Loading...
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