PD115-NR 910325~' ~"'~'--~ ..... ' .............. ¥"~'~ '~%i--~! 224 Plantation Drive
.. ~,~,~ ~[.~)~.~f~ Coppell, Texas 75019
~k~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~'~-~ March 25, 1991
~%~ Office:
Many residents of Shadowridge Subdivision have serious concerns, both
procedural and substantive, about the rezoning re~est for Wynnpage
Addition, to be addressed at the Council meeting Tuesday March 26. I
appreciated the opportunity to speak by telephone with Councilman Morton
and Mr. Ratliff, but still would like to su~arize our concerns in
written form.
Some 20 - 25 citizens spoke against the original request at the February
21 Planning and Zoning meeting, with only one speaking in favor. While
the final motion was approved unanimously after a few concessions to our
concerns, some of the Commissioners had voiced greater sympathy with our
views, and an alternative motion had been offered.
When the item was placed on the Council agenda for March 12, a neighbor,
Ms. Barbara Bailey, noticed that some of the concessions approved had
been omitted. On Friday March 8 she called Mr. Seib's office and asked
for a copy of the minutes of the P & Z meeting. Mr. Seib and his staff
told her that she could not have a copy because the minutes had not been
approved, even though the matter had already been forwarded to the
Council. They said she could get a copy on Wednesday March 13, the day
after the Council meeting. Mr. Seib also claimed that the concessions
she remembered had not been included in the recommendations approved.
Mr. Seib finally offered to let Ms. Bailey listen to tapes of the meet-
ing, and she made an appointment to do so on Monday March 11. When she
arrived, Mr. Seib told her that he had listened to the tapes and she was
correct, but still refused to give her a copy of the minutes. We
believe that denying access to public records until their usefulness is
moot violates the spirit if not the letter of the Open Meetings/Open
Records laws, and that the matter should not have been sent to the
Council until the minutes had been approved and made available to the
public.
At the March 12 Council meeting, at least 15 of our residents opposed
to the rezoning request arrived between 8:00 and 8:30 PM because of
earlier commitments and because the matter was placed on the agenda as
item 18. On arrival we learned that the item had been rescheduled and
had already been voted down. We were disappointed that we had not been
able to speak but happy that an unsatisfactory recommendation had been
rejected.
Now we are concerned that we may not have sufficient opportunity to
express our views at the rehearing Tuesday March 26. We are also
concerned at Mr. Seib's portrayal, judging from last Thursday's Metro-
crest newspaper article, of the March 12 proposal as a matter with only
minimal opposition. Most of us closest to the Wynnpage tract were never
contacted by the City regarding either the original request, the March
12 proposal, or the version to be presented in the rehearing. Even if
Shadowridge Homeowners Association officials are satisfied with most
aspects of the latest proposal, they are still concerned with its impact
on drainage. Furthermore, the Association only represents 40% of
Shadowridge residents, and even a smaller percentage of those most
affected.
Briefly, our substantive concerns involve house and lot size, compati-
bility of the development with Shadowridge, and drainage:
1. Zoning size should be SF-9 to be compatible with Shadowridge, to
avoid an ant hill appearance, and to minimize the amount of
concreted land, which will increase runoff rather than absorption.
2. It is also essential for proper drainage that at least half the
runoff be directed away from the Grapevine Creek branch designated
as "Stream G2" in city drainage plans. Mr. Seib says that drainage
issues can be addressed "down the road", after the request is
approved. Several of us are now living with drainage problems
caused by previous inadequate planning and construction, and are
wondering how much farther we have to travel down that road, or
whether the remedy somehow took wing and avoided meeting us.
3. Houses backing up to existing houses along Southern Belle should be
restricted to one story.
4. Both landscaping and brick walls should be placed around the
development.
We believe that residential zoning is preferable to commercial for this
tract PROVIDED THAT appropriate safeguards and planning are in place.
If these must be abandoned one by one, however, there comes a point at
which it is better to let the commercial zoning stand, given the
depressed state of commercial real estate and the prospect that another,
perhaps larger-scale, residential developer may be able to develop the
tract properly.
We appreciate the Council's attempt to accommodate citizens with small
children by hearing the matter early on March 12, even though there
were few there early who spoke. We also have heard that negotiations
with the prospective developer have produced adjustments which may
resolve some concerns, and we hope for a satisfactory resolution.
However, I think you can understand from what I have said why we take
verbal assurances with something of a grain of salt, and seek to
insure that our views will be heard.
Sincerely yours,
Noble G. Fortson
cc: Mayor Wolfe
Councilman Weaver
Councilman Thomas
Councilman Morton
Councilman Smothermon
Councilman Cowman
Councilman Robertson
Councilman Nelson
Mr. Alan D. Ratliff
Mr. Gary Seib