05.19.15 PZ PacketPage 1 of 2
]
1. Call to Order / Roll Call.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
(Items placed on the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and are considered non-controversial. The
Consent Agenda can be acted upon in one motion. A Planning & Zoning Commissioner may remove any item for
discussion and separate action. Planning & Zoning Commissioners may vote nay on any single item without
comment and may submit written comments as part of the official record.)
3a. Consider and act upon minutes from the May 6, 2015 Regular Planning & Zoning
Commission meeting.
3b. Consider and act upon a Site Plan for seven temporary buildings for Rogers Middle
School, on 34.4± acres, located on the northeast corner of Richland Boulevard and Coit
Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-25 (PD-25). (D15-0027).
3c. Consider and act upon a Site Plan for a Commercial Stealth Antenna on a Town
elevated water storage tank, on 2.8± acres, located on the south side of First Street,
2,200± feet east of Preston Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-6 (PD-
6). (D15-0033).
3d. Consider and act upon a Site Plan for a retail building in SJT Addition, Block 2, Lot A, on
0.5± acre, located on the southeast corner of Main Street and Third Street. The property
is zoned Downtown Retail (DTR). (D15-0037).
3e. Consider and act upon a Final Plat for Lakes of Prosper, Phase 5B, for 55 single family
residential lots, on 15.1± acres, located 1,400± feet north of Prosper Trail, 3,000± feet
east of Dallas Parkway. The property is zoned Planned Development-8 (PD-8). (D15-
0039).
3f. Consider and act upon a Preliminary Site Plan for the Eagle Crossing Addition, on 9.5±
acres, located on the west side of Coleman Street, 1,200± feet south of Prosper Trail.
The property is zoned Commercial (C). (D15-0040).
3g. Consider and act upon an Amending Plat for the Prosper Middle School No. 2 Addition,
Block 1, Lot 1R, on 36.0± acres, located on the northeast corner of Coit Road and
Richland Boulevard. The property is zoned Planned Development-25 (PD-25). (D15-
0041).
AGENDA
Regular Meeting of the
Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission
108 W. Broadway St., Prosper, Texas
Town of Prosper Municipal Chambers
Tuesday, May 19, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
Page 2 of 2
REGULAR AGENDA
(If you wish to address the Planning & Zoning Commission during the regular agenda, please fill out a “Speaker
Request Form” and present it to the Chair prior to the meeting. Citizens wishing to address the Planning & Zoning
Commission for items listed as public hearings will be recognized by the Chair. Those wishing to speak on a non-
public hearing related item will be recognized on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the Planning & Zoning
Commission.)
4. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use
Permit for a Utility Distribution/Transmission Facility, on 0.2± acres, located on the south
side of First Street, 500± feet west of the BNSF railroad. The property is zoned Planned
Development-67 (PD-67). (S15-0004).
5. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request to amend Chapter 2,
Zoning Districts and Chapter 4, Development Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding Alternating Single Family Plan Elevations, Exterior Residential Masonry
Construction, Impervious Coverage of Residential Front Yards, Single Family Corner Lot
Landscaping, Residential Garage Standards, Residential Driveway Standards, Carports
and Size of Garages; and amend Chapter 3, Building Regulations of the Code of
Ordinances regarding residential fences and exterior masonry construction. (Z15-0005).
6. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.
7. Adjourn.
Note: The order in which items are heard on the agenda is subject to change.
CERTIFICATION
I, the undersigned authority, do hereby certify that this Notice of Meeting was posted on the inside
window at the Town Hall of the Town of Prosper, Texas, a place convenient and readily accessible to the
general public at all times, and said Notice was posted on May 15, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. and remained so
posted at least 72 hours before said meeting was convened.
________________________________________ _________________________
Robyn Battle, Town Secretary Date Noticed Removed
Pursuant to Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code, the Town Council reserves the right to
consult in closed session with its attorney and to receive legal advice regarding any item listed on this
agenda.
NOTICE
Pursuant to Town of Prosper Ordinance No. 13-63, all speakers other than Town of Prosper staff are
limited to three (3) minutes per person, per item, which may be extended for an additional two (2) minutes
with approval of a majority vote of the Planning & Zoning Commission.
NOTICE OF ASSISTANCE AT PUBLIC MEETINGS: The Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission
meetings are wheelchair accessible. For special services or assistance, please contact the Town
Secretary’s Office at (972) 569-1011 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting time.
Page 1 of 3
]
1. Call to Order / Roll Call.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
Commissioners present: Chair Mike McClung, Vice Chair Craig Moody, Secretary Chris Keith,
Brian Barnes, David Snyder, John Hema, and John Alzner
Commissioner(s) absent: Brian Barnes
Staff present: John Webb, Director of Development Service; Alex Glushko, Senior Planner; and
Pamela Clark, Planning Technician
2. Recitation of Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
3a. Consider and act upon minutes from the April 7, 2015 Planning & Zoning
Commission Special Work Session and the minutes from the April 21, 2015
Regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
3b. Consider and act upon a Conveyance Plat for Gates of Prosper, Phase 1, Block A,
Lots 1-4, on 57.0± acres, located on the northeast corner of US 380 and Preston
Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-67 (PD-67). (D14-0087).
3c. Consider and act upon an Amending Plat of Bryant’s #1 Addition, Block 11, Lots
8R and 9R, and Block 12, Lots 11R, 12R, and 13R, on 1.1± acres, located on the
north side of Third Street, 150± feet east of Coleman Street. The property is zoned
Downtown Single Family (DTSF). (D14-0095).
3d. Consider and act upon a Final Plat of Lakes of Prosper, Phase 5A, being 72 single
family residential lots, on 27.3± acres, located on the west side of the BNSF
railroad, 1,500± feet north of Prosper Trail. The property is zoned Planned
Development-8 (PD-8). (D15-0032).
3e. Consider and act upon a Site Plan for Windsong Elementary School, on 12.3±
acres, located on the south side of Fishtrap Road, 2,000± feet west of Teel
Parkway. The property is zoned Planned Development-40 (PD-40). (D15-0034).
3f. Consider and act upon a Final Plat Windsong Ranch Elementary School Addition,
Block A, Lot 1, on 12.9± acres, located on the south side of Fishtrap Parkway,
2,000± feet west of Teel Parkway. The property is zoned Planned Development-40
(PD-40). (D15-0035).
MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the
Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission
108 W. Broadway St., Prosper, Texas
Town of Prosper Municipal Chambers
Wednesday, May 6, 2015, 6:00 p.m.
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
Page 2 of 3
3g. Consider and act upon a Preliminary Plat for Falls of Prosper, being 149 single
family residential lots, on 90.1± acres, located on the northwest corner of Prosper
Trail and Coit Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-70 (PD-70). (D15-
0036).
Motioned by Snyder, seconded by Keith, to approve revised Item 3a (Revised Minutes from the
April 21, 2015 Regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting), and to approve Items 3c, 3d,
3e, and 3f on the Consent Agenda, subject to staff recommendations. Motion approved 6-0.
Item 3b. Snyder expressed the desire to ensure development of the subject property abide by
the Texas statutes and Comprehensive Plan, as stated in the recorded meeting minutes from
April 21, 2015 Regular Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, for an associated item (Item
3b, Preliminary Site Plan for Walmart at the Gates of Prosper).
Motioned by Snyder, seconded by Moody, to approve Item 3b subject to staff recommendations.
Motion approved 6-0.
Item 3g. Snyder expressed concern about the approximately four-acre tract located on the
southeastern corner of the subject. Indicated that the intent of PD-70 is to allow for residential
uses in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, but that the four-acre lot unnecessarily
creates a demand for non-residential uses in the future.
Motioned by Moody, seconded by Hema, to approve item 3g subject to staff recommendations.
Motion approved 6-0.
REGULAR AGENDA
4. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request to rezone 2.0±
acres from Retail (R) to Planned Development-Downtown Retail (PD-DTR), located
on the southeast corner of Coleman Street and Gorgeous Road. (Z15-0004).
Glushko: Summarized request and the zoning of the surrounding properties. Presented
exhibits provided by the applicant. Stated the request is in conformance with the Future Land
Use Plan. Described access and circulation. Informed Commissioners that the Town has
received one Public Hearing Notice Reply Form; not in opposition to the request.
Recommended approval.
Mahbab Dewan (Architect): Explained layout of the building and access to the playground area.
Public Hearing opened by Chair McClung.
Randall Chrisman (Broker): Explained the need for Montessori/day care uses in the Town, and
stated the owner has experience developing in other nearby cities.
Alzner: Inquired about access from the west side of the building and associated safety
measures.
There being no other speakers the Public Hearing was closed by Chair McClung.
Commission Discussion
Page 3 of 3
Motioned by Snyder, seconded by Moody, to approve subject to staff recommendations. Motion
approved 6-0.
5. Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use
Permit for a Helistop, on 10.5± acres, located on the northeast corner of US 380
and future Mahard Parkway. The property is zoned Planned Development-47 (PD-
47). (S15-0003).
Glushko: Summarized the request and the zoning of the surrounding properties. Presented
exhibits provided by the applicant. Informed Commissioners that the Town has not received
any public hearing reply forms. Recommended approval.
Public Hearing was opened by Chair McClung.
Stephen Hubach (Applicant): Stated intention to start the development as soon as possible.
Described the facility and stated the helistop would only be used for outgoing patients.
There being no other speaker the Public Hearing was closed by Chair McClung.
Commission Discussion
The Commission discussed the noise associated with the helistop, the flight paths and the
proposed architectural standards.
Motioned by Snyder, seconded by Keith, to approve subject to staff recommendations. Motion
approved 6-0.
6. Possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.
Webb: Reminded Commissioners that the Residential Design standards will be presented at
the next meeting.
McClung: Announced that due to his pending move to Frisco, May 19th will be his final meeting
as a member of the Commission. The members thanked Mr. McClung for his service.
7. Adjourn.
Motioned by Moody, seconded by Keith, to adjourn. Motion approved 6-0 at 6:48.
________________________________________ _________________________
Pamela Clark, Planning Technician Chris Keith, Secretary
Page 1 of 2
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Alex Glushko, AICP, Senior Planner
Through: John Webb, AICP, Director of Development Services
Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – May 19, 2015
Agenda Item:
Consider and act upon a Site Plan for seven temporary buildings for Rogers Middle School, on
34.4± acres, located on the northeast corner of Richland Boulevard and Coit Road. The
property is zoned Planned Development-25 (PD-25). (D15-0027).
History:
On March 18, 2014 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a Site Plan of four
temporary buildings on the east side of the property, south of the tennis courts. Currently no
temporary buildings have been placed on site. The applicant is now seeking approval to allow
for seven additional temporary buildings.
Description of Agenda Item:
The Site Plan shows the location of seven temporary buildings, five are anticipated to be placed
on the property during the first phase of development, and the remaining two temporary
buildings will be placed on the property in the future, if necessary. The applicant has submitted
an associated Amending Plat (D15-0041), which is also being considered on this Agenda. The
plat will combine two lots into one in order to allow seven temporary buildings to be located on
the south side of the school without encroaching building and landscape setbacks. Access will
be provided from Coit Road and Richland Boulevard. The use of temporary buildings is in
conformance to the Zoning Ordinance, and the applicant has provided a letter of intent
describing the immediate need for the temporary buildings.
Budget Impact:
There are no significant budget implications associated with the approval of this Site Plan.
Legal Obligations and Review:
The site plan meets the minimum development requirements.
Attached Documents:
1. Site Plan
2. Letter of Intent
Town Staff Recommendation:
Town staff recommends approval of the Site Plan as submitted subject to:
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
PLANNING
Page 2 of 2
1. The issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for each temporary building from the Town’s Building
Inspections Division, which includes a health, life and safety inspection.
2. Approval of the associated Amending Plat (D15-0041).
3. Town staff approval of emergency access points, fire lanes, including striping, widths, radii, and
location, signage, alarm and pull station systems, ingress and egress, sidewalks, fences, and
gates.
4. Town staff approval of all utility connections.
Page 1 of 1
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Alex Glushko, AICP, Senior Planner
Through: John Webb, AICP, Director of Development Services
Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – May 19, 2015
Agenda Item:
Consider and act upon a Site Plan for a Commercial Stealth Antenna on a Town elevated water
storage tank, on 2.8± acres, located on the south side of First Street, 2,200± feet east of
Preston Road. The property is zoned Planned Development-6 (PD-6). (D15-0033).
Description of Agenda Item:
The Site Plan shows three additional Commercial Stealth Antenna that will be placed on the
Town’s elevated water storage tank. Access is provided from First Street. The Site Plan
conforms to the Planned Development-6 (PD-6) development standards. The Finance
Department is currently working with the applicant to amend the existing lease agreement to
permit three additional antenna on the storage tank.
Budget Impact:
There are no significant budget implications associated with the approval of this Site Plan.
Legal Obligations and Review:
The Site Plan meets minimum development requirements.
Attached Documents:
1. Site Plan
Town Staff Recommendation:
Town staff recommends approval of the Site Plan subject to:
1. The terms established on the amended lease agreement.
2. Town staff approval of the landscape and irrigation plans.
3. Town staff inspection and approval of the existing irrigation system.
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
PLANNING
Page 1 of 1
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Alex Glushko, AICP, Senior Planner
Through: John Webb, AICP, Director of Development Services
Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – May 19, 2015
Agenda Item:
Consider and act upon a Site Plan for two retail buildings, on 0.5± acre, located on the
southeast corner of Main Street and Third Street. The property is zoned Downtown Retail
(DTR). (D15-0037).
Description of Agenda Item:
The Site Plan depicts two retail buildings totaling 11,344 square feet. Access is provided from
Main Street and Third Street. Adequate parking has been provided. The Site Plan conforms to
DTR development standards.
Budget Impact:
There are no significant budget implications associated with the approval of this Site Plan.
Legal Obligations and Review:
The Site Plan meets minimum development requirements.
Attached Documents:
1. Site Plan
Town Staff Recommendation:
Town staff recommends approval of the Site Plan subject to:
1. Town staff approval of civil engineering, façade, open space, landscaping, and irrigation
plans.
2. Town staff approval of all thoroughfare locations, right-of-way dedications, easements,
driveways, turn lanes, drive openings, median openings, sidewalks, and tree well locations.
3. Town staff approval of all fire hydrants, fire department connections (FDC) and fire lanes,
including widths, radii, and location.
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
PLANNING
WWWWWWWWWWW W
W
673672
671
670
669 668
673FFE = 668.556,417 SFFFE = 672.724,927 SFWWWWWWWWWW16TRV1
(
6
:
1
:
SINGLE WIDETRAILERMETAL BUILDINGAPARTMENTBUILDINGWWWWSCALE: 1" =0'20'20'40'4SITE PLANZONINGDTRLOT AREA23,640 SF (0.543 ACRE)BUILDING AREA11,344 SF MAIN ST BLDG6,417 SF 3RD ST BLDG4,927 SF(11,143 SF INCLUDING PORCHES)BUILDING HEIGHT25' (1 STORY)LOT COVERAGE47.9%PARKING REQUIRED33 REQUIRED (1:350sf)17 REQUIRED (AFTER 50% PARKING REDUCTION)PARKING PROVIDED37 PROVIDEDHANDICAP REQUIRED2 REQUIREDHANDICAP PROVIDED4 PROVIDEDIMPERVIOUS SURFACE16,737 SF (0.384 ACRES)BLDG SETBACK MAIN ST0.0' 3RD ST5.0' ALLEY10.0' ADJACENT10.0'1.DUMPSTERS AND TRASH COMPACTORS SHALL BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THECOMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.2.OPEN STORAGE, WHERE PERMITTED, SHALL BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THECOMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.3.OUTDOOR LIGHTING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LIGHTING AND GLARE STANDARDS CONTAINED WITHINTHE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION REGULATION ORDINANCE.4.LANDSCAPING SHALL CONFORM TO LANDSCAPE PLANS APPROVED BY THE TOWN.5.ALL ELEVATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS CONTAINED WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVEZONING ORDINANCE.6.BUILDINGS OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET OR GREATER SHALL BE 100% FIRE SPRINKLED. ALTERNATIVE FIREPROTECTION MEASURES MAY BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.7.FIRE LANES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED PER TOWN STANDARDS OR AS DIRECTED BY THEFIRE DEPARTMENT.8.TWO POINTS OF ACCESS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE PROPERTY AT ALL TIMES.9.SPEED BUMPS/HUMPS ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN A FIRE LANE.10.HANDICAPPED PARKING AREAS AND BUILDING ACCESSIBILITY SHALL CONFORM TO THE AMERICANSWITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) AND WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT, ADOPTED BUILDINGCODE.11.ALL SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVAL.12.ALL FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN AND ARE SUBJECT TOBUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVAL.13.ALL EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS ARE SUBJECT TO PLANNING DIRECTOR APPROVAL AND SHALL&21)250727+($33529(')$d$'(3/$114.SIDEWALKS OF NOT LESS THAN SIX (6') FEET IN WIDTH ALONG THOROUGHFARES AND COLLECTORS ANDFIVE (5') IN WIDTH ALONG RESIDENTIAL STREETS, AND BARRIER FREE RAMPS AT ALL CURB CROSSINGSSHALL BE PROVIDED PER TOWN STANDARDS.15.APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN IS NOT FINAL UNTIL ALL ENGINEERING PLANS ARE APPROVED BY THETOWN ENGINEER.16.SITE PLAN APPROVAL IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO GRADING RELEASE.17.ALL NEW ELECTRICAL LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED AND/OR RELOCATED UNDERGROUND.18.ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM PUBLIC VIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THECOMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE.TOWN OF PROSPER SITE PLAN NOTESSITE DATA SUMMARY TABLEVICINITY MAPSCALE 1" =2000'FLOOD PLAIN NOTEACCORDING TO THIS SURVEYOR'S INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION SHOWN ON THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM(NFIP) "FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP" (FIRM), COMMUNITY PANEL NO. 48085C0235J, REVISED JUNE 09, 2009, NO PORTION OF THISPROPERTY LIES WITHIN A "SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (SFHA) INUNDATED BY 100-YEAR FLOOD" ZONE AS DEFINED BY THE U.S.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION, OR THE FEDERAL EMERGENCYMANAGEMENT AGENCY.OWNER/APPLICANTSTEVEN BENAVIDES1740 ELMHURST, PROSPER, TX 75078972-360-9229SITE72.90'85.58'10' SIDE BUILDING SETBACK
1.ALL PARKING SPACES SHOWN ARE 9' WIDE BY 20' DEEP, HANDICAP INCLUDED.GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES# TYPESIZESEWER1 DOM 1" 6"2 IRR 1" N/A12BLOCK 2, SJT ADD.
PROSPER, TX 1224.0024' FIRE LANE AND MUTUALACCESS EASEMENT4' WYE INLET5 LF 18" CMPSTORM DRAINEXTENSIONCOVEREDPORCH 54 SF12.6614.82INSTALL SSHMOVER SANITARYSEWER LINE5.3762.92'11.79'5' RECESSEDCURB INLETTHIS DRAWING IS ISSUEDFOR REVIEWISSUED UNDER MY HAND,IAN NORFOLK, P.E. 93550ON THIS 11th DAY OF MAY, 20155' LANDSCAPE SETBACK12" ROOFDRAINSLOPEDHEADWALLSLOPEDHEADWALLSLOPEDHEADWALL9.0020.0012.1214.2210' BUILDING SETBACKAABUILDING5'SIDEWALK5'SIDEWALKPARKINGSPACESRETAININGWALLSECTION A-ANOT TO SCALEBBSECTION B-BNOT TO SCALEBUILDING7' FLUME4:1 GRADETO PLLAND USE - COMMERICALFUTURE LAND USE - OFFICELAND USE - RESIDENTAILFUTURE LAND USE - OFFICELAND USE - MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTAILFUTURE LAND USE - MAIN STREET RETAILLAND USE - PARKFUTURE LAND USE - OLF TOWNLAND USE - COMMERICALFUTURE LAND USE - DTODUMPSTER TO BE 8' HEIGHT,MATERIAL TO MATCH MAIN BUILDINGSTREE WELL(TYPICAL)
Page 1 of 1
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Alex Glushko, AICP, Senior Planner
Through: John Webb, AICP, Director of Development Services
Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – May 19, 2015
Agenda Item:
Consider and act upon a Final Plat for Lakes of Prosper, Phase 5B, for 55 single family
residential lots, on 15.1± acres, located 1,400± feet north of Prosper Trail, 3,000± feet east of
Dallas Parkway. The property is zoned Planned Development-8 (PD-8). (D15-0039).
Description of Agenda Item:
The Final Plat shows 55 single family residential lots. Access will be provided from Lake Trail
Lane. The Final Plat conforms to the Planned Development-8 (PD-8) development standards
and the approved Preliminary Plat.
Budget Impact:
There are no significant budget implications associated with the approval of this Final Plat.
Legal Obligations and Review:
The Final Plat meets minimum development requirements.
Attached Documents:
1. Final Plat
Town Staff Recommendation:
Town staff recommends approval of the Final Plat subject to:
1. Town staff approval of all additions and/or alterations to the easements on the Final Plat.
2. Town staff approval of civil engineering, landscape and irrigation plans.
3. Town staff approval of all right-of-way dedication, turn lanes, drive openings, street sections, hike
and bike trails and easements, and sidewalks.
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
PLANNING
Page 1 of 1
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Alex Glushko, AICP, Senior Planner
Through: John Webb, AICP, Director of Development Services
Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – May 19, 2015
Agenda Item:
Consider and act upon a Preliminary Site Plan for the Eagle Crossing Addition, on 9.5± acres,
located on the west side of Coleman Street, 1,200± feet south of Prosper Trail. The property is
zoned Commercial (C). (D15-0040).
Description of Agenda Item:
The Preliminary Site Plan shows four retail/office buildings totaling 88,710 square feet. The two
eastern buildings are existing and total 47,980 square feet. The northwestern building is
proposed for development and totals 21,730 square feet. The southwestern building is
proposed for future development, and totals 9,000 square feet. Access is provided from
Coleman Street. Adequate parking has been provided. The Preliminary Site Plan conforms to
the Commercial development standards.
Budget Impact:
There are no significant budget implications associated with the approval of this Preliminary Site
Plan.
Legal Obligations and Review:
The Preliminary Site Plan meets minimum development requirements.
Attached Documents:
1. Preliminary Site Plan
Town Staff Recommendation:
Town staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to:
1. Town staff approval of preliminary water, sewer, and drainage plans.
2. Town staff approval of all thoroughfare locations, right-of-way dedications, easements,
driveways, turn lanes, drive openings, median openings, sidewalks, and hike and bike trails.
3. Town staff approval of all fire hydrants, fire department connections (FDC) and fire lanes,
including widths, radii, and location.
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
PLANNING
Page 1 of 1
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Alex Glushko, AICP, Senior Planner
Through: John Webb, AICP, Director of Development Services
Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – May 19, 2015
Agenda Item:
Consider and act upon an Amending Plat for the Prosper Middle School No. 2 Addition, Block 1,
Lot 1R, on 36.0± acres, located on the northeast corner of Coit Road and Richland Boulevard.
The property is zoned Planned Development-25 (PD-25). (D15-0041).
Description of Agenda Item:
The Amending Plat shows one non-residential lot, currently used as a middle school within
Prosper Independent School District (PISD). The purpose of the Amending Plat is to combine
two lots into one, to allow for placement of seven temporary buildings, and modify easements
necessary for the development. An associated Site Plan for the temporary buildings (D15-0027)
is being considered on this Agenda. Access is provided from Coit Road and Richland
Boulevard. The Amending Plat conforms to the Planned Development-25 development
standards.
Budget Impact:
There are no significant budget implications associated with the approval of this Amending Plat.
Legal Obligations and Review:
The Amending Plat meets minimum development requirements.
Attached Documents:
1. The Amending Plat
Town Staff Recommendation:
Town staff recommends approval of the Amending Plat subject to:
1. Town staff approval of all additions and/or alterations to the easements and metes and bounds
descriptions, on the Amending Plat.
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
PLANNING
Page 1 of 1
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: Alex Glushko, AICP, Senior Planner
Through: John Webb, AICP, Director of Development Services
Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – May 19, 2015
Agenda Item:
Conduct a Public Hearing, and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use Permit for a
Utility Distribution/Transmission Facility, on 0.2± acres, located on the south side of First Street,
500± feet west of the BNSF railroad. The property is zoned Planned Development-67 (PD-67).
(S15-0004).
Description of Agenda Item:
The applicant has requested this item be tabled indefinitely as outlined in the attached letter.
Town staff will re-notify for a Public Hearing when this item is rescheduled for consideration in
the future.
Attached Documents:
1. Tabling request letter
Town Staff Recommendation:
Town staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission table this item indefinitely.
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
PLANNING
kimley-horn.com 12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1000, Dallas, TX 75251 972 770 1300
May 14, 2015
Alex Glushko
Town of Prosper – Development Services
409 E. First Street
Prosper, TX 75078
Via email: AGlushko@prospertx.gov
RE:May 19th Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
Prosper City Gate
Dear Mr. Glushko:
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. would like to request that the Prosper City Gate Specific Use Permit
(SUP) be tabled indefinitely at the May 19 th Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Thanks,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Sarah T. Williamson, P.E.
To: Planning & Zoning Commission
From: John Webb, AICP, Director of Development Services
Re: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting – May 19, 2015
Agenda Item:
Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning
Districts and Chapter 4, Development Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regarding
Alternating Single Family Plan Elevations, Exterior Residential Masonry Construction, Impervious
Coverage of Residential Front Yards, Single Family Corner Lot Landscaping, Residential Garage
Standards, Residential Driveway Standards, Carports and Size of Garages; and amend Chapter
3, Building Regulations of the Code of Ordinances regarding residential fences and exterior
masonry construction. (Z15-0005).
Description of Agenda Item/Background:
This is a Town-initiated request to amend the Zoning Ordinance and Building Regulations
regarding various residential development standards. The list of proposed amendments are
contained within Appendix A.
In an effort to effectively guide the growth of the Town and best utilize resources, the Town Council
has established Major Initiatives with accompanying goals. One of the major goals of these
initiatives includes, “Ensure Quality Residential Development”. A specific work element of this
goal is to update the Town’s residential development standards. Staff briefed the Council on
December 9, 2014 and February 24, 2015 regarding a draft list of proposed amendments and
received direction to formally initiate the amendment process. The Planning & Zoning
Commission received a briefing on March 3, 2015, and the Prosper Developers Council received
a briefing on April 14, 2015.
Proposed Amendments in Relation to the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan (Plan) was adopted in August, 2012 and is the result of significant input
from citizens, business owners and other stakeholders. In addition to the required Public
Hearings, two (2) “open house” Town Hall meetings were held in which over 415 people attended
to provide input on the content of the new Plan. The development of the Plan was guided by a
thirteen-member Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC) comprised of residents and
business owners.
A critical element of the Plan was the establishment of a Vision Statement to clearly articulate the
primary goals and values of the Town. The adopted Vision Statement is,
“Prosper is a community committed to excellence. It is a high quality, family
oriented community maintaining a visually aesthetic open feel with quality
commercial development directed to the Town’s major transportation corridors all
while maintaining strong fiscal responsibility.”
Prosper is a place where everyone matters.
PLANNING
Page 1 of 37
The Community Vision section of the Plan section states, “Every community is distinctive and has
its own set of values, aspirations and objectives.” By authority of the State, home rule
municipalities, such as Prosper, have the right to adopt plans, ordinances and regulations to
ensure the values, aspirations and objectives of the municipality can be achieved. The proposed
amendments are consistent with the Community Vision.
The following Community Goals were developed in direct response to the comments, issues,
ideas and concerns defined during the visioning process of the Plan’s development:
Goal 1: Provide a variety of land uses, in accordance with the vision of Prosper
residents, which diversify the tax base and enable all types of people to live,
work, shop, eat and relax in Prosper.
Goal 2: Maintain and enhance the high quality of life and small-town feel
currently available and expected by Prosper residents.
Goal 3: Protect the quality and integrity of Prosper’s neighborhoods.
Goal 4: Require high-quality and visually attractive architectural characteristics in
both residential and non-residential developments.
Goal 5: Develop quality, open roadways that enhance the Town’s rural image,
are compatible with adjacent development and provide safe and convenient
traffic movements.
Goal 6: Ensure that water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure systems
are able to meet future growth demands.
The proposed amendments are in line with and represent the implementation of Goals 2, 3 and
4.
Effective Date of Amendments:
Per recommendation of the Town Attorney, the effective date of the amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance will apply to any new application for a Final Plat received on or after the effective date
of this enacting ordinance. Therefore, approved Final Plats will not be subject to the new Zoning-
related requirements. In the sections related to fencing, staff recommends that existing wooden
fences adjacent to corner lots or existing wooden fences adjacent to an open space area may be
replaced with a wooden fence, but the wooden fence shall meet the new board-on-board fence
requirements.
Legal Obligations and Review:
Zoning is discretionary. Therefore, the Planning & Zoning Commission is not obligated to approve
the recommended amendments. Notification was provided as required by State Law.
Appendix B contains comments received from members of the Prosper Developers Council and
area homebuilding companies.
Attached Documents:
1. Appendix A – List of Proposed Amendments
2. Appendix B - Correspondence from members of the Prosper Developers Council and area
homebuilding companies.
Town Staff Recommendation:
Page 2 of 37
In recognition of the vision and goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the goals established within
the Town Council’s Major Initiatives, staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission
approve the request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning Districts and Chapter 4, Development
Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Alternating Single Family Plan Elevations,
Exterior Residential Masonry Construction, Impervious Coverage of Residential Front Yards,
Single Family Corner Lot Landscaping, Residential Garage Standards, Residential Driveway
Standards, Carports and Size of Garages; and amend Chapter 3, Building Regulations of the
Code of Ordinances regarding residential fences and exterior masonry construction.
Town Council Public Hearing:
Should the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation, a Public Hearing for this
item will be scheduled for the Town Council at their Regular meeting on June 23, 2015.
Page 3 of 37
(Blank Page)
Page 4 of 37
Appendix A
Recommended Amendments
Item 1. Alternating Single Family Plan Elevations (Anti -Monotony)
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
The monotonous design of homes within a subdivision
detracts from the overall aesthetic and economic value of a
neighborhood. The provision enhances pride of ownership.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
A minimum of four (4) distinctly different home elevations
shall be built on the same side of the street. Similar
elevations shall not face each other. The same elevation
shall not be within three homes of each other on the same
side of the street.
Different exterior elevations can be met by meeting at least
two of the following criteria:
Different roof forms/profiles
Different façades consisting of different window and door
style and placement
Different entry treatment such as porches and columns
Different number of stories
Example of Less Desirable Street Scene
Page 5 of 37
Item 2 Masonry construction for Single Family Facades Facing a Street
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9.8
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Improve appearance of homes with public exposure. The
Zoning Ordinance currently allows up to 50% cementatious
fiberboard on the upper stories of a home when the upper
story is not within the same plane as the first floor. The use
of non-masonry materials with public exposure diminishes
the appearance of the neighborhood.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Excluding windows, any portion of an upper story facing
a street shall be constructed of 100% masonry.
Examples of the Use Masonry on the Upper Story
Page 6 of 37
Item 3. Impervious Coverage of Front Yards
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, (new section)
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
The current regulations do not address impervious
coverage of the front yards. With the exception of required
trees, there is no provision preventing the excessive paving
of the front yard, resulting in additional storm water run-off
and heat.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
No
Proposed Text
Amendment
The cumulative area of any driveway plus any
impermeable surface area located between the front
property line and any front building wall shall not exceed
fifty (50) percent of the area between the front property
line and any front building wall. For the purpose of this
subsection, the front wall of a j-swing wall can be used to
meet the requirement.
Example of Excessive Paving of Front Yard
Page 7 of 37
Item 4. Single Family Corner Lot Landscaping
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 2.6
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Provide trees on the side yards of corner lots; enhance
aesthetics of public realm. Currently a minimum of two trees
are required in the front yard, but there is no requirement to
plant trees in the side yard of corner lots.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
A minimum of two (2), four (4) caliper inch trees shall be
planted in the side yard of a corner lot. Where more than
two (2) trees are required per lot, the side yard corner lot
trees may be used to meet the requirement. Street trees
planted adjacent to the side yard of a corner may also be
used to meet the requirement.
Corner Lot Trees
Page 8 of 37
Item 5. Residential Garage Standards
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 4 (new subsection)
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Garages should be subordinate to the façade of a home and
not dominate the streetscape. Neighborhood appeal is
diminished where there is a dominance of front facing
garage doors. The proposal also ensures that there is
adequate space for vehicles parked in the driveway to not
block the sidewalk. The amendment does not prohibit front
entry garages but rather addresses the negative impacts.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
1) In no instance shall a garage door directly facing a
street be less than 25 feet from the property line.
2) Garage doors directly facing a street shall not occupy
more than fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front
façade of the house.
3) Garage doors directly facing a street shall be located a
minimum of five (5) feet behind the main front façade
of the house.
4) Where a home has three (3) or more garage/enclosed
parking spaces, no more than two (2) garage doors
shall face the street, unless the garage door(s) are
located behind the main structure.
Example of Garage Door Dominating Streetscape
Page 9 of 37
Item 6. Residential Driveway Standards
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, (New section)
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Driveways are a predominate feature in neighborhoods.
Enhancing the paving surface contributes to the quality of
the development.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Staff is not recommending changes at this time but is
open to suggestions should standards be desired. The
following standards have been used in PD’s:
Enhanced paving treatments shall be provided for all
driveways and shall consist of one of the following, or
other treatment as approved by the Director of
Development Services:
1) Stamp and stain/patterned concrete, shall be dust-on
color application to wet concrete.
2) Acid-etched colored concrete for the field with scored
colored borders, shall use dust-on color application to
wet concrete.
3) Colored concrete with scored smooth border, shall use
dust-on color application to wet concrete.
4) Brick or interlocking pavers or pave stone.
Example of Enhanced Driveway Paving
Page 10 of 37
Item 7. Chimneys
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9 or the Building
Code
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Chimneys are the most difficult part of a home to maintain
and tend to be ignored during maintenance. Masonry clad
chimneys resist decay and enhance the appearance of the
neighborhood. The provision would also apply to
townhome and multi-family developments.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
The exterior of chimneys shall be 100% clay fired brick,
natural or manufactured stone or stucco.
Masonry Chimney Non-Masonry chimney
Page 11 of 37
Item 8. Carports
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 4 (new subsection)
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Unless properly designed, carports can diminish the
appearance of neighborhoods. In most instances, carports
can only be constructed in larger lots due to setback
requirements. The proposal requires that carports be
compatible with the main structure.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes, but the requirements prohibited carports rather than
establishing standards.
Proposed Text
Amendment
The support structures of a carport shall be of the same
material as the main structure. The roof shall have a
minimum roof pitch of 6:12 and be of similar material and
(architectural design) as the main structure.
Preferred Carport Design
Page 12 of 37
Item 9. General Fencing standards
Applicable Ordinance Code of Ordinances, Fences, Section 3.19
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Improve the quality and appearance of wooden fences.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Wooden fences shall be board-on-board with a top rail.
Board-on-Board Fence
Page 13 of 37
Item 10. Fencing adjacent to open spaces and hike & bike trails
Applicable Ordinance Code of Ordinances, Fences, Section 3.19
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Open spaces integrated into neighborhoods are an asset to the
community and to the adjacent homeowners. Open fencing
prevents a “canyon effect” and provides for greater visibility of
the open space/trails. It is common practice to utilize open
fencing adjacent to open spaces and trails in other
communities.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Fences adjacent to open space and hike and bike trails shall
be ornamental metal, tubular steel or split rail. Existing
wooden fences may be replaced with wooden fence in
compliance with the board-on-board requirement.
Ornamental Fencing Adjacent to Open Space
Non-Preferred Fencing Adjacent to Open Space
Page 14 of 37
Item 11. Corner lot fencing
Applicable Ordinance Code of Ordinances, Fences, Section 3.19
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Improve the appearance of the street. Aging wooden
fences on corner lots diminish the appeal of a
neighborhood. In addition, solid fencing on corner lots also
create a canyon effect along the street and detract from the
“open feel” of a neighborhood.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Fences on corner lots shall be ornamental metal.
Existing wood fences may be replaced with a wood fence
in accordance with the standards for wood fences as
they exist or may be amended. Existing wooden fences
may be replaced with wooden fence in compliance with
the board-on-board requirement.
Permitted Corner Lot Fencing
Page 15 of 37
Corner Lot Open Fencing
Item 12. Increase size of Two- Car Garages
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Sections 4 through 9
Purpose of
Amendment/Comments
Provide additional storage area; increase usability of
garages for vehicle storage. A standard two-car garage is
20’ x 18.5’ feet which leaves little or no room for additional
storage of items commonly found in a garage. Staff
recommends an additional 15% of enclosed space (56
square feet.) Three-car garages can be used to meet this
requirement.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
No
Proposed Text
Amendment
The total area of enclosed garage space shall be a
minimum of 426 square feet. The requirement can be
met by a garage area separate from the two-car garage.
Page 16 of 37
Appendix B
Correspondence
HIGHLAND HOMES
(Rec’d 5-7-2015)
John
We have sent a specific response to the Developer’s Council, regarding the proposed guidelines
(see attached). I wanted to also send a direct response, so that ours isn’t lost in the
mix. Highland and Huntington Homes are one of, if not, the most prolific builders in the Town
of Prosper. We would like to ensure our views are understood, singularly.
As Highland, we build in these developments:
- Lakes of Prosper
- Whitley Place
- Willow Ridge
- Windsong Ranch
As Huntington, we build in these developments:
- Fairways at Gentle Creek
- Whitley Place
- Windsong Ranch
Currently in these developments, we have 81 sold homes under construction. The average sales
price for those homes is over $570,000. The least expensive homes that we sell, average about
$424,000. We’ve been in Prosper for 15 years.
We certainly understand the need for minimum standards. Typically, we are the most expensive
option in every community in which we build. This is due to several factors, including our
quality of materials and labor, supervision, and warranty service. Ironically, we also out sell our
competition. This is primarily due to our designs.
Our current plan offerings were derived out of necessity. Developers produce the lots we build
on, and those lots continue to get shallower. Our front entry homes allow for larger back
yards. The overall living space is less, but the features are not compromised. Per square foot,
construction of this type is far more expensive than big-box construction. I believe this is the
goal of the proposed guidelines. Some of the areas targeted in this proposal, however, are not
consistent with this goal. Of the 72 plans we offer at Highland, 51 of them do not meet the
proposed guidelines. Specifically, item 5, amendment 3, and to a lesser extent, item 12.
Increasing the cost of construction, does not mean producing a better home. Builders that are
willing to cut corners, will cut deeper, and find more ways to cut costs. Those of us that are
unwilling to sacrifice quality, will get more expensive. The discrepancy between the good and
the bad will only grow. Which will make it more difficult for us to compete. To some degree,
we agree with most of the proposed guidelines. Items 1, 3, 4, 6, and 10 include things that we
are either currently doing or considering as options in our communities. The remaining items,
however, would be very difficult for us to adjust to. For some communities, years of home
design and development would be lost.
Page 17 of 37
We’d welcome the opportunity to meet with town staff and councilmen to discuss our designs
and the cost effects of these proposals. The opportunity to drive neighborhoods, and discuss the
applicability of these proposals, might help demonstrate these issues more clearly. Highland
Homes has been in Prosper for 15 years. Our mutual cooperation has contributed to what
Prosper is, and we’d like to be a part of what Prosper will become. Thank you for the
opportunity to offer this feedback. I look forward to any questions that I might be able to
answer.
Christian Morriss
AREA MANAGER
Highland Homes
5601 Democracy Drive Ste 300 | Plano, TX 75024
Ph: 214-924-6433
cmorriss@hhomesltd.com
Item 1. Alternating Single Family Plan Elevations (Anti-Monotony)
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9
Purpose of Amendment The monotonous design of homes within a subdivision
detracts from the overall aesthetic and economic value of a
neighborhood. The provision enhances pride of ownership.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
A minimum of four (4) distinctly different home elevations
shall be built on the same side of the street. Similar
elevations shall not face each other. The same elevation
shall not be within three homes of each other on the same
side of the street.
Different exterior elevations can be met by meeting at least
two of the following criteria:
Different roof forms/profiles
Different façades consisting of different window and door
style and placement
Different entry treatment such as porches and columns
Different number of stories
Highland Homes agrees with the principle of anti-monotony. Plan repetition guidelines make for
more diverse and appealing streetscapes. But we believe anti-monotony rules should be
managed by the developer and builder group in each community. At Highland Homes, we
incorporate our own plan repetition policy, regardless of the developer’s policies, or lack thereof.
Page 18 of 37
We have made exceptions to our own policy, but on a very limited basis. Each of these
exceptions is heavily scrutinized by the senior management team, even seeking the approval by
the affected homeowners/homebuyers who have purchased on the same street.
Item 2 Masonry construction for Single Family Facades Facing a Street
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9.8
Purpose of Amendment Improve appearance of homes with public exposure.
The Zoning Ordinance currently allows up to 50%
cementatious fiberboard on the upper stories of a
home when the upper story is not within the same
plane as the first floor. The use of non-masonry
materials with public exposure diminishes the
appearance of the neighborhood.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Excluding windows, any portion of an upper story
facing a street shall be constructed of 100%
masonry.
In general, we would agree with this item. However, here are a few additional points to
consider.
(1) This is a subjective opinion. In our 30-year history, we’ve seen trends come and go. For example, we
are seeing a decline in the desire for stone on our homes’ elevations. Last year, 25% or less of our
buyers chose to use stone on their homes. In addition, we have also seen a significant increase in
consumer demand for Craftsman, Cottage and Texas Hill Country elevations which rely on different
textures in siding, trim, accessory decorative elements and colors. Any limitation on materials used
could create a monotony problem for streetscapes and possibly missing out on capturing changing
trends in consumer demand.
(2) Brick and stone supported by wood have several drawbacks. Wood shrinks and moves, as it dries and
the house settles. This movement creates cracks. Those cracks are difficult to repair. Brick-on-wood
applications are also difficult to flash. Long term, these applications are much more likely to allow
water penetrations, which are destructive to wooden structures.
Page 19 of 37
Item 3. Impervious Coverage of Front Yards
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, (new section)
Purpose of Amendment The current regulations do not address impervious
coverage of the front yards. With the exception of
required trees, there is no provision preventing the
excessive paving of the front yard, resulting in
additional storm water run-off and heat.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
No
Proposed Text
Amendment
The cumulative area of any driveway plus any
impermeable surface area located between the front
property line and any front building wall shall not
exceed fifty (50) percent of the area between the
front property line and any front building wall. For
the purpose of this subsection, the front wall of a j-
swing wall can be used to meet the requirement.
We would not disagree with this restriction. There are permeable pavers, which allow grass to
grow through them and water to drain, that might be considered here.
Item 4. Single Family Corner Lot Landscaping
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 2.6
Purpose of Amendment Provide trees on the side yards of corner lots; enhance
aesthetics of public realm. Currently a minimum of two
trees are required in the front yard, but there is no
requirement to plant trees in the side yard of corner
lots.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
A minimum of two (2), four (4) caliper inch trees shall
be planted in the side yard of a corner lot. Where
more than two (2) trees are required per lot, the side
yard corner lot trees may be used to meet the
requirement. Street trees planted adjacent to the
side yard of a corner may also be used to meet the
requirement.
Our preference would be one side tree on a corner lot. These side yards are not always large
enough to accommodate two trees. Key lots would generally accommodate more trees or
landscaping, because the fencing is off of the property line. On a corner lot, creating a landscape
buffer, between the sidewalk and fence, might be a better way to accomplish this.
Page 20 of 37
Item 5. Residential Garage Standards
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 4 (new
subsection)
Purpose of Amendment Garages should be subordinate to the façade of a
home and not dominate the streetscape.
Neighborhood appeal is diminished where there is a
dominance of front facing garage doors. The proposal
also ensures that there is adequate space for vehicles
parked in the driveway to not block the sidewalk. The
amendment does not prohibit front entry garages but
rather addresses the negative impacts.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
5) In no instance shall a garage door directly facing a
street be less than 25 feet from the property line.
6) Garage doors directly facing a street shall not
occupy more than fifty percent (50%) of the width
of the front façade of the house.
7) Garage doors directly facing a street shall be
located a minimum of five (5) feet behind the main
front façade of the house.
8) Where a home has three (3) or more
garage/enclosed parking spaces, no more than
two (2) garage doors shall face the street, unless
the garage door(s) are located behind the main
structure.
We strongly disagree with this proposed amendment. Highland and Huntington Homes currently
operates in the 5 different Prosper communities: Lakes of Prosper, Whitley Place, Willow
Ridge, Windsong Ranch, and Fairways at Gentle Creek. In these communities, we currently
have 81 sold homes that are under construction. The average sales price of those homes is a little
over $570,000. The majority of these high-end homes would not have been allowed under the
proposed standards. We agree that neighborhood appeal might be diminished where front facing
garage doors are the dominant feature of the home. But that has more to do with the design of
the home elevations, than with the setback of the garage doors. We would welcome concerned
parties to drive through Lakes of Prosper, Windsong Ranch, or Whitley Place to see examples of
wonderful neighborhood appeal and attractive streetscapes where garage doors are NOT set back
5’ from the façade of the home.
Specifically, item #3 of this proposed amendment is particularly problematic. This proposal
would immediately eliminate 51 of these 72 plans we offer today.
Page 21 of 37
Item 6. Residential Driveway Standards (at a Council briefing, there was nominal
support for this amendment by Council – the amendment may drop off or the
standards reduced)
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, (New section)
Purpose of Amendment Driveways are a predominate feature in
neighborhoods. Enhancing the paving surface
contributes to the quality of the development.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Enhanced paving treatments shall be provided for
all driveways and shall consist of one of the
following, or other treatment as approved by the
Director of Development Services:
5) Stamp and stain/patterned concrete, shall be dust-
on color application to wet concrete.
6) Acid-etched colored concrete for the field with
scored colored borders, shall use dust-on color
application to wet concrete.
7) Colored concrete with scored smooth border, shall
use dust-on color application to wet concrete.
8) Brick or interlocking pavers or pave stone.
Highland has begun using pavers in many of our neighborhoods. They are the best option, of the
4 options listed above—primarily due to fact that they require little maintenance and repairs are
much less costly. There is an upfront cost factor to consider, but as long as people want them,
we’ll continue to use them.
Page 22 of 37
Item 7. Chimneys
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9 or the
Building Code
Purpose of Amendment Chimneys are the most difficult part of a home to
maintain and tend to be ignored during maintenance.
Masonry clad chimneys resist decay and enhance the
appearance of the neighborhood. The provision would
also apply to townhome and multi-family
developments.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
The exterior of chimneys shall be 100% clay fired
brick, natural or manufactured stone or stucco.
Highland Homes has two problems with full-masonry chimneys: weight and water or flashing.
The weight is supported by wood. This has several drawbacks , as referenced in item # 2. This
also creates a significantly increased potential for water penetrations, also referenced in our
response to item # 2.
Item 8. Carports
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 4 (new
subsection)
Purpose of Amendment Unless properly designed, carports can diminish the
appearance of neighborhoods. In most instances,
carports can only be constructed in larger lots due to
setback requirements. The proposal requires that
carports be compatible with the main structure.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes, but the requirements prohibited carports rather
than establishing standards.
Proposed Text
Amendment
The support structures of a carport shall be of the
same material as the main structure. The roof shall
have a minimum roof pitch of 6:12 and be of similar
material as the main structure.
This item is not applicable to Highland Homes.
Page 23 of 37
Item 9. General Fencing standards
Applicable Ordinance Code of Ordinances, Fences, Section 3.19
Purpose of Amendment Improve the quality and appearance of wooden
fences.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Wooden fences shall be board-on-board with a top
rail.
Highland Homes does not support this proposal, primarily because it does not address the main
causes for deficient quality and appearance of wooden fences.
All fences need maintenance, regardless of their design and cost. The largest maintenance issue
that homeowners face with fences relates to watering restrictions (especially during drought
conditions). Shifting soils, due to inconsistent moistures in the soil, cause fence posts to move.
Leaning fences are almost always attributable to this situation. The only other consistent cause is
high winds. This again, is a maintenance issue. Mandating board-on-board fences will not solve
this problem, but will only result in adding more cost.
Item 10. Fencing adjacent to open spaces and hike & bike trails
Applicable Ordinance Code of Ordinances, Fences, Section 3.19
Purpose of Amendment Open spaces integrated into neighborhoods are an
asset to the community and to the adjacent
homeowners. Open fencing prevents a “canyon
effect” and provides for greater visibility of the open
space/trails. It is common practice to utilize open
fencing adjacent to open spaces and trails in other
communities.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Fences adjacent to open space and hike and bike
trails shall be ornamental metal, tubular steel or split
rail.
Our experience is that most of our buyers would prefer privacy over the potential “canyon
effect”. We believe developers should have the ability to require or not require ornamental
fencing at open spaces.
Also, this proposal, if passed, would make more sense if implemented from inception of new
developments. It can work well, but would be inconsistent in developments already under way.
Maintenance of wrought iron is something else to consider. There is a misconception that
wrought iron fences require little to no maintenance. In truth, they must be maintained just as
often as pre-stained cedar fences.
Page 24 of 37
Item 12. Increase size of Two- Car Garages (Addn. request by Council Feb 24,
2015)
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Sections 4 through 9
Purpose of Amendment Provide additional storage area; increase usability of
garages for vehicle storage.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
No
Proposed Text
Amendment
Garage shall contain x sq. ft. of enclosed area for a
minimum of two (2) vehicles and storage. (Staff is
tentatively recommending the area be 15% greater
than a standard two car garage)
We disagree with this proposal. While well-intended, it misses the inherent “trade off” of extra
space in the garage vs. square footage in the home. In most cases (where pad and lot width limit
the ability to widen the garage), extra space is created in the garage by adding depth. When you
do this, you have to take square footage from inside the home. Over our 30-year history, we
have observed buyers almost always choose extra square footage in the house vs. in the garage.
Most of our current tandem front entry garages meet this requirement. And in developments like
Lakes of Prosper (where we haven’t been as limited with pad/lot width), we’ve given buyers the
ability to add a half-car or third car garage to create that desirable extra space without taking
square footage from the home. This has been a very popular option. Ironically, approval of item
# 5 (Residential Garage Standards) listed above would eliminate this option for buyers.
Page 25 of 37
Meritage Homes
(Rec’d 5-11-2015)
From: Prine, Bruce [mailto:Bruce.Prine@meritagehomes.com]
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 5:03 PM
To: Clint Richardson
Subject: FW: Residential Design and Development Standards feedback to Town
Clint:
First and foremost, we appreciate the notice of these proposed amendments. Per your request, I have met
with our division leaders and based on our discussion, we have the following comments/questions/
recommendations based on the individual proposed amendments.
Item #1:
The word shall in the first sentence implyies that there must be 4 different elevations on the
same side of the street. What is the street/community layout does not accommodate for this; only 2
homes leading to a park? Also, the verbiage “Similar” as you point out is very subjective and many
elevations from any builder, could be considered similar. Thirdly, “shall not face each other,” – Does
that mean directly across the street, across the street but a couple houses down, or even across the street
from each other but on opposite ends of the street. Lastly, this could increase the complexity of the
permit submittal process, slowing down approvals and construction, and ultimately, slowing down the
number of homes that could be built within the city lowering the amount of property taxes received.
Item #2:
This is overall restrictive to the architectural design. Moreover, we have concerns regarding the
upper story requiring masonry when it may not support the weight. The verbiage could say “excludes
windows, above the upper walls/roof line.” Ie. A dormer could not support stone.
Item #5:
Similar to other highly structured cities in the metroplex requiring a specific setback, these
guidelines can start to limit the available product. Specifically, its begins to limit back yard sizes and
forces lot pad to be even deeper than previously expected; therefore driving up costs. Essentially, the
min offset is restricting the design aesthetic possibilities and offered elevations.
Bullet 2 of the amendment, essentially eliminates 3rd car garages unless it is a swing product. For the city
of Prosper which has been previously known for large lot sizes, how can we restrict someone from putting
a 50’ product with a 3rd car garage on a 80’ lot.
Item #6:
Talking with our operations team, these finishes can become a maintenance issue and could look
worst over time than a regular driveway. Based on the proposed treatments, these range from $3,000 to
$6,000 in additional cost resulting in $5,000 - $8,000 in additional based prices. Alternatives could be
salt finish or exposed aggregate which is still cost effective.
Item #7:
This is not requiring chimneys, correct? Estimated $7,000 cost increase for clay chimneys.
Item #9:
Board on board is considered to be the top standard for fencing requirements and would be a
$1,500 per lot cost increase.
Page 26 of 37
Item #11:
Privacy issue. Could decrease the positive street scene; sometimes you don’t want to see the
items in your neighbors back yard. From a homeowner perspective, this could be an issue for noise,
lighting from cars, ect.
Item #12:
Drought would be a major issue. Also for small communities, requiring a fountain would be
very costly to the HOA and the individual home. Also a maintenance issue.
Please Let us know how we help in this endeavor.
Bruce Prine
Vice President Land Acquisition
Setting the standard for energy-efficient homes™
8840 Cypress Waters Blvd., Suite 100, Dallas, TX 75063
O: 972.580.6302 | C: 214.803.3982
bruce.prine@meritagehomes.com | www.meritagehomes.com
Page 27 of 37
Prosper Developers Council
(Rec’d May 11, 2015)
Item 1. Alternating Single Family Plan Elevations (Anti-Monotony)
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9
Purpose of Amendment The monotonous design of homes within a subdivision
detracts from the overall aesthetic and economic value of a
neighborhood. The provision enhances pride of ownership.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
A minimum of four (4) distinctly different home elevations
shall be built on the same side of the street. Similar
elevations shall not face each other. The same elevation
shall not be within three homes of each other on the same
side of the street.
Different exterior elevations can be met by meeting at least
two of the following criteria:
Different roof forms/profiles
Different façades consisting of different window and door
style and placement
Different entry treatment such as porches and columns
Different number of stories
Highland - Agree with the principle of anti-monotony. Plan repetition guidelines
make for more diverse and appealing streetscapes. But we believe anti-monotony
rules should be managed by the developer and builder group in each community.
At Highland Homes, we incorporate our own plan repetition policy, regardless of the
developer’s policies, or lack thereof. We have made exceptions to our own policy,
but on a very limited basis. Each of these exceptions is heavily scrutinized by the
senior management team, even seeking the approval by the affected
homeowners/homebuyers who have purchased on the same street.
Bloomfield - OK
Drees - this should be left to the developer and most already is. Town involvement
would slow an already long permitting process
Chesmar - Additional workload for an already understaffed department. Benefits
minimal, since most developers already require this.
MHI – Already managed at developer level and builder level.
Meritage - The word shall in the first sentence implyies that there must be 4
different elevations on the same side of the street. What is the street/community
layout does not accommodate for this; only 2 homes leading to a park? Also, the
verbiage “Similar” as you point out is very subjective and many elevations from any
builder, could be considered similar. Thirdly, “shall not face each other,” – Does
that mean directly across the street, across the street but a couple houses down, or
even across the street from each other but on opposite ends of the street. Lastly,
this could increase the complexity of the permit submittal process, slowing down
approvals and construction, and ultimately, slowing down the number of homes that
could be built within the city lowering the amount of property taxes received.
Masterplan - It seems most builders in most master planned communities already
impose their own “anti-monotony “ rules so I question the need for a City standard that
may have an unintended consequence of limiting design options for a development that
is more uniform by design.
Development – N/A
Page 28 of 37
Item 2 Masonry construction for Single Family Facades Facing a Street
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9.8
Purpose of Amendment Improve appearance of homes with public exposure. The
Zoning Ordinance currently allows up to 50% cementatious
fiberboard on the upper stories of a home when the upper
story is not within the same plane as the first floor. The use
of non-masonry materials with public exposure diminishes
the appearance of the neighborhood.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Excluding windows, any portion of an upper story facing
a street shall be constructed of 100% masonry.
Highland - In general, we would agree with this item. However, here are a few
additional points to consider.
• This is a subjective opinion. In our 30-year history, we’ve seen trends come and
go. For example, we are seeing a decline in the desire for stone on our homes’
elevations. Last year, 25% or less of our buyers chose to use stone on their
homes. In addition, we have also seen a significant increase in consumer
demand for Craftsman, Cottage and Texas Hill Country elevations which rely on
different textures in siding, trim, accessory decorative elements and colors. Any
limitation on materials used could create a monotony problem for streetscapes
and possibly missing out on capturing changing trends in consumer demand.
• Brick and stone supported by wood have several drawbacks. Wood shrinks and
moves, as it dries and the house settles. This movement creates cracks.
Those cracks are difficult to repair. Brick-on-wood applications are also difficult
to flash. Long term, these applications are much more likely to allow water
penetrations, which are destructive to wooden structures.
Bloomfield – Cost increase of $1,500 - $2,500
• Can result in lack of architectural elements
• Potential to eliminate gable designs
• Brick over roof concerns for warranty and cost implications
Drees - there are certain applications over roof where adding brick can be a
structural issue, possible fire code violation, and long term warranty issue to due
water penetration. As a builder, I am not comfortable being forced into this
Chesmar - Since masonry is already required on the second floor, this would only
apply to areas that cannot support brick or stone. Stucco is the only alternative, and
the cost for a stucco contractor to do small one-off areas is far higher compared to,
for example, a house that has a large area of stucco.
Affordability is already a major concern for the industry in the DFW area. This would
only exacerbate that for limited benefit.
MHI – Brick is a great product but it absorbs water. Brick over roof leaks, thus this
requirement will create brick over brick facades limiting distinctly different home
elevations and builders having to manage moisture into homes. Siding products
should be allowed over roof.
Meritage - This is overall restrictive to the architectural design. Moreover, we have
concerns regarding the upper story requiring masonry when it may not support the
weight. The verbiage could say “excludes windows, above the upper walls/roof
line.” i.e. a dormer could not support stone.
Masterplan - I disagree with the assumption that the use of non-masonry materials
diminishes the appearance of the façade. I often find that it is easy to recognize
Page 29 of 37
when a community has adopted such regulations, which makes it seem predictable
and designing to meet a code rather than designing from an aesthetic perspective.
In some cases, a mixture of materials provides more interest and seems more
practical.
Development – N/A
Item 3. Impervious Coverage of Front Yards
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, (new section)
Purpose of Amendment The current regulations do not address impervious
coverage of the front yards. With the exception of required
trees, there is no provision preventing the excessive paving
of the front yard, resulting in additional storm water run-off
and heat.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
No
Proposed Text
Amendment
The cumulative area of any driveway plus any
impermeable surface area located between the front
property line and any front building wall shall not exceed
fifty (50) percent of the area between the front property
line and any front building wall. For the purpose of this
subsection, the front wall of a j-swing wall can be used to
meet the requirement.
Highland - We would not disagree with this restriction. There are permeable
pavers, which allow grass to grow through them and water to drain, that might be
considered here.
Bloomfield - Not a factor for our product at this time
Drees - no issue as long as our standard driveway and lead walk work
Chesmar - No comment
MHI - OK
Meritage - None
Masterplan - None
Development – N/A
Item 4. Single Family Corner Lot Landscaping
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 2.6
Purpose of Amendment Provide trees on the side yards of corner lots; enhance
aesthetics of public realm. Currently a minimum of two trees
are required in the front yard, but there is no requirement to
plant trees in the side yard of corner lots.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendments
A minimum of two (2), four (4) caliper inch trees shall be
planted in the side yard of a corner lot. Where more than
two (2) trees are required per lot, the side yard corner lot
trees may be used to meet the requirement. Street trees
planted adjacent to the side yard of a corner may also be
used to meet the requirement.
Highland - Our preference would be one side tree on a corner lot. These side yards
are not always large enough to accommodate two trees. Key lots would generally
Page 30 of 37
accommodate more trees or landscaping, because the fencing is off of the property
line. On a corner lot, creating a landscape buffer, between the sidewalk and fence,
might be a better way to accomplish this.
Bloomfield – Cost increase of $1,500 - $2,000
Drees - a cost issue, but one we deal with in many of our developments. I would be
careful to call out nothing more than a 3 inch tree
Chesmar - 4” trees are about 1.5 x the cost of 3” trees. 3” trees would provide
almost the same benefit at substantially lower cost.
MHI – The average nursery planted tree in DFW is a 3” tree. 4” trees do not seem
to survive at the same rate as 3” trees. Due to homeowner maintenance issues, 3”
trees are preferable.
Meritage - None
Masterplan - None
Development – N/A as long as constructed with homes
Item 5. Residential Garage Standards
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 4 (new subsection)
Purpose of Amendment Garages should be subordinate to the façade of a home and
not dominate the streetscape. Neighborhood appeal is
diminished where there is a dominance of front facing
garage doors. The proposal also ensures that there is
adequate space for vehicles parked in the driveway to not
block the sidewalk. The amendment does not prohibit front
entry garages but rather addresses the negative impacts.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
9) In no instance shall a garage door directly facing a
street be less than 25 feet from the property line.
10) Garage doors directly facing a street shall not occupy
more than fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front
façade of the house.
11) Garage doors directly facing a street shall be located a
minimum of five (5) feet behind the main front façade
of the house.
12) Where a home has three (3) or more garage/enclosed
parking spaces, no more than two (2) garage doors
shall face the street, unless the garage door(s) are
located behind the main structure.
Highland - We strongly disagree with this proposed amendment. Highland and
Huntington Homes currently operates in the 5 different Prosper communities:
Lakes of Prosper, Whitley Place, Willow Ridge, Windsong Ranch, and Fairways at
Gentle Creek. In these communities, we currently have 81 sold homes that are
under construction. The average sales price of those homes is a little over
$570,000. The majority of these high-end homes would not have been allowed
under the proposed standards. We agree that neighborhood appeal might be
diminished where front facing garage doors are the dominant feature of the home.
But that has more to do with the design of the home elevations, than with the
setback of the garage doors. We would welcome concerned parties to drive
through Lakes of Prosper, Windsong Ranch, or Whitley Place to see examples of
wonderful neighborhood appeal and attractive streetscapes where garage doors
are NOT set back 5’ from the façade of the home.
Page 31 of 37
Specifically, Item #3 of this proposed amendment is particularly problematic. This
proposal would immediately eliminate 51 of these 72 plans we offer today.
Bloomfield – Cost increase of $2,000 - $2,500
5’ setback requirement can result in “bolt ons” to comply; can destroy architectural
appearance
Would result in costly redesign and potentially new product design to accomplish
Drees - This is doable, but may affect current plans
Chesmar
• Item 5.(1) This would conflict with the goal of the staggered setback regulation.
The end result would be that most homes would be placed at 25’ and 30’, since
the 20’ setback would not work (unless 5.3 were enacted).
• Item 5.(2) No comment.
• Item 5.(3) This would require builders to throw out most of their plans and design
new product at a tremendous cost.
• Item 5.(4) No comment.
MHI – Disagree with Item 5.3 which would affect home plans significantly.
Meritage - Similar to other highly structured cities in the metroplex requiring a
specific setback, these guidelines can start to limit the available
product. Specifically, its begins to limit back yard sizes and forces lot pad to be
even deeper than previously expected; therefore driving up costs. Essentially, the
min offset is restricting the design aesthetic possibilities and offered elevations.
Masterplan - None
Development – N/A
Item 6. Residential Driveway Standards (at a Council briefing, there was nominal
support for this amendment by Council – the amendment may drop off or the standards
reduced)
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, (New section)
Purpose of Amendment Driveways are a predominate feature in neighborhoods.
Enhancing the paving surface contributes to the quality of
the development.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Enhanced paving treatments shall be provided for all
driveways and shall consist of one of the following, or
other treatment as approved by the Director of
Development Services:
9) Stamp and stain/patterned concrete, shall be dust-on
color application to wet concrete.
10) Acid-etched colored concrete for the field with scored
colored borders, shall use dust-on color application to
wet concrete.
11) Colored concrete with scored smooth border, shall use
dust-on color application to wet concrete.
12) Brick or interlocking pavers or pave stone.
Highland – We have begun using pavers in many of our neighborhoods. They are
the best option, of the 4 options listed above—primarily due to fact that they require
little maintenance and repairs are much less costly. There is an upfront cost factor
to consider, but as long as people want them, we’ll continue to use them.
Bloomfield – cost increase of $4,000 - $6,000
• Hard to get added value out of a driveway – will the buyer pay for it?
Page 32 of 37
• Countless variations and offerings – very personal in nature
• Construction and warranty challenges to protect and repair
Drees - This is a huge added cost the consumer never wants to pay for.
Chesmar
• Further exacerbates the affordability issue.
• Quality control is more difficult – could end up not providing the aesthetic intent.
• Repairs are very difficult to match – again, may not provide the aesthetic intent.
MHI – In our experience, homeowners tend not to prefer this type of driveway.
Meritage – Talking with our operations team, these finishes can become a
maintenance issue and could look worst over time than a regular driveway. Based
on the proposed treatments, these range from $3,000 to $6,000 in additional cost
resulting in $5,000 - $8,000 in additional based prices. Alternatives could be salt
finish or exposed aggregate which is still cost effective.
Masterplan – This seems like an unnecessary thing to mandate. Homeowners
should be able to choose the driveway type that best suits their needs and home.
Development – N/A
Item 7. Chimneys
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9 or the Building
Code
Purpose of Amendment Chimneys are the most difficult part of a home to maintain
and tend to be ignored during maintenance. Masonry clad
chimneys resist decay and enhance the appearance of the
neighborhood. The provision would also apply to
townhome and multi-family developments.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
The exterior of chimneys shall be 100% clay fired brick,
natural or manufactured stone or stucco.
Highland – There are two problems with full-masonry chimneys: weight and water
or flashing. The weight is supported by wood. This has several draw backs, as
referenced in item # 2. This also creates a significantly increased potential for
water penetrations, also referenced in our response to item # 2.
Bloomfield – cost increase of $1,500 - $2,500
• Masonry is very expensive and a warranty challenge when placed over a roof
• Stucco is not as common in Texas and labor can be challenged
• Will result in B-vent type fireplaces and direct vent
Drees – Brick or Stone over wood should not be done for structural and warranty
issues. Going to stucco is only option but is another big cost item.
Chesmar - In most cases, there is no support for brick or stone, so stucco is the
only alternative. As with item 2, small jobs are charged an exponentially higher rate
by contractors.
Further exacerbates the affordability issue for limited benefit.
MHI - OK
Meritage – This is not requiring chimneys, correct? Estimated $7,000 cost increase
for clay chimneys.
Masterplan - None
Development – N/A
Item 8. Carports
Page 33 of 37
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 4 (new subsection)
Purpose of Amendment Unless properly designed, carports can diminish the
appearance of neighborhoods. In most instances, carports
can only be constructed in larger lots due to setback
requirements. The proposal requires that carports be
compatible with the main structure.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes, but the requirements prohibited carports rather than
establishing standards.
Proposed Text
Amendment
The support structures of a carport shall be of the same
material as the main structure. The roof shall have a
minimum roof pitch of 6:12 and be of similar material as
the main structure.
Highland - This item is not applicable to Highland Homes.
Bloomfield – N/A
Drees – Any one still build these?
Chesmar - No comment.
MHI - OK
Meritage – No comment
Masterplan - The structure described above no longer sounds like a carport. Is the
intent to prohibit carports?
Development – N/A
Item 9. General Fencing standards
Applicable Ordinance Code of Ordinances, Fences, Section 3.19
Purpose of Amendment Improve the quality and appearance of wooden fences.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Wooden fences shall be board-on-board with a top rail.
Highland – Not in support of this proposal, primarily because it does not address
the main causes for deficient quality and appearance of wooden fences. All fences
need maintenance, regardless of their design and cost. The largest maintenance
issue that homeowners face with fences relates to watering restrictions (especially
during drought conditions). Shifting soils, due to inconsistent moistures in the soil,
cause fence posts to move. Leaning fences are almost always attributable to this
situation. The only other consistent cause is high winds. This again, is a
maintenance issue. Mandating board-on-board fences will not solve this problem,
but will only result in adding more cost.
Bloomfield – cost increase of $1,800 - $2,200
Board on Board is a great look for wing wall fences but about double the cost.
Have seen communities requiring this on the fronts and allowing normal fencing for
sides and back fences unless abutting a corner or an open space. Staining is a
great value at a fraction of the cost -$350-500.
Drees – For the appearance argument, rear and side fences are not seen, just
corner lot and front returns. We also address these in most of our covenants.
Chesmar - Further exacerbates affordability issue.
MHI - OK
Meritage – Board on board is considered to be the top standard for fencing
requirements and would be a $1,500 per lot cost increase.
Masterplan - None
Page 34 of 37
Development – N/A
Item 10. Fencing adjacent to open spaces and hike & bike trails
Applicable Ordinance Code of Ordinances, Fences, Section 3.19
Purpose of Amendment Open spaces integrated into neighborhoods are an asset to
the community and to the adjacent homeowners. Open
fencing prevents a “canyon effect” and provides for greater
visibility of the open space/trails. It is common practice to
utilize open fencing adjacent to open spaces and trails in
other communities.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Fences adjacent to open space and hike and bike trails
shall be ornamental metal, tubular steel or split rail.
Highland - Our experience is that most of our buyers would prefer privacy over the
potential “canyon effect”. We believe developers should have the ability to require
or not require ornamental fencing at open spaces.
Also, this proposal, if passed, would make more sense if implemented from
inception of new developments. It can work well, but would be inconsistent in
developments already under way.
Maintenance of wrought iron is something else to consider. There is a
misconception that wrought iron fences require little to no maintenance. In truth,
they must be maintained just as often as pre-stained cedar fences.
Bloomfield – This standard is in most communities today – no added cost.
Open rail fencing standards for areas like this would be great.
Drees – For the appearance argument, rear and side fences are not seen, just
corner lot and front returns. We also address these in most of our covenants.
Chesmar - Additional workload for an understaffed department. Benefits minimal,
since most developers already require this.
MHI - OK
Meritage – No comment
Masterplan - None
Development - TBD
Item 11. Corner lot fencing
Applicable Ordinance Code of Ordinances, Fences, Section 3.19
Purpose of Amendment Improve the appearance of the street. Aging wooden
fences on corner lots diminish the appeal of a
neighborhood. In addition, solid fencing on corner lots also
create a canyon effect along the street and detract from the
“open feel” of a neighborhood.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
Fences on corner lots shall be ornamental metal.
Existing wood fences may be replaced with a wood fence
in accordance with the standards for wood fences as
they exist or may be amended.
Highland - None
Bloomfield – cost increase of $2,000
Page 35 of 37
• Privacy is the concern for owners of corner lots – may drive some away from
these larger lots.
• Possibly requiring stained fencing or Board on Board would provide aesthetics
while also allowing privacy.
• Includes additional landscaping to accomplish privacy.
Drees – For the appearance argument, rear and side fences are not seen, just
corner lot and front returns. We also address these in most of our covenants.
Chesmar - Would potentially expose unsightly rear yards to street view. Storage
sheds, swing sets, toys, grills, etc. Could have the opposite effect of the intended
enhancement.
Greatly diminished privacy for the homeowner.
Additional cost would further exacerbate affordability issue.
MHI – Homeowners that choose a corner lot tend to want only one neighbor.
Allowing everyone to view into their rear yard will diminish the value of corner lots.
Meritage – Privacy issue. Could decrease the positive street scene; sometimes you
don’t want to see the items in your neighbors back yard. From a homeowner
perspective, this could be an issue for noise, lighting from cars, etc.
Masterplan - Wooden fences provide better privacy and block headlights shining in
windows of corner lots.
Development – N/A unless corner lot fencing is required to be installed at time of
development. If installed at that time, prone to damage during home building
process.
Item 12. Required Wet Detention (Deleted from most recent draft)
Applicable Ordinance Subdivision Ordinance
Purpose of Amendment Allow detention ponds to serve as an amenity to the
neighborhood. Water and water features have
demonstrated to be an asset to the subdivision and
neighboring homes.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
Yes
Proposed Text
Amendment
All required detention areas shall be designed for
constant water level wet detention with a fountain.
Highland - None
Bloomfield - None
Drees – No comment
Chesmar - Additional cost of installation would be passed through to builders,
further exacerbating affordability.
Cost of maintenance and water would be passed through to homeowners via the
HOA, further exacerbating affordability
MHI - None
Meritage – Drought would be a major issue. Also for small communities, requiring a
fountain would be very costly to the HOA and the individual home. Also a
maintenance issue.
Masterplan - None
Development – There are considerable increased costs to provide water feature
detention ponds. Additionally, long term maintenance – both landscaping and
equipment are concerns. Soft edges are undesirable due to varying water levels
making keeping vegetation at the edge presentable difficult, wave action causing
erosion along the banks, and controlling unwanted vegetation types in shallows.
Hard edges are very costly. Equipment for pumping well water to offset evaporation
Page 36 of 37
requires maintenance and ongoing operational cost which is born by the
homeowners. Finally, unless the water feature is significant in size (i.e. regional
detention), the overall aesthetic is not impactful.
Item 12. Increase size of Two- Car Garages (Addn. request by Council Feb 24, 2015)
Applicable Ordinance Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2, Sections 4 through 9
Purpose of Amendment Provide additional storage area; increase usability of
garages for vehicle storage.
Implemented in Planned
Development Districts?
No
Proposed Text
Amendment
Garage shall contain x sq. ft. of enclosed area for a
minimum of two (2) vehicles and storage. (Staff is
tentatively recommending the area be 15% greater than
a standard two car garage)
Highland - We disagree with this proposal. While well-intended, it misses the
inherent “trade off” of extra space in the garage vs. square footage in the home. In
most cases (where pad and lot width limit the ability to widen the garage), extra
space is created in the garage by adding depth. When you do this, you have to
take square footage from inside the home. Over our 30-year history, we have
observed buyers almost always choose extra square footage in the house vs. in the
garage.
Most of our current tandem front entry garages meet this requirement. And in
developments like Lakes of Prosper (where we haven’t been as limited with pad/lot
width), we’ve given buyers the ability to add a half-car or third car garage to create
that desirable extra space without taking square footage from the home. This has
been a very popular option. Ironically, approval of item # 5 (Residential Garage
Standards) listed above would eliminate this option for buyers.
Bloomfield – cost increase of $4,000- $8,000
Impact on builders and the product that is developed – could result in added
architectural fees.
Drees – No comment (reply based upon previous list that did not include this item)
Chesmar - None
MHI – Building in other municipalities that require 400 SF garages. Generally,
larger garages should be at the choice of the home buyer.
Meritage – No comment (reply based upon previous list that did not include this item)
Masterplan - None
Development – N/A
Page 37 of 37