Prosper council tables rezoning of 61.7‑acre ‘Bella Prosper’ mixed‑use plan after multifamily, phasing concerns

Mayor Pro Tem Bartley and the Prosper Town Council on Tuesday tabled a request to rezone roughly 61.7 acres west of the Dallas North Tollway for a mixed‑use project known as Bella Prosper after several council members said the plan’s multifamily scale and phase sequencing were unacceptable.

Alexa Knight of Dakey Law, representing the applicants, described the proposal as a 60‑acre mixed‑use planned development that now centers a 4.1‑acre public park (including a one‑acre lake), retail and office uses, an 88‑unit townhome area, 249 assisted‑living units and a capped 428 multifamily units. "Conservatively, it's a $314,000,000 mixed use development," Knight said during the presentation. The applicant cited an impact analysis showing construction‑period spending and jobs, annual taxable sales and a fiscal net benefit to the town (the applicant estimated a net benefit of roughly $103,000,000).

Council members commended changes made since earlier workshops but raised repeated concerns about the number and placement of apartment units and how the development would be phased. "Apartments are something that I know that our citizens are not in favor of," Council member Jeff Hodges said, arguing the town should limit how many apartment entitlements it grants. Several members also warned that the proposed phasing could leave early residents living near townhomes or apartments with little or no retail, sidewalks or park amenities until later phases are built, a concern Council member Chris (Craig) and others pressed the applicants to address.

Multiple council members called for higher multifamily standards if apartments remain in the plan, including structured parking, stronger ground‑floor materials and clearer landscaping and streetscape commitments. Council members also discussed whether certain uses — for example, alcohol sales in the age‑restricted subdistrict — should be limited to conditional use permits (SUPs) rather than allowed by right.

Faced with those repeated concerns, applicant representatives asked to table the application for revisions. Marcus Ray moved to table the rezoning request and to return the matter to council on Feb. 24, 2026 to avoid restarting the public‑notice process; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

The tabling means the council did not vote on the rezoning itself; the applicant may return with revisions addressing unit counts, phasing and the other issues the council identified. The public hearing had been opened and closed with no citizen speakers.