOR
OTHBR PDRPOSBS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THB BOARD OF DIRBCTORS OF THB CITY OFLITTIEROCK,ARKANSAS
SECTION 1.That Chapter 36.of the Code of Ordinances beamendedasfollows:
Subsection (a)That Chapter 36.,Section 36-543,beamendedtoprovideformodificationofthelanguageand tothenreadasfollows:
Sec.36-543.Prohibited signs v
The following type signs are prohibited in alldistricts
(1)Abandoned signs.
(2)Banners,pennants,festoons,searchlights,except asallowedinsection36-557,subsection (d).
(3)Signs imitating or resembling official traffic orgovernmentsignsorsignals.
(4)Snipe signs or signs attached to trees,telephoneyoles,fences,public benches,or placed on publicpropertYoryublicright-of-way.
(5)Vehicular signs.
(6)Trailer or temporarY signs that do not meet thestandardsforfreestandingpermanentsigns.
(7)Roof signs,or any sign that is not mounted on averticalsurface.
(8)Rotating Signa.
Subsection (b)That Chapter 36.,Section 36-557.(d)beamendedforpurposesofmodifyingthetitle,addingadditionallanguageandtothenreadasfollows:
1
Sec.36-557.Special provisions for on-premises signs
(a)All on-premises wall signs must face requiredstreetfrontageexceptincomplexeswhereasignwithoutstreetfrontagewouldbetheonlymeansofidentificationforatenant.
(b)Sign heights for all ground-mounted on-premisessignslocatedonpropertiesimmediatelyadjacentto andcontiguoustoanexpresswayorfreewaymaybemeasuredfromtheelevationofthecenterlineofthetrafficlanes(excluding frontage roads)adjacent to subjectpropertytothetopofthesignstructure.It shall betheresponsibilityofthesignownertosubmitallnecessaryinformationwhenthisapproachisused.The
maximum allowable height in any zone and under anyconditionshallbethirty-six (36)feet.
(c)In commercial and industrial zones where a lot hasinexcessofonehundredfifty(150)linear feet mainstreetfrontage,one (1)additional on-premisesfreestandingsignwillbeallowedforeachadditionalonehundredfifty(150)linear feet of main streetfrontage.Such signs shall be subject to the size andheightlimitationsofthefirstallowedfreestandingsignandmaybeplacednocloserthanonehundredfifty(150)linear feet from any other freestanding signlocatedonthesameproperty.
ni
v n
w n
v~zi1i~
(1)
a
(2)
(3)
Subsection (c)That Chapter 36.,Section 36-547.be amendedforpurposesofaddingadditionallanguageandtothenreadasfollows:
Sec.36-547.lighting.
(a)Unless otherwise specified by this chapter allsignsmaybeilluminated.Sowever,no sign regulatedbythischaptermayutilize.
(1)An exposed incandescent lamp with an externalreflectorandwithoutasunscreenorcomparablediffusion.
(2)Any exposed incandescent lamp in excess ofthreehundred(300)watts.
(3)Any revolving beacon light.
(4)Any device that allows animation,oscillating,rotating or flashing lights.
-2
1 x r
v'1)
(2)
(3)
3
SECTION 2.The Little Rock Board of Directors hereby findsanddeclaresthatasaresultoftheadministrationandenforcementofthecurrentsignregulationscertaincommercialenterpriseisimpactedeconomicallyandinordertoprotectthehealthsafetyandwelfareofthecitisensofthisCity,an emergency is hereby declared to exist and thisordinanceshallbeineffectimmediatelyuponitspassage.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
ORDINANC .DOC
September 21,1993
3gg~gg:Ordinance Amendment (Buildings and Zoning)Little Rock Floodplain Regulations
pjg}gg~:To amend the Buildings and Building Regulations,
and Zoning prOviSians addressing the City'
floodplain management regulations as a conditionofcontinuingeligibilityintheNationalFlood
Insurance Program.
QRLK~RQKX:
This amendment proposal was prepared by staff at the reguestoftheFederalEmergencyManagementAgency.
A Flood Insurance Study (PIS)and Plood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM)have established Base Flood Blevations for little
Rock which are now final and will become effective on
November 3,1993.
Certain additional reguirements must be met under Section1361oftheNationalPloodInsuranceActof1968,as
amended.The community is required,as a condition of
continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance
Program,to adopt floodplain management regulations that
meet the standards of Section 60.3 of the NPIF regulations
(44 CFR 59,etc.)by the effective date of the PIRM.
Amendments are proposed to:
(1)Add or modify certain definitions for floodplain
management purposes.
(2)Include mobile home and manufactured home requirements
within floodplain management guidelines.
(3)Provide for one foot of freeboard for structures withinthefloodplain.
(4)Change the effective date of the FIS and pIRM to
November 3,1993.
(51 Clarify building permits,variance procedures and theroleoftheBoardofZoningAdjustment.
September 21,1993
I n
P MMI I A T (SEPTEMBER 21,1993)
The Chairman asked staff if this is mandatory for ourparticipationintheF.B.M.A.program.
Richard Wood,of the staff,directed the issue to PublicWorksbecausestaffmembersinthatdepartmentdevelopedthismatterandplaceditontheagenda.
Jerry Gardner,of the City Engineer's Office in the PublicworksDepartment,developed this matter and placed it on theagenda.He came forward and presented the issue.GardnerstatedthattheChairmanwasexactlyrightandsaidthisisamandatoryprovisionfromF.E.M.A.He said that he wouldbehappytogothroughtheordinanceanditsprovisions,iftheCommissionsodesired.
Commissioner Putnam asked that he do that specifically forbenefitofthosepersonswhoarelocallyinvolvedinfloodplainissues.
Chairman Walker asked if the City is permitted to makespecificchangesintheplanandstillparticipatein theprogram.
Gardner then offered comments on what is possible formodificationandthoseareaswhichitwouldbefatal to dealwith.He then begin by saying the City does have in place afloodplainmanagementordinance,He offered that thisordinanceanditsenforcementhasbeenthedevicewhich hasprovidedforcitizensofLittleRocktoparticipateinthefederalsubsidizedfloodinsuranceprogram.He stated thattheCityneededtocontinueormaintainthisordinanceinordertoremaineligiblefortheprogram.
He continued by saying that F.B.M.A.had prepared a newseriesofmaps.These maps indicate the City and where thevariousfloodplainsarelocated.He said this map is aresultofseveralyearsworkingwiththeF.E.M.A.and CorpsofEngineersagenciestoupdatethemaps.He stated thecurrentmapswhichareinusearehopelesslyoutofdate andseriouslyinneedofreplacing.He said the new maps thatwillbeofferedwouldbeavailableNovember3,1993.HestatedoneofthethingsthatF.B.M.A.asked the City to dowastoincorporatethesenewmapswithinourordinance,andtheordinancebesubmittedtoF.E.M.A.in a certified formandthattheyreguestedthissubmittalbefourweekspriortotheeffectivedateoftheordinance.Gardner said thatwiththePlanningCommission's vote on the issue today,thematterhasbeensetfornextBoardofDirectorsagenda
2
September 21,1993
2 n
where we can reach that goal.He stated that the only otherthingsthisordinanceaccomplishesissomecleanupandeditingofcurrentmaterial.
One of the provisions is that the ordinance contains and weenforceinourfloodplainmanagementistorequirethatanyhomeorbusinesswhichisconstructedinafloodplainareahaveitslowestfinishedinthatbuildingatleastonefootabovethe100-year flood elevation.Jerry Gardner statedthatthecurrentordinanceprovidesthisgenerallyifyoulookforitinthelanguage,but,this ordinance amendmentclearsalldoubt.He stated that the ordinance neededspecificinstructionastoappealfromtheregulations onbuildinganythinginthefloodway.
Gardner stated the Planning Commission has been thereviewingbodyforappealsinrecentyears.He stated themodelordinancedidnotprovidespecificlanguageordirection,except to say the appeal body of the City.HewentontosaytheCityAttorney's Office had said theordinanceshouldbequiteclearonthispoint.Therefore,the language change is simply to insert Board of Adjustmentattheappropriatelocation.He stated this is the meat oftheordinancechangesbutanumberofdefinitionshavealsobeenadded.These definitions have come from an updaterecommendationfromF.E.M.A.
Gardner identified Mr.Steve Loop with his division ofPublicWorksasheingtheadministratorforthefloodwayregulationsandifanyonehadanyquestions.
Commissioner Selz then asked Mr.Gardner whether thefloodplainsandfloodwaysindicatedonthesemapsare asdesignatedbytheCorpsofEngineers.
In response,Jerry Gardner offered a brief history andidentifiedthefloodplainmanagementsectionoftheCorps ofEngineersasthesourcefortheinformationinthemaps.
Mr.Selz offered his experience with his residence in thefloodwayandmadeseveralcommentsconcerningproblemswiththeregulations.
A general discussion then followed between Gardner andCommissionerSelzconcerningtheCorpsofEngineersandtheirrelationshiptoestablishingthefloodwaysandtheirmethods.
Commissioner Oleson then asked Gardner if their was anyrelationshipbetweenthezonemapreferencestozonesA-l,A-2,etc.relative to city zoning districts.
3
September 21,1993
z m n
Gardner responded by saying no and that these designationssimplyapplytofloodzonesandhavenobearingorrelationshiptolandusedistricts.
The Chairman then recognized that there were seven membersinattendanceandCommissionerNicholsonhavingsteppedintothehallforamoment.Perhaps a vote was in order on thisissue.The Chairman then offered the issue for a vote withthecorrectionsandcommentsofPublicWorks.
A vote on the ordinance produced 7 ayes,0 nays and4absent.The ordinance is recommended for approval to theBoardofDirectors.
4
DRAFT ORDINANCE FORMAT
COPY-
NOTE:deletions appear as strikethrough text.
insertions appear as bold and italic text.
plain text is provided for reader benefit.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8,SECTIONS 8-256
THROUGH 8-305 AND CHAPTER 36,SECTIONS 36-341
OF THE LITTLE ROCK CODE OF ORDINANCES TO
COMPLY WITH THE 'FULL PROGRAM'EQUIREMENTS
OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
L I TTLE ROCK g ~SAS
SECTION 1.Section 8-256 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas,is hereby amended by
adding the following definitions:
ALLUVIAL FAN FLOODING —means flooding occurring on the
surface of an alluvial fan or similar landform which
originates at the apex and is characterized by high-velocity
flows;active processes of erosion,sediment transport,and
deposition;and unpredictable flow paths.
APEX —means a point on an alluvial fan or similar landform
below which the flow path of the major stream that formed
the fan becomes unpredictable and alluvial fan flooding can
occur.
BASEMENT —for floodplain management purposes,means any
area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground
level)on all sides.
EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION —means a
manufactured home park or subdivision for which the
construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which
the manufactures homes are to be affixed (including,at a
minimum,the installation of utilities,the construction of
streets,and either final site grading or the pouring of
concrete pads)is completed before the effective date of the
floodplain management regulation adopted by the community.
EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR
SUBDIVISION —means the preparation of additional sites by
construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which
the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including the
installation of utilities,the construction of streets,and
either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads).
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT —means the operation of an overall
program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing
flood damage,including but not limited to emergency
preparedness plans,flood control works and floodplain
management regulations.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS —means zoning ordinances,
subdivision regulations,building codes,health regulations,
special purpose ordinances (such as a floodplain ordinance,
grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance)and other
applications of police power.The term describes such state
or local regulations,in any combination thereof,which
provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention
and reduction.
FLOOD PROOFING —means any combination of structural and
nonstructural additions,changes or adjustments to
structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real
estate or improved real property,water and sanitaryfacilities,structures and their contents.
HISTORIC STRUCTURE —means any structure that is:
(a)Listed individually in the National Register of
Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of
the Interior)or preliminarily determined by the Secretary
of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individuallistingontheNationalRegister;
(b)Certified or preliminarily determined by the
Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historic
significance of a registered historic district or a district
preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a
registered historic district;
(c)Individually listed on a state inventory ofhistoricplacesinsstateswithhistoricpreservation
programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the
Interi or)or
(d)Individually listed on a state inventory ofhistoricplacesinstateswithhistoricpreservation
programs that have been certified by either:
(l)By an approved state program as determined by
the Secretary of the Interior or,
(2)Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in
states without approved programs.
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION —means a parcel (or
contiguous parcels)of land divided into two or more
manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
NEW MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OF SUBDIVISIONS —means a
manufactured home park or subdivision for which the
construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which
the manufactured homes are to be affixed (including at a
minimum,the installation of utilities,the construction ofstreets,and either final site grading or the pouring of
concrete pads)is complete on or after the effective date of
floodplain management regulations adopted by the community.
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE —means damage of any origin substained
by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structuretoitsbeforedamagedconditionwouldequalorexceed50
percent of the market value of the structure before the
damage occurred.
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE —means a vehicle which is (i)built on
a single chassis;(ii)400 square feet or less when measuredatthelargesthorizontalprojections;(iii)designated to
be self-propelled or permanently towable by a light duty
truck;and (iv)designed primarily not for use as a
permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters forrecreational,camping,travel,or seasonal use.
SECTION 2.Section 8-256 of the Code of OrdinancesoftheCityofLittleRock,Arkansas,is hereby amended by
changing the following definitions:
DEVELOPMENT —means any man-made change in improved and
unimproved real estate,including but not limited to
buildings or other structures,mining,dredging,filling,
grading,paving,excavation or drilling operations or
storage of equipment or materials.
NEW CONSTRUCTION —means,for the purpose of determining
insurance rates,structures for which the "start of
construction"commenced on or after the effective date of aninitialFIRMorafterDecember31,1974,whichever is later,
and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures.
For floodplain management purposes,"new construction"means
structures for which the "start of construction"commenced
on or after the effective date of a floodplain management
regulation adopted by a community and includes any
subsequent improvements to such structures.
START OF CONSTRUCTION —(for other than new construction or
substantial improvements under the Coastal Barrier Resources
Act (Pub.L.97-348)),includes substantial improvement and
means the date the building permit was issued,provided the
actual start of construction,repair,reconstruction,
rehabilitation,addition,placement,or other improvement
was within ZBO days of the permit date.The actual start
means either the first placement of permanent constructionofastructureonasite,such as the pouring of slab or
footings,the installation of piles,the construction of
columns,or any work beyond the stage of excavation;or the
placement of a manufactured home on a foundation.Permanent
construction does not include land preparation,such as
clearing,grading and filling;nor does it include theinstallationofstreetsand/or walkways;nor does it include
excavation for basement,footings,piers or foundations or
the erection of temporary forms;nor does it include theinstallationonthepropertyofaccessorybuildings,such as
garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not partofthemainstructure.For a substantial improvement,the
actual start of construction means the first alteration of
any wall,ceiling,floor,or other structural part of a
building,whether or not that alteration affects the
external dimensions of the building.
SECTION 3.Section 8-281 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas,is hereby amended as
follows:
(2)Review permit application to determine whether a
proposed building site,including the placement of mobile
homes,will be reasonably safe from flooding.
(10)Under the provisions of 44 CPR Chapter 1,Section65.12,of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations,
a community may approve certain development in Zones A1-3O,
AE,AH,on the community's PIRM which increases the water
surface elevation of the base flood by more than one foot,
provided that the oommunity first applies for a conditional
PIRM revision through PEMA.
SECTION 4.Section 8-282 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas,is hereby amended as
follows:
(a)The areas of special flood hazard identified by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency in a scientific and
engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for
the City of Little Rock,"dated August-5-,-i985,November 3,
1993 with accompanying flood insurance rate maps and flood
boundary —floodway maps (FIRM and FBFM)and any revision
thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a
part of this article.
gbj--Per-new-eenshruehien-ef-substantial-improvement-he
existing-structures-,-the-nl&mehe-development-maps-ef-+98%-,
or-mere-recent-maps-endower-engineering-infermatien-sheH-be
used-fer-the-beefs-ef-fieedway-determine%ion-and-required
fkeer-ekevatfens.
SECTION 5.Section 8-283 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas,is hereby amended as
follows:
Sec.8-283.Beveiepment Building permit
(a)A develepment building permit shall be required to
ensure conformance with the provisions of this article.
(b)Application for a develepment building permit shall be
presented to the floodplain administrator on forms furnished
by him and may include,but not be limited to,plans in
duplicate drawn to scale showing location,dimensions,and
elevation of proposed landscape alterations,existing and
proposed structures,including the placement of manufactured
homes,and the location of the foregoing in relation to
areas of special flood hazard.Additionally,the following
information is required:
SECTION 6.Section 8-284 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas,is hereby amended as
follows:
(a)The appeal-beard-as-established-by-the-city Board of
Soning Adjustment shall hear and render judgement on
requests for variance from the requirements of this article.
(b)The appeal-beard Board of Soning Adjustment shall hear
and render judgement on an appeal only when it is alleged
there is an error in any requirement,decision or
determination made by the floodplain administrator in the
enforcement or administration of this article.
(c)any person or persons aggrieved by the decision of the
appeal-beard Board of Soning Adjustment may appear such
decision in the courts of competent jurisdiction.
(g)Upon consideration of the factors noted above and the
intent of this article,the appeal-beard Board of Soning
Adjustment may attach such conditions tot he granting of
variances as it deems necessary to further the purpose and
objectives of this article.
(m)Variances may he issued for the repair or
rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination
that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude
the structures'ontinued designation as a historic
structure and the variance is the minimum necessary to
preserve the historic oharaoter and design of the structure.
SECTION 7.Section 8-301 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas,is hereby amended as
follows:
(2)All new construction or substantial improvements shall
be constructed weah-mabersaks-resssaane-Se-Steed-damage by
methods and practices that minimise flood damage;
SECTION 8.Section 8-302 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas,is hereby amended as
follows:
(1)Residential construction.New construction and
substantial improvement of any residential structure shall
have the lowest floor (including basement)elevated to 1.0feetorgreaterabovethebasefloodelevation.A
registered professional engineer,architect,or land
surveyor shall submit a certification to the flood plain
administrator that the standard of this paragraph issatisfied.
(2)Nonresidential construction.New construction and
substantial improvement of any commercial,industrial,or
other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest
floor (including basement)elevated to 1.0 greater or
greater above the base flood %eve%elevation the structureiswatertightwithwallssubstantiallyimpermeabletothe
passage of water and with structural components having the
capacity of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads andeffectsofbuoyancy.A registered professional engineer or
architect shall develop and/or review structural design,specifications,and plans for the construction,and shallcertifythatthedesignandmethodsofconstructionarein
accordance with acceptable standards of practice outlined inthissubsection.A record of such certification which
includes the special evaluation (in relation to mean sea
level)to which such structures are floodproofed shall be
maintained by the floodplain administrator.
(3)Enclosures.New construction and substantial
improvements,with fully enclosed areas below the lowest
floor that are usable solely for parking of vehicles,
building access or storage in an area other than a basement
and which are subject to flooding shall be designed to
automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior
walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters.
Designs for meeting this requirement must either becertifiedbyaregisteredprofessionalengineeror architect
or meet or exceed the following minimum criteria:
(4)Manufactured homes.
a.All manufactured homes within Zone A on a community's
FHBM or FIRM shall be installed using methods andpracticeswhichminimizeflooddamage.For the purposesofthisrequirement,manufactured homes must be elevated
and anchored to resist flotation,collapse,or lateral
movement.Methods of anchoring may include,but are notlimitedto,use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground
anchors.This requirement is in addition to applicablestateandlocalanchoringrequirementsforresistingwindforces.
e b.All manufactured homes placed or substantially
improved within Zones A1-30,AH and AE on the community's
FIRM on sites (i)outside of a manufactured home park orsubdivision,(ii)in a new manufactured home park or
subdivision,(iii)in an expansion to an existing
manufactured home park or subdivision,or (iv)in anexistingmanufacturedhomeparkorsubdivisiononwhich a
manufactured home has incurred "substantial damage"as aresultofaflood,shall be elevated on a permanent
foundation such that the lowest floor of the manufactured
home is at 1.0 feet or greater above the base floodelevation;and to be securely anchored to an adequately
anchored foundation system in accordance with provisions ofthisparagraph.
b-.c.AH-manufactured-homes-shalt-be-an-eempkianee-with
paragraph-fi}-ef-this-section.All manufactured homes to be
placed or substantially improved on sites in an existing
manufactured home park or subdivision with Zones A1-30,AH
and AH on the community's FIRM that are not subject to theprovisionsofparagraphs(4)a.or (4)b.of this subsectionshallbeelevatedsothateither:
(i)the lowest floor elevation of the manufactured home is1.0 feet or greater above the base flood elevation,or(ii)the manufactured home chassis is supported byreinforcedpiersorotherfoundationelementsofat least
equivalent strength that are no less than 36 inches in
height above grade and be securely anchored to an adequately
anchored foundation system to resist flotation,collapse,
and lateral movement.
(5)Recreational vehicles.Recreational vehicles placed onsiteswithinEonesA1-30,AE,or AE on the community's FIRM
shall either:(i)be on the site for fewer than 180
consecutive days;or (ii)be fully licensed and ready for
highway use;or,(iii)meet the permit requirements of
Section 8-283(b),and the elevation and anchoring
requirements for "manufactured homes"in paragraph (4)of
this section.A recreational vehicle is ready for highway
use if it on its wheels or jacking system,is attached to
the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and
security devices,and has no permanently attached additions.
SECTION 9.Section 8-304 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock,Arkansas,is hereby amended as
follows:
(1)All new construction and substantial improvements of
residential structures have the lowest floor (including
basement)elevated above the highest adjacent grade at least
as-high-as 1.0 feet higher than the depth number specified
in feet on the FIRM (at least twe three feet if no depth
number is specified).
(2)All new construction and substantial improvements of
nonresidential structures shall:a.Have the lowest floor (including basement)elevated
above the highest adjacent grade at least as-higher
than 1.0 feet higher than the depth number specified
on the community's FIRM (at least two (2)feet if no
depth number is specified;or
SECTION 10.Section 8-305 of the Code of Ordinances
of the city of Little,Arkansas,is hereby amended as
follows:
(2)Floodway-revisions-are-na0-ah%swed-when-such-aetien
pradkees-adverse-im}sects-en-fieed-heights.If subsection
(1)of this paragraph is satisfied,all new construction and
substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable
flood hasard reduction provisions of Division 3 of thisArticle.
(3)Pieedpiains-and)sr-fieadways-sheik-be-designed-fer
eqaa%-eonveyanee-ef-%headwaters-except-fer-designated
areas-.Under the provisions of 44 OFR chapter 1,Section
65.12 of the National Flood Insurance Regulations,a
community may permit encroachments within the adopted
regulatory floodway that would result in an inorease in
base flood elevations,provided that the community first
applies for a conditional FIRM and floodway revisions
through FEMA.
SECTION 11.Section 36-341 of the Code of OrdinancesoftheCityofLittleRock,Arkansas,is hereby amended asfollows:
(b)Creation of district;official maps established.Thefloodplainareaswithinthejurisdictionofthecityare
hereby defined as those faand-in-the-Head-hasard-boundary
maps-end-prafiics-af-the-type-55-Head-insurance-study-by
thc-H-.S-.-Army-carps-af-Engineers-,-bitt%a-Hach-,-Arkansas
Bistriet;-as-amended-.—%'he-abave-mentioned-maps-together
with-aH-explanatory-matter-thereon-and-attached-thereto-are
hereby-adapted-and-inearparatcd-herein-by-reference-,-as-iffairy-sct-farth identified by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency in a scientific and engineering reportentitledefheFloodInsuranceStudyfortheCityofIittleRock,"dated November 3,1993 with accompanying flood
insurance rate maps and flood boundary -floodway maps (FIRM
and FBFM)and any revision thereto are hereby adopted byreferenceanddeclaredtobeapartofthisarticle.
(e)Permitted uses.
(1)Within the floodplain (one-hundred year floodelevation)there exists an area of the channel or stream bedcalledthefloodwayandsodesignatedonthetype-i5-fkaad
insurance-study community's flood boundary -floodways maps
(FBFM).No building or structure shall be allowed withinthefloodway.
SECTION 12.ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH
SHALL BE REPEALED AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
SECTION 13.AN EMERGENCY SHALL EXIST AND THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER
THE DATE OF PASSAGE.
PASSED:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
PLANNING COMMISSION VOTE RECGRD
DATE NIIIVTESb~oFAU&l0%EIS
MEMBER 1 Z
BALL,RAMSEY
v'HACHERE,DIANE A
WILLIS,EMMETT
MCDANIEL,JOHN
NICHOLSON,JERILYN
OLESON,KATHLEEN
v'ONTUNGELN,JIM
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD
SELZ,JOE H.
WALKER,BRAD
TIME IN AND TIME OUT
BALL,RAMSEY '
CHACHERE,DIANE
WILLIS,EMMETT
MCDANIEL,JOHN
NICHOLSON,JERILYN T ~
OLESON,KATHLEEN
VONTUNGELN,JIM
PUTNAM,BILL
WOODS,RONALD
SELZ,JOE H.
WALKER,BRAD
AYE 0 NAYE ~ABSENT gf ABSTAIN
September 21,1993
PLANNINQ HEARING
There being no further business before the Commission,themeetingwasadjournedat2:45 p.m.
Date:
ha n e reta