[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6666280,"mediaKeyId","2336599-a580f0a3c092b33001d6cb86de1dacf7","parentId",2336599,"title","Prosper planning commission denies plan for 53‑unit townhome development on Richland Boulevard","audioSeconds",5310,"startMs",1250000,"endMs",6560000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2336599-a580f0a3c092b33001d6cb86de1dacf7&start=1250&end=6560","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2336599-a580f0a3c092b33001d6cb86de1dacf7/thumbnail_1250000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6666280/Prosper/Collin-County/Texas/Prosper-planning-commission-denies-plan-for-53unit-townhome-development-on-Richland-Boulevard","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6666280-92b714bee22e1ad0d84cd7cc5bcbdb42/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144935&Signature=OOvSEOM6WLoWqKzq3A29Ex5z0XbJXXFWJzcaTqoQXDxbfMJvdI-iZkofi4dn-NqL-4lwx9WBMW-oVNxaHEM33i1ipx7tB5iW6HFQvsk6KzkstoRVJ5VSoUrSn5GoYXVcb~bivxMDm3m~~L4e~x3F0YNOuvz0~cXajUVruqUEgmTJ8n6whr1dPekrvHmn6qUMtVKrldS2QiOnAPQJ86uQ5P9265Qmf04~LkZAHNDLwVI11Jk2yIB~~74jYAZKzfHjMCcIlkjQ9CGsRq~C9w4Ef2cjcJ1xkcN0xPNNniazMmR9i-UWR0HJtMDqbB27hCdZIqQ~DEXNG-kMaTcnnmK0zA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Prosper","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Prosper Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously Feb. 18 to deny a planned‑development request to build 53 townhomes on an 8.3‑acre tract on the north side of Richland Boulevard, east of La Sima Boulevard.

Applicant materials described a proposed planned development to allow a townhome product on land currently zoned PD‑2 (base zoning: commercial corridor) in the US Highway 380 future land use district. The proposal would have capped the tract at a maximum of 7 units per acre and proposed reduced lot depths and narrower minimum lot areas compared with single‑family standards; the application stated a plan for 53 townhomes with rear‑entry garages, internal on‑street parking, a private clubhouse and roughly 20 percent open space.

Tristan Poor of SPIRES Engineering, representing the developer, told the commission the developer had reduced an initial proposal of about 70 townhomes to 53 after engineering and staff comments. Poor said the project is intended to serve as a transition between commercial uses along U.S. 380 and the single‑family neighborhood to the north, and that the developer estimates an average sale price of about $650,000 per unit. He also said preliminary grading would require a retaining wall of approximately 4 feet (possibly taller in places) and that the developer proposes a masonry screening wall of roughly 6 to 8 feet on top of that wall to increase separation between the townhomes and existing backyards.

More than a dozen residents spoke during the public hearing. Cheryl Conde told the commission she was \"in strong opposition to the proposed zoning change\" and warned the change would reduce retail and commercial opportunities, increase traffic and strain schools and infrastructure. Bradley Hampton, a La Sima resident, said a main concern was privacy: \"they're gonna be staring into my kids bedroom every night,\" he said, describing the proposed three‑story elevations facing existing single‑family yards.

Staff described project standards in the proposed PD: the townhome layout proposed a 10‑foot front setback (the district standard for single‑family is larger), minimum lot area of 1,700 square feet, minimum lot width of 20 feet, lot depth of 85 feet (versus 100 feet typical), increased maximum lot coverage (65 percent versus 55 percent in the base zoning), and a building height limit of about 2.5 stories (under 40 feet). Staff also noted tree and landscaping minimums on the concept plan: trees of minimum 3‑inch caliper, with a total minimum caliper inches per lot and requirements for 4‑inch caliper trees in front yards, and minimum shrub sizes in front yards; staff said required open space and trail connections were included on the concept plan.

Commissioners each raised concerns during deliberations about reduced setbacks, increased lot coverage, the proposed heights and the placement of three‑story townhome facades close to existing backyards. Several commissioners criticized the applicant for not holding direct pre‑application outreach with affected homeowners and said they would prefer a product that better buffers existing residences. Commissioner Hamilton said he personally did not support the request, citing \"the reduction of setbacks\" and the siding of buildings facing into single‑family yards; Commissioner Harris said reductions to townhome standards should be paired with \"a premium product with an absolute great set of amenities,\" which he did not see in the proposal.

The commission voted 6–0 to deny the planned development application. Commissioner Hamilton made the motion to deny; Commissioner Harris seconded. Commissioners recorded their unanimous vote to deny the request and staff noted the case will be forwarded to Town Council; the commission chair said the case would appear before council on March 11.

The denial leaves the tract with its existing PD‑2/commercial corridor entitlements; staff and the applicant said the developer may rework the proposal and pursue alternate concepts or bring a revised plan back in the future. The meeting transcript contains extensive public testimony and the applicant’s technical remarks, including the applicant’s statement that the average estimated sale price is about $650,000 per unit, and staff technical details about setbacks, density and landscaping that supported the commission’s discussion.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Prosper - Planning and Zoning Commission - Feb 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After a public hearing with more than a dozen residents speaking, the commission voted 6–0 to deny a planned‑development rezoning and concept plan for 53 townhomes on 8.3 acres along Richland Boulevard, citing setbacks, height, parking, privacy and community outreach concerns.","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},6666285,"Prosper planning commission approves site plan for Gates of Prosper retail buildings despite drive‑through questions",1073,161000,1234000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2336599-a580f0a3c092b33001d6cb86de1dacf7&start=161&end=1234","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2336599-a580f0a3c092b33001d6cb86de1dacf7/thumbnail_161000.jpg","/articles/6666285/Prosper/Collin-County/Texas/Prosper-planning-commission-approves-site-plan-for-Gates-of-Prosper-retail-buildings-despite-drivethrough-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6666285-99dae16af9d7e6a0a42df24b6206cf27/orig.mp4?Expires=1771144935&Signature=nk03Ssl3SaEuG-KC2-XVldwouEhPMQrLBlfXclvt4Sn1AItj3QtIEI4vXgiMIBpFEknxrr8aqC~Qpe6MSw31zaMQrh6Y9UWGGiilQ38Idh6aFLP9Ln0PKfrFpcJJwaVYyVm~awlwGwi0Gxwd8c2EIjdjUJwTMFPBepASbdGriAfihZ~U90PrCNt10BNIeW1hJkFPKolzdXouyEMTBrnd8iCaAGosRgttEW-Zv9L~TvYYnBuN0ff9QTF1EbEmTydLkwrkIztrW2amPhIGL8k6JCxufcc6h92O1WbbddR-hWvaQ-biq-nsfCFG1zymYP430qYoFWsk5wiywr7T5xC3Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Prosper Planning and Zoning Commission approved a site plan, replats and a façade plan for three speculative retail buildings in the Gates of Prosper development on Feb. 18, voting 4–2 to move the project forward.

The approval covers three parcels—Block E, Lots 3R‑1 and 3R‑2—on approximately 3 acres on the west side of Preston Road about 125 feet south of First Street (case DEVAPP‑24‑0142). Blue Star Land representatives described the proposed pads as speculative: “these are speculative buildings,” said Scott Shipp of Blue Star Land, noting interest from potential bankers and retail tenants but no signed leases.

The commission’s discussion focused chiefly on traffic circulation and the potential for drive‑through lanes. Commissioners said earlier submittals were difficult to decipher because site plans include extensive technical information; the applicant submitted a simplified plan with directional arrows to clarify vehicle flow. Rachel Kors of Kimley‑Horn, the applicant’s engineer, and Shipp explained the current layout and said drive‑through features could be removed if a future tenant did not require them.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about specific drive‑through elements, including ATM access and canopy coverage. Staff told the commission final approval of any drive‑through configuration would depend on the details of a future tenant and building permits. “It just depends on what the finished product is,” staff said when asked whether a bank drive‑through shown on the concept plan would meet code.

Town staff confirmed the proposal meets zoning allowances for the property. The site plan, replat and façade plans were moved off the table from a previous meeting and then approved together. Commissioner Blansett made the motion to approve; Commissioner Furey seconded. The roll call recorded two votes against—Commissioner Carson and Commissioner Hamilton—and four in favor (Chairman Daniel, Commissioners Blansett, Furey and Harris), resulting in a 4–2 approval.

The applicant told the commission the design intent is to provide flexible pads that can accommodate a bank, restaurant or retail users and that particular drive‑through elements could be removed if a future tenant does not need them. The applicant also said parking counts were sized to reflect possible restaurant uses and that staff had worked with the team on circulation concerns.

With the commission’s approval, the project can proceed to the next permitting steps required by the town. The applicant and staff indicated that final configuration of tenant improvements, including any approved drive‑throughs or canopies, will be subject to later plan reviews and permits and could change if a tenant’s needs differ from the concept.

Evidence for this article appears in the commission’s Feb. 18 meeting transcript, where the item was introduced as case DEVAPP‑24‑0142 and Blue Star Land representatives explained the speculative nature of the pads and the drive‑through questions.","The Prosper Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4–2 to approve a site plan, replats and facade plan for three speculative retail/building pads at Gates of Prosper. Commissioners and staff discussed drive‑through configuration and parking; the applicant said the buildings are speculative and tenants are not yet under contract.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Prosper planning commission denies plan for 53‑unit townhome development on Richland Boulevard

Prosper planning commission approves site plan for Gates of Prosper retail buildings despite drive‑through questions