Loading...
Stratford Manor-CS 990130707 Cambridge Manor Lane ~"~-' Coppell, TX 75019 /~ 30 January 1999 Mr. Gary Sieb, Director of Plarming and Zoning Mr. Ken Grffli~ Director of Engineering ~Ir. Brad Reid, Depea:~u-~mt o~ Leisure Sera'ices City of Coppell PO Box 478 CoppelL TX 75019 Gentlemen, Having studied the information regarding Stratford Manor given to me by your departments, ! am hoping you would be kind enough to answer several questions before the expected final approval from City Council on 9 February. Besides a clari~ation about traffic safety which is most important, ! $~oulcl like to ~sk you about some inconsistencies ! have found between the developer's plans/plats submitted to your individual departments, as well as inconsistencies r~oted beh~een those plans and the plan submittnd to the Army Corps. I am sure these are merel,v oversights, but I think it important to be clear and consistent throughout. There are also some tree preservation issues that I feel need to be brought into alignment with the original tree ordinance and the conditions of the final approval from P&Z. I feel it is important that everyone-from citizens to staff to developer to Council-understand what we are approving, how t/tis project ~ proceed, and what we can expect the subdi~qsion to look 1/Ice at completion. I will try to be brief in my comments, but took the liberty of elaborating on some issues. Thanks for bearing with me through the details! 1. Construction Safety at Prince Edward Lane Does "the construction stage/' referred to in the P&Z approval, include the home construction stage also? Would the Cid' consider some sort of temporary barricade on Prince Edward, like one sees with a '~Detour" sign, during the initial construction phase? 2. 30' and 20' No Fill/No Build Easements I thirtk we all agree the original purpose of these easements was to try to preserve some of the natural beauty, wildlife, and privacy of this property by keeping a snu~ll, wooded buffer between the new subdivision and adjacent properties. Is it understood by the developer that all trees 3" and greater, not just the surveyed trees, are protected? Since cml), trees which have chartreuse flagging will be protected (Item 5, Tree General Notes), shouldn't all trees 3" and greater be flagged, not just surveyed trees? Should the words "No Cut" be included in the description of these easements to protect trees from later removal by homeowners? Would it be prudent to require snow fencing at the drip lines of those trees closest to the edge of these easements, just as the developer has agreed to do m the lower common area (Item 1, Tree General Notes)? YVhy no easement behind Lot 14A? Although not notated on the tree survey, there are trees in these areas. Why does the easement stop behind Lot 81] on the Grading Plan, yet behind Lot 6B on the Final Plat? In reality, P&Z called for an easement on any lot with existing trees (not any lot with a surveyed tree), so this easement should continue up to Deforest Road on both the eastern and western boundaries. Why aoes the Graa Pm Uow for to be placea wiam these No Fro/No suaa easementsj if "so directed by owner" (Item 4, Tree General Notes)? Does "No Build" include fences? 3. Tree Preservation in Yard Areas Although not notaEed on the tree survey, there are also many trees :3' and greater on the southern, higher portion of this property.. There is no reclamation taking place on this portion of the property, and according to the Cit)/s previous tree ordinance, all trees 3" and greater in required yard areas must be maintained. This has been done beautifully at The IVoodlands, Chaucer Estates, Austin Place, etc. However, according to the Grading Plan submitted to the City, this developer is proposing to pull dirt (and along with it, many trees) from the top of this subdi~qsion to fill the lower portion. They are asking to, in effect, destroy trees to destroy trees. I do not think we should agree to allow this. I understand the developer's obvious financial benefit, but this is a violation of our previous tree ordinance. Besides, with some lots requiring over 7' (feet!) of fill, there's not enough dirt at the top of this hill to fill the wetland anyway, so additional fill is going to need to be brought onto the site regardless. There is no doubt that working within the natural, existing grade elevations would require a more complex grading plan, and some trees will be lost to level building pads, achieve proper drainage, e~., but we could, at least, preserve as many of the trees as poss~le in required yard areas--especiall,v those in the 30' front yard where reclamation is not taking place. Wlay are we not requiring this developer to abide by this ordinance? (Incidentally, I have been asking about this issue ever since this development was first proposed, but have always been told eve .rything is preliminary, and conceptual and we could not be sure what their actual grading plans would show. I am now assuming that we can be reasonably sure what I have described is the developer's inlamt-please let me know ff I am in elTor). Can the specimen tree on Lot llA survive with the street covering half of its drip line? Has Texas Parks and YVildlife determined ff the two protected trees are indeed champions? If they are not, perhaps Council would consider not requiring their protection. It will be very, expensive to protect these trees, and their chances of survival are, quite frankly in my opinion, slim. ~ny end up with a big empty hole there after the tree has died? If, however, these trees are champions (or any tree on the property is), we need to protect 100% of its drip line. 4. Wetland Mitigation and Avoidance In Section 3.0 of the August 1998 Wetland Report submitted to the Army Corps by [Geo-Marme for] Brentwood Builders, Inc. as part of the federal permitting approval process (see attached), it is explained that in an effort to mmimJ~ the impact to the wetlands on site (and therefore Brentwood's required mitigation), two things were done to the original Stratford development proposal. First, the number of lots was decreased to avoid some wetland area. This has been reflected on the plat submitted to the City for approval. They then state, '~he second minimization was achieved by decreasing the depth of the lots to accommodate two green belis, oriented north-south, adjacent to the eastern and western property lines...Through these minimization tactics, a total of 0.855 acre of wetlands was avoided." I submit to you t_hAt the development plan the City is considering for final approval does not accurately reflect the second minimization commitment that was accepted by the Arm), Corps for permit approval The Final Plat provided to the City does not show a decrease in the depth of the lois with two green belts, but rather the same depth of lots with two easements (which do not even guarantee no cutting of trees). Also, the submitted Grading Plan is not true to the Corps report. The plan allows for ~l in the easement by the owner and, I believe, shows changes in the natural elevation of the easement in order to achieve drainage. For example, the easement behind Lot 16B (which is being used as a "credit" for wetland avoidance and preservation) normally holds water in a rain event at its lowest elevation of 450'. Behind my house, or Lot 18B, the land is higher. How will water flow from Lot 16, where the wetland is not to be disturbed, to Lot 18 behind my house as indicated by the drainage arrows on the Grading Plan? The Corps approved a plan which keeps the green belts at their natural grade and out of private hands. Why? The Corps report goes on to explain that t_he federal approval process requires perpetual protection of wetland function (water retention, plant growth, wildlife habitat, and so on). In fact, this must be formall,v monitored annually for compliance for five years and even more frequently the first few years. Success cannot be monitored or enforced on private property,, thus the reason for reducing the 10t depth and creating two green belts. It must be accessible, just as the large common area at the north end. Shouldn't we, as a City, only approve a final plat which reflects the plans and commitments submitted to the Army Corps and accepted as a condition for federal permitting approval? 5. Street Construction Over 30' Wooded Easement How will Prince Edward Lane cross over the tree easement? How will grass planted on the raised street be irrigated? ~Vould the Cid' consider an alternate design, such as bringing the sidewalk adjacent to the street and omitting the grass strip such as on MacArthur Boulevard by The Peninsulas? TI~ would eliminate the need for irri§ation and decrease the total width o{ tree destruction required {or construction. Wouldn't itbe beautiful to drive through a canopy of trees as y'ou enter into Stratford Manor? To keep fill only within the street easement, will a slope exceeding 2:1 be created, thus requiring a retaining wall as stated on the Grading Plan? ! believe a wall would require the least removal of trees, and again, would eliminate the need to irrigate the grass on the slope. My husband has an additional concern. YVith the street more than 4' higher than the forest floor, he is afraid kids (ours, in particular!) would use the two slopes as bike and skateboard jumping ramps. We are afraid rios is creating an on-going problem and safety concern. Would the City consider retaining walls and hand rails, such as on a bridge, as the safest and most aesthetic design for this portion of the street? 6. Miscellaneous (finally!) Will there be pavers at the main entrance into Stratford? Will there be subdivision name identification at the main entrance into Stratford? If not, can a temporary sign be erected to alert construction vehicles? Thank you vex3,, very much for taking the trane to address these issues. I know you are all quite busy, but I'm hoping, that in the long rrm, a few minutes spent now will eliminate the need for hours of work later. I look forward to hearing back from you in the near future! Sincerely, Tracey Carman 972-393-0609, phone and fax Enclosures cc: Mayor Candy Sheehan Councilmembers lVtr. Jim Witt, City Manager Mr. Rick Ellis, ECM HOA President Homeowners, as requested