Responses in oppositionPLANNING & ZONING MEETING: 7/17/94 COUNCIL ~t
REPLY FOR THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASS NO.: S- 1084R, Kwik Kar
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 Departmem
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:
~ ~e ~c~' ' '
Signature:
Address:
Phone #:
Co ?A c &. .:~:, 75o:'5
PLANNING & ZONING MEETING: 7/17/~4 COUNCIL MEET~
REPLY FOR THE PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSIOn/
CASENO.: S-1084R, Kwik Kar
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
( )f
I am in favor of this plan.
I am opposed to this plan.
I am undecided about this plan.
My comments are as follows:
Signature:
Address:
Phone #:
October 14, 1997
City of Coppell, Texas
Attention: City Council
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re~
Planning & Zoning Change Request By Kwik Industries, Inc.;
Case No. S-2084P.. Kwik Kar
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Each of the undersigned residents of the City of Coppell, Texas (the "City"), by this letter files
its opposition to the requested zoning variances requested by Kwik Industries, Inc. ("KII") in the
referenced case (the "Variance Request"). For the reasons set forth below, and others as given
individually at the public meetings of the Planning & Zoning Commission (including the Planning and
Zoning Department, the "Commission") and the City Council (the "Council") meeting on October
14, 1997, each of the undersigned request that the Council carefully consider the Variance Request
and reject the Variance Request in its entirety.
1. KII's Record of Zoning Compliance As indicated in previous meetings of the
Commission and even admitted in KII's "retort" to the Commission dated September 19, 1997 (the
"KII Letter"), KII is not in compliance with present zoning ordinances. Current electrical utility
service to KII's property (the "Property") is provided by means of an overhead power line which fails
to meet standards established by the City prior to development of KII's site. KII has refused to
remedy this violation. Additionally, the signage on the Property does not meet current City standards.
While this signage has been the subject of much discussion by the Council and even has resulted in
an amendment to the City's ordinances, KII has indicated that it will not change its signage as
recommended by the Commission. Finally, KII admits in its letter that it is presently using portable
signs which are not permitted by current City sign regulations. This is an admission of intentional
noncompliance with City codes.
2. Mitigation of Environmental and Aesthetic Damage is Insufficient. The Commission
has recommended that KII construct a screening wall on top of the retaining wall required for the
west side of the Property. KII has refused to construct the recommended screening wall. Also, three
large oak trees will be destroyed to make room for KII's additional parking spaces. KII's proposal
to substitute five small redbud trees for the removed oaks is an inadequate replacement of decades
of natural growth Additionally, the Variance Request does not provide for replacement of any
additional trees which may be irreparably damaged by the proposed construction. Neither does the
Variance Request address the additional problems of erosion and lack of proper maintenance evident
on the Property. A cursory look at the west side of the Property shows high weeds, a lack of any
cogent landscaping plan and evidence of unmitigated erosion of topsoil into the creek at the back of
the Property These problems are not fully addressed in the Variance Request and, given KII's
current track record, will likely continue.
3 Ori~nal Planing & Zoning Recommendation Was to Deny Zoning Approval. The staff
report of the Commission, considered by the Council on August 9, 1994, stated that "the use
[requested by KII] may not be appropriate Considering all these issues, it appears that the negative
potential of this use somewhat outweighs the positive benefits to be derived from the proposal, and
staffwould recommend that this SLIp be denied (I)n the final analysis, it just does not fit the general
use category of our Master Plan, nor the conceptual image suggested by the streetscape plan." It
appears that having overcome the Comrmssion's recommendation against approval in 1994, now KII
is back with a more objectionable plan than was even originally anticipated.
The Council would be justified in rejecting KII's requests for any one of the above stated
reasons. Clearly, it should not reward KII's clear refusal to abide by the spirt of the City's ordinances
and Master Plan. Additionally, the city must protect homeowners from encroaching piecemeal
commercial development when that same development would not be permitted if presented in a single
new proposal. To allow objectionable development in small doses would subject surrounding
neighborhoods to a "death of a thousand cuts," none significant separately, but collectively lethal.
We.;prespectfully urge that, the Variance Request be denied.<~/'~t-- ...~'
Na~me:}~'"o~e,~ O. /~/'1,o e ~ Name: ff~
Address: ~430 t0~L.eX C/~. ('ot'3-/-~T-<, Address: ¢7q' ~ ~'.
C f. Address:
ame:
Address:
Name:
Address:
Address:
Name:
Address:
Name:
Address:
Address: 3-&~' (~e~ I t ~ 0_...'-~.
2
This is to inform all interested parties that we stlLoJ]gly oppose expansion of the Kwik
Lube on Denton Tap We feel the removal of several oak trees as well as the closer
proximity of a car lube to residential homes will cause hardship, loss of privacy, and hurt
resale values in our exclusive area.
This is to inform all interested parties that we 51rg~gly_ oppose expansion of the Kwik
Lube on Denton Tap We feel the removal of several oak trees as well as the closer
proximity ora car lube to residential homes will cause hardship, loss of privacy, and hurt
resale values m our exclusiye area
Lube on Denlo, 'rap We f¢¢1 th: removal ol'sc¥cral oak trees ~ wc, a* the closer
rede values ~ our exdusiYe area. /