Loading...
PD183-NR000420 (2)PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: 4/20/00 corn'qcm REPLY FOR THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMI~ CAS . NO..' PD-183, CoooeH Hioh School C and SF-12 to PD-C The City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission would like to receive your comments on this case in order that it may make a better informed recommendation to the City Council. If you desire to express an opinion, please complete this reply form and return it to the following address by the date of the Public Hearing: City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Department P.O. Box 478 Coppell, TX 75019 This reply form in no way affects your right to attend the Public Hearing, and we encourage all interested parties to attend and comment if they wish. If you have any questions pertaining to the case, please call the Planning Department at 304-3677. REPLY ( ) I am in favor of this plan. '~ I am opposed to this plan. ( ) I am undecided about this plan. My comments are as follows: .,J f. f/ ~ 0 ]ff ~ '- James K. Kendrick 331 Martel Lane Coppell, TX 75019 (972) 304-8131 April 19, 2000 City of Coppell Planning & Zoning Commission 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 once again in receipt of your notice in which you invited my comments as an impacted residential homeov~er to the proposed zoning variance request. Let me also state that I had every intention of attending any and all public hearings regarding this issue, but through the cancellations, postponements, and failure to secure a definitive date from William O. Echols, I once again find myself out of town with plans that can not be changed. Please be advised that I remain in full opposition to the requested variance. To begin, I would like to thank Mr. Echols and his representative from Glen Engineering for their time and consideration in meeting with our representatives to discuss possible alternatives to the required masonry fence. The residents subsequently conducted several lengthy meetings to evaluate this matter and reach a consensus. The charts and exhibits provided were very helpful in our understanding of the project, the school's needs, as well as their intentions. This information helped each homeowner assess and measure the impact to their respective property and privacy. With the aid of the information provided as discussed above, I have considered all possible alternatives presented and remain convinced the Ci~r of Coppell is correct in requiring masonry (brick) fencing along the CISD property line with Copperstone. My objections are based on the following which I urge you to once again consider individually and collectively in your decision to oppose the requested variance. Aesthetics Masonry (brick) fences are very attractive and, as such, are the standard in Coppell. Virtually every major road and commercial establishment is lined with brick partitions, which from our perspective, adds privacy delineation utilizing a natural attractive setting. A substantial portion of Coppell High School is, today, lined by masonry (brick) fences. Sound Insulation There is no question that a masonry solid fencing structure provides enhanced sound insulation against congested commercial type traffic and activity. Automobiles will be driving/parking approximately 300 feet from the property line of some residents during day and evening hours, Ci~' of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission April 19; 2000 Page 2 often past midnight. This will include racing engines, slamming car doors and headlights pointing directly into the back yards of residents. It is for this reason, the City of Coppell zoning standard is, and has been, specific requiring a masonry fence as opposed to less expensive and less viable alternatives. In a related note, I was quite surprised with the recent change in the position of the CISD when I learned, based on their diagrams, CISD is now planning a chain link fence with plastic/metal slats and plants. At the last P&Z meeting, CISD clearly indicated an intention to install an omamental iron fence surrounded by shrubbery. It appears CISD has lowered its commitment to the quality of the partition. This gesture has only served to widen the differences as opposed to resolving them. In my opinion, chain link fences are unattractive barriers and not becoming of Coppell's standards. I do note, and very much appreciate, the offer by the CISD to adorn the chain link fence with shrubbeD'. However, I remain concerned as to the adequacy of shrubbery to provide adequate sound protection. Further, and with all due respect, the CISD has shown little care and upkeep for ornamental shrubbery planted elsewhere on the campus. This was evidenced at the first P&Z meeting held to discuss this proposal when other bordering homeowxters testified their concerns regarding broken promises by CISD to provide and maintain landscaping. Understanding of Financing and Project Costs I remain both concerned and confused as to the monetary aspects of this issue. In statements made to the P&Z, CISD's opposition to building the masonry fence is based primarily on the need to save approximately $165,000 within the overall construction project. I am uncertain whether CISD underbudgeted the cost of the High School project as presented to the voters of Coppell, and intend to use the savings from this variance in code requirements to help offset cost overruns? Or was the project budgeted from the onset to build a fence below' the standards required by the City of Coppell with full expectation of attaining a variance from the P&Z? Wouldn't the cost of replacing the "astro turf" of the football stadium or the cost of the new indoor athletic facility provide a broader base of funds in which to find a savings of $165,000? We have held discussions with real estate agents that have verified that the encroachment of the High School parking facility and tennis courts, without the benefit of an adequate sound insulating protective structure, will have a negative impact on the values of the residents of Copperstone Estates. Hence, any savings attained by the CISD through variance request, will clearly be achieved to the detriment of the homeowners. Ironically, resulting declines in property values will decrease property tax revenues for which the CISD relies on to fund its operations. The one time additional $165,000 cost of the masonry fence will be a very small portion of the City of Coppell's and the CISD's recurring lost revenues year after year. High School - Commercial Property Coppell High School could be considered the largest, most congested commercial establishment within the City of Coppell. Activities and therefore vehicular traffic, occur on campus grounds virtually seven days a week from approximately 6:30 a.m. to well past midnight. Both school- related and non school-related commercial ventures occur on campus on a routine basis. These Ci~' of Coppell Planning and Zoning Commission April 19, 2000 Page 3 commercial functions are supported by buses, commercial deliver), vehicles, maintenance vehicles, not to mention regular auto traffic. During normal business hours, from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., I would estimate there are more vehicles in the Coppell High School parking lot than at any other commercial establishment in the City of Coppell, bar none. Sporting events and other activities continue late into the evenings at the High School, well past hours when most commercial establishments are closed. Any other commercial facility would be required to construct a masonry fence separating it from residential communities to preserve the quality of those residences. Is it unreasonable for homeowners adjacent to a High School expect less support for their property and privacy? In closing, let me assure you that I am fully supportive of Coppell High School, the CISD and the City of Coppell. This has been illustrated by the desire to purchase a home and live here, placing our children in CISD schools including the High School. I simply ask for fairness. I ask that our home values and our privacy be preserved. I once again ask for your help and urge you to support the existing code requirements and mandate the construction of a masonry fence as so stipulated. Thank you for your time and consideration. Since/re~~ 'J.~nes K. Kendrick C: Copperstone HOA - Don Carter, Lisa Young, Tim Lassiter, Gary Josephson Copperstone Committee