ST9902-CS050505Page 1 of 1
Ken Griffin - Re: 326/328 West Sandy Lake
From: Ken Griffin
To: Brad Reid
Date: 5/5/2005 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: 3261328 Nest Sandy Lake
Brad
This deals with some trees on the north side of the road by Summerplace Subdivision. Apparently we
required the trimming of trees in the City R/W. Now there is an issue about who should pay. I copied
you on the original email because I mentioned that Laurie may want to contact you because of your
contract with Golden Tree.
The trees that we hope to plant behind, before they are removed, are on the south side from Verizon to
Coppell Road south. We are not ready yet to proceed with planting those trees. However, when is a
good time of the year to plant trees?
Thanks
ken g
»> Brad Reid OS/OS/051:03 PM »>
Ken,
What is this all about? Should we proceed with removing these trees and planting new? Or is it too
early for this?
Brad
»> Ken Griffin 5/5 9:58 am »>
Laurie
The property at 326/328 West Sandy Lake was platted in 1999. At that time, they dedicated 25' of right
of way to the City for the future widening of Sandy Lake. Most of the trees on that site are in the 25'
dedicated and will be removed with the road project. However, that proj ect is not scheduled to begin
until late 2006.
Technically, I guess the trees are on property now controlled by the City. Brad Reid has a yearly
contract with Golden Tree for tree maintenance. He might be able to help on the tree trimming. If not,
let me know and I'll talk to Glenn and see if there is anything we can do about the trees.
Hope this helps.
Ken Griffin P. E.
Director ofEngineering/Public Works
972-304-3686
k~riffin(cr~,ci.coppell.tx.us
file://C:1Documents and SettingslradloolLocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise1427A3B57City_... 9/10/2009
Page 1 of 1
Ken Griffin - Re: 326/328 West Sandy Lake
From: Ken Griffin
To: Laurie Marshall
Date: 5/5/200511:3 8 AM
Subject: Re: 3261328 Nest Sandy Lake
Laurie
I'm not an expert on the tree ordinance but section 9-11-11-k of the Code of Ordinances addresses tree
trimming. It states that the "owner" shall prune streets that overhang the right of way. Technically, the
trees in question were in the right of way and that probably makes the City the "owner".
I really can't express an opinion on whether or not we or the adj acent property owner should have
trimmed them or if we should reimburse the property owner. You are probably moving into a legal
area and you may want to get Greg or Bobby's opinion.
ken g
»> Laurie Marshall OS/OS/0511:03 AM »>
Ken, Thank you for your prompt response. What the situation involves is that I sent a letter to Ms.
Petterson to trim one tree that was blocking the view of east bound traffic from Summer Place. Rupert
Keeping who does not own the property called Guy McClain after having all the trees cut and wants to
know why I made them cut the trees when they belonged to the City. My thought is that if they felt that
the City owned the trees, why did they cut them? We think that he is wanting us to reimburse him for
the cost of the trimming. I needed only one tree trimmed and Guy has approved the disposal of the
brush by Golden but I think Ms. Petterson should dispose of the clippings and pay the full cost of the
trim. What do you think since I had no idea that this was dedicated property. Would they still not be
responsible for the maintance?
Thank you,
Laurie
file://C:1Documents and SettingslradloolLocal SettingslTemplXPgrpwise1427A05C2City_... 9/10/2009