Peninsulas/FP-CS 950203February3, 1995
TO THE CITY OF COPPELL:
You might remember that I previously spoke to the Planning and Zoning Board several months
ago about the MacArthur Park addition zoning. As you know, the proposed site has numerous and
beautiful large hardwood trees that warrant passive and active care to help assure that the maximum effort
is made to safely protect as many of these trees as possible. This effort during the entire site development
and construction phase will help preserve a priceless commodity that is quickly diminishing in Coppell. I
am requesting that the Planning Review Committee, the Planning and Zoning Board, and the City
Council address the following concerns associated with MacArthur Park:
1) Where do we stand regarding the developmem retaining and actively using a licensed
arborist for the site? The initial tree survey and the shade master preliminary consulting report were good
for starters however the following items are needed in the final plat to assure full tree protection
implementation:
a) The tree exhibit drawing (originally dated in February, 1994) should be
updated to reflect current proposed rerouted streets etc.;
b) The February 19, 1994 tree protection guideline needs to be implememed as
stated. What was preliminarily done was a start, however, no apparent written commitment by the
developer has been done in the plat package to implement "Exhibit 1" of the tree protection guideline (i.e.
completed tree survey, "Hard-hat for Trees" Program, finalize tree care recommendations, tree protection
signage/fencing, etc.). NOTE: These areas need to be pinned down prior to the final approval so that
developer and builders are committed to protecting designated trees from start to finish;
c) City needs to designate who and how the implementation in the field of
compliance of the protection of designated trees will be carried out!
d) The sample "tree survey" should be fully completed and made part of the final
plat submission package. NOTE: Apparently at present, no tree has been formally committed for saving
during the development process.
2)
above?
How will the individual builders implement and adhere to comments discussed in Item 1
3)
fill impact?
What are the proposed site fill details and has the arborist been consulted on tree versus
As can be seen, the above comments raise numerous ~tuestions and/or actions. Quite frankly, I
was surprised that no apparent follow-up tree documentation was part of the final plat submission
package. My hope along with other neighbors and concerned citizens of Coppell is that the City will do
its part to address the above concerns before final plat approval and construction takes place. Let me
convey my appreciation for your efforts thus far and anticipated actions in the near future to have
MacArthur Park be a beautiful native wooded community.
One unrelated item but one of concern for site (especially for homeowners having to view
development daily) involves the fence requirements along the Southern portion of property that back up to
the creek. Can a requirement for a like, open wrought iron fence be mandatory for all lots along the creek
once individual homeowners put in a fence by means of a clause in the deed restrictions? Similar
mandates were done along the lake in the Waterford development.
Thank you again for your help and consideration for these requests.
Sincerely,
Bruce Hedeman
616 DeForest
Coppell, Texas 75019