GS memo re revised plans.Gary Sieb - Townhomes of Coppell Review, PD 182 Page
From:
To:
Subject:
Gary Sieb
mstone@seneca~investments, corn
Townhomes of Coppell Review, PD 182
Matthew;
I met with the architects on the Planning Commission this morning, and they offered suggestions to bring
your project more in line with the approved PD plan. In general, they were supportive of your revised
designs provided:
1. Elevations for Lots 23, 24 and 25 in Phase One, and lots 35 through 39 and lots 61 through 65 in
Phase Three repeat the design and materials of the existing completed units currently on the ground.
That means the same amount of brick, stone and detailing on shutters and the same garage doors. They
felt your floor plans were an improvement over the approved ones.
2. For the remainder of the project, theywere complimentary of your revisions, but feltthe garage
doors need more work. They felt that doors identical to the existing project were not necessary, but ones
that more closely approximates color and design of the existing ones was needed.
3. They further cautioned that design details such as mantel heads, louvers, cast stone address
numbers, chimney materials, etc. were also important to retain the integrity of the project and needed to
repeat what has already been constructed.
That said, for you to proceed with construction, I will need a letter agreeing to the above listed conditions
for administrative approval along with revised elevations for units in Phase One needing alteration (Lots
23, 24, 25), revised drawings of what the remainder of the garage doors will look like as well as cut
sheets or documentation that specifies manufacturer, material, color, etc. of those doors,
If you do not agree with these conditions for administrative approval of your revisions, you will need to
amend the PD. That procedure is a 60 day procedure, and the next cycle to review your amended PD
would begin on September 15, proceed to Planning Commission on October 16, then on to Council on
November 11. Provided your amendments were approved by Commission and Council, and assuming
your construction plans were complete, you could apply for a building permit after the November 11
public hearing.
In sum, I believe these Commission members are acutely aware of what you are trying to accomplish
with this project. They also understand economics of construction and made every effort to
accommodate your proposed plans. They acknowledged that the approved PD is not going to be built
and, from my perspective, have suggested a compromise that encourages this project to move forward.
Their concern that an identity has been created here and some repetition of the approved plan needs to
be incorporated in your proposal resulted in their recommendation for Lots 23-25 of Phase One and Lets
35-39 and 61-65 in Phase Three.
I trust this information is welcome news to you (quite frankly, I though they would be less accommodating
in their recommendations) and you can move forward with the project. If you have questions or need
additional information, please contact me at (972) 304-3678.
September 3, 2003