Prosper commission tables Gates Prosper Block E site plan amid drive-through, stacking and ATM concerns

The Prosper Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 on Feb. 4 to table a site plan, façade plans and a replat for Gates Prosper Block E (Lots 3R1 and 3R2), a proposed development between Craig Road and Preston Road that would add two buildings totaling 16,600 square feet including a 5,400-square-foot bank and an 11,200-square-foot drive-through restaurant and retail building.

Commissioners said the plan, as presented, left too many questions about vehicle stacking, pedestrian safety and the placement of an automated teller machine. Commissioner Jackson pressed staff and the applicant on the potential for several drive-through lanes to be sited adjacent to one another at a tight property entrance. “What we ended up approving was just a zoning around not having restaurants with drive throughs next to each other,” Jackson said, arguing the current submittal recreates the clustering the earlier amendment sought to avoid.

A staff presenter said the previous amendment had been aimed specifically at limiting restaurant drive-throughs and adding design measures—such as a five-foot landscape buffer and so-called bailout lanes—rather than banning drive-throughs for banks or pharmacies. “When that amendment came through, we at the staff had been given the mission, so to speak, to come up with some ordinances to make the drive thrus at fast food restaurants more difficult to see, so to speak,” the staff member said, noting council-level discussion had not produced consensus to restrict nonrestaurant drive-throughs.

During the discussion, the project representative clarified the bank would not include a teller window drive-through but an ATM located behind the building. “The ATM machine is intended to sit right here behind the building… There’s no teller. There’s no window,” the representative said, describing how users would leave their vehicles to use the machine. Commissioners said the drawings did not make that arrangement clear and pointed to inconsistencies in the plan and façade sheets about elevations and stacking lanes.

Commissioners also asked about a shown five-space stacking count and whether exiting vehicles would merge into internal circulation or create conflicts with parallel traffic in the shared site drive aisle. One commissioner suggested tabling the items to get simplified drawings that clearly show drive-through stacking, the ATM location, landscape buffers, and how vehicles would exit into the internal fire lane or adjacent circulation.

Commissioner Hamilton moved to table items 3C, 3D and 3E to the next meeting for the applicant and staff to provide clearer plans and stacking/traffic details; Commissioner Carson seconded. The motion carried 6-0. Staff confirmed the items will be returned to the commission at a future meeting after the applicant provides the requested clarifications.

The meeting packet materials show the project previously had a preliminary site plan approval dated Sept. 3, 2024. The commission approved consent agenda items 3A and 3B at the start of the meeting by a 6-0 vote.

The commission also spent time discussing the ongoing Unified Development Code (UDC) update process and whether future UDC topics should be handled as workshops or regular agenda items; staff said portions of the process will be rolled out over several meetings. The commission adjourned at 7:31 p.m.