HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/15/1998 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES
• Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
January 15, 1998
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Massey, Commissioners Garner, Silvia, Lightfoot,
Parker, Gribou, and Rife.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner McCully, Staff Planner Battle, Assistant City Engineer
Morgan, City Planner Kee, Transportation Planner Hard, Development
Coordinator Volk, Assistant Development Coordinator Ruiz, Graduate
Engineer Kaspar, Staff Assistant Charanza, and Assistant City Attorney
Robinson.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Approval of minutes from the meeting of December 18, 1997.
Commissioner Parker moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of December 18, 1997 as
t- ~.--v:~itten. Commissioner Silvia seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning request of
approximately 37 acres in the proposed Westfield Addition located along the south side of
Graham Road near the future extension of Victoria Avenue and Consideration of a Master Plan
and Preliminary Plat of the entire Westfield Addition, 52 acres divided into 171 single family lots,
1 C-N reserve tract and 3 reserve tracts. (98-100 & 98-300)
Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that the Commission heard the
request at the December 4, 1997 meeting where denial was recommended due to several unanswered
questions dealing with the Master Plan. The applicant pulled the item before it proceeded onto Council.
The original concerns regarding the master plan were the piecemeal zoning, whether the phasing would
support major infrastructure items, how drainagewould be handled, the floodplain was not identified,
how the project would be sewered had not been determined, concern with oversize participation (impact
studies were not presented), and parkland dedication was unknown. Ms. Morgan explained that the
applicant had submitted a revised master plan but it only addressed a few of the previous concerns. As
a concept, the master plan appears to meet the City's codes and ordinances even though there are still
several unanswered questions.
•
She explained that there were still concerns about the phasing of the plan and the ability for the
development to support the infrastructure requirements. The developer's intention is to build single
family residences on the property with possible neighborhood commercial at the Victoria/Graham
P&Z Minutes January 1 S, 1998 Page 1 of 8
i~
•
•
intersection. Ms. Morgan stated that the previous plan and the revised master plan show the majority of
the residential lots being built before the thoroughfare plan infrastructure is addressed. The Victoria
extension and the east/west collector are not addressed until phases 3 and 4. Staff expressed concern
about the phasing plan which stems from the ability for these phases to support such large pieces of
infrastructure. Ms. Morgan explained that engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing
proposed can support the infrastructure required must be submitted prior to processing of any final
plats. The applicant gave staff the estimates five minutes before the meeting began, and staff did not
have ample time to review the estimates before reporting to the Commission. Staff would request time
to review before giving recommendation to this item. The Commission can clarify in the motion to have
staffs comments relating to the estimates come back to the Commission with a recommendation or
have staff review and have a recommendation prior to going to Council. ,
Ms. Morgan stated that the previous concerns about the internal street layout have been addressed by
showing secondary access to Graham in Phase 2. On the revised plan, only 58 lots will be built with
Phase 1 prior to a secondary access. Previously there were 107 lots built with single access. Ms.
Morgan said that there is also a street connection made across the creek to the east/west collector
providing access to and visibility to the creek area.
Staff has not seen drainage plans for this development. The developer will submit the plans with the
final plats, at which time staff will determine if the drainage will be adequately handled.
Ms. Morgan explained that the developer has not confirmed if floodplain and floodway exist on the
property. CSISD is proposing development on adjacent tract and they have determined that floodplain
does exist on their property. The location of the floodplain on the CSISD tract may have an impact on
some of the lots that back up to the creek on the presented plan. Ms. Morgan explained that with the
location unknown, the suitability for development of these lots is also unknown. No final plats can be
processed until the floodplain location is determined on this property.
The developer has discussed the ability for this property to sewer toward the south rather than
participating in the Graham Road Impact Fee Area Phase 3 sanitary sewer line. Mr. Szabuniewicz has
discussed with staff a request to amend the existing impact fee area 92-01 and remove the Phase 3 line
and pursue an alternate sewer alignment along the north fork of Lick Creek. Ms. Morgan explained that
a portion of the line has already been constructed, and is existing in the Springbrook Subdivision and
would continue west to and through this development. The developer would be requesting oversize
participation in this new sewer line. The developer would have the responsibility for demonstrating the
need to amend the Impact Fee Area. City Council must approve any changes to the impact fee area.
Staffwould recommend that no final plats be processed until the sewer determination is made.
Ms. Morgan said that it is required that impact studies be presented when oversize participation is being
requested. An incomplete impact study was submitted for sewer oversize for Phase 1. She explained
that if the developer does not complete the impact studies prior to construction he will lose the ability to
request oversize at all. Staff would recommend that General Note #6 be revised to read "Development
of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown with oversize Participation requests to the
City.„ This change would make it clear that the participation is a request to the City, not by the City.
Ms. Morgan stated that the Thoroughfare Plan shows the extension of Victoria along the western
boundary of the 14.8 acre tract located to the west of the two tracts submitted for rezoning. The Plan
P&Z Minutes January 1 S, 1998 Page 2 of 8
also shows the extension of Southern Plantation through the southern portion of the subject tracts and
through the southern portion of the adjacent 14.8 acre tract. Staff did invite all owners of undeveloped
• land in this area to a meeting to discuss thoroughfare plan implementation options for this part of town.
As a result of the meeting and subsequent meetings with the developer, it has been determined that
Southern Plantation Drive will "T" into the east/west collector which will extend through the southern
portion of the subject property. The final location and alignment of the east/west collector will not be
determined until the floodplain limits are established. In discussion with staff the developer indicated
that he would construct, at his expense, with a request for Oversize Participation, all of Victoria Avenue
in phases 3 and 4. If the developer is unable to acquire right-of--way from the adjacent property owners
(Carroll tract) he will have to shift Victoria completely on to his (the developer's) property as it runs
adjacent to the Carroll tract. Right-of--way from the Fry tract will have to be acquired to avoid an off-
set intersection at Grahamor some acceptable alternative presented. Condemnation may be necessary if
the developer cannot negotiate acquisition on the Fry tract or another alternative found (ie: off-set
intersection). The alignment shown as Victoria moves southward, requires right-of--way from the Bald
Prairie Subdivision. Staff strongly recommended against alignment. Victoria should be shifted to
exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Subdivision, thereby preserving the integrity of an established
neighborhood.
Ms. Morgan said that the revised master plan shows a residential street crossing the creek area, which
would provide some access and visibility into the area. This would also result in some lots being
oriented with a side to the creek rather than a back yard. The end of the cul-de-sac in Phase 1 also
extends into this area, but it is unclear whether this will be the final design until the floodplain location is
determined. Ms. Morgan explained that the developer did meet with the Parks Board to discuss
parkland dedication. The Board moved to recommend accepting the land dedication show depending
• on the floodplain study and to allow future credit Mr. Szabuniewicz adjacent development. The
developer can use this excess to meet additional dedication requirements for any adjacent development.
This should be considered when evaluating oversize request for streets, sewer and water.
Ms. Morgan said that the master plan includes a portion of the north fork of Lick Creek. She said that
staff has encouraged the developer to address how the creek area will work with this planned
development in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This area is noted on the master plan as
Reserve Greenbelt. If the City does not desire to purchase this area to provide a linkage, as addressed
in the Comprehensive Plan, then the developer may incorporate this area into his lots. Staff
recommended the developer to revise Note #9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a
flood hazard area along Lick Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire
greenbelt area is reserved for op ssible future acquisition or if not acquired will be incorporated into
lots."
Ms. Morgan explained that until all of the information is presented by the applicant, staff cannot process
any final plats for any part of the development. Staff does support the master plan in concept with the
conditions mentioned. Staff recommended approval of the master plan and preliminary plat of phase 1
with the following conditions:
1. Engineer's estimates demonstrating that the phasing proposed can support the infrastructure
required must be submitted prior to processing any final plats.
• 2. No final plats can be processed until the floodplain location is determined.
P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 3 of 8
3. No final plats can be processed until a determination is made as to how the property will be
sewered.
• 4. Revise not #6 to read "Development of Victoria extension to be done in phases 3 and 4 as shown
with oversize participation requests to the Cites"
5. Victoria should be shifted to exclude taking any of the Bald Prairie Subdivision.
6. Revise note #9 to read "there is shown the approximate location of a flood hazard area along Lick
Creek and which is included within a greenbelt area as shown. The entire greenbelt area is reserved
for op ssible future acquisition or if not acquired will be incorporated into lots.".
Ms. Morgan said that the property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. The developer has a
request to rezone a portion of the property to R-1 Single Family. R-1 is in compliance with the land use
plan. Staff recommended approval of the presented zoning request. The applicant has advised staff that
he proposes to submit a rezoning request for the remainder of the property (R-I and some C-3) before
the next deadline. This would avoid a piecemeal approach to zoning and establishes commercial zoning
prior to lot sales in the adjacent development. This puts future owners on notice of nearby commercial
development and avoids possible opposition and confrontation before the Commission and Council at
future rezoning hearings.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing.
John Szabuniewicz, Developer of the property, said that he is agreement with staff s recommendations
• and will meet all of staff's concerns. He explained that he has met with CSISD regarding the drainage
study. Mr. Savage (CSISD) went to Dallas to see if the study was complete. Mr. Szabuniewicz
explained that he is coordinating the drainage with the school because it is the same channel. He
explained that his anticipated the drainage study for Phase 1 could be completed within two weeks.
Lawrence Link, owner of the property south of the property in question (Fry tract). He explained that
his property is where the proposed Victoria will run, which would take away approximately 20% of his
parking for the existing building on this tract. All of this parking is currently being utilized and taking of
this area will create a parking problem.
Mr. Szabuniewicz explained that taking this property is the only way to extend Victoria without having
an offset at the intersection.
Chairman Massey closed the public hearing.
Chairman Massey stated that the Commission would consider each item individually in the motion
Chairman Massey expressed concerns about the apparent "loose ends" with this plan. He expressed
appreciation to staff for their efforts to review the plan with such detail especially taking into
consideration the potential for growth in the area with the new school being proposed also. He stated
that he had hoped most of staff s concerns would have been addressed before presenting this item to the
Commission and that this is not something that will continue to happen.
P&Z Minutes January 1 S, 1998 Page 4 oj8
Commissioner Rife moved to approve the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat with all of staff conditions.
Commissioner Gribou seconded the motion which passed (5-2). Chairman Massey and Commissioner
• Lightfoot voted in opposition to the motion.
Commissioner Silvia moved to approve the rezoning request. Commissioner Gribou seconded the
motion which passed unopposed (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for Rock Prairie Plaza, 8.127 acres
located on the east side of State Highway 6 East Bypass between the intersection of the Rock
Prairie Road overpass and Rock Prairie Road East. Property is currently zoned C-1
Commercial. (98-301)
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the applicant is platting this property
as the first step in developing it as a commercial retail center. Currently Lot 1 is proposed to be a gas
station with a convenience center and fast food restaurant. Lot 2 is proposed as general retail and Lot 3
as another fast food business. The site currently has most of its frontage along the Highway 6 Bypass
and some frontage on the existing Rock Prairie Road. Eventually Rock Prairie Road will continue
across the existing overpass and connect up to the existing Rock Prairie Road (shown on Thoroughfare
Plan) which some of the right-of--way has been acquired. The first connection of the extension for Rock
Prairie Road will be developed with this site along the northern property line. Staff reviewed the plat on
December 29, 1997. The developer conducted a traffic impact analysis for this property and has
determined that only a minor collector street cross section is necessary. The applicant is applying for
oversize participation to recover the difference in construction costs between these two cross sections.
• Staff recommended approval with all staff comments. The most critical comment would be to relocate
an existing street light for the realignment of Rock Prairie Road.
Commissioner Rife expressed concern about the Frontage Road becoming one-way in the future.
Transportation Planner Hard explained that an overpass at Barron Road is a long range plan and the
Frontage Road will not be changed until the new overpass is built. Ms. McCully explained that plans in
these areas will be reviewed under existing conditions.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the preliminary plat for Rock Prairie Plaza with staff
comments. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed. (7-0)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Public hearing and consideration of a Final Replat for Blocks C & D of
Ashford Square, a resubdivision of 5.82 acres on the south side of Southwest Parkway, west of
the Dartmouth/Southwest Parkway intersection which includes 19 duplez lots. (98-201)
Assistant City Engineer Morgan presented the staff report and stated that this site is located on the rear
portion of the Ashford Square Center. This site was recently rezoned from A-P Administrative
Professional to R-2 Duplex Residential. Council approved the rezoning at their December 11, 1997
meeting. Conditions placed on the rezoning were that a replat be submitted, approved and provide the
following:
• 1. New access drives must meet current City paving standards.
P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page S of 8
I~
•
2. That the access drives meet standards for adequate fire lanes and City vehicle turnarounds/radii.
That the access drives have no connection with the commercial access drives that currently exist to
the west.
4. That the duplex lots be oriented away from the commercial lots.
5. That there be an impenetrable screen installed along the western boundary of the duplex lots and
that the screen is not easily mountable.
6. That all access roads be dedicated as public streets.
variance given the circumstances associated with the property.
Ms. Morgan explained that in response to condition number 6, the applicant has attempted to meet this
requirement. In trying to do so, they have met the pavement cross-section and width requirements but
cannot meet the right-of--way width requirements, as stated in the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant
is proposing a 40' right-of--way, in order to meet the minimum lot dimensions. The applicant has
therefore requested a variance to the right-of--way width. To compensate for the substandard width, the
applicant will dedicate a 12' public utility easement along the fronts of the lots. This gives the City
enough room to work on the roadway facility and any utilities within that area. Staff would support this
Staff recommended approval of the final replat with the variance to the right-of--way width on Ashford
Drive and Ashford West Drive, with staff comments as stated in the Staff Review Report. Staff also
requested renaming Ashford West Drive for 911 purposes. The drainage variance request was
withdrawn by the applicant and they will comply with the City's Drainage Ordinance.
Chairman Massey opened the public hearing. Seeing no one to speak in favor of or in opposition to this
request, the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the final replat with staff recommendations and comments.
Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0).
Raintree Subdivision. Property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. (98-302)
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Consideration of a Master Plan for Horse Haven Estates, 119 acres
located on the east side of State Highway 6 East Bypass between Switch Station Road and
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and stated that the entire 118 acres were under a
single ownership at one time, but over the years the applicant has sold off portions of the original tract
without platting the property. There have been several mobile homes placed on various parts of the
property which is allowed in that zoning district. The applicant proposes now to sell the 25 acres in
Tract 2, where the driving range is located, to an individual who wants to reorient and redevelop the
driving range. This redevelopment will require various building and other permits which cannot be
issued without the property being platted and developed in accordance with the City's Subdivision and
Zoning regulations. Ms. McCully explained that the master plan shows 4 tracts that reflect current
property divisions. It is a requirement of the Subdivision Regulations that the original parent tract be
P&Z Minutes January I S, 1998 Page 6 of 8
included in any master plan. The purpose of this plan is to be able to submit a preliminary plat and final
plat of the 25 acre tract so that it can be sold and developed. The driving range is a permitted use in the
A-O Agricultural Open zone so there will be no rezoning request at this time. Staff contacted the
• Windwood Homeowner's Association to notify them of this pending redevelopment. Appomattox is
shown to extend into the property, but it is not being proposed to be dedicated or developed when the
25 acre tract is final platted. Ms. McCully asked the Commission to recall that Council's direction in
the Comprehensive Plan was to extend Appomattox into the Hermann property to serve any future
residential development, but not to make a connection to the East By Pass or to allow any commercial
development to access it. The ultimate plan of the property owner is for some commercial development
on the frontage and the remainder as rural residential lots. Presently there are just scattered residences.
Until this situation changes and more residential development is proposed there is no need to extend
Appomattox into this area. As long as the density is as low as it is, there is no need for Appomattox.
The City would be maintaining a road with extremely little use. Ms. McCully explained that in order to
not lose the opportunity to get Appomattox right-of--way dedicated and ultimately built by the property
owner, there will be a need for a development agreement at the time of the final platting Staff
recommended approval of the master plan with all staff notes and the condition that the development
agreement is executed with the final plat.
Ms. McCully explained that during research there was question about the zoning shown on the area
map. Staffwill continue researching this area to locate the exact zoning lines within the property.
Burt Hermann, owner of the property, explained that the property had never been rezoned to R-1, all of
the property should be zoned Agricultural.
• Mr. Wilford Gardner, President Windwood Homeowners Association, presented a letter and area map
of the location to the Commission. He explained that the Windwood Homeowners Association is
concerned with the presented plan because this is the first time he had seen that Appomattox would be
extended beyond the Windwood neighborhood. He said that the HOA was under the impression that
the extension of Appomattox would come from Raintree not Windwood; but, the proposed master plan
shows that it would cross Switch Station Road which is currently closed to the public. He added that it
would be illogical to put gates on both sides of the proposed Appomattox extension since the heavy city
power trucks would have to stop to get through three gates along Switch Station Road which would
mean that the trucks would come through Windwood or the city would just open up Switch Station
Road and have a gate only on the east side of the proposed Appomattox extension. He said that
extending Appomattox would open the neighborhood to cut-through traffic. Mr. Gardner expressed
that the other possibility regarding the opening of Windwood to the East Bypass is that there is only 25
feet between the end of the proposed Appomattox cul-de-sac and the adjacent street (Horse Haven
Lane). The HOA strongly opposes this possibility because there would not be enough land on which to
build anything but a road. He expressed two other concerns, which are the potential for increased
traffic within Windwood past the neighborhood park, where small children play; and, the number of cars
trying to get out of Windwood. He explained that with the development of Sam's, the movie theater
and the conversion of the East Bypass access roads to one-way has greatly increased the flow of traffic
on Highway 30 past the Windwood entrance. He explained that the HOA does not wish to deny the
Hermann's the right to develop their land, but they ask that they continue to be good neighbors and
develop it in a such as way as to minimize the impact on Windwood.
P&Z Minutes January 15, 1998 Page 7 of 8
•
•
•
Commissioner Rife felt that Mr. Gardner brought up some valid concerns regarding trucks using the
subdivision to get to the Switch Station. Commissioner Gribou agreed and felt Mr. Gardner's concerns
should be addressed before approving the master plan.
Mr. Hermann clarified that he doesn't want the extension of Appomattox but staff has told him that it
was a Council direction. Commissioner Lightfoot agreed with Mr. Hermann and said that Council
expressed a strong position regarding Appomattox and the integrity of the neighborhood. He said that
in the staff report, it stated that there was no proposal or intent to dedicate or develop the questioned
portion of the property and Council has already established that Appomattox could be extended through
the Hermann property in the future. Appomattox is shown as a cul-de-sac that will not connect with the
East Bypass. Commissioner Lightfoot encouraged the Commission to approve the plan.
Chairman Massey asked staff if Appomattox location reflects the Council's direction. City Planner Kee
said the representation of Appomattox does reflect Council's direction and intent for the street to go
into this tract and not connect with the East Bypass.
Commissioner Lightfoot moved to approve the master plan with staff conditions. Commissioner Parker
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Other Business.
There was no other business.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Adjourn.
Commissioner Silvia moved to adjourn the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Parker seconded the motion which passed unopposed (7-0).
ATTEST:
Staff Assistant, Debra Charanza
P&Z Minutes
January 1 S, 1998
Page 8 of 8
Registration Form
a (For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of Meeting Sa,[n , (5 , l 4 q g
Agenda Item No. S
Name ~~i ~~'o~^ ~ ~a ~-Ql h e ~
Address 6 `F~~ w~~/c.~.oo-d ~7 ~. G .S
If speaking for an organization,
Name of organization:
-~} ,Pwoo.~ ~e~'g~16oHN oe.~ l-~-ssoc~'Q~~Q~
Speaker's official capacity:
Pr ts~` el ekf
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
cS
Please remember to step to the podium as soon as you are
cognized by the chair, hand your completed registration
form to the presiding officer and state your name and
residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
~'
b
...
w°
w
~~
A'
•
U
•
Windwood Neighborhood Association
College Station, Texas
Memorandum
To: College Station Planning and Zoning Board
From: Wilford D. Gardner, President ~,~~
Subject: Horse Haven Estates
January 15, 1998
Burt and Virginia Hermann have presented a platting of a tract of land
along the east bypass between Windwood and Raintree subdivisions to gain
approval from the city of College Station to sell a parcel of land they own
in that area. They have sold off portions of the land they owned there, but
have been required by the City to plat the land before selling more of it.
No rezoning is being requested at this time.
The Windwood Neighborhood Association is concerned with the plan for
several reasons. First, this is the first time we have seen that Appomattox is
to be extended beyond its present termination in Windwood. We thought
that our pleas and arguments to the City over the past several years to
maintain the peaceful integrity of our neighborhood had been heard and
that Appomattox would not be extended. Looking back through the
records we find that Council directed Staff to extend Appomattox into this
property in the comprehensive plan, but it was only this week that we
realized the extension was to come from Windwood and not Raintree.
Even though it is not being proposed to be built at this time, we are gravely
concerned about this Appomattox extension. We have repeatedly stated that
we do not want another entrance to Windwood, but the proposed plan
opens that possibility again for two reasons. The proposed extension would
cross Switch Station Road (SSR), which is presently closed to the public. It
is illogical to put gates on both sides of the proposed Appomattox extension
since the heavy city power trucks would have to stop to get through three
gates along SSR, so trucks would come through Windwood or the city
would just open up SSR and have a gate only on the east side of the
proposed Appomattox extension. This opens up our community to fast cut-
through traffic. Hermanns have already proposed to move the gate on SSR
east to use part of that road to access the re-oriented golf range. We are
concerned that SSR may eventually be opened further.
• The other possibility regarding the opening of Windwood to the east bypass
is that there is only 25 ft. between the end of the proposed Appomattox cul-
de-sac and the adjacent street -Horse Haven Lane. This is not enough land
on which to build anything but aroad -something we strongly oppose. It
makes much more sense, therefore, to connect Horse Haven Lane to the
proposed Appomattox road, but to terminate this road within Horse Haven
Estates with a cul-de-sac (See attached map).
This alleviates two other concerns, which are the potential for increased
traffic within Windwood past our neighborhood park, where small
children play, and of the number of cars trying to get out of Windwood.
The development of Sam's, Hollywood 16, and the conversion of the East
Bypass access roads to one-way has greatly increased the flow of traffic on
highway 30 past the Windwood entrance. A surprising number of cars are
coming on Hwy 30 from the Bryan subdivisions of Copperfield and
Wheeler Ridge and this is only going to increase as Boonville Rd. (State
Hwy 158) is widened to a 4-lane road from Briarcrest to Hwy 30. Adding
any more cars to those trying to exit Windwood by adding more residences
at the end of Appomattox will just make the situation worse. Traffic on the
east bypass where the Hermanns show Horse Haven Lane connecting is
• relatively light, so entrance to that road would cause less congestion.
A final question arises about the plan presented here. It is our
understanding that the Hermanns no longer own tracts 1 and 4 of Horse
Haven Estates, and they are proposing to sell tract 2. The plan shows roads
into tracts 2 and 4. Do the Hermanns have approval of the other owners
for this plat plan?
We urge that these questions be answered and that this platting not be
approved without changes to the proposed roads. We do not wish to deny
the Hermanns the right to develop their land, but we ask that they continue
to be good neighbors and develop it in such a way as to minimize the
impact on our neighborhood. Their project can and should be self-
contained. It encompasses far more land than the entire Windwood
subdivision.
•
•
•
•
~Cannin~ ~' ZoninB Commission
Guest .7~,eBister
•
7.
8.
9.
Date
,--- ~ ~
~~
7' ~ ~C,~ ~~jL~~ ~-'~
~~J ~ ( (_:
2l~fii s
~-
~-~ 0 ~~~~'/i.~ ~S 01111
10.E ~//~.~c'~,-~~~. L,~~1 c. C`
11.
12.
13.
14.
1S.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
zs
~~ -,
~G~ ~
~ J ~ r L!<i- ~ ~= 1
~S~ -
L ~J ~
~,
5. ~~ ~ ~v..L y~c~
6. ~:~ ,-~-,~-'i