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

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.