Cambridge Phase 1-CS 971022 any additional homeowners' dues until this work was done) Yet here we still are. over a year
later, with common areas looking even more disgraceful (though many lot closings brought a tidy
sum to the developer) We cannot understand how the City excuses this unsightly mess.
especially considering the number of City staff that visits Cambridge Manor on a regular basis to
perform their duties. We now must officially ask you to require Beamer Development to, at long
last, bring the common area landscaping up to minimum maintenance standards. ,
3. Large amounts of f'dl have washed into retention pond. ~/~..
There have been reported incidence(s?) of fill being dumped into the 6-acre retention pond. This,
combined with the fact that grass has never grown around the pond to prevent soil erosion, has
raised the very real concern that the pond no longer meets engineering specifications of required
valley storage for the subdivision. In fact, even the developer has stated the lake will be dredged.
We would greatly appreciate some sort of confirmation from the Engineering Department that the
pond will meet required specs, as well as who will be responsible for the dredging and when that
will take place. We would also ask that the City delay no longer in requiring grass or other
ground cover (not to include 3-feet high weeds) to be planted around the pond, and then ensure
does indeed take root.
4. Wooden screening fence at subdivision entry in state of disrepair.
~!~1~ ~ There are two parts to this item. The first is that Beamer Development has allowed th~
Cambridge Manor main entry to fall into a state of disrepair and ordinance ~n'olation, even to the
point of being dangerous. (Several cluster mailboxes are also breaking apart and dangerous.
Beamer chose to ignore residents' numerous requests to repoint the masonry work a~ound the
boxes before causing injury to a child. The two worst boxes were fuuflly repaired when the
Postmaster at the Coppell Post Office threatened to stop mail delivery because of possible injury
to postal workers. The remaining mailboxes, however, are still not repaired though stones hayer\
fallen completely out) ~
The second point is that this screening wall should never have been made of wood, but rather
should have been constructed of brick or stone (unless otherwise approved by the Council), as i~\
is located at the subdivision entry features (Screening Ordinance, Section 33 I SE)
Apparently, Beamer Development at some point chose to set back the Cambridge Manor front
entryway features further than was originally depicted in the approved PD. The developer then
realized this precipitated a need to construct a wall to screen the adjacent property which was
zoned Agricultural, and being used as such for the keeping of farm animals. (Piles of"evidence"
still remain!) In addition to front entries, the City Screening Ordinance (Section 33-1.1) also
mandates a masonry screening wall to be provided fora single-family residential district when
adjacent to the side ora non-residential use. (Incidentally, a case could probably be made that a
wall should have been constructed for Phase Il, and possibly even Phase I, along the Birdsongproperty line also, but that's another letter).
At any rate, it seems Beamer Development was instead allowed by Planning & Zoning to erect a
"temporary" wooden screening wall at the subdivision entry. A building permit is not on file, no