Thursday, September 15, :15 PM AGENDA. 1. August 18, 2016 Regular Meeting E: DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS/FORMAL ACTION

Transcription

1

2 D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S CITY OF VICTORIA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING E s t a b l i s h e d O u r m i s s i o n i s t o p r o v i d e c i t y s e r v i c e s t h a t e n h a n c e t h e l i v a b i l i t y o f o u r c o m m u n i t y.. Thursday, September 15, :15 PM Council Chamber 107 W. Juan Linn Street AGENDA A: CALL TO ORDER B: ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. Chairperson 2. Vice-Chairperson 3. Secretary C: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES 1. August 18, 2016 Regular Meeting D: CITIZEN COMMUNICATION [Chairperson will recognize any citizen wishing to address the Commission on issues not specifically listed on the Agenda.] E: DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS/FORMAL ACTION Planning Services: 700 Main Center, Suite Lonesome Oak Business Park Phase IV, Resubdivision No. 1 Final Plat; 3 lots, 1 block, a acre tract of land situated in the J. M. J. Carbajal League, Abstract No. 13, Victoria County, Texas; 301, 302, 303 Kerh Boulevard; Commercial (C1); J.R. Hartman Cattle Company Inc. (Owner); Urban Engineering (Agent). P. O. B O X V I C T O R I A, T X P H O N E ( ) F A X ( ) w w w. v i c t o r i a t x. o r g a) Planning Staff Briefing b) Final Plat Deliberations

3 D E V E L O P M E N T S E R V I C E S E s t a b l i s h e d O u r m i s s i o n i s t o p r o v i d e c i t y s e r v i c e s t h a t e n h a n c e t h e l i v a b i l i t y o f o u r c o m m u n i t y.. 2. Lonesome Oak Business Park Phase V, Resubdivision No. 1 Final Plat; 1 lot, 1 block, a acre tract of land situated in the J. M. J. Carbajal League, Abstract No. 13, Victoria County, Texas; 206 Kerh Boulevard; Commercial (C1); J.R. Hartman Cattle Company Inc. (Owner); Urban Engineering (Agent). F: OTHER BUSINESS a) Planning Staff Briefing b) Final Plat Deliberations 1. Development Services Monthly Development Report 2. Discussion of possible amendment to Chapter 21 of the Victoria City Code regarding preliminary plat extensions. G: ITEMS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS H: ADJOURNMENT * In addition to the items listed under Public Hearings every item on this agenda shall be considered a public hearing. ** Regardless of the agenda heading under which any item is listed, any subject mentioned in any word or phrase of any item listed on this agenda may be deliberated by the Planning Commission, and it may vote on recommendations and resolutions concerning any such item. Additionally, any ordinance of the City of Victoria relating to the development of land, including, but not limited to, Chapter 21 of the Victoria City Code, may be discussed and deliberated, and the subjects of this agenda are hereby stated as such, regardless of the limitations of any particular item on the Planning Commission agenda. Also, in this meeting, the Planning Commission may discuss: (1) Article XIII, "Signs" of Chapter 5 of the Victoria City Code, (2) the City's adopted Building Code, Electrical Code, Fire Code, Plumbing Code, Residential Building Code, or Minimum Housing Code, (3) the City's unsafe building ordinance, (4) City requirements to extend sewer, water, and other utility lines, (5) the provision of transportation facilities, including sidewalks, roads and public transit, within the City and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ), (6) the master plans of the City, including the City's Comprehensive Plan, Master Thoroughfare Plan, Master Drainage Plan, and Annexation Plan, (7) City restrictions on private water wells and septic tanks, (8) manufactured housing parks, permitting, and placement, (9) the City's capital improvements plans, (10) federal and state environmental restrictions on the City and residents thereof, (11) the control of nuisances within the City and the City's ETJ, (12) City restrictions on mineral production and exploration, (13) City requirements for landscaping and restrictions thereon, (14) restrictions on development in floodplains and floodways, (15) driveway restrictions, (16) platting requirements and procedures, (17) requirements for dedication and construction of land, easements, and facilities, (18) development guidelines, (19) parking requirements and restrictions, (20) drainage requirements and restrictions, (21) restrictions on fences, lighting, and building height, (22) zoning regulations, (23) infrastructure reimbursement methodology and requirements, (24) building setback requirements, (25) storm water drainage mains, channels, retention ponds, and other drainage facilities, (26) the width and construction requirements for streets and other public facilities, and (27) design principles for subdivision planning and development. No action or failure of the Planning Commission to act in any proceeding or any statement by any member of the Planning Commission may be relied on by any member of the public to limit the Planning Commission's right to discuss any of the aforementioned subjects in any of its meetings. Any statement specifying inclusion of any word or phrase shall not exclude non-listed items. *** Any item on this agenda may be discussed in executive session if authorized by Texas law regardless of whether any item is listed under Executive Sessions of this agenda, regardless of any past or current practice of the Planning Commission. Executive sessions described generally hereunder may include consideration of any item otherwise listed on the agenda plus any subject specified in the executive session notice, to the maximum ex tent for which executive sessions are permitted pursuant to Chapter 551 of the Texas Local Government Code. Planning Services: 700 Main Center, Suite 129 P. O. B O X V I C T O R I A, T X P H O N E ( ) F A X ( ) w w w. v i c t o r i a t x. o r g

4 P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N Date and Time: August 18, 2016 at 5:15pm MEETING MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: John Hyak, Chairperson Michael Atkinson James Johnson Omar Rachid Julia Welder Mary Anne Wyatt MEMBERS ABSENT: Vic Caldwell Greg Spears Bruce Woods STAFF PRESENT: Development Services: Jared Mayfield, Director Julie Fulgham, Asst. Director Development Services Will Charles, Planner Lila Foster, Planning Technician City Manager s Office: City Attorney's Office: Allison Marek, Asst. City Attorney A: CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 5:15pm by Mr. Hyak, Chairman. B: APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES A motion was made to approve the June 16, 2016 regular meeting minutes by Ms. Wyatt and seconded by Mr. Atkinson. The motion passed unanimously. C: CITIZEN COMMUNICATION None. D: DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS/FORMAL ACTION 1. Ledezma Subdivision Final Plat; 4 lots, 1 block, a acres tract of land situated in the William Hawley Survey, Abstract No. 177, Victoria County, Texas; 7406, 7402, 7304 and 7306 U.S. Highway 59; Commercial (C1); Hilario Ledezma (Owner); CivilCorp (Agent). a) Planning Staff Briefing Mr. Charles Ledezma Subdivision is a proposed final plat of acres. The subject property is located on the southeast side of U.S. Hwy 59 across from the intersection of John Stockbauer Drive. The currently undeveloped property is situated between McADA Drilling Fluid Services and Key Energy. The proposed subdivision will create four General Commercial (C1) lots with direct access to the newly constructed U.S. Hwy 59 frontage roads. The Subdivision & Development Ordinance requires construction plans when public improvements are proposed. These plans are submitted at the time of final plat submittal Page 1

5 and must be approved prior to Planning Commission approval of the final plat. The construction plans for the proposed public improvements have been approved by the Public Works Department. The proposed final plat is in compliance with the minimum requirements for General Commercial (C1) development contained within the Subdivision & Development Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Ledezma Subdivision finding as it meets all applicable regulations. b) Final Plat Deliberations Mr. Atkinson motioned to approve the final plat as presented, seconded by Mr. Johnson. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Variance Request for The Pet Resort on Main 2502 N. Main Street; a 2.05 acre tract situated in Lot 1R, Block 1 of the 4-G Subdivision; Commercial (C1); Travis and Toni Schaar (Owner). The applicant is requesting two variances to City Code: 1. Section 20-90(b)(5) which requires nonconforming driveways to be discontinued and come into compliance when a site plan is required. 2. Section (a)(3) which requires commercial dumpsters to be located in such a manner that they can be serviced by the refuse hauling vehicle without backing out onto public rightof-way. a) Planning Staff Briefing Mr. Charles The subject property consists of 2.05 acres located at 2502 North Main Street on the southeast corner of North Main and Hiller Streets. In June 2015 a site plan was submitted and approved for The Pet Resort on Main. The building and site are currently under construction. The approved site plan showed the applicant would repurpose the existing metal storage building and close the existing nonconforming driveway on Hiller Street. During construction, the property owner became concerned that the planned location of the commercial dumpster shown on the site plan would cause unpleasant odors near the walkways intended for use by the clients. The property owner now requests a variance to keep the existing driveway off Hiller Street open so that a dumpster may be located on and serviced from the currently existing concrete pad behind the northern most building. Section 20-90(b)(5) requires nonconforming driveways to be discontinued and come into compliance when a site plan is required, and Section (a)(3) requires commercial dumpsters to be located in such a manner that they can be serviced by the refuse hauling vehicle without backing out onto public right-of-way. On the approved site plan for the Pet Resort, the existing nonconforming driveway was to be closed and the site was to be accessed via two, newly constructed, driveways. Additionally, the dumpster was to be placed in a location that can be serviced on-site and the refuse hauling vehicle could then exit the site without having to back up onto public right-of-way in compliance with City Code. With the new dumpster location that is proposed, a nonconforming driveway would have to remain, and the refuse hauling vehicles that service the dumpster would have to reverse onto Hiller Street to exit the property. This practice has proven to be unsafe and has not been allowed on sites developed since Page 2

6 Staff recognizes the design challenges present at this site. The steep topography of this site is truly unique compared to most locations in Victoria that are relatively flat. Furthermore, the applicant's desire to keep and repurpose existing metal building and limited lot depth constrict circulation options for the site. While staff recognizes the applicants desire to provide a pleasant experience for customers and notes the design challenges with this site, staff recommends denial of both variance requests. Staff believes that new proposed location for the dumpster may cause a safety hazard. If the Commission is inclined to approve the variances to Section 20-90(b)(5) and Section (a)(3), staff recommends that the variance be granted with the requirements that the existing nonconforming driveway only be used for the servicing of the dumpster, and to only be accessed by Waste Management, or an authorized refuse hauling company. Staff believes these conditions would minimize the potential hazards created by allowing this driveway to remain. b) Variance Public Hearing Travis Schaar 564 Nagel Road Victoria, TX In response to Mr. Hyak question about what prompted the location change, Mr. Schaar stated that as far as the site approval it was an oversight on his part. Once it progressed we realized this was not a good idea. Initially I think we had a plan from Civil Corp that had the dumpster pad site there and I don t know if it was an error on my part not noticing that they had changed it at the time. Ms. Wyatt stated she had driven past the site and at that time there was a FedEx truck in that driveway making a delivery. This truck was pulled into the driveway but still blocked part of Hiller Street. Mr. Schaar stated that in seeing the FedEx truck that was delivering I know that it is at least one third larger than the Waste Management dumpster trucks. The dumpster trucks do fit on the property. Mr. Hyak asked about the pickup times mentioned in Mr. Schaar s letter and asked if it was contractual that they pick up between 4 and 5am. Dr. Schaar stated no that time was based on his current service. Ms Welder asked if there was any other viable alternative. Dr Schaar stated that he could move it further down the property but it would still be in the front of the building and facing Main Street. We want Victoria to look good and why would we have a dumpster on Main Street if we can avoid it. Mr. Hyak asked if would be terribly expensive to relocate the dumpster. Dr. Schaar stated that it was not the expense, it was keeping the dumpster off of Main Street. Justus Lapham 102 Loma Vista Victoria TX I live in the neighborhood behind this property and I do not have a problem with this. It will be early in the morning and I do not feel it will be a problem. Mr. Rachid felt that it would not be unusual for trucks to back out, they do it all over town at the Speedy Stops, 7-Elevens and other places even when they have enough driveway to turn around it is easier for the driver to just put it in reverse. c) Variance Deliberations A motion was made by Ms. Wyatt to recommend approval of the variance requests conditioned upon the existing nonconforming driveway only being used to service the Page 3

7 dumpster, and only be accessed by an authorized refuse hauling company, seconded by Mr. Atkinson. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Text Amendments to Subdivision & Development Ordinance Proposed revision to City Code Sections 21-54(e), to modify the sidewalk waiver option and require a sidewalk fee in lieu of sidewalk construction. (a) Planning Staff Briefing Mr. Mayfield Sidewalk Waivers The Subdivision & Development Ordinance requires a developer to install sidewalks along the street frontage of each lot. This requirement applies to all land uses. Currently, the ordinance allows the developer to apply for a waiver in cases where a new residential home is being constructed in an older neighborhood that does not have sidewalks. Similarly, commercial developers may apply for a waiver on open ditch, stripped paved roadways. In such cases a Sidewalk Agreement is signed binding the property owner to pay a pro rata share of the cost to install sidewalks in the future. This practice has been in place since the early 1990's and to date; none of the waivers have been utilized by the City. This proposed revision will modify the sidewalk waiver option and require a sidewalk fee in lieu of sidewalk construction. Revenue from the sidewalk fees will be used for sidewalk construction within the same City Council single member district. Since October 2014, 50 sidewalk waivers have been issued, 39 for residential property and 11 to commercial properties. Historically, the city has not required sidewalk installation along US59. The industrial nature, lack of frontage roads and pedestrian activity in this area resulted in a long standing policy of not requiring sidewalks. The proposed revision provides a formal exception to the sidewalk requirement for development on US59, and is as follows: Sec (e) Sidewalks. (1) The developer shall install sidewalks in the street right-of-way along all exterior side and rear lot lines of each lot abutting all perimeter streets. Such perimeter sidewalks shall be shown on the construction plans for the subdivision, and shall be constructed prior to the final acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the City. However, sidewalks are not required along the right-of-way of US Highway 59. (2) In a residential subdivision, the property owner shall install sidewalks on vacant lots when three (3) years time has elapsed following the date that 90% of the lots in the subdivision have been built upon. Upon written notice from the Director of Public Works, the property owner must begin the installation within 30 days, and sidewalks must be completed within 30 days thereafter. (3) The developer of a new single family residence in an existing, substantially built-out residential neighborhood in which sidewalks are not predominant may apply for a waiver of the requirement to install sidewalks to pay a fee in lieu of actual construction on the ground. Additionally, a commercial or industrial developer may apply for a waiver on an open ditch, stripped-paved roadway. In any case, a parcel shall be eligible for a waiver only if the block-face on which the parcel is located is lacking continuous sidewalks, and the sidewalk required along the subject parcel would not complete the installation of sidewalks for the block-face. Such sidewalk construction waivers are subject to the approval of the Director of Development Services. As a Page 4

8 condition of the waiver, the property owner(s) shall enter into a Sidewalk Agreement and Covenant with the City in the form approved by the City Attorney, which shall bind the owner(s) and subsequent owners to pay a pro-rata share of the cost of constructing a sidewalk along the street(s) adjacent to the subject property at such time in the future when the sidewalk is constructed. Once Sidewalk Agreements and Covenants have been entered into by the owners of all lots on a given block-face, or once a combination of existing sidewalks and sidewalk agreements are in place for an entire block-face, the City shall have a sidewalk installed on such block-face, and each property owner shall pay the pro-rata share of the cost of constructing such sidewalk. Payments in lieu of sidewalk construction shall be made by submitting a cashier's check prior to issuance of a building permit. The required fee in lieu of construction will be set by separate ordinance using the current rate of construction per square foot or square yard of sidewalk built to adopted city standards at the time of application. Fee payments collected under this section may be used only for construction of new sidewalk or repair and maintenance of an existing sidewalk located within the same City Council single member district. Sidewalk Benefit Areas. This proposed revision creates separate account for collection of sidewalk fees. The fund will allow the city to construct sidewalks in high-priority areas as follows: (4) The city shall establish a separate sidewalk account. The funds in the account shall be earmarked solely for the development of sidewalks either in the same City Council single member district in which the lot is located, or for regional sidewalk connectivity that will benefit all of the citizens of Victoria. The City shall expend cash contributions within ten years of the date any such contribution is made. Mr. Hyak questioned how this proposal came about. Ms. Fulgham stated that it was in the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan which asked for more emphasis on safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Ms Welder asked how often people get these waivers? Mr. Mayfield stated that since October 2014, we have issued 50 sidewalk waivers, 39 for residential and 11 for commercial properties. Out of that 39 we have probably done 250 single family house permits. The other thing is the difficulty we will have when someone builds a house and then sells the property ten years later and then the City comes back to that new owner who has no idea he is now liable for that sidewalk. The process that is in the code is not very effective. We feel it would be better to collect the money now and it is more equitable. The way it is now you can build a home in one neighborhood and be required to build the sidewalk and then go across the street to another neighborhood and build the same house and not have to put in a sidewalk. That is not a very equitable situation, this revision would ensure that everyone is either installing a sidewalk or paying the same cost. Ms Wyatt asked if this was in effect forcing someone to put a sidewalk in. She stated that if she had to either construct the sidewalk or pay you money I would put a sidewalk in. Mr. Mayfield replied that probably in most cases people would choose to do that. There may be some situations where because of an open ditch road, the slope of a ditch or amount of rightof-way it could make it more expensive to build the sidewalk, and then people might choose to pay the fee. Ms Welder asked if there were a property where it didn t make economic to topographical sense to put in the sidewalk and that they paid the fee, then later it is being redeveloped Page 5

9 would that fee be assessed again. Could you keep recharging every time the property goes to be redeveloped or is it a one-time thing. Ms Fulgham stated that we would have to speak with the City Attorney; we could possibly work in an amortization. There are sites today that have sidewalks that are broken or missing pieces that need to be rebuilt because they are no longer in compliance so in drafting the fund we could potentially recharge for a new development after the lifetime of the sidewalk. Mr. Atkinson asked doesn t the property owner pay property taxes every year to help maintain that sidewalk and other amenities that the City provides. What happened to that tax money? Mr. Mayfield stated that it is used to fund the local government. Mr. Atkinson stated yes it is used to build the streets and the curb and gutter. Mr. Mayfield stated that when you develop a subdivision the developer is required to put in the streets, and the sidewalks. The City Code already assigns you the responsibility to maintain the sidewalk on your property. This is not the usual practice but it is what the Code states. Mr. Atkinson asked what if a property owner pays the fee and then in a few years they decide they want the sidewalk, do they just call the City and the City comes and puts it in? Mr. Mayfield said, No if you are in the middle of a residential area and you opt to pay the fee more than likely those funds would have been spent on a sidewalk elsewhere. Ms Wyatt asked if staff was saying that the present system isn t working. If I pay a fee, that money is not necessarily going to be used for my property it can be used anywhere in that City Council District. She further stated that she is not comfortable collecting moneys and putting them into a fund that isn t specific and that the current system seems to be working fine. (b) Public Hearing None. (c) Deliberations A motion was made to recommend the ordinance changes by Mr. Rachid, seconded by Mr. Hyak. The Motion failed. For: Hyak and Rachid Against: Atkinson, Johnson, Welder and Wyatt E: OTHER BUSINESS 1. Development Services Monthly Development Report Mr. Charles presented the information in the monthly report. F: ITEMS FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS None. G: ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:00pm. APPROVED: APPROVED: John Hyak, Chairperson Victoria Planning Commission Greg Spears, Secretary Victoria Planning Commission Page 6

10 Agenda Item #: E-1 September 15, 2016 CASE: 1. Final Plat approval of Lonesome Oak Business Park Phase IV, Resubdivsion No. 1 Location: 301, 302, 303 Kerh Boulevard - a acre tract of land situated in the J. M. J. Carbajal League, Abstract No. 13, Victoria County, Texas Land Use: Commercial (C-1) Applicant(s): Staff Contact: Urban Engineering, on behalf of J.R. Hartman Cattle Company Inc. William Charles, Planner LOCATION MAP:

11 Agenda Item #: E-1 Pg. 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Lonesome Oak Business Park- Phase IV, Resubdivision No. 1 is a proposed final plat of acres. The subject property is located on the west side of Main Street at the end of Kerh Boulevard. The property is currently platted as one commercial lot containing the Victoria Communication Services building. The proposed plat will extend Kerh Boulevard to the west approximately 422 feet to allow the creation of two additional commercial lots. INFRASTRUCTURE: Water: Sewer: Streets: Drainage: Water service will be provided by extending an existing 8 water line in Kerh Boulevard. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by extending an existing 8 sewer line in Kerh Boulevard. Kerh Boulevard - existing and proposed local street, 60 ft. right-of-way. Drainage is in accordance with the master drainage plan of the City of Victoria. The Subdivision & Development Ordinance requires construction plans when public improvements are proposed. These plans are submitted at the time of final plat submittal and must be approved prior to Planning Commission approval of the final plat. The construction plans for the proposed public improvements have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and are pending final approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed final plat is in compliance with the minimum requirements for Commercial (C1) development contained within the Subdivision & Development Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Lonesome Oak Business Park- Phase IV, Resubdivision No. 1 finding as it meets all applicable regulations. Attachments: Final Plat P:\Planning Commission\Staff Reports\2016\Lonesome Oak Business Park Phase IV.docx

12 CURVE C1 C2 C3 RADIUS 90.00' ' 50.00' CURVE DATA TANGENT 27.32' 26.21' 50.02' DELTA 33 46'03" 24 38'37" 90 01'16" ARC LENGTH 53.04' 51.61' 78.56' CHORD BEARING AND LENGTH N 62 31'45" E 52.28' N 57 58'02" E 51.22' N 89 20'38" W 70.72' LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 LINE DATA S 45 38'44" W N 44 21'16" W S 45 38'44" W S 45 38'44" W S45 38'44"W ' 36.69' 49.23' ' 48.30' ZAC LENTZ PARKW AY LOCATION MAP U. S. HIGHW AY NO. 87 JAM ES COLEM AN DR. KERH BLVD. ALLEN MILLER DR. M EDICAL DR. GENERAL NOTES 1. LAND USE : GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C1) 2. ADDRESSES : LOT 1R, BLOCK KERH BLVD. LOT 2R, BLOCK KERH BLVD. LOT 3R. BLOCK KERH BLVD. 3. BUILDING LINES : AS SHOWN 4. STREET CLASSIFICATION : KERH BLVD. - EXISTING & PROPOSED LOCAL STREET 5. STATISTICAL DATA : A) GROSS AREA ACRES B) GROSS LOTS - 3 LOTS C) DEDICATION ACRES D) NET AREA ACRES Tel (361) Fax (361) L6 L7 L8 L9 S 44 21'16" E S 44 21'16" E S 44 21'16" E S44 20'00"E 26.69' 37.81' 26.69' ' SITE TONTO CIRCLE 6. ALL CORNERS ARE MARKED WITH A SET 5/8" DIAMETER STEEL ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED "URBAN SURVEYING, INC" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. L10 S45 38'43"W 49.06' - FOUND 5/8" DIAMETER STEEL ROD - SET 5/8" DIAMETER STEEL ROD WITH YELLOW N44 21'16"W ' J.R. HARTM AN CATTLE COM PANY, INC. 10' BL VOL. 0065, PG. 362 O.R.V.C.T. 20' BL 20' BL N45 38'44"E ' ACRES ACRE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF VICTORIA LOT 2R BLOCK 1 FIELDNOTE POINT OF BEGINNING ' ' ' 15' UE 15' UE LOT 1R BLOCK 1 20' BL 15' UE & BL 60' x 100' DE S44 20'00"E ' 5' BL ' 15' UTILITY EASEMENT 15' UE 25' BL VOL. 9, PG. 070-C VIRGINIA WAGNER VOL. 115, PG. 62 D.R.V.C.T ACRES 35' BL 20' DE 35' BL 20' DE 35' BL 1.62 ACRES 5' BL 5' EE LOT 3R BLOCK ACRES 25' BL 25' BL N45 38'43"E ' N45 38'43"E ' 15' UE S44 20'00"E ' 10' UE N45 38'43"E ' 20' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT VOL. 9, PG. 070-C 10' UE C1 25' BL 5' BL C2 C ' 99.09' ' 5' BL LOT 2, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK-PHASE V VOL. 9, PG. 065-C&D LOT 3R, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK, RESUBDIVISION NO. 1 VOL. 8, PG. 168-B 20' PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT VOL. 8, PG. 131-D LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK-PHASE V VOL. 9, PG. 065-C&D S45 38'44"W KERH BLVD ' N44 21'16"W ' N54 18'34"W ' KERH BLVD. L9 L10 L6 L5 L7 60' R.O.W. 30' 30' L ' 20.0' L4 L1 L8 L3 S44 20'00"E ' ' R.O.W. LOT 2R, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK, VOL. 8, PG. 168-B RESUBDIVISION NO. 1 PLASTIC CAP MARKED "URBAN SURVEYING, INC" 7. ABBREVIATIONS: AC - ACRES BL - BUILDING LINE DE - DRAINAGE EASEMENT EE - ELECTRICAL EASEMENT R.O.W. - RIGHT-OF-WAY SSE - SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT WE - WATER LINE EASEMENT S45 38'44"W ' TW IN FOUNTAINS DR. FIELDNOTE POINT OF COMMENCING LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK - PHASE III VOL. 9, PG. 19 A&B LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS LOT 1, BLOCK 1 VOL. 8, PG. 131-D PARK - PHASE II VOL. 8, PG. 148-C 30' 30' 60.00' R.O.W. LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK M AIN ST. (U.S. HIGH W AY 87) FINAL PLAT Lonesome Oak Business Park - Phase IV, Resubdivision No. 1 LOTS 1R, 2R & 3R, BLOCK N. Com merce Victoria, Texas TREF# F-160 BEING A ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE J.M.J. CARBAJAL LEAGUE, ABSTRACT 13, VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING A PART LOT 1, BLOCK 1, LONESOM E OAK BUSINESS PARK, PHASE IV, RECORDED IN VOLUM E 9, PAGE 70 C&D OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. S45 38'44"W ' 15' UTILITY EASEMENT VOL. 8, PG. 131-D THIS PLAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CITY OF VICTORIA CORPORATE LIMITS. A.G. SCHROEDER AND G.W. WHEELER INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MRS. MARY HAUSCHILD, DECEASED TO FRED F. STOCKBAUER VOL. 423, PG. 306 D.R.V.C.T ACRES 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 09/06/16 E PAGE 1 OF URBAN ENGINEERING

13

14 Agenda Item #: E-2 September 15, 2016 CASE: 1. Final Plat approval of Lonesome Oak Business Park Phase V, Resubdivsion No. 1 Location: Land Use: Applicant(s): Staff Contact: 206 Kerh Boulevard - a acre tract of land situated in the J. M. J. Carbajal League, Abstract No. 13, Victoria County, Texas Commercial (C-1) Urban Engineering, on behalf of J.R. Hartman Cattle Company Inc. William Charles, Planner LOCATION MAP:

15 Agenda Item #: E-2 Pg. 2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Lonesome Oak Business Park - Phase V, Resubdivision No. 1 is a proposed final plat of acres. The subject property is located near the intersection of Kerh Boulevard and North Main Street. The proposed subdivision will create one Commercial (C1) lot. The plat provides acres of additional right-of-way dedication for the extension of Kerh Boulevard. INFRASTRUCTURE: Water: Sewer: Streets: Drainage: Water service will be provided by an existing 8 water line in Kerh Boulevard. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by an existing 8 sewer line in Kerh Boulevard. Kerh Boulevard - existing and proposed local street, 60ft right-of-way. Drainage is in accordance with the master drainage plan of the City of Victoria. The Subdivision & Development Ordinance requires construction plans when public improvements are proposed. These plans are submitted at the time of final plat submittal and must be approved prior to Planning Commission approval of the final plat. The construction plans for the proposed public improvements have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and are pending final approval. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed final plat is in compliance with the minimum requirements for Commercial (C1) development contained within the Subdivision & Development Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Lonesome Oak Business Park - Phase V, Resubdivision No. 1 finding as it meets all applicable regulations. Attachments: Final Plat P:\Planning Commission\Packets\2016\ Mtg\Lonesome Oak Business Park Phase V.docx

16 CURVE C1 C2 C3 C4 LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 L2 L3 RADIUS 40.00' 80.45' 89.00' 90.00' LINE DATA S 45 40'00" W S 44 20'00" E S 45 40'00" W CURVE DATA TANGENT 40.00' 14.47' 36.49' 21.15' 50.00' 18.00' 60.00' DELTA 20 23'14" 44 35'04" 26 27'00" ARC LENGTH 62.83' 28.63' 69.25' 41.55' CHORD BEARING AND LENGTH S 80 03'15" W 28.48' S 67 57'20" W 67.52' S 87 21'44" E 41.18' ZAC LENTZ PARKW AY LOCATION MAP SITE U. S. HIGHW AY NO. 87 JAM ES COLEM AN DR. KERH BLVD. ALLEN MILLER DR. M EDICAL DR. GENERAL NOTES 1. LAND USE : GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C1) 2. ADDRESS : 206 KERH BLVD. 3. BUILDING LINES : AS SHOWN 4. STREET CLASSIFICATION : KERH BLVD. - EXISTING & PROPOSED LOCAL STREET TWIN FOUNTAINS DR. - EXISTING LOCAL STREET 5. STATISTICAL DATA : A) GROSS AREA ACRES B) GROSS LOTS - 1 LOT C) DEDICATION ACRES D) NET AREA ACRES Tel (361) Fax (361) ALL CORNERS ARE MARKED WITH A SET 5/8" DIAMETER STEEL ROD TONTO CIRCLE WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED "URBAN SURVEYING, INC" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. - FOUND 5/8" DIAMETER STEEL ROD - SET 5/8" DIAMETER STEEL ROD WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP MARKED "URBAN SURVEYING, INC" VIRGINIA WAGNER VOL. 115, PG. 62 D.R.V.C.T ACRES N45 38'44"E ' FIELDNOTE POINT OF BEGINNING FIELDNOTE POINT OF COMMENCING S45 38'44"W ' 7. ABBREVIATIONS: AC - ACRES BL - BUILDING LINE R.O.W. - RIGHT-OF-WAY 2004 N. Com merce Victoria, Texas TREF# F ' UE & BL J.R. HARTMAN CATTLE COMPANY, INC. VOL. 0065, PG. 362 O.R.V.C.T ACRE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF VICTORIA N 44 20'00"W ' ' 64.36' 5' BL C2 30' C4 L3 25' BL N89 37'53"E 81.27' C ACRES 54.28' LOT 2R BLOCK 1 C ' 5' BL 37.19' S45 40'00"W S44 20'00"E ' 5' BL S45 40'00"W ' LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK - PHASE V VOL. 9, PG. 065-C & D 10' x 20' UTIL ESMT VOL. 9, PG. 065-C & D KERH BLVD. 30' 30' 60.00' R.O.W. 20' BL L1 L2 5' BL S44 20'00"E TW IN FOUNTAINS DR ' 30' 30' 60.00' R.O.W. LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK - PHASE III VOL. 9, PG. 19 A&B LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK - PHASE II VOL. 8, PG. 148-C M AIN ST. (U.S. HIGH W AY 87) FINAL PLAT Lonesom e O ak Business Park - Phase V, Resubdivision No. 1 LOT 2R, BLOCK 1 BEING A ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE J.M.J. CARBAJAL LEAGUE, ABSTRACT 13, VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING ALL OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, LONESOM E OAK BUSINESS PARK, PHASE V, RECORDED IN VOLUM E 9, PAGE 65 C & D OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF VICTORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. THIS PLAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CITY OF VICTORIA CORPORATE LIMITS. LOT 3R, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK, RESUBDIVISION NO. 1 VOL. 8, PG. 168-B LOT 2R, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK, RESUBDIVISION NO. 1 VOL. 8, PG. 168-B LOT 1, BLOCK 1 LONESOME OAK BUSINESS PARK VOL. 8, PG. 131-D 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 09/06/16 E PAGE 1 OF URBAN ENGINEERING

17

18 Minor Plat Development Services Monthly Development Report Aug-16 Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date 1 Highland Estates No. 2 Resub No Berwick Brian Ferguson CivilCorp R /1/ Lone Tree Acres Subd. No Morris Ave. Johnny & Rebecca Lopez Milton Bluhm R /8/ Crestwood South Add. Resub No and 3206 N Navarro John McNeil DO CivilCorp C /15/2016 Major Plat Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date Site Plans Rosas Estates 4801 Lone Tree Brian Ferguson CivilCorp R /22/2016 Lonesome Oak Business Park PH IiV Resub NO 1 301,302 and 303Kerh Blvd. JR Hartman Cattle Co. Urban Engineering C /22/2016 Lonesome Oak Business Park PH V Resub NO Kerh Blvd. JR Hartman Cattle Co. Urban Engineering C /22/2016 Name Address Owner(s) Agent Land Use Acreage Date 1 Victoria Retail Center 8807 N Navarro 2 Justin Stark Bayhill Reality Capital Rogue Architects C /17/2016 Aug-16 City Council Action PC Recommendation Council Action 1 Pet Resort on Main- Driveway Variance Approval Approved Land Use Codes: R-1 Single Family Residential - R-4 Multi-Family Residential - C-1 Commercial General - Q-Quasi-Public/ Institutional

19 Aug-16 City of Victoria Monthly Actvity Report Fiscal YTD - 11 month of year Description Total # Valuation (rounded) Total # Valuation (rounded) Total # Valuation (rounded) Residential Single Family 8 $2,809, $14,754, $1,519, RMH Placement 3 $46, $976, $175, Res Multi. Family 0 0 $ - 0 $ - Res Add/Repairs 59 $383, $5,130, $331, Comm. New Constr 1 $1,800, $31,739, $ - Comm. Add/Repair 34 $2,099, $27,170, $99, Signs 11 $204, $1,004, $75, Other 31 $671, $1,451, $96, Plan Reviews 8 $ - 84 $ - 1 $ - TOTAL 155 $8,016, ,523 $ 82,226, $2,297, M.E.P. Permits Issued Aug-16 Fiscal YTD - 11 month of year Aug-15 Total Total Total Electrical Permits 56 Electrical Permits 542 Electrical Permits 62 Mechanical Permits 62 Mechanical Permits 502 Mechanical Permits 64 Plumbing Permits 59 Plumbing Permits 593 Plumbing Permits 60 Total 177 Total 1,637 Total 186 Permit Fees Collected Fiscal YTD - 11 month of year Aug-16 Aug-15 Total Total Total Building $24, Building $254, Building $13, Electrical $4, Electrical $50, Electrical $5, Mechanical $4, Mechanical $44, Mechanical $6, Plumbing $3, Plumbing $43, Plumbing $3, License Fee $4, License Fee $50, License Fee $4, Plan Review Fees $1, Plan Review Fees $21, Plan Review Fees $ Misc. Fees $13, Misc. Fees $133, Misc. Fees $3, Total $56, Total $598, Total Aug-15 $37,900.69