GTE/Re,MP,SPRv-CS 990115COPPELL, TEXAS 75019
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
972-462-0022
January 15, 1999
Mr. Gillett Berger
BECK Realty Group
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 3800
Dallas, Texas 75201-4619
RE: Proposed Landscaping Revisions--GTE Site, Coppell, Texas
Dear Gillett:
Thank you for your letter of January 11,1999 addressing several landscaping concerns
with the GTE project. I would like to respond to each of the issues outlined in your
correspondence item by item, and will utilize the same numbering system as submitted.
Formal Planting Design: Both Mesa and GTE Maintenance comments are
well taken. Mesa's statement that they need to comply with the plan as
approved with only minor deviations needs to be honored or new heatings
would be necessary.
2. Oak Wilt Susceptibility: Bur Oak is acceptable and is on the City's Plant
Palette.
Bleeding Necrosis: Sweetgum (Liquidamber) was not required by the City, it
is just one of many trees on our plant palette. A substitute from that palette
would be welcome here; we are discouraging Sweetgum use in new projects.
°
Spacing of Chinese Pistache: As long as the trees planted are on the palette,
and the total number corresponds with the approved plan, you will comply
with our ordinances. Mesa's arguments seem valid.
5. Turfgrass Loss: Lawn grasses can be changed to palette listed groundcovers.
6. Rows of Red Oaks: I believe Mesa and Mr. Bolte have resolved this issue. I
would only state that the City did not mandate Red Oaks at this location.
7. Irrigation Bubblers: Not our issue.
8. Tree Pit Backfill: Not our issue.
9. Standpipe Depth: Not our issue.
10. Standpipe Construction: Not our issue.
11. Shade Induced Turf Grass Loss: As a general rule, we allow either grass or
groundcover. However, during the public hearing process the area along 121
was presented as being covered with groundcover (a plant material the City
prefers, by the way). I can not sign off on changing it because of the vast area
shown as a groundcover, and the fact that it has major exposure to a very
heavily traveled public street where appearance is important to the City. We
have found that mowing berms covered in grass has not produced the
appearance represented in public hearings, and we are discouraging
developers from including grass covered berms--we prefer the solution you
have presented to us: groundcover. To change that would require Council
approval.
12. Increased Mowing Costs: Not our issue.
13. Dwarf Burford Holly Hedge: The hedge is to screen the parking of vehicles
and as long as the plants are initially 30" high, spacing is not important to us
as long as they screen the parking area.
14. Asian Jasmine Encroachment: Not our issue.
15. Holly Placement Unclear: Not our issue.
16. Excessive Irrigation Runoff: Not our issue.
17. Shade Induced Turfgrass Loss: Not our issue although I would add that all
landscaping must be kept in a healthy and growing condition.
18. Maxicom Compatibility: Not our issue.
19. Irrigation Zone Segregation: Not our issue.
20. Irrigation System Efficiency: Not our issue.
21. Cost Savings...: Not our issue regarding Mr. Bolte's comments, but Mesa
must realize that removing plant material from an approved plan is not
allowed.
22. Mirafi Specifications: Not our issue.
23. Specimen Trees Availability: Not our issue.
24. Site Drainage: Not our issue.
25. Quick Coupler Connections: Not our issue.
26. Irrigation Head Spacing: Not our issue.
27. Lack of Looped Mainline: Not our issue.
28. Guywire Discrepancy: Not our issue.
29. Generator Area: Please see our comments under item #21.
As a general comment, the irrigation, substitution of plant materials, and drainage
comments appear to be relatively minor changes to the project, and do not require
additional Council action. Where we would need to go back to Council is in those areas I
do not feel comfortable in altering without Council consent (see items #1,11,13 and 21,
for example).
To specifically address your question regarding a change of plant material on the berms
adjacent to 121, and expanding on my response to item #11, you will recall that the
Council expressed great interest in this project and asked several questions regarding
siting of the buildings, type of construction material, number of parking spaces and their
appearance, and landscaping. In addition, the Council specifically asked how this
building would appear fi.om 121, how high it would be, how far from adjacent roads and
what type of landscaping would be included along the 121 frontage roads. I took some
time to describe the project to the Council and I can not make changes to my
representations at that public meeting without going back to Council for their
endorsement. Thus, if you want to change-out the ground cover along 121, that will
require Council action.
I believe your final concern related to watering of plant material if another dry summer
awaits us in 1999. We do allow variances to our water conservation plan for newly
planted vegetation, which is administered by our Public Works staff. A formal letter of
request to Public Works at the time of requested watering would initiate that procedure.
To summarize then, I do not see any major problems with the majority of items listed
above as long as City requirements are followed, i.e., replacing one plant material with
another listed on our plant palette. Because of the magnitude of a change in planting on
the 121 frontage road, the visual effect such a change would make, and the overall impact
it would have on the entire project, Council action would be required.
I believe I have addressed all the concerns of your January 11 letter, Gillette, so before
I develop permanent writer's cramp, I'll end this epistle!
additional information, please contact me at your convenience.
G~iry L./Sieb, A.I.C.P.
D~rectot~ of Planning and Community Services
cc: Jim Witt~
If you have questions or need