John Kaminski. Allison Lacey, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Gwosdz, City Attorney

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N MEETING MINUTES Date and Time: September 20, 2018, at 5:15pm MEMBERS PRESENT: B J Davis Michael Atkinson John Hyak James Johnson Gail Hoad Mary Ann Wyatt Brian Rokyta Jill Trevino MEMBERS ABSENT: Julia Welder STAFF PRESENT: Development Services: Julie Fulgham, Director of Development Services Rick Madrid, Assistant Director of Development Services Alina Phillips, Planning Manager Celeste Menchaca, Planner Lila Foster, Planning Technician City Manager s Office John Kaminski City Attorney's Office: Allison Lacey, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Gwosdz, City Attorney A: CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Wyatt called the September 20, 2018, regular meeting to order at 5:15pm. B: TRAINING FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Thomas Gwodz, City Attorney, presented training to the Planning Commissioners on the following topics: 1. Open Meetings Act 2. Robert s Rule of Order 3. Standards for Adopting Plats 4. Variance Criteria C: ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS Chair: Mr. Gwodz opened the floor to nominations for Chair. Commissioner John Hyak nominated Commissioner Mary Anne Wyatt for Chair. Commissioner James Johnson nominated Commissioner Jill Trevino for Chair. Page 1

6 Mr. Gwodz closed nominations and called for a vote on Chair. Commissioner Wyatt was elected Chair unanimously. Vice-Chair: Mr. Gwodz opened the floor to nominations for Vice-Chair. Commissioner James Johnson nominated Commissioner Jill Trevino. No other nomination were made for Vice-Chair. Mr. Gwodz closed nominations and called for a vote on Vice-Chair. Commissioner Trevino was elected Vice-Chair unanimously. Secretary: Mr. Gwodz opened the floor to nomination for Secretary. Commissioner Jill Trevino nominated Commissioner James Johnson for Secretary. No other nominations were made for Secretary. Mr. Gwodz closed nominations and called for a vote on Secretary. Commissioner Johnson was elected Secretary unanimously. Commissioner Julia Welder was absent for the vote on Planning Commission Officers. D: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES July 19, 2018 Regular Meeting A motion to approve the July 19, 2018, minutes was made by Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Trevino seconded the motion to accept the minutes. The motion passed unanimously. E: CITIZEN COMMUNICATION Chair Wyatt asked if any citizen wished to address the Commission on issues not specifically listed on the Agenda. No citizen approached the Commission. F: DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS/FORMAL ACTION 1. The Covey at Quail Creek: Preliminary Plat; twenty-one Single Family Residential (R1) Lots within Block 1, on a 6.59-acre tract of land out of the Manuel Zepeda Survey, Abstract 128, Victoria County, Texas, in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Rodriguez Investment Group (Owner); CivilCorp, LLC (Agent). Final Plat Phase 1; eleven (11) Single Family Residential (R1) Lots within Block 1 on a 3.51-acre tract of land out of the Manuel Zepeda Survey, Abstract 128, Victoria Page 2

7 County, Texas, in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction; Rodriguez Investment Group (Owner); CivilCorp, LLC (Agent). a. Staff Report The staff report and staff recommendation were presented by Celeste Menchaca, Planner to the Planning Commissioners. A 6.59 acre tract of land situated in the Manuel Zepeda Survey, Abstract No. 128, Victoria County, Texas, bounded by Turkey Lane, Dove Drive, and Warehouse Road, located North of the intersection of Business 59 and Zac Lentz Parkway in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, and being the same tract of land, described as 6.58 acres, conveyed from Frank Junior Hernandez to Rodriguez Investment Group, LP by deed dated March 6, 2018, as recorded in official records instrument No Victoria Preliminary Plat The Covey at Quail Creek is a proposed preliminary plat of 6.59 acres. The subject property is bounded by Turkey Lane, Dove Drive, and Warehouse Road, located north of the intersection of Business 59 and Zac Lentz Parkway in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The property is undeveloped and is being platted into twenty-one (21) Single Family Residential Lots within Block 1. Development of The Covey at Quail Creek shall be completed in two (2) phases. Access to the subdivision will be provided via local streets Turkey Lane, Warehouse Road, and Dove Drive. Water service will be provided by Quail Creek Municipal Utility District (M.U.D.) by an existing 6 water line in Turkey Lane, existing 6 water line in Dove Drive, and a proposed 6 water line in Warehouse Road. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by an existing 10 sanitary sewer line in Dove Drive and a proposed 8 sanitary sewer line in Warehouse Road and Turkey Lane. Drainage is in accordance with the master drainage plan of the City of Victoria. Final Plat The Covey at Quail Creek Phase 1 is a proposed final plat of 3.51 acres. The subject property is bounded by Turkey Lane, Dove Drive, and Warehouse Road, located north of the intersection of Business 59 and Zac Lentz Parkway in the City s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The property is undeveloped and is being platted into eleven (11) Single Family Residential (R-1) lots within Block 1. Access to the subdivision will be provided via local streets Turkey Lane, Warehouse Road, and Dove Drive. Victoria County, Texas. Water service will be provided by Quail Creek Municipal Utility District (M.U.D.) by an existing 6 water line in Turkey Lane, existing 6 water line in Dove Drive, and a proposed 6 water line in Warehouse Road Sanitary sewer service will be provided by an existing 10 sanitary sewer line in Dove Drive and a proposed 8 sanitary sewer line in Warehouse Road and Turkey Lane. Drainage is in accordance with the master drainage plan of the City of Victoria. Page 3

8 G: OTHER BUSINESS The proposed Preliminary and Final plat are in compliance with the minimum requirements for Single Family Residential development contained within the Subdivision and Development Regulations. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for The Covey at Quail Creek and final plat for The Covey at Quail Creek Phase 1, finding they meet all applicable ordinances and regulations. b. Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat Chair Wyatt opened the meeting for a public hearing on the Preliminary Plat. No owners, agents, or citizens approached the podium to address the Planning Commission. c. Preliminary Plat Deliberations and Action Chair Wyatt closed the public hearing and the Commissioners began their deliberations and acted on the Preliminary Plat. Commissioner Trevino made a motion to accept the Preliminary Plat. Commissioner Hoad seconded the motion to accept the Preliminary Plat. Chair Wyatt asked for vote. The Preliminary Plat was accepted and approved unanimously. Commissioner Welder was absent. d. Final Plat Deliberations and Action Commissioner Trevino made a motion to accept the Final Plat. Commissioner Hoad seconded the motion to accept the Final Plat. Chair Wyatt asked for vote. The Final Plat was accepted and approved unanimously. Commissioner Welder was absent. 1. Development Services Monthly Development Report present by Ms. Menchaca 2. October Planning Commission Meeting Reschedule to October 11, 2018, due to conflict with the Texas Chapter American Planning Association Conference. H: ITEMS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS There were no items from the Planning Commissioners. I: ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Wyatt adjourned the meeting at 6:05pm. APPROVED: Page 4

9 Mary Anne Wyatt, Chair Victoria Planning Commission APPROVED: James Johnson, Secretary Victoria Planning Commission Page 5

10 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N MEETING MINUTES Date and Time: October 30, 2018, at 5:29pm MEMBERS PRESENT: B J Davis Michael Atkinson John Hyak James Johnson Gail Hoad Mary Ann Wyatt Brian Rokyta Jill Trevino Julia Welder Special Guest: Greg Spears STAFF PRESENT: Development Services: Julie Fulgham, Director of Development Services Rick Madrid, Assistant Director of Development Services Alina Phillips, Planning Manager John Johnston, Development Engineer Lila Foster, Planning Technician City Manager s Office Charmelle Garrett John Kaminski City Attorney's Office: Allison Lacey, Assistant City Attorney Thomas Gwosdz, City Attorney A: CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Wyatt called the September 20, 2018, regular meeting to order at 5:15pm. A special meeting of the Planning Commission jointly with the Victoria City Council was called to order by Chair of the Planning Commission, Mary Anne Wyatt at 5:29 p.m. Tuesday, October 30, 2018, in the Council Chambers, 107 W. Juan Linn, Victoria, Texas. WORK SESSION Joint Session with the Planning Commission to discuss the Unified Development Code. City Staff. City Manager Garrett stated in April 2016 the City adopted the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and under the chapter for land use development was the need to adopt a unified development code (UDC). She read a portion of the UDC stating the need for a more user-friendly development regulation and entitle it the unified land and site development ordinance. City Manager Garrett stated that according to the Comprehensive Plan, the UDC would achieve a better coordinated set of development related regulations, standards, and procedures. She commented that Council appointed a UDC committee a few years ago and the committee began looking at the issue, but had a few setbacks, including a change

11 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 30, 2018 in management of the Development Services Department. City Manager Garrett stated that UDC committee was behind were they wanted to be but were before the Council and Planning Commission to get direction on what enabling legislation the City will use to develop the UDC. She added that the topic will be on the November 20 th City Council meeting for a decision and the Planning Commission would further discuss the issue at the November 15 th Planning Commission meeting. City Manager Garrett stated that the ultimate decision will come from the Council but added that it was important for the Planning commission to ask questions and make suggestions. City Attorney Gwosdz stated that he was going to talk about the foundations of law that underlie the UDC. He commented that the Planning Commission and Council were being asked to consider if the City should adopt additional authority to allow for the enforcement of the development regulations that are currently on the books. City Attorney Gwosdz stated that the current City code was adopted in 1992 and sets forth where the authority to enforce City development regulations comes from, which was chapter 212 of the Local Government Code. He stated that because chapter 212 was chosen in the past as the chapter used to give the City the authority to regulate development, the City was limited to what chapter 212 of the Local Government Code allows. City Attorney Gwosdz explained that chapter 212 gives the City the authority to adopt rules governing plats and subdivisions of land, so the City was limited to subdivisions and plats of land. He further explained that there were two different types of plats listed in chapter 212, which include subdivision plats and development plats. City Attorney Gwosdz stated that subchapter B, governing development plats must be specifically adopted for development plats to apply within the City and the City has not adopted subchapter B. He also gave examples to illustrate how the subdivision and development plats work for enforcement. City Attorney Gwosdz also explained the City s use of site plans, which are not enforceable because site plans are not in chapter 212. He stated that when Development Services needs to enforce certain issues, they must rely on other enforcement authority, besides chapter 212 of the Local Government Code. City Attorney Gwosdz stated that if the City were to adopt subchapter B of chapter 212 to shore up the enforcement authority, development plat would be required to be prepared by a registered professional land surveyor which would be very costly to developers and would increase the amount of regulation. He stated that in response to the complexity of the City s plat-based system, Development Services had established a list of exceptions to ease the burden on citizens. City Attorney Gwosdz explained that replats are not enforced for each change in use and site plans do not require surveys. He added that the current process was more stream-lined than the State law would be if the City adopted subchapter B of chapter 212. City Attorney Gwosdz explained that the current City Code was valid and enforceable but could be subject to challenges in the court system because the code does not line up with State law. City Attorney Gwosdz also explained that chapter 211 of the Local Government Code gave cities the authority to allow for the enforcement of the development regulations. He commented that he liked the chapter 211 because it gave cities direct regulatory authority and was not tied to a plat. City Attorney Gwosdz stated that the City of Victoria had not adopted chapter 211, but he and Director Fulgham were asking the Council and Planning Commission to consider the adoption of chapter 211 as the foundation of law for regulations that have already been adopted. He commented that chapter 211 was titled Municipal Zoning Authority and the community had not adopted zoning. City Attorney Gwosdz asked Director Fulgham to explain what zoning was to facilitate the discussion on chapter 211.

12 CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 30, 2018 Director Fulgham explained that there were two parts to zoning. She stated that the first part of zoning was mapping that divides cities into different polygons that are labels with different land uses, such as residential and commercial. Director Fulgham commented that a zoning map can be very rigid and limiting to development. She added that the staff was not proposing adopting a zoning map. Director Fulgham stated that the Development Services Department did want at look at the bulk regulations. She commented that bulk regulations had already been adopted under the subdivision ordinance and by subdivision authority. Director Fulgham stated that when a City was regulating land use the City can adopt bulk regulations by subdivision authority and by zoning authority. She commented that when the City has different bulk regulations for different land uses, then it was essentially a zoning function. Director Fulgham stated that in the planning world there was a shift away from zoning maps and more cities were only using the bulk regulations. She stated that the form-based zoning focuses on the form of the development, instead of the use of the development. Director Fulgham explained that bulk regulations were regulations that shape cities or developments, and gave examples of setbacks, parking requirements, minimum lot size, and lot width. She stated that bulk regulations are most effective when adopted under both the subdivision authority and the zoning authority. Director Fulgham explained the land use designations already adopted in the City code and stated that the uses can be located anywhere in the city so long as the form was met and the added that staff was not proposing any changes to the structure of land use designations. She gave examples of how the bulk regulations are applied to different land uses. Director Fulgham stated that when a brand-new development was being proposed, applying the ordinances to the new development were easy, but when applying the ordinances to infill or redevelopment, enforcing the ordinances can be difficult. She explained that if the City continues with only the authority listed in chapter 212, the changes in use will have to be tied to permits and development plats to continue to regulate the way the City currently regulates these types of changes. Director Fulgham stated that staff was asking for consideration to adopt chapter 211 for direct enforcement authority. She explained how the direct enforcement authority would allow the City to simplify the development process. Director Fulgham added that until a decision was made on how the City ordinances would get their regulating authority, a discussion of changes to the development ordinances could not happen. City Attorney Gwosdz added that the UDC could be drafted using either chapter 212 or chapter 211 as the derivative of authority, but the committee needed direction. After discussion between members of the Planning Commission, the Council, and staff, the members of the governing authorities were asked to read through chapters 212 and chapters 211 in preparation of making a decision. City Manager Garrett stated that the Planning Commission would meet about the issue on November 15 th and the Council would meet about the issue November 20 th. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:28 p.m. APPROVED: APPROVED: Mary Anne Wyatt, Chairperson Victoria Planning Commission James Johnson, Secretary Victoria Planning Commission

13 Agenda Item #: D-1 November 15, 2018 CASE: 1. Variance to Section 21-82(c)(5) Single Family residential detached, rural subdivision, Minimum interior side yard setback which requires the interior side yard setback to be 10 feet. Location: 97 Brook View Drive legally described as Spring Ridge Subdivision Lot 3, Block 1 Land Use: Applicant(s): Staff Contact: Single-Family Residential (R-1) Robert M. Shaffer Living Trust & Separate Property Trust (Owners), Urban Engineering (Agent) Alina Phillips, Planning Manager LOCATION MAP:

14 Agenda Item #: D-1 Pg. 2 BACKGROUND: The subject property is not located within the city limits of Victoria, Texas. The property lies within the City of Victoria s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Subdivisions created in the city s extraterritorial jurisdiction are subject to the city s Subdivision Ordinance, based on an inter-local agreement between the City of Victoria and Victoria County. The property is a 1.07 acre lot located at 97 Brook View Drive and was developed into a single-family residential lot within the Final Plat Spring Ridge Subdivision filed in During the subdivision process, subdivision blocks and lots, infrastructure, utilities, easements, and building setback lines are established. A plat was submitted to the City for review and approval. The plat was approved by the City; it was filed with the County Clerk s office for their records. The current building setback lines established for the subject property by the recorded plat are as followed: 50 front yard setback line, 5 interior yard setback lines and 20 Drain and Utility Easement in the back yard. The applicant is requesting a variance to the minimum interior side setback in order to replat this lot with a 2.5 interior side setback rather than the minimum 10 interior side setback currently required by the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is requesting this variance to satisfy their mortgage company s requirements since there is an existing garage structure encroaching in the currently platted interior side setback. When the garage structure was built on this property, the owner was not required to pull a building permit to construct it on their property because the City of Victoria does not have authority to issuing building permits for properties located outside of the city limits or enforce setbacks established by plats on property located outside of the incorporated limits of the City of Victoria. The variance would allow the owners to have a 2.5-foot interior building setback line only in the area of the existing garage. The variance, if approved, would allow the owners to have a 2.5-foot interior building setback line versus the 10-foot interior building setback line as required by the Subdivision Ordinance or a 5-foot interior setback line as established by the Spring Ridge Subdivision plat. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the variance to waive Single Family residential detached, rural subdivision, minimum interior side yard setback which requires the interior side yard setback to be 10 feet in Section for granting variances: 1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare, or be injurious to surrounding property; 2) The granting of the variance is not based on a hardship which is self-imposed; 3) The hardship is not based solely on the cost of complying with the regulation; 4) The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly development of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and

15 Agenda Item #: D-1 Pg. 3 5) There are special or unique circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. The subject property is not located within the city limits of Victoria, Texas. The property lies within the City of Victoria s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. Subdivisions created in the city s extraterritorial jurisdiction are subject to the city s Subdivision Ordinance, based on an inter-local agreement between the City of Victoria and Victoria County. The City of Victoria does not have authority to issuing building permits for properties located out of the city limits or enforce setbacks established by plats on property located outside of the incorporated limits of the City of Victoria. Rural residential subdivision lots must be a minimum of one acre in size if there is an absence of public water and wastewater facilities. The subject property is 1.07 acres. The intent of setback lines is to provide a minimum amount of open space and prevent the conflagration of structures in an urbanized area. Staff believes the low density of the Spring Ridge Subdivision, in addition to the lack of regulatory authority concerning the construction of buildings located outside of the City limits, creates a unique condition and circumstance. For these reasons, staff would recommend the approval of this variance. Attachments: 1) Variance Application 2) Variance Request Letter 3) Deed 4) Letters of Support for the Variance 5) Final Plat

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 20' DRAIN & UTIL ESMT 5' BL 5' BL 1.17 ACRES LOT 5 LOT 4, BLOCK 1 BLOCK 1 MAP RECORDS SPRING RIDGE SUBDIVISION VOL. 8, PG. 196-C & D 50' BL 50' BL 50' BL LOT 4 BLOCK 2 HIGHW AY 87 W EARDEN Spring SITE LOCATION MAP Creek SUN VALLEY PARSON HAYNES RUSSELL SOLAR M ALLETTE HONEY BALL AIRPORT JESSICA BALL AIRPORT BRIGGS BAM BI PACO GLASCOW KELLY CRICK EDINBURGH BINGHAM LARKSPUR HIGHW AY 77 Tel (361) Fax (361) ACRES GLADYS E. REINECKE TO LARRY A. REINECKE VOL. 0177, PG. 519 OFFICIAL RECORDS FSR N45 35'18"W ' FSR VOL. 8 PG. 196-C & D MAP RECORDS 20' BL 5' BL 5' BL 5' BL N44 38'59"E ' 2.5' BL LOT 3R BLOCK ACRES 50' SEPTIC CONTROL EASEMENT VOL. 8, PG. 196 C & D MAP RECORDS 5' BL S44 38'59"W ' 5' BL 5' BL 1.01 ACRES LOT 2, BLOCK 1 MAP RECORDS SPRING RIDGE SUBDIVISION VOL. 8, PG. 196-C & D LOT 1 BLOCK 1 5' BL 50' BL 50' BL 10' DRAIN & UTIL ESMT VOL. 8, PG. 196-C & D MAP RECORDS FSR C1 BRO O K VIEW FSR 60.0' R.O.W. (EXISTING LO CAL STREET) FIELDNOTE POINT OF BEGINNING 10' DRAIN & UTIL ESMT VOL. 8, PG. 196-C & D MAP RECORDS 50' BL 50' BL LOT 3 BLOCK 2 MAP RECORDS SPRING RIDGE SUBDIVISION VOL. 8, PG. 196-C & D LOT 2 LOT 1 BLOCK 2 BLOCK 2 5' BL 5' BL 1. LAND USE : RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R7) 2. ADDRESS : 97 BROOK VIEW 3. BUILDING LINES : AS SHOWN 4. STREET CLASSIFICATION : CURVE C1 RADIUS ' GENERAL NOTES BROOK VIEW - EXISTING LOCAL STREET 5. STATISTICAL DATA : A) GROSS AREA ACRES B) GROSS LOTS - 1 LOT 6. FSR - FOUND 5/8" DIAMETER STEEL ROD 7. ABBREVIATIONS: AC - ACRES BL - BUILDING LINE R.O.W. - RIGHT-OF-WAY UE - UTILITY EASEMENT 8. THE CITY OF VICTORIA DOES NOT MAINTAIN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THE CITY STRONGLY RECOMMENDS THAT ANY STRUCTURE OF SIGNIFICANT VALUE BE PLACED WITH A FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF AT LEAST 24 INCHES ABOVE THE GRADE OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE ADJACENT STREET, OR 12 INCHES ABOVE THE HIGHEST ADJACENT GRADE, WHICHEVER ELEVATION IS MORE APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY. 9. NO BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN THIS SUBDIVISION SHALL BE OCCUPIED UNTIL THAT BUILDING IS CONNECTED TO A FUNCTIONING SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVED BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OR THEIR AUTHORIZED AGENT. SEPTIC SYSTEMS SHALL BE LOCATED TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH WATER WELL LOCATIONS. 10. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ARE PRIVATE UNTIL ACCEPTED BY COUNTY OF VICTORIA COMMISSIONER'S COURT. CURVE DATA TANGENT 87.25' DELTA 04 47'03" ARC LENGTH ' CHORD BEARING AND LENGTH S 38 12'26" E ' FINAL PLAT Spring Ridge Subdivision, Resubdivision No. 2 LOT 3R, BLOCK 1 BEING A 1.07 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING LOT 3, BLOCK 1 OF SPRING RIDGE SUBDIVISION 2004 N. Com merce ACCORDING TO THE M AP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN VOLUM E 8, PAGE 196 C&D OF THE PLAT RECORDS, VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING THAT SAM E TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED BY CORRECTION INSTRUM ENT DATED JULY 9, 2018, CONVEYED FROM Victoria, Texas TREF# F-160 JASON JACKSON AND RANDI JACKSON TO ROBERT M. SHAFFER, TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT M. SHAFFER LIVING TRUST AND NANCY A. CHANDLER, TRUSTEE OF THE NANCY A. CHANDLER SEPARATE PROPERTY TRUST AS RECORDED IN INSTRUM ENT NO OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS, VICTORIA COUNTY TEXAS. THIS PLAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE 75.0' R.O.W. PARSONS ROAD (SECONDARY ARTERIAL) CITY OF VICTORIA. PLAT IS FILED FOR RECORD IN VOL., PG. OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. COV PLAT FILE NO GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET DATE JOB NUMBER 10/29/18 E PAGE 1 OF URBAN ENGINEERING

25

26

27

28

29 Agenda Item #: D- 2 November 15, 2018 CASE: 1. The applicant is requesting a variance to Section (Maximum Number of Driveways), Section (Location of Driveways), Section (Nonconforming Driveways), Section (Building Setback Lines), Section (Off-Street Parking Requirements, General), Section (Queuing Spaces), and Section (Landscaping). Location: Land Use: Applicant: Agent: Staff Contact: 7808 N. Navarro St. and legally described as Indian Trails Subdivision, Section One, Resubdivision No. 7, Lot 3C Commercial (C-1) McDonald s Corporation (Owners) Pape-Dawson Engineers Julie Fulgham, Director of Development Services LOCATION MAP:

30 Agenda Item #: D-2 Pg. 2 BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at 7808 North Navarro Street and is owned by McDonald s Corporation. The site is developed with an existing McDonald s Restaurant. The property owner is proposing to tear down the existing restaurant and rebuild a new restaurant, which is 885 square feet larger, on the existing site. The applicant is requesting a total of seven variances which includes variances to the following sections: Section (Maximum Number of Driveways), Section (Location of Driveways), Section (Nonconforming Driveways), Section (Building Setback Lines), Section (Off-Street Parking Requirements, General), Section (Queuing Spaces), and Section (Landscaping). The following sections of Chapter 20, Streets, Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters are the sections requested to be varied from: Section Maximum Number of Driveways (b) A commercial or multifamily land use on a street other than a freeway shall be permitted access only in accordance with the following: (1) A driveway onto a street from a land use with less than two hundred (200) feet of frontage on that street shall be permitted in accordance with special conditions established by the director in accordance with section Section Location of Driveways (d) Successive driveways located on the same property shall be located no closer together than one hundred (100) feet as measured between the adjacent driveway throats or the sum of the adjacent curb radii of the two (2) driveways plus a sixty-foot tangent length, whichever is greater, as shown in figure 20-83(d). Section Nonconforming Driveway (a) It is the intent of this section that nonconforming driveways be discontinued and that driveways be required to conform to the regulations prescribed herein with nonconforming status applying only under the appropriate circumstances. It is the further intent of this section that nonconforming driveways will eventually be eliminated through the natural course of application of this section and the need for repair and reconstruction or changes in use. Nonconforming status is intended to be a status to prevent a property owner from having to pay to bring a driveway into compliance with newer regulations after its original construction. Nonconforming status is not intended to guarantee a driveway will avoid alteration. (b) Any driveway access that does not conform to the provisions of this chapter but legally existed as a conforming driveway prior to May 1, 2010 may be permitted to continue as a nonconforming driveway until: (4) A driveway is reconstructed as defined by Section 20-80; or (5) Any development that is required by the City Code to be accompanied by a site plan. Additionally, the applicant is requesting variances to the following sections of Chapter 21, Subdivision and Development: Section Building Setback Lines Building setback lines, as specified in Article III, Division 1, Development Guidelines, shall be provided for every lot. Such lines shall be drawn on the preliminary and final plats. When public

31 Agenda Item #: D-2 Pg. 3 utility easements in excess of the setback requirements exist or are established on a lot, the building setback lines shall be adjusted to conform, at a minimum, to the easement dimensions. No building permit or building moving permit shall be issued for a building which will encroach any minimum building setback line. Except the owner of two (2) adjoining residential lots may obtain a building permit to construct a house or structure across the interior building setback lines of the recorded lots. Section Off-Street Parking Requirements (a) Off-street parking required. At the time that any building, use or structure is initiated, erected, enlarged or converted from one (1) land use to another land use which requires an increase in the number of parking spaces, off-street parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with these regulations for the use of occupants, employees, visitors and patrons. The provisions of this section shall not apply to properties located within the designated Downtown Business District, as described in Section of the City Code. (c) Amount of off-street parking spaces required: the required number of off-street parking spaces for any building, use or structure shall be determined by the list of land use classifications and corresponding parking standards contained in Table 3.1, of this section Table 3.1: Restaurant, fast food 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area Section Queuing Spaces Uses which have drive-through window services shall provide queuing spaces. A fast-food restaurant with drive-through services shall provide a minimum of 5 queuing spaces. For other uses with drive-through services, the minimum number of queuing spaces required shall be determined by the Director of Development Services. Where such queuing spaces are provided, they shall conform to the following standards: (4) Queuing lanes shall not interfere with parking spaces, parking aisles, loading areas, internal circulation or driveways. Section Landscaping (d) Landscaped Area Required. A minimum of 10 percent of the total building site, as defined herein, shall be devoted to landscaping; except that the square footage of all portions of the building site covered by buildings footprints or areas designated as fenced and secured storage areas shall be subtracted from the building site area prior to making the 10 percent calculation. At least 70 percent of the required landscaped area shall be located within the street yard, as illustrated in Figure 3.6 of this section. For multiple-family developments, where it would be more desirable to disperse the landscaping throughout the site, the percentage of landscaping to be located in the street yard may be reduced by the Director of Development Services. INFRASTRUCTURE: Water: Sewer: Water service is being provided by an existing 16 line located in North Navarro Street. Sanitary sewer service is being provided by an existing 6 line located in a public utility easement adjacent to Navarro Street right-of-way.

32 Agenda Item #: D-2 Pg. 4 Streets: Drainage: North Navarro Street (Existing Primary Arterial Drainage is in accordance with the master drainage plan of the City of Victoria. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Chapter 20, Article VI, Driveway Construction Variances: Chapter 20, Article VI, Driveway Construction sets forth variance procedures in Section Variances to driveway regulations differ from variances to the subdivision regulations in that the Planning Commission does not have a set of criteria to measure the variance requests against. The applicant must submit a request stating the circumstances showing that the literal enforcement of such provisions will result in an unnecessary and extraordinary hardship. The applicant s agent has submitted their request and it is attached. In this situation, the driveways have existed in this configuration since the site was developed with this building in There are two driveways on a site with only feet of frontage instead of the minimum 200 feet of frontage required for two driveways and which are separated by only approximately 60 feet instead of the minimum 100 feet of separation required by the ordinance. Driveway regulations are intended to reduce the number of potential conflicts between vehicles on a roadway and on an adjacent site and provide adequate ingress and egress to a property while maintaining adequate traffic flow on the adjacent roadway. Prior to the construction of the median in front of this property, there were a high rate of crashes on this segment of Navarro. However, after the introduction of the roadway median, a 36% reduction in collisions occurred between Loop 463 and Broadmoor on Navarro Street. A signalized intersection, to the south of the property, maintains and improves the safety of Victoria Mall s private drive and LaSalle Crossing, a local city street. Signalized intersections improve safety by managing high volumes of motorized traffic and controlling speed on a roadway. Therefore, staff concludes that the median and signalized driveway, located immediately south of this property, mitigates safety concerns of mulitple driveways without adequate spacing due to the inability to make left turns into or out of the driveways and the probability of reduced speeds on the roadway in front of this property because of the signal. However, reducing the number of driveways improves traffic flow (which is a large factor in roadway capacity) on an adjacent roadway. A recent example of a site redeveloped to be in compliance with this article is the Frost Bank site currently under construction south of this property. Chapter 21, Subdivision and Development Variances: Variances to Chapter 21, Subidivision and Development must meet the criteria established in Section Staff s analysis and recommendation of the requested variances to Chapter 20 is explained below. The criteria established in Section is as follows: 1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare, or be injurious to surrounding property; 2) The granting of the variance is not based on a hardship which is self-imposed; 3) The hardship is not based solely on the cost of complying with the regulation;

33 Agenda Item #: D-2 Pg. 5 4) The granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly development of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; and 5) There are special or unique circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the property. The property owner has requested four variances to Chapter 21. The requested variances include a variance to the minimum 25-foot front building setback to allow the encroachment of a canopy 3 into the required front setback, a variance to the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces to allow only 32 parking spaces rather than the required 43 parking spaces, a variance to the regulation that queuing lanes shall not interfere with parking spaces, parking aisles, loading areas, internal circulation or driveways; and a variance to the landscaping requirements to allow only 39% of the 70% of landscaping required to be in the front street yard. While the ordinance does differentiate between a resturant (1 parking space per 3 seats is required) and a fast-food resturant (1 parking space per 100 square feet of gross floor area), staff recongizes that a fast food resturant is a convienence driven business and the functionality of the site is dependent on adequate queuing or parking spaces. The introduction of a second drive-thru order window on this property will reduce the length of the vehicular queue, enhancing functionality. Furthermore, the existence of a rear access point on this property to the Victoria Mall (authorized by a cross-access agreement) allows for even greater functionality and is a mitigating factor in any reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces or in designing parking spaces blocked by queuing space. Additionally, the applicant has requested a variance to allow for a 3-foot encroachment into the required 25- foot front setback to allow the construction of a canopy. The general requirements of setbacks allow for minor encroachments such as open eaves, cornices, windowsills, or canopies of up to 2 feet. The encroachment of a 3-foot overhang exceeds the minimum standards, when including the exceptions allowed by ordinance, by only 1-foot. This minimum encroachment has little to no effect on the orderly development of land and the intent of setbacks is still adhered to with the structural components of the building located outside of the minimum setbacks. Lastly, the applicants are requesting a variance to the landscaping requirement that 70% of the required landscaping be located in a street yard, which is defined in the landscaping section as the area of a building site between the street right-of-way line and the actual front wall line of the building. This street yard applies to all sides of a lot fronting a public right-of-way. In this circumstance, there is a unique condition in that the site is located along a private drive, which is signalized. The mall access drive is not a dedicated right-of-way, but functions like one. If the mall access drive were to be viewed as public right-of-way, then the landscaping abutting the side property line would be considered street yard frontage and the landscaping would be in compliance. It is preferable that the landscaping be spread between the street yard frontage on Navarro as well as the mall access drive to prevent corridors devoid of any vegetation. For these reasons listed above, staff recommends approving the variances to Chapter 21, as requested. Attachments: 1) Variance Application 2) Variance Request Letter with Supporting Documents

34 EXHIBIT 1

35 EXHIBIT 1

36 EXHIBIT 1

37 EXHIBIT 1

38 EXHIBIT 1

39 EXHIBIT 1

40 EXHIBIT 1

41 EXHIBIT 1

42 EXHBIT 2

43 EXHIBIT 2A

44 EXHIBIT 2B

45 EXHIBIT 3 THIS ILLUSTRATION IS FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A FINAL ENGINEERING DOCUMENT. JOB NO DATE: 11/8/ RICHMOND AVE, SUITE 200 HOUSTON, TEXAS PHONE: FAX: TEXAS REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-470

46 Minor Plat 1 J.E. Sanchez Subdivision NO 1 2 Valez Subdivision No. 1 Development Services Monthly Development Report Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date 1603 Santa Rosa 1604 / 1606 E Juan Linn 1106 / 1108 E Juan Linn and 1103 Sand Rosa Oct-18 Jose E Sanchez Milton Bluhm R Magdelena Velez Milton Bluhm R /1/ /1/ Gulf Coast Ind. Park Sec. 1 Resub Profit Esvardo Gonzales Milton Bluhm R /22/ Country Lane Townhomes Ph Zac Lentz Meill H Taylor Urban Engineering R Colony Creek Ph 1 Resub No Colony Creek Yinlang Inc. Robby Burdge Civil Corp 6 Tierra Linda Subd. No Airline Road Tierra Linda Inv. Civil Corp Major Plat 1 Site Plans 10/22/2018 P (park) /29/2018 C /29/2018 Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date Spring Ridge Subd. Resub No 2 ETJ 97 Brook View Robert Shaffer & Nancy Chandler Urban Engineering R /22/2018 Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date 1 Central Drug 3502 N Laurent Steve Branch Brad Tucker C /2/ Integrity Defensive Arts 1103 E Sabine Enrique Torres Jr. Milton Bluhm C /5/ McDONALD's Victoria Mall 7808 N Navarro McDonalds Corp Pape-Dawson C /5/ Kyrish Trucking Center 2605 Port Lavaca Hwy Kyrish Trucking - David Hassinger Krueger Cont. C /5/2018 Oct-18 City Council Action PC Recommendation Council Action 1 Land Use Codes: (R-1) Single Family Residential; (R-4) Multiple Family Residential; (P) Park; (C-1) General Commecial

47 Oct-18 City of Victoria Monthly Actvity Report Fisc. YTD - 1st month of year 10/1/2017* Description Total # Valuation (rounded) Total # Valuation (rounded) Total # Valuation (rounded) Residential Single Family 5 $ 833, $ 833, $ 385, RMH Placement 5 $ 156, $ 156, $ 53, Res Multi. Family 0 $ - 0 $ - 0 $ - Res Add/Repairs 81 $ 790, $ 790, ,388 $ 10,389, Comm. New Constr 2 $ 7,600, $ 7,600, Comm. Add/Repair 29 $ 2,712, $ 2,712, $ 5,207, Signs 7 $ 101, $ 101, $ 42, Other 52 $ 168, $ 168, $ - Plan Reviews $ - TOTAL: 184 $12,362, $12,362, $16,078, M.E.P. Permits Issued Oct-18 Fisc. YTD - 1st month of year 10/1/2017* Permits Total Permits Total Permits Total Electrical Permits 62 Electrical Permits 62 Electrical Permits 98 Mechanical Permits 46 Mechanical Permits 46 Mechanical Permits 29 Plumbing Permits 76 Plumbing Permits 76 Plumbing Permits 64 TOTAL: 184 TOTAL: 184 TOTAL: 191 Permit Fees Collected Oct-18 Fisc. YTD - 1st month of year 10/1/2017* Total Total Total Building $34, Building $34, Building $ 175, Electrical $6, Electrical $6, Electrical $ 5, Mechanical $5, Mechanical $5, Mechanical $ 2, Plumbing $5, Plumbing $5, Plumbing $ 5, License Fee $6, License Fee $6, License Fee $ 25, Plan Review Fees $4, Plan Review Fees $4, Plan Review Fees $ Misc. Fees $2, Misc. Fees $2, Misc. Fees $ 2, TOTAL: $66, TOTAL: $66, TOTAL: $216, * In response to hurricane Harvey; all emergency repair permit fees were waived from August 28 to- Sept. 1st Homeowner permits and Electrical permits were waived from Sept. 1 through Oct. 31, 2017