[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6483268,"mediaKeyId","5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128","parentId",5545729,"title","Commission approves small rezoning to allow boutique downtown office use on First/Lane","audioSeconds",279,"startMs",7599000,"endMs",7878000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128&start=7599&end=7878","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128/thumbnail_7599000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6483268/Prosper/Collin-County/Texas/Commission-approves-small-rezoning-to-allow-boutique-downtown-office-use-on-FirstLane","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483268-ac8cb7277f0989a0a58dbd20ec8d6178/orig.mp4?Expires=1770523196&Signature=khNDmbGD7QNK6FlijrpBI4cMoY7iTbOcAO0ayjrfSYuXLjj8QgJsoVI6OY15uEps0os2XBAHqF7r88k7Gk1LqmE4ISLSKODCVxekWZNMGkVKJpjp0D9U~oSc9nDTF05FZZkAi23hXmk-CivYBtfJc3IZ0AcRLKpe9KhliA5vTpBPqTihYtrvfycn8zGY92tM5LS56NYenQaAhZJ~8gvKffh1bQkx2p66Qk8Hy1aciHcdRHoWK-JqJ38SXUTK2t89F7N66HWp5PWHFQqmFCKB8sSeNKRLkfAl6fhXiVzJnFt8nimI1ui33EjOKmpx2Fh8ndnWVQPvOt5txi~icmAokA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prosper","date","2025-08-05T00:00:00Z","article","The commission approved a request to rezone 0.7 acres at the northwest corner of Lane Street and First Street from single‑family‑15 to a small planned development with downtown‑office‑style uses.

Staff explained the rezoning is intended to allow a future buyer to convert an existing residential structure to a low‑intensity commercial use consistent with the town’s Old Town future‑land‑use designation (which envisions boutique retail, restaurants and office uses in established historic areas). The proposed PD standards largely mirror the town’s Downtown Office (DTO) rules but limit permitted uses to a smaller set appropriate for the site. The PD calls for masonry exterior materials with director approval for alternatives, covered porches and porch articulation for new structures, and landscaping and screening standards that match DTO—for example a five‑foot landscape buffer and one ornamental tree per 30 linear feet along property‑line transitions to single‑family use, plus an allowed six‑foot cedar board‑on‑board fence where adjacent to single family.

Two letters were received in advance: one asked for screening and limits on more intensive uses; staff said the PD language and the conceptual site plan address those concerns. Applicant/owner Carrie Gaffinger (property owner) was present and described the layout: the existing home fronts First Street and a vacant parcel behind it along Lane would become the parking area; the plan includes landscape buffers and the required screening between the parking and adjacent residential lots.

A motion to approve the rezoning passed 4‑0 (mover: Commissioner Blansett; second: Commissioner Hamilton). Staff said the case will proceed to Town Council on Aug. 26 for final action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prosper - Planning and Zoning Commission","oneSentenceSummary","The commission approved a rezoning of 0.7 acres at the northwest corner of Lane and First to a downtown‑office PD, allowing limited nonresidential uses while requiring screening where the parcel adjoins single‑family lots.","taxTitle","Prosper, Collin County, Texas","taxId",54250,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6483273,"Resident urges Prosper to update residential outdoor‑lighting rules amid denser neighborhoods",119,537000,656000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128&start=537&end=656","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128/thumbnail_537000.jpg","/articles/6483273/Prosper/Collin-County/Texas/Resident-urges-Prosper-to-update-residential-outdoorlighting-rules-amid-denser-neighborhoods","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483273-0b9649d333d7de37d106aecf29545b0d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770523196&Signature=bYruuHVpkqKNGzAk~Y~vWplkDeVNOldj-KLxejGyU9MmAyBnLvllEd8Bxh38EBDkBAUfM79leenN69SyXhmx7REIBSPJtGnA85Qr8zkSp8CpLpnsIZeJ2vm5ZQmQDotXb-~KDEz1UejJwPIc4kv~4Mw0-uFyFIf1RLdftzBgKCj1KECMNc~TR1~Sx9RMWuFWA08sZyrOzUwQqwEtV8Dkf10FVhzaOANyS6AtxmL1~8IAGTr6hI9K~bkS-EkCy8Nff5dEyD~DOadvm1yZ4gU-Q-QxEvUJO7UPVxFJSYWMDRw0zYYCUablRouKMj7gNJUL1Qx-2Rqspk0DN5RVBobQZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During public comment at the Aug. 5 Planning & Zoning meeting, resident Fred Costa urged the commission to update the town’s outdoor‑lighting rules, citing a section of the zoning ordinance that sets exemptions and brightness limits he called outdated.

Costa told commissioners the ordinance’s 75‑watt exemption for single‑family exterior lamps dates from an earlier era and does not reflect modern lighting technologies and denser lot patterns in newer neighborhoods. He pointed to other sections of the code that regulate illumination in lumens or foot‑candles and asked that single‑family dwellings receive protections similar to commercial properties. Costa also said the ordinance contains a broad exemption for motion‑activated lighting on single‑family homes that should be tightened because houses are now closer together and lights that once were acceptable in more rural settings are intrusive in denser subdivisions.

Staff acknowledged the comment and said it would be included in the public‑record packet for future consideration; no formal action on the ordinance was taken that night. Costa provided his name and address for the record (260 Burnett Court).","A resident told the Planning & Zoning Commission the town’s lighting ordinance references outdated wattage standards for single‑family dwellings and asked for modernization to current light‑output metrics and tighter limits on residential motion‑activated lighting.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6483278,"Commission approves preliminary site plan for four‑lot Preston/Frontier commercial project",304,195000,499000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128&start=195&end=499","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128/thumbnail_195000.jpg","/articles/6483278/Prosper/Collin-County/Texas/Commission-approves-preliminary-site-plan-for-fourlot-PrestonFrontier-commercial-project","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483278-462ec981a1e0e10fb8e335c8381def88/orig.mp4?Expires=1770523196&Signature=nb18IZN5cc0tCM5oDZm3phinJbHLK3Bn-WYnV9k5OsYovRihacp4jlFksFcx6ZP1PQ7rJG2Aa0h43n5gBCvWV30vbveg2ke1ydmzBpznx1qpYNrelfcfbUyDdbGwmXqu~8WLnA0MMPmPVzz3T9kQwAghnfTD0o9O0qCauPNmu7CBq9lJZYXTc~v1BOM1E3tK3o~ziLq7M246lym4OU4Ie6RNbef8KTtjxM7OKNm2MEx91rcHB9SZQgTmrlGCCC0LbBgGsAA4k2By~dKHTn-sdUNQDjrIPGZVuJB1v6yvKErW23~FtfCjqeH9sJP5cl5mywyd14McPjND8Il0ncr-QQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The commission unanimously approved a preliminary site plan (consent item 3d) for a four‑lot commercial development at the southeast corner of Preston and Frontier Parkway.

Staff described the project as a preliminary plan for four lots with a maximum of nine commercial buildings totaling approximately 138,733 square feet (staff recited a slightly different number during the presentation and then corrected). Proposed uses include a grocery store paired with a convenience store and gas pumps on Lot 2, bank, restaurant and retail space on Lot 3, and additional restaurant/retail buildings on Lot 4. Several conditions were recommended by staff and incorporated into the approval:

- Drive‑through restaurants shown on the preliminary site plan are subject to approval through a separate specific‑use‑permit (SUP) process.
- The grocery store and convenience store with fuel pumps are tied together; under the approved condition each use would be required to be associated with the other rather than permitting either use independently.
- Creation of a property owners association (POA) is required prior to recordation of any plat that subdivides the property.

Commissioners asked procedural questions about whether changes in use (for example substituting retail for restaurant) would require further review; staff said substantial changes that affect parking or open‑space layout could trigger a new preliminary site‑plan review. One commissioner sought and received clarification that the SUP requirement applies to the drive‑through feature, not to restaurants generally—the zoning district prohibits restaurants by right in some cases and drive‑throughs require SUP approval.

A motion to approve item 3d (with staff clarifications) passed 4‑0 (mover: Commissioner Bluntzat; second: Commissioner Furey).","Planning staff recommended and the commission approved a preliminary site plan for four lots at the southeast corner of Preston and Frontier that will contain nine commercial buildings and multiple uses; drive‑through restaurants will require a specific‑use permit.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6483281,"Planning commission denies Gates planned‑development amendment that would have added 600 multifamily units",3784,6214000,9998000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128&start=6214&end=9998","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128/thumbnail_6214000.jpg","/articles/6483281/Prosper/Collin-County/Texas/Planning-commission-denies-Gates-planneddevelopment-amendment-that-would-have-added-600-multifamily-units","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483281-7c5f9fe40225c520257d29bda5afddd7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770523196&Signature=WqbFCH~-qUmyzcE9lBOwZwnCI3xzEP9Gep-~mKxsxYxlfx5Htq3fJiRgsTCUJbFrC~oW3n9wksPB35NE2W2JgF0jiuLGBE-bBDAGXPhJpDE3p7auum8JHvVQA6PM-as-O0-4LTNzqk4VJZJiE1POiKQcGbTl4H7div2i7Ws~~gcmYX96kt05wAfbv4DPyq9NHgtwTTvYrrbfApIkQq7dW59Z0uy7CTAsTMG257ZsJIpijOoNt3ydMFX4W~8i71CRjfpRiK37U6Lpot1Z2Gk6VdKTWcyxvW1hKovPjAuac891vCA02JKR9kpzRT7~V6007pCDUbvN7tCXoPYd6p9B5w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4‑0 on Aug. 5 to deny a request to amend portions of the Gates Planned Development (PD) that would have increased multifamily entitlement and altered residential layouts in Subdistricts 2 and 3.

Blue Star Land asked to modify the Gates PD (Case 240012) to allow additional multifamily units concentrated in Subdistrict 2 and to alter the mix and standards in Subdistrict 3, including new single‑family front‑entry lot types and a lower minimum townhome lot area in portions of the PD. Under the proposal presented to the commission, the total multifamily cap would increase from 600 to 1,200 units across the PD, with the additional 600 units to be located in Subdistrict 2. The applicant also proposed new single‑family lot varieties in Subdistrict 3 (including 55‑foot lot widths with 1,800 square‑foot minimum dwellings for certain product types) and clarified townhome articulation rules and alley/patio configurations.

Town staff summarized the changes and noted that Subdistrict 2 already contains an existing 600‑unit multifamily development under construction; the proposal would add the additional 600 units in the same subdistrict. Staff also said the draft PD language includes a clarification that structured garages would count as private garages toward a 40% private‑garage expectation but also noted the practical challenges of achieving 40% tuck‑under garages in 4‑story buildings.

Applicant Scott Shipp (Blue Star Land) and representatives described market reasons the developer wanted more multifamily for the lifestyle center and presented conceptual site plans showing multifamily near the railroad corridor, a small boutique hotel footprint, retail/lifestyle center parcels and a redesigned Subdistrict 3 with a mix of townhomes, patio homes and front‑entry detached lots. Shipp said office demand in the town center had not materialized as previously envisioned and that residential users were needed to make the lifestyle center attractive to retailers and restaurant tenants.

Commissioners and staff debated details including where townhomes might be sited relative to First Street, how park/trail connections would serve southern portions of Subdistrict 3, and the overall balance of residential product types. Several commissioners explicitly objected to proposed 55‑foot‑wide detached lots in Subdistrict 3, saying they would look and feel too dense for that location and urged the applicant to consider larger lot widths or shift product types.

A motion to table the case failed for lack of a second; the commission then voted to deny the amendment, 4‑0. Commissioners said they were open to returning with a revised plan but that the current submittal did not sufficiently protect neighborhood character or assure walkable connectivity for southern neighborhoods within the PD.

Votes at a glance
- Gates PD amendment (Case 240012): Motion to deny passed 4‑0 (mover: Commissioner Blansett; second: Commissioner Hamilton).

Staff noted the PD amendment would return to Town Council on Aug. 26 if the commission had approved it; the denial requires the applicant to revise before further action.","Commissioners voted 4‑0 to deny the applicant’s request to increase multifamily capacity and permit additional single‑family/townhome layout changes in the Gates PD. Commissioners cited lingering issues with Subdistrict 3 design, lot widths and walkability.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6483286,"Prosper commissioners deny Toll Brothers rezoning for 373.5‑acre Preston/Frontier proposal",5310,736000,6046000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128&start=736&end=6046","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545729-d6f4956bc815c687ce11e0deaa5b3128/thumbnail_736000.jpg","/articles/6483286/Prosper/Collin-County/Texas/Prosper-commissioners-deny-Toll-Brothers-rezoning-for-3735acre-PrestonFrontier-proposal","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483286-e33e3f121094e57641fb23174a41b183/orig.mp4?Expires=1770523196&Signature=KA1jk5iaRjaM0k3aroRYrcnwHoqKkF1R6M3ZWaquZGwCQtE5ifGGspZFSJKtVoek0WMFkkiZpmvARfSed3SWiAeUroCuuBm8HU9tPrTdd0ohhDogSJzcpkHSndkG1JoPQXqk5L9MlVg7aVl3qEhZyeTAm6CFHcK70cHRBuEG2QxwoZNAZ6Br4qyq62SU-lCZXolyjHHa9N~jY985MezHb6Q0Z8dOER0xXO2unhkv-F441RHz-zKdG3vj0H~Gn9WvfCLbKVhEPRACLvs05aUIjQObLVj9WYtQn29W-ylLzAfgRaPaCOlxXi6JZgTaEQrV2u4OwfZf3SRdPpykXPgCFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prosper Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4‑0 on Aug. 5 to deny a rezoning request and companion future‑land‑use amendment for a 373.5‑acre development proposal by Toll Brothers.

The application would have rezoned 373.5 acres on the south side of Parvin Road, about 2,070 feet east of FM 1385, into a planned development that divided the property into an eastern market‑rate single‑family tract and a western age‑restricted (55+) tract. The company proposed up to 800 single‑family homes total: a maximum of 275 on the eastern tract and 525 age‑restricted homes on the western tract. Town staff and the applicant presented revised standards—minimum lot sizes, architectural materials limits, trail and open‑space commitments and timing for amenities—but commissioners said remaining concerns were substantial enough to justify denial.

Commissioners and staff described the key elements of the current submittal: the eastern tract would include a mix of “type A” lots (12,500 square feet minimum) and “type B” lots (10,000 square feet minimum), with at least 10 percent of eastern lots to be 20,000 square feet or larger; the eastern tract’s maximum lot count was 275 on 181 gross acres (net 130.7 acres); the western tract would contain lot types from 7,500 to 10,000 square feet, capped at 525 lots on 191.7 gross acres (net 175.6 acres); and the overall project net acreage was presented as 306.3 acres. Staff noted changes since earlier hearings including raising the minimum garage size to 600 square feet and adding masonry ledges and other facade requirements.

During discussion, commissioners raised repeated concerns about the western tract’s density and lot widths. Several commissioners said 55‑foot‑wide detached single‑family lots proposed on the western tract felt too small for the community and would create a crowded appearance, especially where a large amenity and the active‑adult product are concentrated. Commissioners also pressed the applicant on connectivity between the southern portion of the western tract and the large central amenity, and on whether the concept’s trail and pocket‑park commitments were sufficiently definite and enforceable.

Mike Boswell, a Toll Brothers representative, told the commission the proposal reflected market demand for active‑adult product and outlined the developer’s planned amenity program, trails and park spaces. Boswell said the company adjusted architectural standards and lot mixes after prior feedback and argued the development would provide a mix of lot sizes to capture multiple buyer segments. He also described the western tract’s amenity strategy—one large, centralized amenity center with distributed pocket parks and trailheads—and said the developer had reduced some permitted uses (removing golf club and country‑club references) and increased some minimums at staff’s request.

After public hearing and follow‑up discussion the commission first removed the item from the table and then moved to deny. A motion to deny the rezoning (Case 240022) passed 4‑0; commissioners then denied the companion future‑land‑use amendment (Case 240023) by the same 4‑0 vote. The staff report stated that, if the commission recommended approval, the case would proceed to council on Aug. 26.

The developer and staff indicated they would take the commission feedback back to the drawing board; Toll Brothers said site and market work would continue but did not commit to specific revisions in the meeting itself.

Votes at a glance
- Rezoning (Case 240022): Motion to deny passed 4‑0 (mover: Commissioner Blansett; second: Commissioner Hamilton).
- Comprehensive plan amendment (companion case): Motion to deny passed 4‑0 (mover: Commissioner Hamilton; second: Commissioner Freire).","The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4‑0 to deny a rezoning and companion comp‑plan amendment for a 373.5‑acre Toll Brothers development that would have split the site into a market‑rate eastern tract and an age‑restricted western tract.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves small rezoning to allow boutique downtown office use on First/Lane

Resident urges Prosper to update residential outdoor‑lighting rules amid denser neighborhoods

Commission approves preliminary site plan for four‑lot Preston/Frontier commercial project

Planning commission denies Gates planned‑development amendment that would have added 600 multifamily units

Prosper commissioners deny Toll Brothers rezoning for 373.5‑acre Preston/Frontier proposal