Prosper Planning commission approves La Sema retail site plan and plat with traffic-study condition amid resident opposition

The Prosper Planning and Zoning Commission on March 18 approved a site plan for a 29,513-square-foot retail building that includes a grocery component and an associated final plat at the northwest corner of La Sema Boulevard and Richland Boulevard, conditioning the site-plan approval on completion of a traffic impact analysis before a building permit is issued. The site-plan vote carried 3–1; the plat vote also carried 3–1.

The condition is intended to address residents’ concerns about traffic flow and public-safety impacts near nearby neighborhood amenities, including the Lakes Of La Cima subdivision, a neighborhood pool and the Goddard daycare center adjacent to the proposed site. During public comment, resident Kelly Batty of 520 Marbella Drive urged the commission to “reject the proposed zoning change” and said the grocery/retail project “will only exasperate the existing traffic and safety issues in the vicinity.” The record also includes a stack of emailed comments from neighbors opposing the project.

Staff told the commission the property is zoned Planned Development (PD‑2). According to town staff, the project would construct a 29,513-square-foot retail building with a grocery store component; the grocery tenant was described in staff remarks as a “Spice Hut” while the smaller retail tenant had not been identified. Staff said the preliminary site-plan approval and related conveyance plat for portions of the area date to prior approvals (preliminary site plan approved May 15, 2018; conveyance plat approved March 2, 2021).

Commissioners and staff discussed traffic and access constraints. Commissioners noted Richland Boulevard does not currently provide a through connection in the immediate area and that La Sema is a no‑truck road, which complicates commercial access and circulation. Staff said traffic impact analyses (TIAs) consider both current roadway conditions and projected conditions after planned roads are built; if the TIA identifies required mitigation, the applicant must address those items before a building permit will be issued. The commission’s site-plan motion states the TIA must be completed and approved prior to issuance of any building permit for the site.

Staff also reported they had not received opposition from the adjacent Goddard School. The commission’s record shows multiple resident emails and public comments expressing safety and property-value concerns; one resident cited a recent downed light pole in the median as an example of recurring crashes near the intersection.

Action summary: the commission approved the site plan (agenda item 3D) subject to completion of a traffic impact analysis prior to issuance of a building permit (vote 3–1) and separately approved the final plat dedicating easements for the development (agenda item 3E) (vote 3–1). The commission’s minutes show one commissioner in opposition to both items and multiple commissioners noting the TIAs will dictate whether off‑site improvements, including potential roadway extensions or intersection upgrades, are required prior to construction or occupancy.

The applicant and engineer did not identify the additional retail tenant at the meeting; staff said the TIA will analyze trip generation specific to the final tenant mix. The commission’s decision leaves the building‑permit issuance contingent on the TIA’s findings and any required mitigations being satisfied.

Votes at a glance: agenda item 3D (site plan for retail building with grocery component) — approved, conditioned on TIA prior to building permit; vote 3–1. Agenda item 3E (final plat for easement dedication for the same development) — approved; vote 3–1.

Outlook: Staff indicated required site‑plan details and any TIA‑driven off‑site improvements will be addressed during the town’s site‑plan and building‑permit review process; the commission noted it lacks authority to table a final site plan but may approve conditionally, deny, or approve.