ORDER NO. 30180
CONCEPT OF RANGER COMMERCIAL PARK
Came to be heard this the 12th day of March, 2007, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Concept of Ranger Commercial Park, located in Precinct 2, and
urge Mr. Brinkman to participate in an area watershed study as future
development comes about.
30I~
COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST
""`LEASE FURNISH ONE ORGINAL AND TEN COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS
TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT.
MADE BY: Leonard Odom OFFICE: Road & Bridee
MEETING DATE: Mazch 12.2007 TIIvIE PREFERRED:
SUBJECT• (PLEASE BE SPECIFIC): Consider, discuss, and take appropriate action for Concept of
Rangier Commercial Park: Pct 2
EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: (PLEASE STATE REASON)
NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Leonazd Odom
~TIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 10 minutes
_F PERSONNEL MATTER-NAME OF EMPLOYEE:
Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with
Title 5, Chapter 551 and 552, government Code, is a follows:
Meeting scheduled for Mondays: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY:
THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON:
All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judge's Office to determine if adequate information has
been prepared for the Court's formal consideration and action at time of Court Meetings. Your cooperation
will be appreciated and contribute towards your request being addressed at the eazliest oppommity. See
Agenda Request Rule Adopted by Commissioners' Court.
regl
,~t.K$ o
o d`am`,
Kerr County Road & Bridge
4010 San Antonio Hwy
Kemille, Texas 78028
TO:	COMMISSIONERS COURT
FROM:	LEONARD ODOM
DATE:	Mazch 5, 2007
RE: Concept for Ranger Commercial Park, Pct. 2
A preliminary plat for this property was approved last year. There were some exceptions granted
under the old rules. Since there is now a new owner, more property, and new subdivision rules
we should start over and this commercial development be addressed on it own merits eliminating
all exemptions of the old plan.
The developer is asking for three (3) variances and I would like to express my opinion on each of
them:
1.20 ft. Building Set-Back Line
S.O1.F, Kerr County Subdivision Rules states there is to be a SOft. setback. However,
the rules do say the Court will consider Commercial Developments on a case by case
basis, and I do feel that a 20 ft. set-back would be acceptable for this situation.
2. No Drainage Study
5.06A, Kerr County Subdivision Rules states there should be a drainage study done for
any development of 5 lots or more. This development has 81ots. I would also ask that
you look at the Topo shown on the area map for this subdivision and you can see there
is a potential drainage problem. I would also like to bring to your attention that during
the 2002 Flood there was a real problem with the drainage in this area. Therefore, I
request they do a drainage study as outlined in 5.06.
3. No road improvements (at this time) within the 60ft. wide right of way provided for
future development.
5.02. C, Kerr County Subdivision Rules state, "Where adjoining areas are not
subdivided the arrangement of roads that are to be maintained by Kerr County in the
subdivision shall make provision for the proper projection of roads into such not
subdivided or subdivided areas."
On the drawing the road for future development is shown as a proposed road. There
was recently a case when a proposed road easement was sold as a building lot. I
recommend the road be dedicated and be built to current standards.
Th
ranger com park
V~.S~,~~, ~CJC~G1~ Csi ~S'(~. ruc
YI] CIAY $ffiEET. KEHflVILLE. TE%0.S ]SORB. 831M]-3313
DATE: March 1, 2007
MEMO TO: Kerr County Conunissioners Court
FROM: Lee C. Voelkel
SUBJECT: Concept Plan
Ranger Commercial Park
Commissioners:
I have been asked to present to you a Concept Plan for the "new and improved" Ranger Park subdivision
west of Center Point. The new owners, Harvey Brinkman, Lots 1-3 and Jack Fulton, Lots 4-8 aze proposing
an "up-scale" commercial industrial park consisting of eight (8) lots (minimum lot size 1 acre) which total,
with the new road 3.71 acres.
--To refresh your memory, a Preliminary Plat of Ranger Park was presented by Danielle Cunningham and
approved by Commissioners Court on May 22, 2006. That plat subdivided a total of 7.06 acres into five (5)
lots. In the approval process, the following exceptions were granted to the developer:
Being eight (8) lots or less, no engineering for
drainage or road design would be required.
2. Road right-of--way was accepted at fifty (50) ft.
3. The fifty (50) ft. radius cul-de-sac was accepted
as an easement only and not required to be
dedicated with the road.
4. A ten (10) ft. building set-back line was accepted.
5. Road design was accepted with 8" compacted base,
24 ft. width of base and 20 ft. width of pavement.
The "revised" Ranger Commercial Park plat would eliminate or improve the previously granted exceptions
as follows:
1. Still being eight (8) lots or less, this subdivision, by rule,
~, does not require road engineering (i.e. plan/profiles);
however, any drainage structure (i.e. culvert), if
necessary, will be "sized" by an engineer.
2. The road right-of--way will be eighty (80) ft. and
dedicated to the public.
3. A sixty (60) ft. radius cul-de sac will be dedicated at the
end of the 80 ft. wide road; an additiona160 ft. of
right-of--way will be dedicated to the west property
line for future development.
4. The building set-back line will be increased to twenty
(20) ft. and an additional fifty (50) ft. building set-
back line will be added along State Highway No. 27.
5. Road design will include 8" of compacted base, 28 ft. width
of base and 24 ft. width of pavement with concrete ribbon
curbs along the edge.
I have been in contact with Tom Myers of Aqua Source and they are willing and able to provide water
service to these lots. A note on the plat will state that no wells will be perrnitted for any lot. As before, there
will also be a note on the plat which prohibits Lots 1 and 8 from direct access to the State Highway # 27.
The developers are requesting the following variances to proceed with their plans:
20 Ft. Building Set-Back Line.
2. No Drainage Study.
No road improvements (at this time) within the 60 ft. wide
right-of--way provided for future development.
The developers are committed to putting in an aesthetically pleasing subdivision. They are contemplating
options which may include overhead utilities along the rear lot lines only, aboulevard-type median at the
entrance off of Highway 27 and restrictions for building materials and colors. Please schedule this Concept
Plan for your March 12~h meeting. We look forward to discussing these issues.
Thank you.
a
~ ~_.__.~
Lee C. Voelkel
t
_ _ __ _- __ .-- ____ 3~-~. -.__-'
-..- ¢1~. `~ la Pt. wloewvfv EASOanrt _- 2~ ^/ II
•~~ I ~ `` / ~ ~ o I.vsORES ~ ~II
2250 1.41 ACRES
N 1p Pf.eUE11Q1UStTbACKt1NE ~ 1
~.~~--- m
~.EACKLwE ~
~`! ~ 1p FT.6ULLDQ1a `
z° ~ ! zao' Izl i
~ 4'10' 157'
~a >rmus~rRY wax '~
exat>ea®nrt. voce t
~ ~~
(~ 2l ' PEOP058U60 FT.EAUNS
(•. ~A3' .. 210 218' /^C~U~LOE-SAC 1
20 PP. BUOL-N1 SE1'-BACICILIE 5 , A , ~.I
6 O 1.42 ACRES ~
,~ O ~ O ~ 1; O ~ 1.00 ACRE
o 1.41 ACRES ~ ~ - - - 1
N 1.00 ACRE I
w Ia FT.WmEirtElPY EASRAP~ _210' __.__ ___- 205_
2t8' 210'__ _
__ ___@i~_-__ ~_ .____ __-_ ~- ~'--
A SIJgDM;
CHARLESA
TEXAS
,,_ APPENDIX L
CONCEPT PLAN
This form must be completed and rehrrned to the office of the Kerr County Road & Bride before
n meeting n+ill he set for developing n Concept Plan. At tTte time of tTre meeting you will need:
1) Two drawings in sketch forms ~.:~~~d~(~) L~SGS topographic map of the area
Name of Subdivision: ~+`''~k~l ~.T~-+ `~1~ ~ ~~ ~
t ~`~ ¢, s°
Location of Subdivision: 'S~~_ ~~ ~.++~ flJi:~~' ~1E• t,}„tl~tX'C•C~a2~T Precinct # y'-
Owner/Developer: E'tC~Ir.,'tk~,~~k'l~i~ Phone(_)
Surveyor: 1~,~ Vr^~~~KT~_~ ___ Phone(_ ~~-~~~''~
Is this part of an existing subdivision? Yes ( ) No'~ )
If yes, Name: Volume _, Page -
AGENDA DATE REQUESTED: ~~ ' ~ k ~ ~~
Office Use Only
Person(s) appea~ri,,n~g before Commissioners Court: Date Received by R&B
"~ ~ ~ p~,~y'j~~ ~? ~ Considerations
Circle, Check, or Fill in. the Blmtl~
Have you checked with the following authorities (not all may be required):
City (in ET.i) ~~	Yes	No
Texas Department of Transportation		No
County Clerk for Name Duplication	Ye	No
911 for Addressing and Road Names	Yes	No
On-Site Sewage Facilities Administrator	Yes	No
Flood Plain Administrator	Ye	o
N

Headwaters Underground Water Conser. Dist.	
Yes	,
~
°~
~~No J
'
~		-~
9~v'
3
Water Provider	~c I~
's'~	U `f~'~C..	~
1)
2)
3}
4)
5)
6)
Road Types
County Maintained
Paved Private
Unpaved Private
Road Classification
Arterial
Collector
Local
Country Lane
Drainage Study
Telephone Provider
Electric Provider

School District	("	x~Y1~-1-«~~ t~'v`n,	T-

Number of Acres	~ ,r, ~. "
~ ~ ~ (	"~. ~~ ° r
Numher of Lots	
Mimimum Lot Size	k Rf~	Maximum Lot Size	.~ • ~. ;;`
Comments:			
	Ken Cou	nty Subdivision Rules ~F Regul	ations
		Appendix -Page ZS