Stratford Mnr/FP-CS 9901307.07 Cambridge Manor Lane
CoppelL TX 75019
30 January 1999
Mr. Gary Sieb, Director of Plam~g and Zoning
Mr. Ken Griff, t, Director of Engineering
Mr. Brad Reid, Department of Leisure Services
City of Coppell
PO Box 478
CoppelL TX 75019
Having studied the information regarding Stratford Manor given to me by your departments, I
am hoping you would be kind enough to answer several questions before the expected final
approval from City Council on 9 February.
Besides a clarification about traffic safety which is most important, I would like to ask you about
some inconsistencies I have found between the developer's plans/plats submitted to your
individual departments, as well as inconsistencies noted between those plans and the plan
submitted to the Army Corps. I am sure these are merely 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 this project will proceed, and what we can expect the subdivision to look like 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 Bdward Lane
Does "the construction stage/' referred to in the P&Z approval, include the home construction
stage also? ~ ' * '~ "-- "/~'~
Would the City consider some sort of temporary barl~_cade on Prince Edward, like one sees with
a "Detour" sign, during the initial construction phase? --~ ~i~ ~ ~-'"~.' :~ ~ '~ ~'~ ~'
2. 30' and 20' No Fill/No Build Easements
I think 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 small, wooded buffer
between the new subdivision and adjacent properties.
t.i,. ! Is it understood by the developer that all trees 3" and greater, not just the surveyed trees, are
Since only 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 easement~ to protect trees
from later removal by homeownem?
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 tins agreed to do in the lower common area Citem 1, Tree
Why no easement behind
Lot 14A?/Although not notated on the tree survey, there are trees in~
Why does the easement stop behind Lot 8B on the~Grading .Plan, yet behind Lot 6B on the Firml
Plat?
In reality, P&Z c~lled for ~n easement on ~nv. lot with existing trees (not ~ny lot with a surveye ,d
tree), so this easement should continue up to Deforest Road on both the eastern and western
boundaries.
Why does the Grading Plan allow for f/Il to be placed within these No Fill/No
ff "so directed by owner" (Item 4, Tree General Notes~?
Does "No Build" include re'rices?.
3. Tree Preservation in Yard Areas
Although not notated on the tree survey, there are also many trees 3" and greater on the
southern, higher l~ortion_ of this property. There is no reclamation taking place, on this portion
the property, and ~Ccordmg to the City's~previous tree ordmsnce, all trees 3' and greater in
required yard area~~, must be maintained.' This has been done~ beautifully at The Woodlm~ ds, ~
Chaucer Estates, Austin Place, et~.
oweve , a o,a g to the Grad to the aty, developer is prg ing to '
pull dirt (and along with it, rn~ny trees) from the top of this subdivision to fill the lower portion.
They are asking to, in effect, destroy trees to destroy trees. I do not think we s~ould agree to
allow this. I undemtand the developer's obvious financial benefit, but ~ is a~tiolation of our
previous tree ordinmlce..~ _~sides, with some lot~ requiring over 7' (feelS) of ~l,~there's not
enough dirt' at the top of thisiffil to fill the wetlands. , anyway,~ ~ ~ ~ so additional fill is ~oing to need to
There is no doubt that working within the natural, existing grade elevations would require a
more complex grading plan, ~nd some trees will be lost to level building pads, achieve proper
drairmge, e~c., but we could, at least, preserve as many of the trees as possible in required yard
areas--especially those in the 30' front yard where reclamation is not taking place. Why are we
not requiring this developer to abide by this ordinance?
(Incidentally, I have been asking about this issue ever since this development was fi~t
proposed, but have always been told everything is preliminmT 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 intent-please let me know if I am in
error).
Can the specimen tree on Lot llA survive with the street covering half of its drip line? '/ {T '!. :5['
:' ': .. ':" -t.2: .~'. ' ' : ,'/~'i ,' ~ .... , , .' '. ....../. Z
Has Texas Parks and Wildlife determined ff the two protec%ed trees are indeed champions? If
they are not, perhaps Council would consider not requiring their protection. It will be very
expensxve to profit these trees, and their chances of survival are, quite frankly in my opinion,
slim. Why end up with a big empty hole there after the tree has died? If, however, these trees
axe champions (or any tree on the property is), we need to protect 100% of its drip line. ~-'
4. Wetland Mitigation and Avoidance
In Section $.0 of the August 1998 Wetland Report submitted to the Army Corps by [Geo-Marine
for] Brentwood Bttilders, Inc. as part of the federal permitting approval process (see attached), it
is explained that in an effort to minimize the impact to the wetlan& on site (and therefore
Brentwood's required nu'tigation), 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, '°Phe second
minimization was achieved by decreasing the depth of the lots to accommodate two green belts,
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 that the development plan the City is considering for final approval does not
accurately reflect the second minimization commitment that was accepted by the Army Corps
for permit approval The Final Plat provided to the City does not show a decrease in the depth
of the lots with two green belts, but rather the same depth of lots with two easements (which do
not even guarantee no cutting of trees). ~:!:" I - ii:' ~
Also, the submitted Grading Plan is not true to the Corps reporL The Plan allows for fill 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
"credi~' 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 bel~ at their natural grade and out of private
hands. Why? The Corps report goes on to explain that the federal approval process requires
perpetual protection of wetland function (water retention, plant growth, wildlife habitat, and so
on). In fact, tlm must be formally 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 lot 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 reflecls the plans and commitments
submitted to the Army Corps and accepted as a condition for federal permitting approval?
5. Street Construction Over 30' Wooded P~asoment
How will Prince Edward Lane cross over the tree easement?
How will grass planted on the raised street be irrigated? ,'
V~ould the City 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? This would
eliminate the need for irrigation and decrease the total width of tree desi~'uction required for
construction. Wouldn't it be beautiful to drive through a canopy of trees as you enter into
~crafford 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? I 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. With 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 this is creating an on-going problem and safety concern.
Would the City consider retain~g walls and hand rails, such as on a bridge, as the safest and - ~.d~i:!'. ~'~'
most aesthetic design for this portion of the street?
6. Miscellaneous (finally. I)
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 veb_~cles?
Thank you very, very much for taking the time to address these issues. I know you are all quite
busy, but I'm hoping, that in the long run, 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 Garman
~~ phone ~d f~
H~ndosures
CC:
Mayor Candy Sheehan
Councilmembers
Mr. Jim Witt, City Manager
Mr. Rick Ellis, ECM HOA President
Homeowners, as requested