SC-Coppell HS-CS000217 CITY OF COPPELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
CASE NO.: PD-183, Coppell High School
P & Z HEARING DATE:
C.C. HEARING DATE:
LOCATION:
SIZE OF AREA:
CURRENT ZONING:
February 17, 2000 (Originally heard December 16a, continued
to February 17~) This case was re-continued to the April 20,
2000 public hearing at the request of the applicant
March 14, 2000 May 9, 2000
185 W. Parkway Boulevard.
Total Site Area:
Existing Campus:
New Site:
63.54 acres
49.78 acres
14.08 acres
Proposed Additions:
Multi-purpose building: 68,117 sf
Tennis center building: 2,360 sf
Tennis center storage facility: 216 sf
Stadium additions: 8,354 sf
Includes 4,000 new seats, concession stands, press box
and 731 new parking spaces
C and SF-12 (Commercial and Single Family-12).
REQUEST:
PD-C (Planned Development, Commercial).
APPLICANT:
HISTORY:
Developer:
Coppell ISD
200 S. Denton Tap Road
Coppell, TX 75019
(972) 471-1111
FAX: (972) 462-7599
Engineer:
Glenn Engineering, Inc.
100 Decker Court, Ste. 250
Irving, TX 75062
(972) 717-5151
FAX: (972) 719-4229
The original preliminary plat was considered by City Council on
January 13, 1987. At the meeting, Council directed the applicant
to work with staff to address unresolved issues. Major areas of
concern were traffic access, water and sewer. Traffic studies and
variances requests were worked out with staff and the preliminary
plat was approved on January 27, 1987 with conditions. (See
Item # 4
attached letter dated January 28, 1987). The final plat was
approved by City Council on September 8, 1987 with the following
conditions:
1. That the building height be granted a variance to allow
for a proposed height of structure to 52'.
2. That the variance on the lighting be approved with the
use of a blinder to cut the sideways spillage of the light
into adjoining property owners.
3. That the variance from the required 2,000 parking
spaces be decreased to 1,250 spaces.
4. That 5 inches of concrete on a prepared sub-grade be
allowed for the entire parking area with no gravel
parking areas.
5. That as many trees as possible will be left on the west
with a 6-foot chain link fence being constructed on the
outside of the trees along the west property line. Dr.
Melvin Gross, who was in the audience the night the
preliminary plat was approved by Council, stated he
would be willing to donate any property to the school
that would be required to put his fence on the outside
area of the trees, and this fence would also be
constructed along the southern property line up to Oak
Trail. The gate to this property would be considered to
be for emergency traffic only and extra emphasis on
shrubbery would be followed along the south property
line from the chain link fence east to the school's
eastern most property line.
6. That the fees be waived as requested and the City
Manager enters into negotiations with the Coppell ISD
for some "in-kind" training of City employees.
The final plat was not submitted to the City for signatures within 6
months from the date of City Council approval. Therefore, the
applicant was required to resubmit the final plat for Council
consideration on June 13, 1989. The plat was approved on that
date with the variances granted on September 8, 1987.
City Council approved a site plan amendment to allow the
construction of a band hall, principal's suite, dining/lecture hall,
and 9t~ grade classroom wing on June 17, 1999.
The following month, the Planning and Zoning Commission
approved a site plan amendment to allow the construction of
concession stands, a press box, additional seating at the existing
football stadium, as well as a multi-purpose building, tennis court,
tennis center, storage facility and additional parking subject to the
Item # 4
Board of Adjustment granting a number of special exemptions and
variances.
On August 5, 1999, the Board of Adjustment granted the following
special exemptions:
1) To allow the size of the new parking spaces to be 9-ft. by 18-ft.
2) To reduce the required parking spaces from 3,333 to 1,940.
3) To permit a single row of parking to contain more than 15
parking spaces without a planting island.
4) To approve 18 landscape islands with tree preservation to fulfill
the 88 planting islands requirement, as well as allow the one
tree requirement per planting island be planted along the
northern edge of the proposed parking pavement.
5) To allow some parking islands to be under the minimum area
of 150 sq. ft. and a minimum width of 9-ft.
6) To allow the four rows of parking by the tennis courts with
handicap parking spaces to not have the planting islands at the
northern end.
As well as, the Board granted the following variance:
1) To authorize concrete planting islands, as opposed to landscape
islands, at the end of each row of parking.
The Board also denied the following variance:
1) To waive the 6-ft high screening requirement for a non-
residential use adjacent to a single family residential district.
And lastly, the applicant withdrew the following variance request:
1) To waive the 30-inch high hedge or berm requirement to screen
parking spaces along the northern edge of the property.
On August 10, 1999, the City Council approved an amending plat
and site plan amendment with a number of conditions.
On December 17, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission
held the case under advisement to the January 20, 2000
meeting. The applicant subsequently requested that the case not
be heard until the April Planning Commission meeting.
TRANSPORTATION:
Cowboy Drive is a 2-lane undivided collector street contained
within 60' of right-of-way.
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
North-
South -
Single family residential; "SF-12" Single Family-12
Single family residential; "SF-12, PD-SF-12 & PD-148"
Single Family -12, Planned Development, Single Family-12
and Residential Planned Development
Single family residential; PD-129R, SF-9" Single Family-9
residential
Item # 4
West -
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
DISCUSSION:
Single family residential; "SF-12" Single Family-12
The Comprehensive Plan shows the property as suitable for
public and institutional uses and the northern portion of the
Italicproperty is shown to be in the floodplain.
Note: Unbold text was the staff discussion presented to
the Planning Commission on December 16, 1999. Bold
text pertains to staff discussion for the February 17,
2000 Commission meeting. Italic text is most recent staff
comments.
The request for a planned development is to modify the 6-
ft high masonry screening requirement for a non-
residential use adjacent to a single family residential
district and allow a 6'-high decorative metal screening
fence with extensive landscaping along the northern and
western edge of the new parking lot. In addition, the
request is to incorporate the previously approved site plan
allowing the construction of concession stands, a press
box, additional seating at the existing football stadium, a
multipurpose building, tennis courts, tennis center,
storage facility and additional parking at the Coppell High
School campus.
According to the submitted exhibits, the 6'-high
decorative metal fence would be located 2' off back of the
curb. Within the 2' between the back of the curb and the
inside of the fence, a 30"-high hedge will be planted to
screen the cars. Adjacent to the fence, the applicant is
proposing to plant 85 Cedar Elm trees to visually screen
both the cars and the new parking lot fi.om adjacent
single-family residences. The distances shown on the
cross section of the 6'-high fence exhibit are as follows: 1)
the distance from the tennis courts to the center line of the
creek is 115', while the total distance from the edge of the
tennis courts to the existing house north of the creek is
640'; 2) the distance from the fence adjacent to parking
space//644 to the center line of the creek is 160', while
the total distance fi.om the fence to the existing house
north of the creek is 352'; 3) the distance fi.om the fence
adjacent to parking space //585 to the center line of the
creek is 132', while the total distance from the fence to
the existing house north of the creek is 362'. The cross
section also illustrates roughly a 4 to 1 slope rise fi.om the
creek to the proposed parking lot and tennis courts.
Item # 4
The applicant is of the opinion that the proposed living
screen would maintain and enhance the present creek
environment allowing for more of a natural look as well as
serve as a "soft" visual barrier. A living screen would
have less of an environmental impact on this particular
site, as opposed to the "hard" edge created by a masonry
wall. The proposed 6'-high metal fence on the school
property is in keeping with the fences along the north side
of the creek. Lastly, the applicant believes that a brick
screening wall would be prone to graffiti.
CISD representatives met with the Copperstone
homeowners on January 20, 2000 to discuss various
screening alternatives. Based on staff's conversations
with the applicant the school district proposed the
following screening alternatives:
1) Tree and Shrub Hedge: A Nellie R. Stevens hedge
planted at 4' on center immediately north of the
parking pavement with buffer trees planted at 20'
on center on the north side of the hedge.
2) 6' Chainlink Fence: A 6'-high green vinyl coated
chain link fence with green slats woven into the
fence to a height of 3' from the ground and a
double row of hedges and buffer trees planted at
20' on center on the north side of the fence and
hedge.
3) 6' Decorative Metal or Wrought Iron Fence: A 6'-
high decorative metal or wrought iron fence with
double row of hedges and buffer trees planted at
20' on center on the north side of the fence and
hedge.
4) 6' Chainlink Fence: A 6'-high chainlink fence with
a single row of hedges with buffer trees planted at
20' on center on the north side of the hedge.
5) 6' Decorative Metal or Wrought Iron Fence: A 6'-
high decorative metal or wrought iron fence with a
single row of hedges with buffer trees planted at
20' on center.
6) 6' Brick Wall: A 6'-high brick wall with a single
hedge on the inside of the wall with buffer trees
planted every 40' on center.
It is staff's understanding that CISD's first choice is
Alternative //2 (Shown as Section "B" on the attached
drawings), a 6'-high green vinyl coated chain link fence
with green slats woven into the fence, double row of
hedges and buffer trees planted at 20' on center. CISD
Item # 4
representatives also shared with the homeowners
architectural renderings of a brick wall seen from the
north side of the creek and another rendering of a
chain-link fence with landscaping seen also from the
creek.
During the meeting, homeowners raised four primary
concerns with regards to the type of screening
treatments being proposed. These concerns were: 1)
Noise generated from cars, buses and students; 2)
Vehicle headlight penetration; 3) Aesthetics of the
screening treatment; 4) Students cutting through the
creek. According to Mr. Arlin Gaffner's letter dated
February 1st (attached), the two primary homeowners
concerns are noise and headlights emanating from the
proposed parking lot. The homeowners are requesting
additional discussions and consideration be given to
alternatives that would eliminate headlight penetration
and significantly reduce noise. Staff has been informed
that the school district will be meeting with the
Copperstone homeowners again on Monday, February
14, 2000 at 6:30 pm at the William. T. Cozby Library.
It is staff understanding that the school district's
position is that the chain link fence with slats woven
into the fence and double row of hedges should
eliminate the headlight penetration. With regards to
the noise issue, no brick wall or other screening
treatments can totally eliminate the noise element.
Staff views the dialogue that has transpired between
the school district and the homeowners to be very
positive. We are disappointed that there are still some
outstanding issues needing to be addressed. Staff
hopes that a compromise will be reached at the
February 14~ meeting.
Based on staff conversations with residents, it appears
that the community would like to see a 6-foot brick
wall. From an aesthetic perspective and if the citizens'
wishes are to be followed, planning staff recommends
softening the brick wall with a row of hedges planted
on the outside of the wall and buffer trees be planted at
40' on center on the inside of the wall.
RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Item # 4
Planning staff recommends approval of this planned development
request subject to the following conditions being met:
1) Incorporating the special exceptions and variance granted by the
Board of Adjustment listed on page 3 of the staff report into this
planned development.
2a) Require a 6'-high brick wall with hedges on the outside of the wall
and buffer trees be planted 40' on center on the inside of the wall
if the solid brick fence is recommended.
OR
2b) If staff position is followed, a 6' decorative metal fence with double
row of hedges (such as Nellie R. Stevens, and one on each side of the
fence) and buffer trees 40' on center.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Recommend approval of the request.
2) Recommend disapproval of the request
3) Recommend modification of the request
4) Take under advisement for reconsideration at a later date.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) PD Site Plan
2) Cross Sections of Fence Alternatives ("A' through "F")
3) Architectural Renderings of view from creek
4) Landscape Plan
5) Irrigation Plan
6) CISD letter of December 9,1999
7) Kendrick letter of December 12, 1999
8) Gaffner letter of February 1, 2000
9) Coe letter of April 10, 2000
Item # 4
COPPELL
INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL
DISTRICT
200 S. DENTON TAP ROAD · COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 · (972) 471-1111
December 9, 1999
WILBURN O. ECHOLS, JR.
SUP~ENT
VONITA WHTYE
ASSISTANT S UPERINTEN]2}ENT
HOMER B. TERRY, 1II
ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT
RALPH SFFI ~y
ASSISTANT S U~P ER[NTIsN-D EN T
Dear Mattel Resident:
I am writing in an effort to provide information to you regarding a zoning request of
Coppell Independent School District to accommodate the additions to the Coppell High
School campus. The primary issue in this effort is in regard to the fence request along the
North property line. It is our intent to be good neighbors wherever our schools are
located and thus I would like to provide you with up-fi'ont, factual information regarding
a solution other than a six foot wall fence.
I certainly do recall the meeting before the Board of Adjustments in which some of you
expressed your views regarding this matter, but I did not feel that Coppell Independent
School District adequately explained our desire for a different fence solution.
As I stated before, we do desire to be good neighbors to you, but feel for various reasons
that a different type of fence is more desirable for this location. I also believe that the
fence which we are proposing will address your concems regarding auto headlights
during the night, "cutting through" the creek area by Coppell High School students
leaving the parking lot to the North, and sound from the parking lot.
Not only does our proposed solution address these matters, but I believe that it will be far
more aesthetically pleasing and in keeping with the current environment along the creek
behind your homes.
We are proposing, as a part of our Planned Development Zoning requirement, that a six
foot wrought iron fence be constructed along our North parking lot perimeter, with heavy
landscaping, constituting a dense natural hedge along the fence. Our reasons for this
request are as follows:
· We believe that a more natural treatment of the perimeter of the parking lot
minimizes any negative impact which our addition may have on your property.
* We prefer a more natural treatment from our vantage point and believe that a brick
fence presents an unnatural visual barrier and an intrusion into the natural appearance
of the area North of the parking lot.
· We believe that the brick fence provides "artistic space" for "would-be" vandals or
others seeking choice locations for graffiti on both sides of the fence.
Martel Resident
December 9, 1999
Page Two
With the proximity of the creek and flood plain, we believe that a wrought iron fence
will maintain its original appearance far longer and will be fare more easily
maintained.
· A wrought iron or ornamental metal fence along the school side of the creek is in
keeping with the same type fencing on the homeowner side of the creek.
· The three survey sections done during the planning for this project indicated the
distances fi.om the specific houses are slightly in excess of 350 feet for two of the
sections and in excess of 600 feet for the third. We believe that this distance, in
conjunction with the hedge and other vegetation along the creek, will keep noise and
light to a minimum.
· We believe that the cost to our Coppell Independent School District taxpayer should
be a consideration in this decision. The cost of the treatment which we are proposing
is approximately $165,000 less than the cost ora brick fence.
After considering the above information, my conclusion is that the wrought iron fence
with appropriate landscape screening is the more desirable of the two treatments being
considered. Not only does it address the concerns voiced in the Board of Adjustments
Hearing, but it does so in a more aesthetically pleasing manner, at a significantly reduced
cost.
I do respect your desire to maintain a quality environment for your home and your
concems regarding this construction project. However, I respectfully request that you
consider the information contained in this letter.
There are, in my office, survey and site plan documents which may certainly be available
for viewing if you so desire.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or comments regarding this
information.
Sincerely,
Wilburn O. Echols, Jr., J/
Superintendent
Coppell Independent School District
CC:
Jim Witt, City Manager
Clay Phillips, Assistant City Manager
Planning & Zoning Commission
James K. Kendrick
331 Martel Lane
Coppell, Texas 75019
(972) 304-8131
December 12, 1999
City of Coppell
Planning & Zoning
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, TX 75019
RE: Case No.: PD-183 Coppell High School C and SF-12 to PD-C
Members of the Commission:
I am in receipt of your letter in which you respectfully and graciously invited my
comments as an impacted residential homeowner to a proposed zoning variance request.
The requested variance, whereby Coppell High School will construct an iron fence in lieu
of a masonry fence as required by former and existing code requirements along the
northern edge of the property, directly impacts my adjacent property. I am also in receipt
of a letter dated December 9 from William O. Echols, Jr. of the Coppell Independent
Independent School District whereby Mr. Echols presented the District's view regarding
the variance request. Unfortunately, business travel out of state prohibits me from
attending the scheduled public hearing on December 16. I submit this letter in lieu of an
opportunity to testify at that meeting.
Please be advised that after reviewing ali of the arguments as presented by Mr.
Echols, I remain in full opposition to the requested variance. My position has not
changed from the position I took as I testified before the Commission during its meeting
earlier this year when this issue arose and, as I believed at the time, was resolved with the
Commissions decision not to grant the variance. As a resident of Coppell, I am
concerned that a resolved matter may be permitted to resurface within such a short time
frame. This matter once again, and without merit, draws on the public resources for
which we all support and rely on.
My objections are based on the following which I urge you to consider individually and
collectively in your decision to oppose the requested variance.
A masonry wall significantly differentiates from an iron fence and trees as it provides
significant, reliable sound insulation protection against traffic noises. This is the
reason the code requirement was put into effect originally. This is also the reason that
major streets (Parkway, MacArthur, Denton Tap, etc.), as a role, are lined with
masonry walls, not iron fences with shrubs. I believe I am entitled to the same degree
City of Coppell
Planning and Zoning Department - Variance Request
Page 2
of quality and protection as all of the homeowners that live adjacent to these major
streets.
2. A masonry wall is necessary to insulate surrounding residential properties in areas of
high traffic and congestion. The Coppell High School parking lot is used Monday
through Friday, from early moming hours to late in the evening. It is used during
weekends and at night for sporting events. When not in use, it appears to be the
testing ground for students to test their respective ears' ability to squeal tires and roar
engines. May I submit to you the Coppell High School parking lot is the single
most congested, most utilized, most traffic intense 1/2 square mile area in all of
Coppell. This congestion includes all types of vehicles including delivery trucks,
autos, school buses (local and non-local), and motor cycles. An iron fence is
insufficient sound and property insulation.
3-. The High School proposes to suplement the iron fence with trees and shrubery. Such
living items are not permanent and subject to the care of the High School which
already has a questionable reputation in this regard as discussed in the last meeting.
A masora3, fence will provide lasting protection to current and future homeowners
subject to normal wear and tear, not constant maintainance which may or may not
exist.
4_. As to a masonry wall being the target of vandals and graffiti artists, I concur, yet this
is no different than any other wall which already exists on the High School campus.
This argument is not sufficient.
5-. I am challenged to understand why the High School is so adamant in their demand for
a variance if for nothing more than to save a relative small amount of money (when
compared to the entire project). The requirement for a masonry wall has been in
existence since prior to the inception of the High School expansion project. Perhaps
they under budgeted? Perhaps they budgeted from the onset for a cheaper fence
knowing that they could push the Planning and Zoning Commission into granting a
variance? Or perhaps they opted to grant some other special feature in the
construction project in the hopes of getting a variance? They have tried and failed.
Now back again. Why so much effort? Why should I and my neighbors suffer the
consequences of their negligence?
I purchased my home at a substantial investment. I purchased by home with the
understanding that Coppell was a good place to live and that my property values would
maintain and grow with the protection of this "planned community". Now, within a short
two years I find that my property may not be protected at the whim of the High School.
Once again, I urge you to say no to this variance request, for me, for my neighbors,
for Coppell.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
/
/
James K. Kendrick
ra~-~-~ ~:55 ~ COPPELL [SD ~ 9'72 462 7599 P,02/03
Axlin Gaffner
303 Mar'tel Lane
Coppell, TX 75019
(972)304-5526
February 1, 2000
Mr. Buddy Echols
Superintendent
Coppe[l Independent School District
200 South Denton Tap Road
Coppell, TX 75109
RE: Request for Zoning Variance-Coppell High School
Dear Mr. Echols,
I am writing this letter at the request of Pat Campbell and on behalf of the
residents of the Estates of Copperstone. Pat, who was appointed as the homeowner
spokesman and Liaison, has unfortunately been out of state much of the last two weeks
due re the illness and subsequent death of his father. Accordingly, Pat askcd mc to
update you on a recent meeting where residents received an update from the homeowners
who attended the .]'anuary 20°' meeting with school district representatives.
First, we want to thank you for the time that you and district contractors spent
meeting with homeowners on the 20'b. The drawings, elevations, etc. presented for
various fencing alternatives were very helpful in our understanding of the project and
your preferences. The information helped homeowners assess thc impact on their
respective property.
As discussed with you, the homeowners have four primary concerns with the
choice of fencing materials on the north border of the high school property. These
conccrP.5 are:
I. Noise, primarily from autos, buses, etc.
2. Vehicle headlight penetrahon
3. Aesthetics
4. Fencing su~cient to serve as a deterrent/barrier to students "cutting through
the creek"
It is our understanding that your current preference is to erect a six-foot high chain link
fence bordered by approximate 30-inch tall shrubs on four-foot centers. While this
alternative appears to address the aesthetic and cut through issues, neither this nor other
similar alternatives presented, including decorative metal fencing adequately addresses
the two primary_ homeowner ~oncerns, i.e. noise and headlights from the parking lot
immediately adjacent to the fence.
FE~-03-~0(~ 11:5~ --C~OPPELL ISD ~ ~ ~:F:~ 75~ P. O3x03
Accordingly, we feel that further discussion is needed and request that additional
consideration be given to alternatives which wouM eliminate headlight penetration and
significantly reduce noise that will emanate from the high school parking lot.
Thank you for your consideration. I apologize for the delay in gctt~g back to you
with the homeowner comments. In Pat's absence., I would be happy to discuss this issue
and/or reconvene the homeowners for another meeting.
I can be reach~ at (214) 863-3006 (work) or (972) 304-5526 (home).
Sincerely,
Arlin G~ er~
Cc: Copperstone HOA- Don Carter, Lisa Young, Tim Lassiter, Gary losephson
Copperstone Committee
Richard McCaffrey, P&Z
Pat Campbell
April 10, 2000
City of Coppell
Planning & Zoning Department
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, TX 75019
To Whom It May Concern:
Benjamin B. Coe
401 Mattel Lane
We moved to Texas in April of 1999. After looking at over sixty homes in the Southlake, Flower Mound,
Coppell, and Lake Lewisville areas, we chose a home in Coppell. We were mazed that, in our search,
developers seemed to do everything they could to eliminate trees and natural settings. Although our home
was a little out of our price range, and bordered Coppell High School property, we decided to buy it
because of the beautiful trees in the greenbelt behind us. Our concerns regarding the proximity of the high
school to our property were mitigated by the fact that the greenbelt provided some separation.
Our first fall in the house was traumatic. Four to five days a week we were blasted by, PA systems, lights,
band practice, football practice, midnight "donuts" in the parking lot, car alarms, day & night construction,
etc. We found it necessary, on Friday nights where there were home football games, to leave the house.
This past summer, we found out that the area behind Cottonwood Creek would become a parking lot and
tennis courts with all the vegetation removed. Farewell to the owls, herons, egrets, coyotes, and other
critters who made their homes there.
At the first community meeting, our neighborhood did not oppose the variances recommended for the
parking lot, but asked that the brick wall remain. We were granted that motion. A little calm returned. We
could do little for the wildlife, but at least we felt somewhat protected. At the next meeting, the school
decided it would take a new approach and ask for rezoning. At that meeting, we were told that we should
come up with a compromise. Great! After numerous neighborhood meetings and meetings with the
school, the alternatives began to be less attractive. Our question became, "Why can't we have our brick
wall, as it is currently zoned?"
In the midst of the commotion over the new rezoning proposal, my wife and I discovered that we were
expecting ~'iplets. We wondered how our new infants were going to sleep through all the ruckus.
Although a brick wall may not reduce that much noise, we felt that it would ensure some sense of privacy.
At the very least, it would block some of the headlight glare from the parking lot. Now, as the vegetation
has been stripped, and the level of the parking lot area raised, we are left virtually naked to the thousands of
people who will be parking and utilizing this area. This is not acceptable! Headlights, gatherings, and day-
to-day activity are not the kind of atmosphere we should be expected to endure, lfI wanted to live in an
urban area, I would have chosen a home in downtown Dallas! In addition, because the tennis court will be
public, we feel that it is even more important that we have some shield fi-om the general public's comings
and goings. A "living fence" will be woefully inadequate for that purpose. The other proposed option, a
metal fence with a thirty-inch hedge, will let trash blow through, be ineffective as a headlight screen and
will not decrease the line of sight into our backyards.
As construction quickly moves ahead, our worst fears are being realized. The once lovely creek has been
turned into a cesspool. I am quite sure the EPA did not approve the check dams and drainage pipes that
now occupy the creek. The construction is noisy and seemingly non-stop. Heavy equipment 200ft fi-om
your backyard, 12-14 hours a day, ? days a week, is torture. The hardest thing to watch was the shovel
mowing down mature trees that were along the creek. Lets put it this way, if I attend the Arbor Day
celebration for Coppell, it will be to protest.
To date we have no resolution on this issue. Does that mean that, once again, the school does what it
wants, completes the project, and then leaves us to fight for whatever we can get? I picture a completed
project with no fence, then siring around for the next year or two as we wrangle with the High School over
some acceptable solution.
The High School claims that they want to be a good neighbor. They need to prove it! I have found nothing
positive about being their neighbor. "Let the buyer beware" has new meaning for me now. There is little I
can do to restrict the expansion and noise at the High School except to relocate my family. However, a
simple brick fence would ease the fears and concerns of the neighborhood. It is currently zoned that way,
approved, and requested by one hundred percent of the homeowners bordering the greenbelt and many who
do not.
I apologize if this letter is cynical. My first taste of city politics has been extremely aggravating. I would
not have even bothered to write if I did not have a great appreciation for what the city could become and for
the wonderful neighbors that surround us. Please do the right thing. The brick fence is the appropriate
compromise to a number of sensitive problems. We do not think it is asking too much.
Since~~~~~x~~
401 ~Lane
Coppell, TX 75019