Loading...
Cambridge Phase 1-CS 970916 ~' ~ ~ -- P.O. Box 478 .r~' ~ ~ Coppell. Texas 75019 ..__ ..... The City With A Beautiful Future 2!4-462-0022 VIA FACSIMILE September 16, 1997 Jack Bommarito Beamer Development 834 Lockhaven Lane Coppell, Texas 75019 RE: Cambridge Manor Dear Mr. Bommarito: On Tuesday morning I called your office to make you aware of a letter the City has received regarding homeowners' concerns regarding the development of Cambridge Manor. I have enclosed a copy of that letter for your review, and have checkmarked those areas that I would like to discuss with you at your convenience. Please give me a call at 304-3618 so we can set up an appropriate time to review this situation, in order to ascertain each other's position with regard to the claims made in this letter. ~~ity Manager JW:kb (7 pages to follow) cc: Ken Griffin Greg Jones Gary Sieb 707 Cambridge Manor Lane Coppell, TX 75019 \ 12 September 1997 Mr. Jim Witt, City Manager City of Coppeli 255 Parkway Boulevard .., ..... Coppell, TX 75019 .................. Dear Mr. Will, As per my conversations both this week and last with Deputy City Manager Phillips, I am submitting to you on behalf of the residents of The Estates of Cambridge Manor, items we feel currently to be in violation of city ordinance within the subdivision. We have attempted over the last year to persuade the developers, Jack Bommarito and Wilson MacDonald of Beamer Development, and more recently, the Planning & Zoning and Building Inspections Departments, to bring the subdivision up to minimum required standards. We have, unfortunately, had very little success in our endeavors and find ourselves living in a subdivision that the City never required the developer to finish and has allowed to be run down into an unsightly state of disrepair. We are now appealing to you in hopes that you might investigate the following items, and if found to be true, hold the developer responsible for compliance with city code within the next 30 days. 1. Subdivision landscaping never completed. Adjacent to Cambridge Manor Lane in the northern common area (near the hike-bike trail easement) and, more importantly, around the 6-acre retention pond, trees were never planted as indicated in PD-I 31. This landscaping would provide shade, soil stability, and privacy to residents who live next to these common areas, and yet three years after City Council's approval, this landscaping has yet to be done. It is our understanding from Section 34-1-4 of the Zoning Ordinance that prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all screening and landscaping should have been in place. This developer is now beginning Phase II of Cambridge Manor, with landscaping from Phase I still not complete. We ask that the City require immediate completion of landscaping. 2. Common area landscaping, which was done initially, is now either dead or in an unsightly state. Over the last year and a half, Beamer Development has allowed common areas to become overrun with weeds, dead trees, shrubs, and flowers, litter, and grass that is completely taking over what used to be flowerbeds. Vacant lots currently are fields, growing weeds over 4 feet high. Again, the handful of homeowners, most of whom had only moved in just last year, tried to persuade the developer to bring the landscaping up to minimum City standards (refusing to pay 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 fill 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 it does indeed take root. 4. Wooden screening fence at subdivision entry in state of disrepair. There are two parts to this item. The first is that Beamer Development has allowed the Cambridge Manor main entry to fall into a state of disrepair and ordinance violation, 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 around the boxes before causing injury to a child. The two worst boxes were finally 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 have 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 it is located at the subdivision entry features (Screening Ordinance, Section 33-1.8E). 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 for a single-family residential district when adjacent to the side of a non-residential use. (Incidentally, a case could probably be made that a wall should have been constructed for Phase II, and possibly even Phase I, along the Birdsong property 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 doubt because the wall was considered an extension of the entDr, however the temporal' wooden fence has never been upgraded to brick or stone. ,M'ter our inquiry...', Mr. Greg Jones, Building Inspections, said the fence would be removed on or before 6 September 1997 (,to date, not vet done), but did not require proper completion of the subdMsion entD' with masonry construction. We ask the City to now' require the screening wall be brought up to "permanent" screening wall standards for the front entry of a subdivision. (There was some indication that since the adjacent agricultural property to the east has been sold, probably for residential development, there is no need for the screening wall now. We must emphasize that this does not exonerate Beamer Development from its prior obligation, and had the City required immediate compliance at construction, this would not even be an issue). $. Paving materials not used in street at Cambridge Manor entry as indicated on approved PD and stipulated by Zoning Ordinance, Section 33-1.8E (unless waived, in exceptional cases, by City Council). Although we understand that the PD designation does give the Director of Planning & Zoning the flexibility to make minor revisions to an approved PD, even allowing him to decide what is a major or a minor revision, it does not grant him the authority to violate other city ordinances when doing so. Also, the flexibility of the PD cannot be misused to do anything harmful to the neighborhood, and by extension, the City (Section 27). We think you would agree that City staff should also not show prejudice to any particular developer and certainly should not take the liberty of making an amendment to an approved PD that ordinance requires be approved by City Council. When inquiring why the Estates of Cambridge Manor had no pavers at the front entry (as indicated on the PD) which are used to beautify the entries at many other subdivisi.o~n~s all over Coppell such as 9ie Cedar, Shadow RidF~' Est,a..J~, and more recently, T~w;~dlan~.The Springs, and Q_[d' Colxpen [;~tate-s, I'Was tol'd l~:l~lr. Sieb that Beamer Deve~-p'm-en'l-'~i~ exonerated from the paver requirement to help "free up some marketing cash." Ia this instance, we feel Planning & Zoning has shown clear prejudice, granting this particular developer leniency not extended to other developers, as well as favoring this developer's financial interests over the best interests of the City and its residents. City ordinances, such as the inclusion of pavers at subdivision entries, are to ensure consistent, high development standards of throughout the City. Particularly in this case, which requires a waiver from City Council--and even then, granted only in exceptional cases--we do not believe City staff has the authority to deny the Estates of Cambridge Manor the approved entryway beautification requirements of the PD. I believe staff has also done a great disservice to the entire City by lowering the building standard at the very first residential entryway on DeForest Road. We had an opportunity to create a beautiful street like so many others in Coppell, and now all future DeForest Road developers can request to follow suit with Cambridge Manor with good reason. Even if City Council and ordinance require pavers, it apparently does not guarantee they will be used. As City Manager, you are aware that there is a diff'erence between a "minor revision" to a PD and a "variance request" which must, by ordinance, be granted by City Council. Without the act of Council, staff did not have the right to show favoritism to Beamer Development, nor cause harm to the Cambridge Manor neighborhood or the City. We are requesting that the City acknowledge this error and have pavers installed at the front entry of the subdi~Asion. Lastly, but not nearly as important... 6. Removal of Developer/Builder Identification sign at subdivision entry. Zoning regulations (Section 29-3) allow a front entryway ID sign for one year, subject to renewal, and removal when 75% of the lots have been issued building permits. The sign at the entry to Cambridge Manor has been up for probably about 3 years, and we doubt there is a renewal on file. Also, we feel sure over 75% of the lots in Phase I have been issued building permits and would ask the City to require removal of the sign, or perhaps relocation to Phase II. We look forward to heating from you in the near future, and we are hoping a few Cambridge Manor residents might be granted a short meeting with you or Mr. Phillips to discuss these concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or clarifications you may need. Respectfully, Tracey S. Garman, Appointed City Liaison for the residents of The Estates of Cambridge Manor (972) 393-0609 enclosures cc: Candy Sheehan, Mayor City Council Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager Gary Sieb, Director of Planning and Zoning Greg Jones, Chief of Building Inspections MEMORANDUM Date: September 15, 1997 To: Ken Griffin, Director of Engineering/Public Works Gm-y Sieb, Director of Planning Greg Jones, Chief Building/~cial From: Jim Witt, City Manager (~/ Subject: Tracey Garmon Attached is a letter from Tracey Garmon which I received in my office last Friday. There will be a meeting to discuss this situation in my office on Tuesday, September 16 at 9:30 a.m. Please plan to attend. JW:kb Enclosure