Loading...
St Ann Church/Re-CS 930721 (2)Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM July 21, 1993 Gary Sieb Director of Planning and Community Frank Tmndo ~ Interim City Manager St. Ann's Replatting Request S There have been several questions posed to me by various individuals why certain issues were not addressed before this item came to the City Council. Those issues are as follows: 1. Sidewalks 2. Landscaping 3. Right-of-way 4. Fire lanes Basically, the primary question has been why weren't these issues addressed at the DRC or at least brought to the attention of St. Ann's before it came before the City Council? I would appreciate your timely response in answering these questions. FT/kar gsstanns.720 MEMORANDUM TO: ~ ,Trando, Interim City Manager FROlv~ Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning and Community Services SUBJE1ET: St. Ann's Replatting Request DATE: July 20, 1993 Frank, the question posed in your July 21 (20?) memo as to why the issues of sidewalks and landscaping were not addressed earlier in the review process of the St. Ann's replat can be simply answered: they were. Right-of-way concerns and the fire lane issue will be discussed below. I would first like to address sidewalks and landscaping. The problem we had with this request was a reluctance on the part of the applicant to provide us with any substantive information regarding the proposal. In fact, during the Commission hearing when the Commission essentially asked the same questions of the applicant that staff had earlier (during two DRC meetings) the response was one of confusion. They said they didn't want to provide sidewalks because they were not sure of eventual development. They addressed the other concerns with basically the same response. This was the same reaction we received during the DRC meetings--either they did not know why they did not want to put in sidewalks and required landscaping, or they did not wish to share information with staff. I have directed a letter to the applicant (draft attached) at his request, pointing out in some detail what has to be done to resubmit a viable application, and take special effort to refer to the landscaping requirement in that correspondence. Regarding right-of-way and fire lanes. I do not recall that fire lanes were even discussed during the Council meeting. I do know that Fire sends a representative to DRC and to the best of my knowledge, required fire lanes will be provided as needed. The right-of-way issue was brought up when the Always program was briefly discussed at the hearing (I don't even remember now who brought it up). As I looked at my plat to see how the applicant had addressed that issue, I noted that the right-of-way note on the face of the plat was confusing. In defense of the applicant, I believe that was the first time he was made aware of the r.o.w, discrepancy.- t4~;f The reason these concerns were not brought to the attention of St. Ann's personnel is because we were working with St. Ann's representative (lVlike Daniels) and assumed he conveyed staff concerns to his client. This is standard operating procedure universally followed by municipalities. Indeed, you will note my attached letter to St. Ann's, is addressed to Mike at his request, so we believe Mike is acting in the capacity as agent for the church. The City With A Beautiful Future P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 214-462-0022 July 20, 1993 Mr. Mike Daniels Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. Three North Park 8800 N. Central Expressway Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75231 Dear Mike: I received your letter on Friday, July 16, 1993, asking for reasons why your replat failed to obtain council approval. You had also requested that I respond in writing within ten days of your request which I will attempt to do here. After you have had an opportunity to review my comments, and assuming that you will be filing another request, we would be happy to process a resubmittal in our september cycle, provided you ~:efile by our submittal deadline of August 18 for a September 16 Planning commission hearing,~your resubmittal addresses public hearing concerns. - Although I can not give you all the reasons why the plat was denied--I do not know all the reasoning behind why Council members vote--I can tell you the technical reasons for its denial. Any and/or all of the provisions of the City of Coppell Subdivision Ordinance including Section IX, C, 3; Section IX, C, 7; Section IX, C, 10; Section IX, C, 13; Section IX, C, 15; Section IX, C, 18, including subsection a; Section IX, C, 19, were not followed as called out in the ordinance. However, it is my opinion that there were three major reasons why the plat was denied. One, there was confusion regarding whether right-of-way dedication was being offered along Sandy Lake Road and what the current right-of-way along that street is today; two, a landscape plan was not submitted conforming to the guidelines established by the City of Coppell Streetscape Plan; three, there was a question regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a sidewalk along Samuel Boulevard. I believe these were the three major reasons for denial of the plat although I urge you to carefully review all the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance, including those listed above for total compliance with our Code. Your truly, Gary L. Sieb, A.I.C.P. Director of Planning & Community Services GLS/pf xc: Taryon Bowman, P&Z Coordinator stann720.ltr