Loading...
PD131-CS 971003 FILE CoppelL Texas 75019 972-462-0022 ~/ /~---'-~ The City With A Beautiful Future (~.~/ /~_.~ P.O BOX 478 Beamer Development, Inc. Mr. Jack Bommarito, Vice President Post Office Box 2312 Coppell, Texas 75019 October 3, 1997 Dear Mr. Bommarito: I am in receipt of your October 1, 1997 letter requesting my approval of the landscaping of Cambridge Manor. I would like to make a couple of comments here, and then address your request. As you know, a concept landscape plan was included with the original, detailed PD zoning request and subsequent subdivision of Cambridge Manor, and was approved by the City Council. You are also aware that a certain segment of Cambridge Manor homeowners have taken exception to several conditions of our approval process, including my ability to allow certain minor alterations to zoning conditions, and have so stated in telephone conversations and letters to myself, the City Manager, and City Council. Although I fun'fly believe that I have always acted within the limits of my authority as stated in the zoning ordinance, nonetheless, I have been challenged on that point. To respond to your request, I will again offer my opinion based upon the provisions of the zoning ordinance. That said, in reviewing the concept plans included with the original zoning request and subdivision plat, and comparing these plans with those outlined in your October 1 letter, it is my opinion that your proposal meets the landscaping requirements from a conceptual perspective. We could argue--and I'm sure some of the Cambridge residents will--that the concept plan showed a certain number and variety of plant material, and your detailed plans show a lesser number, thereby violating the plan. I disagree with that logic and emphasize that a concept plan is exactly that--a general plan of what is to be done but not an exact proposal. The PD outlined uses, density, street patterns, setbacks, and a host of other development guidelines that have been met by the physical development of the subdivision itself. The fact that you are providing the same type of landscaping, the same species of plant material, in the same general location as that shown on the concept plan, leads me to the conclusion that the plans you have proposed meet the objectives outlined in the concept plan, and I have no reservations in recommending approval of the plans included with your correspondence. I believe these comments address the request outlined in your October letter. If you need additional information or clarification, please contact me at your convenience. Siym. erely, /' ' ~l ' l~irectbr of Planning and Community Services cc: file Jim Witt