Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the College Park Pd Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Toll Brothers asks Wylie planning commissioners to amend College Park PD to replace townhomes with single-family homes

5707250 · September 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Toll Brothers representatives asked the Wylie Plan Zoning Commission during a work session to amend the College Park Planned Development (PD-2023-18) so the southern townhome portion would be replaced by additional single-family homes, the northeast amenity lot would be removed and filled with lots, and residential phasing would be decoupled from construction of the commercial frontage.

Toll Brothers representatives asked the Wylie Plan Zoning Commission during a work session to amend the College Park Planned Development (PD-2023-18) so the southern townhome portion would be replaced by additional single-family homes, the northeast amenity lot would be removed and filled with lots, and residential phasing would be decoupled from construction of the commercial frontage.

The request was presented by Addison Rogers, director of community planning for Dallas–Fort Worth at Toll Brothers, who said the company would shift the previously approved plan of "50 single-family homes and 32 townhouses" to a single-family layout of about 68 lots. Rogers said the change would bring the total density to "just under 70 single family homes" and remove the amenity structure previously shown on the northeast corner.

Why it matters: the amendments would change housing type and density at College Park, affect what open space and amenities the neighborhood receives, and alter the conditions tying residential occupancy to completion of the commercial lots on the property’s Country Club/Commercial corridor frontage.

Key proposal details and company rationale

- Unit mix and density: Toll Brothers proposed eliminating the 32 townhomes and replacing them with roughly 68 detached single-family lots. Rogers said Toll Brothers intends "no intention of putting townhouses on the property whatsoever." The firm described its target market as higher-end single-family buyers and cited nearby success at its Crescent Hill community.

- Amenity lot: The developer asked that the northeast amenity parcel be removed as an amenity center and replaced with additional residential lots and green space; Rogers noted that buyers often prefer private yard space and that adding common-area amenities increases HOA costs.

- Commercial/residential phasing: The existing PD contains a provision tying the issuance of residential occupancy to completion of the commercial structure(s) on the southeast corner. Toll Brothers asked that language be removed or revised so residential construction and certificates of occupancy would not be held to the commercial buildout schedule. Rogers said Toll Brothers would not be responsible for developing the commercial parcels and that the current landowner or a separate commercial developer would handle them.

- Rear-yard windows and fencing: A special condition in the PD currently restricts rear elevations adjacent to the property north of the tract. Toll Brothers requested clarification to allow second-story windows above a 10-foot plate provided there is no immediately abutting habitable space (i.e., windows that admit light to a great room but are not positioned at a floor level where a standing person could look out). On fencing, Toll Brothers asked to reduce an 8-foot fence requirement associated with the former amenity lot to a minimum 6-foot fence, saying "an 8 foot tall fence is gonna feel more like a prison. A 6 foot feels more like community." Separately, Toll Brothers said it typically installs an 8-foot cedar fence along the northern boundary to match neighboring yards, with the finished side facing existing homeowners.

- Architectural materials: Rogers raised the company’s preference for full-brick elevations on some plans and asked whether that would require an amendment; a staff speaker noted state law limits a city’s ability to mandate building materials.

Other project features discussed

- Lot widths and product: Rogers said the site would have 70-foot-wide lots platted for 50-foot product, producing larger private yards similar to Crescent Hill. He said the firm currently shows 68 lots on its plat.

- Parkland fees and open space: Rogers estimated parkland-dedication fees per house at "somewhere between $2,500 to $3,500" to be paid to the city for parks such as Founders Park. He framed removal of the amenity center in part as a way to avoid adding HOA-maintained facilities that would increase association dues.

- Access and emergency lanes: Toll Brothers indicated the road cutting toward the commercial parcels could be gated and used as emergency access only; the alley at the northern boundary (serving Presidential Estates) would remain.

Commissioner and staff reaction, next steps

Commissioners and staff discussed the long-standing city policy preference for commercial frontage along four-lane corridors and noted the land-use plan’s expectation that the Country Club corridor remain commercial. Several commissioners said they did not see substantive problems with the specific changes proposed, while acknowledging concern that the commercial parcels could remain undeveloped for an extended period.

Planning staff emphasized this meeting was a work session only and that the proposal will be presented to city council at a future meeting (staff said the next step was a council hearing next Tuesday). No formal zoning vote or change to the PD occurred at the work session.

Ending

Because the item was a work session, commissioners provided feedback but took no formal action. Staff will transmit the commission’s input to the city council as Toll Brothers proceeds with a formal zoning application or ordinance amendment.