HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1989-10-19 RegularI 1
[
REGULAR MEETING FRIENDSWX)D PLANNING AND ZOOING CG1MISSION OC'IDBER 19, 1989 7:00 P.M.
THE FR IENDS¼WD PLANNING AND ZOOING Ca-1MISSION HELD A RffiUlAR MEETING Cl'l THURSDAY, ccroBER 19, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUI\CIL CHAMBERS. THE FOLLCWING MEMBERS WERE PRESEl\11' CONSTITUTING A QU ORUM.
BAKER -CHAIRMAN r.x: HUGH HANSEN WA.SSON
HENGST -ENGINEER HENRY -S&::RETARY BRINKMAN -S&::RETARY
WITH A QUORUM PRESENT, CRESS AND HOLZSCHUH ABSENT, THE FOLLCWING ITEMS WERE CONSIDERED.
PUBLIC HFARING: Chairman Baker called the public hearing to order for the pUTJX)se of receiving public input roth oral and written on the following zone classification change request: SFR TO CSC -BLACKHAWK AND F.M. 2351 (0.1664 acres) (7,248 SQ.FT.) RESERVE A S&::TION I� There were approximately 20 citizens in the audience.
Ron Fuller representing the property owner addressed the Planning and Zoning Ccmnission and the audience regarding the above request for a zone classification change. Mr. Fuller told the group the 0.1664 of an acre is contiguous with a larger tract where they are proposing to build a convenience store with gas pumps and car wash facing F.M. 2351. The 0.1664 of an acre goes down Blackhawk 175' where they have proposed to have ingress-egress from Blackhawk. The first median cut on Blackhawk is at Regal Pine which is approximately 300' from F.M. 2351. Doc Kiessling representing the homeowners requested to address the Comnission about the concerns of the hcmeowners. Doc Kiessling distributed drawings to the Carmission showing the 0.1664 of an acre abutting a 1.03 acre tract along Blackhawk to Bentwood Drive. Mr. Kiessling went on to say the ingress-egress on to Blackhawk would be dangerous and confusing since it does not ali gn with the median cut. Lloyd Foster a Regal Pine resident addressed the Ccmnission saying he does not want to stop the developnent. His concern is the ingress-egress from Blackhawk. Councilman Ron Ritter addressed the Carmission saying the 0.1664 of an acre they are requesting to rezone is presently single family residential and he feels the small area could be used as a green area to, enhance the develoµoent.
[
l
Page 2 October 19, 1989
Councilman Rit ter went on to say that denying the zone change request would not block the constr uction of the developnent. He doesn't think the residents object to the service station in that general vicinity. The objection is the tract is zoned single famiJy residential and there is sufficient Carrnercial area on the corner of F.M. 2351 for the service station. Councilman Ritter reccmr.ended the Planning and Zoning Cc:mnission deny the request for a zone classification change of_ the 0.1664 of an acre.
Several citizens in the audie nce expressed concerns about the traffic flow on Blackhawk which is already a heavily traveled street.
Chairman Baker reauested camients from the City Engineer Duan e Hengst. Mr. Hengst told the Crnrrission and the audience when he wrote his comnents he had not seen the site plan presented tonight. He went on to say his understanding is you are considering a rezoning this evening and not a site plan approval. The following are the ccmnents presented by the City Engineer in writing to the Comnjssion: The snall parcel requested for rezoning is planned for construction of a driveway for access to the adjacent CSC parcel fran Blackhawk. Such accessibility should incr ease its potential to be developed and will provide a safer method for patr ons who are trave lling northbound on Blackhawk to access the develop-rent. In addition it will fa cilitate traffic movement through the CSC area, usually an irop;::>rtant consideration for CSC developnen ts. Rezoning this portion of the SFR tract on this corner should help maintain the integrity of the nearby single-family areas while enabling develop-rent of the adjacent CSC tract.
Carrnissioner Wasson wanted to know if Diamond Shamr ock could get access to Bentwood fran tract IV, east of the l' reserve as opposed to the portion that is west of the reserve.
Ron Fuller representing the developer told the group he feels that at sane point in time yes, that probably all of tract IV would be a parking lot.
Ccmnissioner Wasson wanted to know who a,,ms tract IV. Ron·· Fuller told the group tract IV is owned by the same people who awn Reserve A and tract III.
Chairman Baker nodressed the group saying he is going to make a recarmendation that a decision is not made at the regular meeting of the Crnrnission tonight. He feels that perhaps we need additional information by having the site plan revie-wed by the Police and Fire Depar bnents. Councilman Ritter suggested checking with the City Attorney for clarification regarding ingress-egress fran the tract as it is presently zoned SFR.
r l
[
l
Page 3 October 19, 1989
The public hearing was closed.
Chainnan Baker called the meeting to order. "t\TEW STATE LEGISLATION EFFErl'Il-JG PLAN1'iING AND ZONING CCMv1ISSIONS Canmissioner Wasson distributed information to the Ccmnission for their review pertaining to new laws adopted by State Legislature this year that will have sane bearing on the Ccmnissions activities. Carrnissioner Wasson wanted the Ccmnission to be familiar with the new laws.
CDNSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ESTJ'IBLISHING BY-IAWS FOR
THE PI-ANNING AND ZOt.\'ING CCM-IISSION
The Cannission has been reviewing a draft of rules of procedure fran the Mayor with some additions added by Camrissioner Wasson.
1"DTION: (MC HUGH) To adopt Rules of Procedure for the Planning and Zoning Camiission Meetings of the City of Friendswocx:l, Texas, p.rrsuant to authority contained in Section 2-3 of the Ca::1e of the City of Friendswood, Texas. The changes made this evening are under Rule 1 (Cl , Rule 18. SECOND: (WASSON) VOrE: FOR UNANIMOUS
OPPOSED: NONE MOTION CARRIED
A merro and copy of rules of procedure to be forwarded to the City Council.
CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTIOl\ REGARDING ESTABLISHMa1T OF A DRAINAGE POLICY
The Ccmnission dis cussed an INl'ERLCCAL AGREEMF.Nr BEIWEEN THE CITY OF FRIENDSWCX)[) AND THE CLEAR CREEK DRAINAGE DISTRICT, for the approval of subdivisions and develoµrent in that JX)rtion of the City which lies within the Clear Creek Drainage District, prev iously presented by Frank Frankovi ch to the Carmission and City Council and did not pass.
The General procedures for approval of prOJJOSed subdivisions adopted in 1984: INTRODUCI'ION: It is the policy of the Planning Carmission to require Clear Creek Drainage District or Harris County Flcx:xj Control District approval of preliminary and final plats prior to Planning Carmission approval.
r
j
l l
Page 4 October 19,1989
City Engineer Hengst presented the follc:Ming suggestions to the Camu.ssion regarding Drainage:
Suggested action: Fonnalize the "Gentleman's agreement" currently utilized. If requiring DraiP.age District APPROVAL is not desired, then require their REVIEW and RFrG1MENDATION of develop-rents. Suggested developnents required to be reviewed by CCDD are all subdivisions (camion definition) of any size and ccmnercial (generic definition) developnents of 1.0 acre or rrore. Be aware that the CCDD requires runoff control only when runoff fran the developnent directly impacts drainage channels and structures for which CCDD is responsible. For all others, regardless of size, the CCDD views the City drainage system
to be a natural metering device which prevents detrimental runoff quantities from reaching CCDD channels.
Consider the follcwing hyi:othetical example: Supr,cse the drainage plan for a 40 acre non-subdivided developnent planned for all runoff to be directed into the Cil-y's roadside ditches. Further suppose the roadside ditches cownstre2Jn of the develop-rent were inadequate to handle the additional runoff. Such a situation would necessarily result in area flooding. Since the runoff is not directly affecting CCDD drainage channels the CCDD would not require runoff control and I could not require· ( and quote code) any drainage improvements either. There are simply no specific requirements to whjch I could p::>int for requiring drainage improvements. Granted, for most ethical and intelligent builders and develo�rs, this would not be a problem since they would ackncwledge the need to pro�rly provide for drainage, but you never knew about others!
I suggest we adopt interim develoµnent drainage requirements nothing detailed, just a few criteria devel opnents will be required to meet:
1.For carmercial developrents of one acre or less a drainage planmust be suhnitted with the site plan for approval by the CityEngineer. Such plan must include runoff calculations based up:m astorm event which has the chance of being equalled or exceeded onceevery 5 years, for pre and p::>st devel opnent. A statement regarding theability of the downstream drainage infrastructure to convey anticipated
flews must also be included. A PIAN to HANDLE any additional runoffmust be provided and constructed.
For residential develop-rents of ten acres or less and with lots of one acre or rrore, site plans must be sul:rnitted with details of side lot drainage swales. Such swales must be installed prior to building permit issuance.
r l
[
l
Page 5 October 19, 1989
Number two above is not really an ideal solution but the swale would provide a place for runoff to collect and be held if necessary and would not create too great an expense to the property owner. I would not usually even suggest a less than adequate solution, but because the City does not have a cariprehensive dra inage plan, it is diffic ult to tell developers of small tracts ¼nat will be adequate drainage improvemen ts.
The above suggestion is really not intended for use. Its purpose is to
provide a beginning point for discussion and to hopefully facilitate the creation of a DRAINAGE POLICY for Friendswood. Harris County Flood Control District is currently having a master drainage plan prepared for Clear Creek by Dannenbaum Engineering Incorporated. The plan will cover the entire Clear Creek watershed and will include drainage design criteria for Clear Creek and its major tributaries including Mary's Creek, Coward Creek and Chigger Creek. Until this plan is canpleted and adopted I do not recannend any dra inage requirements be steadfastly adopted. I do hc,,.,ever recarrnend the City engage Dannenbaum to prepare a canprehensive drainage plan for FriendS\-.DOd since they will be best situated to develop a Friendswood plan that will be canplimen ted by the overall watershed plan.
The Ccmnission discussed aspects of having a fonnal drainage policy and made the follo.ving motion.
IDI'ION: (HANSEN) City Engineer to draft guidelines for a drainage p:::>licy to be considered for adoption.
SFXDND : (WASSON) VOI'E : FOR UNANIMJUS OPPOSED: OONE
mu>REHENSIVE PLAN
MOI'ION CARRIED
CCTT1T1issioner Wasson distributed guidelines for the Canprehensive Plan
for review by the Carmission and input at the next regular Carmission meeting.
The meeting was adjourned.
µtel� /i&Vl:t/ Ruth P. Henry -Secre Planning and Zoning Coordinator