Loading...
08.05.2025 P&Z MinutesMINUTES V PREOWN OF SPER A Place Where Everyone Matters 1. Call to Order / Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:44 p.m. Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Prosper Town Hall Council Chambers 250 W. First Street, Prosper, Texas Tuesday, August 5, 2025, 6:30 p.m. Commissioners Present: Secretary Josh Carson, John Hamilton, Glen Blanscet, and Matthew Furay Commissioners Absent: Chair Brandon Daniel, Vice Chair Damon Jackson, and Sekou Harris Staff Members Present: David Hoover, AICP (Director of Development' Services), Suzanne Porter, AICP (Planning Manager), Dakari Hill (Senior Planner), Jerron Hicks (Planner), and Michelle Crowe (Senior Administrative Assistant) Other(s) Present: Jeremy Page, Town Attorney 2. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 3a. Consider and act upon the minutes from the July 15, 2025, Planning & Zoning Commission work session meeting. 3b. Consider and act upon the minutes from the July 15, 2025, Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting. 3c. Consider and act upon the minutes from the July 15, 2025, Planning & Zoning Commission work session meeting regarding the Unified Development Code. 3d. Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Site Plan for three Restaurant/Retail buildings, a Bank, a Grocery Store with an associated Convenience Store with Gas Pumps, and three Restaurants on Preston and Frontier, Block A, Lots 1-4, on 24.0± acres, located on the southeast corner of Preston Road and Frontier Parkway. (DEVPP-23-0183) 3e. Consider and act upon a request for a Revised Conveyance Plat of Prosper Commons, Block B, Lots 1 and 13-15 on 9.3± acres, located on the south side of Richland Boulevard and 250± feet west of Coit Road. (DEVAPP-25-0034) 3f. Consider and act upon a request for a Final Plat of Bryant's First Addition, Block 14, Lot 12, on 0.3± acre, located on the north side of Second Street and 325± feet east of Coleman Street. (DEVAPP-25-0044) Commissioner Blanscet made a request to pull Consent Agenta Item 3d. Page 1 of 8 Commissioner Hamilton made a motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 3a, 3b, 3c, 3e, and 3f. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Furay. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Ms. Porter provided an overview of Item 3d. She indicated that Town Staff recommended approval of the item contingent upon all drive -through restaurants requiring approval of a Specific Use Permit, the convenience store with gas pumps being associated with the grocery store, and creation of a Property Owner's Association prior to the recordation of any plat subdividing the property. Commissioner Blanscet requested clarification regarding the stipulation about the convenience store with gas pump being associated with a grocery store. He questioned whether the grocery store had to be associated with the convenience store with gas pumps in the same manner. Ms. Porter clarified that the grocery store was only permitted with a corresponding convenience store with gas pumps in the same manner that the convenience store with gas pump was only permitted with a corresponding grocery store. She stated that the two uses were tied together, and one could not be permitted without the other. Commissioner Carson asked if potential changes to the preliminary site plan regarding uses or the layout would trigger the need for the plan to be reapproved by the Commission. Ms. Porter responded that Town Staff would evaluate each proposed change and would require the preliminary site plan to go back to the Commission for approval if a change was deemed as significant. Commissioner Carson asked if there was a possibility that these changes could come with the different site plans for each lot. Ms. Porter responded that non -significant changes could be reviewed during the site plan submittal. Commissioner Blanscet requested clarification regarding whether the Specific Use Permits were only required for drive -through restaurants. Ms. Porter confirmed that a Specific Use Permit was only needed for the drive -through restaurants as the other uses were permitted by right. Commissioner Blanscet made a motion to approve Item 3d subject to Town Staff's recommendations and the development of the grocery store and convenience store with gas pumps being tied together. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Furay. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. CITIZEN COMMENTS Fred Costa (260 Burnet Court, Prosper, TX 75058) requested that Chapter 14, Article 4, Division 6, Section 8 of the Town's Zoning Ordinance be updated regarding the need to use lumens to measure lighting instead of wattage and not allowing single-family dwellings with motion sensor lamps to exceed the maximum lighting level at the property line. Page 2 of 8 REGULAR AGENDA: 4. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone 373.5± acres from Agricultural to a Planned Development allowing for both Single -Family and Age -Restricted Single -Family Residences, located on the south side of Parvin Road and 2,070± feet east of FM 1385. (ZONE-24-0022) Commissioner Blanscet made a motion to remove Item 4 from the table. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Hill presented Item 4, specifically the items the applicant had addressed based upon the Commission's comments from the hearing on June 17, 2025. The applicant, Mike Boswell with Toll Brothers, provided a presentation regarding the proposal and the updates made based on the Commission's previous recommendations. Commissioner Hamilton stated he was in favor of the changes made to the eastern portion of the project regarding the increased average lot size. He added that he still had concerns pertaining to the density, lot widths, and connectivity to the amenity center on the western portion of the project. Mr. Boswell stated that a trail could potentially be run through the Brazos easement to provide connectivity to the southern portion of the western section; however, there could be possible challenges. Commissioner Hamilton emphasized his sentiment about the southern portion of the western section needing connectivity to the amenity center and the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Blanscet concurred with Commissioner Hamilton's comments regarding the eastern portion of the project. He stated that he was still opposed to having 55-foot-wide lots in the western portion. Mr. Boswell stated that the reason for having 55-foot-wide lots in the proposal was due to marketability as consumers were showing more interest in lots with smaller widths than ones with larger widths. Commissioner Blanscet stated that he may be comfortable with 60-foot-wide lots; however, he could not support 55-foot-wide lots. Commissioner Furay asked if there was any data that supports 55-foot-wide lots being more marketable than lots with larger widths. Mr. Boswell stated that the data shows higher sales for the 55-foot-wide lots in other active adult communities. Commissioner Furay expressed support of the changes made to the eastern portion of the project and a desire to have the average lot size listed in the development standards. Commissioner Carson stated that he wanted to see lots in the eastern portion of the project fall into the specified square footage range for Medium Density Residential (12,500 SF — 20,000 SF). Additionally, he stated that the Type E Lots (55-foot-wide) in the western portion of the project were not representative of desired residential development in the Town. Commissioner Carson opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m Page 3 of 8 No comments were made Commissioner Carson closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Furay stated his concern regarding the density on the western portion of the project. He added that the average lot size (13,000 SF) on the eastern portion met the intent of the specified lot size range for Medium Density Residential (12,500 SF — 20,000 SF). Commissioner Blanscet reiterated his concerns pertaining to the 55-foot-wide lots on the western portion of the project. Commissioner Hamilton stated his concerns with the density, 55-foot-wide lots, and lack of connectivity to the amenity center for residents in the southern portion of the western section. Commissioner Carson concurred with the statements of the other commissioners citing that the western portion of the project needed additional revisions. Commissioner Hamilton motioned to table to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on August 19, 2025. The motion failed due to a lack of a second. Mr. Boswell stated that he needed a vote for either approval or denial. Commissioner Blanscet made a motion to deny Item 4. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 5. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to amend the Future Land Use Plan from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential, on 191.7± acres, located on the south side of Parvin Road and 2,070± feet east of FM 1385. (COMP-24-0002) Commissioner Hamilton made a motion to remove Item 5 from the table. Commissioner Furay seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Mr. Hill presented Item 5 and stated that the motion should match the motion for Item 4. Commissioner Carson opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. No comments were made Commissioner Carson closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Commissioner Hamilton made a motion to deny Item 5. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Furay. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 6. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to amend the uses and conceptual layout of a portion of Subdistrict 2 and Subdistrict 3 of Planned Development-67, consisting of 258.3± acres on the west of Preston Road between US 380 (University Drive) and First Street. (ZONE-24-0012) Ms. Porter presented Item 5. Commissioner Carson requested confirmation about one of the proposed changes being the reduction of the minimum lot size for townhomes from 2,500 square feet to 1,800 in Subdistrict 3. Ms. Porter confirmed that this was a proposed change. Page 4 of 8 Commissioner Carson asked about whether triggers were proposed regarding commercial development occurring prior to any multifamily development. Ms. Porter stated that no new triggers were being proposed. Commissioner Blanscet requested clarification regarding the type of residential development in Subdistrict 3. Additionally, he asked if 55-foot-wide lots were being proposed for single-family detached dwellings. Ms. Porter stated that both single-family detached dwellings and townhomes were being proposed in Subdistrict 3 and that 55-foot-wide lots were being proposed for the single-family detached dwellings. Commissioner Carson asked if any non-residential uses were proposed in Subdistrict 3. Ms. Porter responded that offices were being proposed near First Street in Subdistrict 3. The applicant, Scott Shipp with Blue Star Land, came forward to discuss the proposal and the reasonings for the proposed changes to Subdistricts 2 and 3. Commissioner Blanscet asked if the proposed multifamily development met the Town's regulations excluding the requirement for a structured parking garage. Mr. Hoover responded that the proposed multifamily development met all the Town's standards excluding the provision of a structured parking garage. Commissioner Blanscet asked if any triggers were proposed to require the development of the Lifestyle Center prior to development of the multifamily. Mr. Shipp stated that no triggers were proposed to require the Lifestyle Center to be developed prior to the multifamily due to future commercial tenants needing the multifamily in place prior to committing to locate in the Lifestyle Center. Commissioner Blanscet stated he was not supportive of single-family detached dwellings being on 55-foot-wide lots. Commissioner Furay asked about the total number of single-family detached dwellings and townhomes being proposed in Subdistrict 3. Additionally, he asked for more clarification on what was being proposed in the Lifestyle Center. Mr. Shipp responded that he believed roughly 130 single-family detached dwelling units and 130 townhomes were being proposed. He also responded that the Lifestyle Center would bring more high -end commercial tenants. Commissioner Furay asked if it was possible to increase the lot sizes proposed for the single- family detached dwellings in Subdistrict 3 to match the adjacent residential development, Starview. Additionally, he asked if removal of the townhomes was considered. Mr. Shipp responded that a variation of lot types provides more marketability for neighborhoods. He also responded that the townhomes were flexible as Blue Star had never developed townhomes. Commissioner Hamilton requested clarification on the changes made from the work session last year to the current proposal. Page 5 of 8 Mr. Shipp stated that the only change was the increase to the lot width for single-family detached dwellings from 45 feet to 55 feet. Commissioner Hamilton stated that the proposal for Subdistrict 3 did not feel like an integrated mixed -use development as the different uses felt more segmented. Additionally, he added that there should be triggers requiring the Lifestyle Center to be developed prior to the multifamily. Commissioner Carson stated that he was not in favor of garden style multifamily. Mr. Shipp clarified that the proposal did not have any garden style multifamily as there was a wrap design around the surface parking. Commissioner Carson asked if the Lifestyle Center would be phased. Additionally, he asked if triggers could be integrated requiring a phase of the Lifestyle Center to be developed prior to the multifamily. Mr. Shipp stated that the Lifestyle Center would be phased. Additionally, he added that triggers could be added requiring development of the second phase of the Lifestyle Center prior to the second phase of multifamily. Commissioner Carson stated that he was not in favor of 55-foot-wide lots for single-family detached dwellings in Subdistrict 3. He added that potentially tabling the item would be beneficial. Commissioner Furay requested clarification on the design of the multifamily and if it would be similar the existing multifamily in the Gates of Prosper. Mr. Shipp stated that the multifamily would be a wrap design around surface parking and that the proposed multifamily differed from the existing multifamily in the Gates of Prosper. Commissioner Blanscet requested clarification on the removal of the word "color" from the conceptual photos for the townhomes. Additionally, he stated that he was not in favor of townhomes being allowed in Subdistrict 2 due to the Lifestyle Center being located there. Mr. Shipp stated that he did not want to be bound to the color scheme on the conceptual photos. Commissioner Carson opened the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. No comments were made. Commissioner Carson closed the public hearing at 9:48 p.m. Commissioner Blanscet stated he was in favor of the proposal except for the 55-wide-lots being proposed in Subdistrict 3. Commissioner Furay stated that he was not in favor of additional multifamily units unless larger lots were being proposed in Subdistrict 3. Commissioner Carson stated that he was not in favor of the 55-foot-wide lots in Subdistrict 3. Commissioner Furay made a motion to deny Item 6. Commissioner Hamilton asked the applicant if they would be open to tabling the item. Page 6 of 8 Mr. Shipp responded that he was not in favor of tabling the item to increase the lot width for the single-family detached dwellings. Additionally, he requested clarification on items the Commission would like to see adjusted. Commissioner Carson stated that increasing the lot sizes for the single-family detached dwellings in Subdistrict 3 would make the proposal more acceptable. Commissioner Hamilton stated that provisions requiring a phase of the Lifestyle Center to be developed prior to the multifamily would make the proposal more acceptable. Mr. Shipp stated that the multifamily was a critical component of attracting the desired tenants for the Lifestyle Center. Commissioner Blanscet reiterated he had no issues with Subdistrict 2, and his only issue was the 55-foot-wide lots for the single-family detached dwellings in Subdistrict 3. Mr. Shipp requested clarification on the reasoning for not being in favor of 55-foot-wide lots. Commissioner Blanscet responded that he believed 55-foot-wide lots were too small. Commissioner Furay stated he was not in favor of the project as current proposed due to the request for additional multifamily and 55-foot-wide lots. Commissioner Blanscet stated that the Commission should move to deny the item if the applicant did not want to table the item. Commissioner Hamilton made a motion to deny Item 6. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Furay. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 7. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone 0.7± acres from Single Family-15 to Planned Development -Downtown Office on Collin County School Land Survey 12, Abstract 147, Tracts 39 & 177, located on the northwest corner of Lane Street and First Street. (ZONE-25-0001) Mr. Hill presented Item 7. Commissioner Blanscet inquired about the proposed screening for the project. Mr. Hill answered that a six-foot cedar board on board wooden fence would be installed adjacent to the surrounding residences as well as an ornamental tree every 30 linear feet. The applicant, Carrie Gappinger, came forward to speak about the project. Commissioner Blanscet inquired about the proposed landscaping for the project. Mrs. Gappinger stated that landscaping would be provided adjacent to the neighboring residences and along the thoroughfares. Commissioner Carson opened the public hearing at 10:23 p.m. No Comments were made. Commissioner Carson closed the public hearing at 10:23 p.m. Page 7 of 8 Commissioner Blanscet made a motion to approve Item 7. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hamilton. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 8. Review actions taken by the Town Council and possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. Mr. Hill informed the Commissioners of past Town Council actions and upcoming cases for Planning & Zoning Commission consideration. 9. Adjourn. Commissioner Hamilton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Furay. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 P.M. Z Y.1. - - - (Senior Administrative Assistant) Page 8 of 8