Wynnpage Plz/SP,MP-NR011004From: ckaleri <kaleri.cynthia @ epamail.epa.gov>
To: City_of_Coppell.Town_Center(citycouncil),Allegro5 ....
Date: Thu, Oct 4, 2001 10:02 AM
Subject: Wynnpage Drive Right-of-Way; "Public Use" Determination; Some CommonSense and
Decency from Elected Officials
Dear Honorable Mayor and Distinguished City Counsel Members:
I am writing this letter to communicate to you my dismay and state my
many concerns over the obviously misguided efforts of certain government
officials to proceed on with the *taking* of common property currently
owned and maintained by the Wynnpage Property Owners Association. I
live in the Wynnpage Subdivision and have come to love and enjoy the
community in which I live. Coppell is such a wonderful, family oriented
city. I am a single mom with 3 small children (9yrs, 6yrs, and 4yrs)
and work full-time so I unfortunately missed the meeting held on
Thursday evening, September 20, 2001, and may not make the meeting
scheduled for this evening, October 4, 2001. I am hopeful that I can
still influence you with this letter, by pointing out a few common sense
issues pertaining to the proposed cut-through on Wynnpage Drive.
First and foremost, there appears to be an individual who claims that he
owns the land on either side of Wynnpage Drive, the sole entrance to the
Wynnpage Subdivision. Apparently, he may be responsible for requesting
the cut-through and yet should have no authority to do this if he is not
the proper land owner. The Homeowners Association has a copy of the
letter dated July 27, 1999, from a real estate attorney presenting
Exhibits that clearly demonstrates the owner of the land to be the
Homeowners Association; this letter was written to the same gentleman
who believes that he owns the land as well as his then-business
associates. He has apparently ignored our contention.
In any case, in order to improve the appearance of the entrance, the
Homeowners Association has maintained the area over the years and has
recently attempted to further beautify the area by adding to the
landscaping. However, the Homeowner*s Association received a very
distressing response from Mr. Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning and
Community Services dated March 1, 2001, in response to our request to do
additional landscaping on the property. The March letter appears to be
based strictly upon the fact that the owner of the land has the right to
access Wynnpage Drive. The letter goes on to cite legal cases that
support the City*s position, which is really not clearly delineated. My
perception of this letter would be that Mr. Sieb basically believes that
the City can do whatever they want with the property regardless of
ownership (I assume that Mr. Sieb cannot lawfully determine the owner of
the property on his own authority?). In any case, perhaps the City has
a rationale for *taking* this property, but the rationale is not clear
from the letter. The Homeowners Association subsequently learned that
the City now has plans to construct a cut-through on Wynnpage Drive in
response to business relations associated with the same gentleman who
insists he owns the land. Enough said of this issue. I am not an
attorney and don*t understand how the City can make such a decision that
will impact an entire neighborhood based upon a faulty assumption. So a
reasonable assumption can be made that the City has its own reasons for
a cut-through.
Now, lets consider for a moment the City is the entity that perceives
the need for a cut-through on Wynnpage Drive. Does a cut-through at
this location actually make any sense? What is the long-term strategy
of such a proposal? What are the long-term consequences? In the 9
years that I have lived in this subdivision, I have not merely observed
the flow of traffic along Denton Tap Road, but have experienced it first
hand. I commute to downtown Dallas and the drive along Denton Tap Road
(all the way down Belt Line Road) to Highway 114 has become a congested
and dangerous drive. The traffic has increased exponentially with the
buildup of *light industry* all along the way, not so much due to new
residences as new businesses. It seems without a light, you are out of
luck during certain times of the day. However, getting back to Wynnpage
Drive more specifically, just to get out of my subdivision onto Denton
Tap Road to take my children to school in the mornings is a 20 minute
affair. This is unreasonable, but bearable given that my home is my
haven...I am an adult and I plan accordingly. Our subdivision only has
this one entry/exit street and although drivers do not always adhere to
the *do not block the intersection* sign, the sign has helped somewhat.
In truth, I do not know how to plan for the proposed cut-through which
would increase traffic significantly for entering and exiting the
subdivision (based upon my understanding that the current plan show
75-space parking lot on the south side of Wynnpage Drive).
For the record, the area we are talking about measures about 341 feet on
the south side of Wynnpage Drive along Denton Tap Road, with only a
200-foot depth to the brick wall of our subdivision. The north side of
Wynnpage along Denton Tap Road measures 110 feet to the Lone Star Gas
Co. Easement and then about 361 feet continuing along Denton Tap Road,
with still only a 200-foot depth to the brick wall of our subdivision.
So if the cut-through even made any sense, what kind of consideration
has been given to entry and exit during the construction phase of this
project based upon the available land area? How will traffic flow along
Denton Tap Road be controlled in order to allow entry and exit traffic
for residents and ensure the safety of families? The Wynnpage
Subdivision is a quiet, small neighborhood, positioned just far enough
back from the busy rush of Denton Tap Road. Turning into the green
landscaped area is calming to the soul...my children know when we reach
this turning point at the entrance to our neighborhood that we are home
before we finish the turn through the entryway arches leading to our
neighborhood. There are only 3 streets in the subdivision which feed
from the one entry point, and our neighborhood is quite cozy given its
location in the center of Coppell. I am extremely concerned about the
flow of traffic and the potential hazard *in the making* from the
proposed cut-through.
We live in a far different world today than the world I remember growing
up in, and I*m only 38 years old. I understand that progress is a word
that is a champion to some business owners who have friends in the city
planning office. It*s very easy to use the term *public use* for a
private individual*s financial gain when faced with a choice over the
perceived use of a small piece of land. But what about the individuals
who make up the community? Shouldn*t they have a say in how far
*progress* is traded for *security of home and family safety*? There is
no question that the residential property values will be adversely
impacted for residents of the Wynnpage Subdivision, not to mention that
we will have been stripped of our use of the nicely landscaped entryway,
but I*m more concerned about the things that can*t be measured in
dollars and cents. To summarize my concerns (some already discussed
above):
1. Has anyone, other than the parents within the Wynnpage
Subdivision, thought about the increased traffic and potential hazard to
community children as discussed above? With such a small neighborhood
and as many children as we have currently, the substantial increase in
traffic is similar to a loaded gun.
2. Has anyone, other than the residents within the Wynnpage
Subdivision, thought about the cut-through being a possible attraction
for crime? The rear-entry driveway for residents would back up to the
cut-through and would offer a more advantageous get-away for thieves...
Our small children are our treasures and should be protected from both
cars and strangers who will have easier and less visibly *monitorable*
access to our neighborhood (i.e., neighborhood watch does work
currently, but the cut-through would be hard to incorporate as currently
planned).
3. Does anyone, other than the families within the Wynnpage
Subdivision, appreciate the aesthetic appeal of the entry to our
subdivision? The few nice trees on the property of consideration are in
the way of the cut-through and would be entirely wiped out...some other
type of development for this area might easily incorporate the trees
into a nicely landscaped buffer, with a little bit of thought and
amenable planning
4. Does anyone, other than the families within the Wynnpage
Subdivision, care about the increased noise and physical and emotional
disturbance to residents who live within the subdivision*given that the
subdivision has only one entry/exit point? What plans are being
considered to minimize such disturbances?
5. Does anyone, other than the residents within the Wynnpage
Subdivision, question the potential adverse physical and environmental
impacts from light industry built upon the fence-line of our
neighborhood, with so little room available for proper development? In
fact, has any thought been given to the potential runoff from the 75 car
parking lot envisioned in the small area available? Has the drainage
plan been drawn up or considered at this point, not to mention the other
necessary utilities installation? I hesitate to mention any kind of
similar development on the north side of Wynnpage which has a slightly
bigger area (not much, but some). What about the inconvenience to all
motorists during the area preparation and construction phase of the
project, based upon the small area available for such activity and the
major flow of traffic on Denton Tap Road?
6. What about the physical and emotional affect of all of the above
on the people that live within the Wynnpage Subdivision? Personally, I
would really like to see the City take a positive planning approach with
regard to development of this area (all areas in our City actually), not
just react to specific individuals who tell them we need certain
services that are already amply available to citizens within our
community. I don*t want to feel that as a resident, my opinion is only
second place to the business community o~.~misguided city employee. It
takes a fine balance between the two and it takes some human element to
govern a diverse people, including families, concerned citizens, and
business interests. I do appreciate your careful consideration of this
issue. However, I would hope that other people in the City of Coppell
would care about the issues which affect any particular neighborhood
within our city limits. Otherwise, we can*t really call ourselves a
community city who puts the interest of its citizens first, with the
family at the center.
Given all of these concerns, please reconsider the determination made in
the letter dated March 1,2001, from Gary L. Sieb, AICP, to Mr. Glenn
Harvey, of our subdivision. So what, if the *dedicatory language on the
plat ...places no restrictions on access to Wynnpage*? Maybe that
oversight on the plat should be corrected. We should all be asking if
it is right to have the City provide unrestricted access to a private
party without due consideration being given to the residents of the
subdivision. I don*t believe that just because *no restrictions* were
delineated on the plat, the City has a green light to proceed against
what a community believes is a waste of land and resources...not to say
generation of a potentially hazardous nuisance. However, if the City
has a vision for development of this land, please share this with those
people impacted. What is the long term gameplan here? Does it make
sense or is the goal really a moving target? I believe that we could
make our city a better place to live if we would weigh the opinions of
the residences against new business interests before making final
decisions about land use and perceived *improvements.* I believe that
the intentions of the final plat (one exhibit of the legal letter
referenced earlier) have been grossly misrepresented by Mr. Sieb*s March
letter. In my opinion, the intentions appear to be that the City and
public utilities retained the right to access existing easements...how
is a private business part of the City operations and/or public
utilities service? Why does the City need the cut-through, really? Is
there a better way to achieve the City*s objective?
On a final note, if Mr. Sieb and the City Attorney, Mr. Bob Hagar would
like to consider the ramifications of their decision making in our
particular situation, perhaps they should read up on the people in
Oregon who passed *Measure 7" (requiring state and local governments to
reimburse property owners for the loss of value caused by state and
local regulations). I found this very interesting, but would hope such
a measure would not be necessary in our community.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Thank you
for listening with regard to my concerns of the future safety and
welfare of the children of our community and the sanity of their
parents.
Kindest Regards,
Ms. Cynthia J. Kaleri
137 Hearthwood Drive
Coppell, Texas 75019