HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 1982-02-25 Specialr-1
I
L
MINUTES OF A SPECIA L MEETING OF THE FRIENDSWOOD
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
February 25, 1982
The Friendswo od Planning and Zo ning Commission met in a Special meeting on Thursday, February 25, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Cit y Hall. The follo wing Co mmissioners were present.
Glen Cress -Vice Chairman Billy Glines Charles Beggs Richard Atcheson Tom Sheeran Ken Hoppe Mary Brown -Councilman
With a quorum present, and wit h the Chairman Leon Brown absent, the fo llowing business was tr ansacted:
A discussion of a pr op osed letter of reco mmendation to Council on Ordinance 210 Subdivision and Ordinance 304 Flood Damage Prevention was dis cussed. A copy of the letter of recommendation wi ll be attached to these minutes.
MOT ION: (hoppe) To accept the 3 page letter with revised wording to be sent to Council.
Second: (Glines)
VOTE: FOR Sheeran, Atcheson, Glines and Hoppe AGAINST: Cr ess and Beggs.
The meet ing was adjourned
Ru��
(
l
Page 2
February 25, 1982
The Planning and Zoning Commission has, at Council request , examined the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance and Flood Prevention Damage Ordinance which would limit water run off rate in new developments to the existing run off rate. In considering the proposal, and in ar riving at our recommendations, we had two goals in mind. The first goal was to determine wha t could be done to alleviate the flood which presently oc curs. The sec ond goal was to determine what can be done to prevent ad ditional flooding as the area is developed.
We have spent considerable number of hours discussing the problems and the proposed solut ions with the Cle ar Creek Drainage Distr ict, the City Engineer , Brazoria County Drainage District and the Corps of Engineers. In all the discussions, one thing appears to be very clear: the control of ru noff rate by Friendswood alone will do nothing to alleviate the present flooding problem, and will have little or no effect in preventing additional flooding. In fact, without the clearing of tribu taries and the creeks, limiting the ru noff in Friendswood may even make the present situation worse.
It appears that some people have the err oneous idea that controlling the runoff in new developments is going to make some significant change in the fl oo ding situ ation in Friendswood. Ac cording to Dr ainage Dis trict figu res, the runoff from Friendswood into Clear Creek is a "drop in the bucket" and Frien dswo od alone limiting runoff will have little or no effect on the flooding of Clear creek. This is·not to say that control of runoff will not be a desirable measure in the future. But to be effective, the enactment of an ordinance to control runoff rate will requir e a high degree of coordina ted effort and cooperation by all entities in the watershed in order to ac hieve equitable uniformity. We also believe that there may be al ternatives which have been neither studied, nor even considered , at this point. For example, since Friendswood is near the bottom of the runoff ladder, would it not help Friendswood and the upstream.co mmunities for Friendswood to discharge its runoff as quickly as possib le? Everyone seems to agree that Friendswood is a bottlenec k in the Clear Creek Watershed, and much of the flood is caused by the tortuous creekbed. The Corps of Engineers has raised the pos sibility that we could help the overall situation by getting our water out as quickly as possible. This possibility certainly deserves some investigation.
On February 18, 1982, we met wi th represen tatives of the Corps of Engineers. In that meeting we heard the following:
1)There has been no significant study which gives any valueto controlling the ru noff rate as an effective flood controlmeasure for Friendswood.
1
[ i
l
Page 3
February 25, 1982
2)The Corps opinion, based on experience, is that such a planis of no pr esent value to Friendswood, and might even be detrimental. The real effect cou ld only be determined after an extensive study, which is yet to be made.
3)Controll ing or limiting runoff may have some value after theCorps Project is completed, but it should not be instituted without a thorou gh study as to its effects.
4)Because of Friendswood's loc ation in the Watershed, i.e. nearthe bottom, we should be concentrating on getting our water outas quickly as possible.
5)If we were to concentrate on getting the water out quickly,the effect on the downstream entities would probably be negligible.
6)Cleaning of the laterals and obtaining rights of way wouldbe more benef icial to us now, altho ugh even that may not be ofmuch help until the Corps Project is completed.
Therefore, based on the inputs we have received from those who have visited with us, and expe cially the Corps of Engineers, we recommend the following:
1)Proceed cautiously, insuring that the acti ons you take todaydo not make the current situation worsen. According to the Coprsof Engineers, acting in haste may add to the problems, while noaction on the part of the City of Friendswood will at least maintain the status quo. Thos e who have suffered from past floodswill be neit her harmed nor helped.
2)To help the present situat ion, we concur with the Corps recommendation that the later als be cleaned in order to get rid ofour water as quickly as possible. This would help us, and according to the Clear Creek Drainage District, since our runoff is onlya "drop in the bucket" it would have minimal effect on Clear Creek.
3)Increase cooperation between the City, the Clear Creek Drainage District , and the other entities above Friendswood. Stepsneed to be taken to determine what the other people are doing infact, not just what they are promising to do. For example, aCity of Pearland ordinance al legedly limited runoff. After careful co nsider ation we determined that the ordinance merely require drunoff in excess of the norm to be placed into their sewer sy stem.We have been told that others are going to require li mitation inrunoff, but to date it appears to be a proposal 6nly. Let's notbe stampeded into acting unilaterally and possibly creating aworse situation intlhope that :ev.e173/one .-else will follow our lead.
2
l
Page 4 February 25, 1982
4)We believe the City shou ld enforce the requirement that allfuture construction be above the 100 year flood plain. If onedecides to buil d in flood plain, then they must raise the levelof their ed ifice so that it would not be flooded.
In summary then, our recommendations are base d on conversations with the Clear Creek Draina ge District, interested citizens, and the Corps of Engineers, and are intended to alleviate present flooding and to prevent future flooding. We believe that enactment of a runoff control ordinance at this time will not help, and may even harm present homeow ners, and therefore, should not be done.
We agree with the Corps of Engineers' recommendation that we place our efforts in cleari ng the lateral s and acquiring rights of way to he lp prevent or alleviate present and future flooding.
We think the City should carefully in vestigate the runoff control concept and, if warranted, institute it secondarily to the Corps Project.
Finally, we would advise against any acti ons bein g taken which sould give false hope to those who have been flooded in the past.
..3