Loading...
09.15.2025 P&Z MinutesMINUTES ■ 01 TOWN OF PIS S PER A Place Where Everyone Matters 1. Call to Order / Roll Call The meeting was called to order at 6:13 p.m. Prosper Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Prosper Town Hall Council Chambers 250 W. First Street, Prosper, Texas Monday, September 15, 2025, 6:00 p.m. Commissioners Present: Chair Brandon Daniel, Secretary Josh Carson, Sekou Harris, Matthew Furay, and Glen Blanscet Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair Damon Jackson and John Hamilton Staff Members Present: David Hoover, AICP (Director of Development Services), Suzanne Porter, AICP (Planning Manager), Dakari Hill (Senior Planner), Jerron Hicks (Planner), and Trey Ramon (Planning Technician) Other(s) Present: Alan Lathrom, Town Attorney 2. Recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 3a. Consider and act upon the minutes from the September 2, 2025, Planning & Zoning Commission work session meeting. 3b. Consider and act upon the minutes from the September 2, 2025, Planning & Zoning Commission regular meeting. 3c. Consider and act upon a request for a Replat of Haiman Addition, Block A, Lots 1 R1 and 1 R2, on 0.6± acres, located on the north side of Seventh Street and 120± feet west of Church Street. (DEVAPP-25-0075) 3d. Consider and act upon a request for a Preliminary Site Plan for Office and Restaurant buildings on Saddle Creek Commercial, Block A, Lots 2111 and 3, on 13.6± acres, located on the west side of Preston Road and 200± feet north of Prosper Trail. (DEVAPP-25-0088) 3e. Consider and act upon a request for a Replat of Saddle Creek Commercial, Block A, Lots 2R and 3, on 13.6± acres, located on the west side of Preston Road and 200± feet north of Prosper Trail. (DEVAPP-25-0087) Commissioner Harris made a motion to approve Items 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carson. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0. CITIZEN COMMENTS No comments were made. Page 1 of 4 4. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone 61.7± acres from Agricultural and Planned Development-71 to a Planned Development allowing for Mixed -Use Development, located on the south side of First Street and 1,550± feet east of Legacy Drive. (ZONE-24-0025) Mr. Hill presented Item 4 to the Commission. Commissioner Harris inquired about the reasoning for the minimum height for restaurants being one story. Mr. Hill acknowledged that the regulation was inconsequential since any building would have to have at least one story. Commissioner Blanscet requested clarification regarding the phasing of the development and the triggers related to the construction of the multifamily buildings. Mr. Hill detailed the five different phases of the development and that 50,000 square feet of retail had to be constructed prior to construction of the second multifamily building. Commissioner Carson requested clarification about the trigger relating to the construction of Mahard Parkway and whether the developer would also be constructing Lovers Lane. Mr Hill stated that the second trigger was that the construction of Mahard Parkway had to be completed with the townhomes and that the developer would not be constructing Lovers Lane. Commissioner Carson inquired about the reasoning for the increase to the maximum height for the townhomes and the reduction of the front setback for the townhomes. Mr. Hill stated that the maximum height was increased due to the increase in the number of stories from two to three. Commissioner Carson stated that he would prefer a reduction in the amount of cementitious panel system permitted on all buildings and in the amount of concrete tilt wall permitted on office buildings. Commissioner Blanscet asked how the two multifamily buildings not included in the wrap design met Town standards. Mr. Hill explained that the tenants of the two multifamily buildings would still utilize the parking within the wrap design and that the surface parking was for the ground floor restaurant and retail uses. Commissioner Furay inquired about the split of one -bedroom units versus two -bedroom units. Mr. Hill stated that the applicant would be able to clarify this as the percentages of each were not listed in the development standards. Alexa Knight with Daake Law and Brian Moore with GFF Design gave a presentation of the proposal to the Commission. Commissioner Carson discussed the trigger pertaining to construction of the multifamily buildings. Ms. Knight stated that the developer was comfortable amending the trigger to 50,000 square feet of retail being constructed prior to the construction of the multifamily building in reference to the building with the wrap design. Chair Daniel asked about who the potential hotel tenant would be. Mr. Moore stated that the tenant had not been chosen; however, it would be full service and not an express. Commissioner Harris asked for further details on the order for the first phase of the development. Ms. Knight explained that the current plan is for the townhomes and retail to be built concurrently. Commissioner Blanscet asked if there was ground floor retail on the wrapped multifamily building like the two multifamily buildings on Lovers Lane. Mr. Moore stated there would not be ground floor retail on the wrapped multifamily building. Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Blanscet asked if a full -service hotel allowed for extended stay. Mr. Hill clarified that extended stay would not be permitted in a full -service hotel. Commissioner Furay asked if there were any comparable developments to the proposed development. Mr. Moore responded that Haggar Square in Plano resembled the proposed development. Commissioner Furay inquired about the number of one -bedroom units versus two -bedroom units. Ms. Knight responded that the developer preferred not to set a maximum or minimum on the number of one -bedroom units versus two -bedroom units. Chair Daniel opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. No comments were made. Chair Daniel closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Commissioner Carson expressed concern over concrete tilt wall being utilized for the office buildings and inquired how it could be ensured that the office buildings would be constructed out of decorative, enhanced tilt wall. Mr. Hill stated that Town Staff would ensure this requirement during the review of a fagade plan for the office buildings. Commissioner Harris expressed his support for the item and stated he would like to see the retail built at the same time as the townhomes and other housing to allow the entire community to enjoy the development. Commissioner Carson expressed his support for the item and stated that he preferred the cementitious panel system lowered from 50 percent to 35 percent and the trigger adjusted to require 50,000 square feet of retail prior to the construction of the wrapped multifamily building. Commissioner Blanscet expressed his support for the item and appreciation of the applicant implementing changes to the proposal based on feedback from the Commission. Commissioner Furay expressed his support for the item and stated that he preferred to see the breakout of one -bedroom units versus two -bedrooms units. Chairman Daniel expressed his support for the item and his appreciation to the applicant for working with the Commission and Town Staff. Commissioner Carson made a motion to approve Agenda Item 4 subject to the lowering the percentage of cementitious panel system from 50 percent to 35 percent and adjusting the trigger to require 50,000 square feet of retail to be constructed prior to construction of the wrapped multifamily building. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Blanscet. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 5. Discussion of Proposed Unified Development Code David Hoover presented Item 5 to the Commission. Ryan Slattery of Freese and Nichols presented a summary of the proposed Unified Development Code to the Commission. Commissioner Harris expressed his support of the measures being taken in the process to strengthen the Town's regulations. Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Blanscet requested a list of substantive changes from the current code to the Unified Development Code and a list of items that were recommended to change by the Commission that may not have been changed due to a different rationale. 6. Review actions taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission 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. 7. Adjourn. Commissioner Harris made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carson. The motion was carried unanimously by a vote of 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 P.M Trey Ramon, Planning Technician Page 4 of 4